4 ms·

India’s current development strategy is unsustainable. There is large scale migration to a handful of major cities while the interior of the country gets hollow

by spaceman_2020 3y ago

India’s current development strategy is unsustainable. There is large scale migration to a handful of major cities while the interior of the country gets hollowed out. There are so many cities with millions of residents and their population is only increasing. The worst part is that we don’t even know what the population distribution is like now because the census hasn’t taken place since 2011. India needs far more cities and it needs to distribute its population across a wider geographical region.

adrianN 3y ago
Concentrating the population in a few areas is actually pretty good for the environment. It leaves room for nature and infrastructure becomes cheaper to build and more efficient to run.
- immibis 3y ago
  Yes - economies of scale. Even if water has to be brought in from a distance, it's better than if some of the population actually extended out to that distance and got their water locally from the same location.
- myshpa 3y ago
  The environmental impact is still number_of_individuals * mean_consumption. Urban areas often use more resources and generate more waste due to higher levels of economic activity. This contributes to a bigger environmental footprint. Cities can also shift some of their environmental impact to rural areas or other states or countries where things like food production, resource extraction and waste disposal happen. So, the true environmental cost of cities is often higher than it appears, especially when you consider the carbon emissions from transporting goods and waste.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > The environmental impact is still number_of_individuals * mean_consumption. you're basically just defining the mean here, this misses the point that cities are more efficient, making their mean consumption per capital lower
    - myshpa 3y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364865
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364515
        myshpa 3y ago
        > you're basically just defining the mean here No, I'm not. The environmental impact of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Los Angeles, California, will differ significantly, even if they have similar populations and technology levels. When it comes to meat consumption alone, citizens of Addis Ababa consume approximately 5-10 kg per year, while in the USA, it's about 125 kg per year. The difference in consumption, or affluence, is the critical parameter here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        a better comparison would be the per capita impact of residents in downtown LA vs LA suburbs
  - lwansbrough 3y ago
    This is pretty much entirely wrong and backwards. Cheers.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT I = (PAT) is the mathematical notation of a formula put forward to describe the impact of human activity on the environment. I = P × A × T The expression equates human impact on the environment to a function of three factors: population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T). The variable A in the I=PAT equation stands for affluence. It represents the average consumption of each person in the population
- newsclues 3y ago
  Sustainability doesn’t scale very well. Distributed sustainable communities seem like a better balance than a massive metropolitan city that destroys not only its local habitat but many far away ones for the raw materials to build and sustain the city.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    All of those people are you to live somewhere and that is going to require building and gathering raw materials. This is true no matter where they live. Those raw materials are getting used. Given that people in cities live in smaller homes without yards, drive less, and are also more likely to not own a car, it’s gonna take some evidence to prove your hunch here.

adrianN 3y ago

Concentrating the population in a few areas is actually pretty good for the environment. It leaves room for nature and infrastructure becomes cheaper to build and more efficient to run.

immibis 3y ago
Yes - economies of scale. Even if water has to be brought in from a distance, it's better than if some of the population actually extended out to that distance and got their water locally from the same location.
myshpa 3y ago
The environmental impact is still number_of_individuals * mean_consumption. Urban areas often use more resources and generate more waste due to higher levels of economic activity. This contributes to a bigger environmental footprint. Cities can also shift some of their environmental impact to rural areas or other states or countries where things like food production, resource extraction and waste disposal happen. So, the true environmental cost of cities is often higher than it appears, especially when you consider the carbon emissions from transporting goods and waste.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > The environmental impact is still number_of_individuals * mean_consumption. you're basically just defining the mean here, this misses the point that cities are more efficient, making their mean consumption per capital lower
  - myshpa 3y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364865
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37364515
      - myshpa 3y ago
        > you're basically just defining the mean here No, I'm not. The environmental impact of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Los Angeles, California, will differ significantly, even if they have similar populations and technology levels. When it comes to meat consumption alone, citizens of Addis Ababa consume approximately 5-10 kg per year, while in the USA, it's about 125 kg per year. The difference in consumption, or affluence, is the critical parameter here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        a better comparison would be the per capita impact of residents in downtown LA vs LA suburbs
- lwansbrough 3y ago
  This is pretty much entirely wrong and backwards. Cheers.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT I = (PAT) is the mathematical notation of a formula put forward to describe the impact of human activity on the environment. I = P × A × T The expression equates human impact on the environment to a function of three factors: population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T). The variable A in the I=PAT equation stands for affluence. It represents the average consumption of each person in the population
newsclues 3y ago
Sustainability doesn’t scale very well. Distributed sustainable communities seem like a better balance than a massive metropolitan city that destroys not only its local habitat but many far away ones for the raw materials to build and sustain the city.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  All of those people are you to live somewhere and that is going to require building and gathering raw materials. This is true no matter where they live. Those raw materials are getting used. Given that people in cities live in smaller homes without yards, drive less, and are also more likely to not own a car, it’s gonna take some evidence to prove your hunch here.