6 ms·

Sorry for my English, I try to clarify like this: - cities material costs (meaning raw materials, energy etc) is enormous compared to the same people of any ci

by kkfx 3y ago

Sorry for my English, I try to clarify like this: - cities material costs (meaning raw materials, energy etc) is enormous compared to the same people of any city living a far less dense area with single families homes AND commerce around intermixed. In such scenario moving with light electrical vehicles, mostly recharged from local p.v. since it's effective in most of the inhabited word is FAR cheaper (again in resources) than collective transports in a dense city; - WFH in a dense city is a nightmare, because you miss nature and social contacts together. I came from a large EU city, now living in the Alps, WFH. In the city I have had a FAR LESS social life, simply because it's limited to a small number of selected friends doing service-based activities, like eating together in a restaurant, going to some events etc. Here being less dense anyone (almost) interact with almost any other, normally, and that's completely change the social paradigm compensating the "alienation" of working at home, distant from your peers. As a result I can WFH and remain a social animal in a not so dense area, where I can goes around, find people etc WITHOUT services, and the anonymity of the crowd. I probably can't in cities. Doing so means also I travel LESS (no commute) and longer trips are almost meaningless since I mostly recharge from my p.v. I keep more stuff at home, so I have less "impromptu trip" to buy something and so on. I'm more in nature, more social, more resilient (for instance no long series of stairs if there is a blackout and still have my home powered). About health: > Is that after controlling for wealth? I do not know if most studies have taken family economy into account BUT so far people in cities are normally a bit more wealthy than outside, and still, they tend to live less. > [gut microbe] Is that good or bad? Perhaps not definitively clear, but typically healthy people have a significant set of gut microbes... > Pollution is important though. The more you can walk or cycle, and more generally the lower the per capita energy use, the less pollution and the better for human health. In toxicology pollution is measured in density, too little oxygen and we die, too much and we die as well. Similarly a poison below a certain threshold it's harmless. Try looking at ANY city, there are some more polluted than some others, but all are more polluted than far enough surroundings. People activities do pollute. You can walk, but the truck bringing you food does not.

lmm 3y ago
> cities material costs (meaning raw materials, energy etc) is enormous compared to the same people of any city living a far less dense area with single families homes AND commerce around intermixed. How do you figure that? Single family homes are inherently enormously costly - more concrete, more energy to heat or cool, and more roads to access them. A couple of subways don't outweigh that. > In such scenario moving with light electrical vehicles, mostly recharged from local p.v. since it's effective in most of the inhabited word is FAR cheaper (again in resources) than collective transports in a dense city A dense city is the place where ebikes or golf carts are most practical - people are more able to live close to work (or leisure activities). Just look at the mode share numbers. Electrical transmission is extremely efficient, worrying about "local" electricity makes little sense. Metros in a city don't displace walking/cycling, they're displacing car use. > In the city I have had a FAR LESS social life, simply because it's limited to a small number of selected friends doing service-based activities, like eating together in a restaurant, going to some events etc. Here being less dense anyone (almost) interact with almost any other, normally, and that's completely change the social paradigm compensating the "alienation" of working at home, distant from your peers. Low density cities/suburbs are the worst of both worlds for social life, IME. The apartment complex I live in (in a dense megacity) has a similar population to the village I grew up in, and has the feel of a village too; I say hi to my neighbours and get some everyday social interaction despite WFH. But we're also close enough to meet and eat together without any fuss, whereas back in the village people would drive from one end to another. I don't think cities are inherently less social, they just enable people to be pickier about their socialisation - a village or small town is great if you fit in, but not so much if you don't ("the only gay in the village" may be a comedy sketch, but there's truth behind it). > Doing so means also I travel LESS (no commute) and longer trips are almost meaningless since I mostly recharge from my p.v. I keep more stuff at home, so I have less "impromptu trip" to buy something and so on. On average people in your position travel more, and in more environmentally damaging ways. And keeping a bunch of stuff ends up being pretty wasteful; I know I can walk to the shops to buy something whenever I want (hell, for basic stuff I only have to go downstairs), so I wait until I actually need the thing rather than pre-emptively stocking up on something that ends up going to waste.
- kkfx 3y ago

by kkfx 3y ago

lmm 3y ago

> cities material costs (meaning raw materials, energy etc) is enormous compared to the same people of any city living a far less dense area with single families homes AND commerce around intermixed. How do you figure that? Single family homes are inherently enormously costly - more concrete, more energy to heat or cool, and more roads to access them. A couple of subways don't outweigh that. > In such scenario moving with light electrical vehicles, mostly recharged from local p.v. since it's effective in most of the inhabited word is FAR cheaper (again in resources) than collective transports in a dense city A dense city is the place where ebikes or golf carts are most practical - people are more able to live close to work (or leisure activities). Just look at the mode share numbers. Electrical transmission is extremely efficient, worrying about "local" electricity makes little sense. Metros in a city don't displace walking/cycling, they're displacing car use. > In the city I have had a FAR LESS social life, simply because it's limited to a small number of selected friends doing service-based activities, like eating together in a restaurant, going to some events etc. Here being less dense anyone (almost) interact with almost any other, normally, and that's completely change the social paradigm compensating the "alienation" of working at home, distant from your peers. Low density cities/suburbs are the worst of both worlds for social life, IME. The apartment complex I live in (in a dense megacity) has a similar population to the village I grew up in, and has the feel of a village too; I say hi to my neighbours and get some everyday social interaction despite WFH. But we're also close enough to meet and eat together without any fuss, whereas back in the village people would drive from one end to another. I don't think cities are inherently less social, they just enable people to be pickier about their socialisation - a village or small town is great if you fit in, but not so much if you don't ("the only gay in the village" may be a comedy sketch, but there's truth behind it). > Doing so means also I travel LESS (no commute) and longer trips are almost meaningless since I mostly recharge from my p.v. I keep more stuff at home, so I have less "impromptu trip" to buy something and so on. On average people in your position travel more, and in more environmentally damaging ways. And keeping a bunch of stuff ends up being pretty wasteful; I know I can walk to the shops to buy something whenever I want (hell, for basic stuff I only have to go downstairs), so I wait until I actually need the thing rather than pre-emptively stocking up on something that ends up going to waste.

kkfx 3y ago