3 ms·

> better for the environment How can others not see it? I see a bunch of people, even on HN, pushing for lower emissions while rejecting remote work for whatev

> better for the environment How can others not see it? I see a bunch of people, even on HN, pushing for lower emissions while rejecting remote work for whatever personal reason. I also see others wanting instead to force everybody into ultra high density living to avoid driving, while remote work cuts down on the biggest source of driving needs.

okr 2y ago
Ultra High Density Living is just the most eco-friendly way of living for the masses. Why would anyone think otherwise, if the same masses live abroad and spread out over vast land with their own infrastructure?
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Ultra High Density Living is just the most eco-friendly way of living for the masses. You do not need to go to "ultra high" density, à la Manhattan or Hong Kong. Once you get to densities of Paris, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Munich, Brussels—in the 50 people per hectare (20 per acre) range—there are diminishing returns: * https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environmental-footprint-of-transportation/urban-density-energy-consumption/ https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environment... I would not call any of those "ultra high" (though perhaps others would?).
  - sycamoretrees 2y ago
    Paris - the city itself - is actually surprisingly high density, almost as high as Manhattan if you do not include the two very large 'Bois' (woods) that are technically part of the city.
  - volfonibros 2y ago
    I don't know where they get that 50/Ha figure. Paris is more dense than Seoul, with just over 200 people per Ha, or ~20k/km². Figure would actually have been higher at the 1999 date of the cited source, too. The city is (slowly) losing people.
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  Morgue drawer style housing is the most efficient. I accept high density cities, but ultra high is misanthropic.
- spacemadness 2y ago
  Unfortunately America seems to not be able to get its shit together in how it handles larger cities. Mass transit sucks, life threatening noise pollution, rents are too high, and homelessness abounds while many enter some sort of Stockholm syndrome and think these problems are overstated and defend the status quo. I want to keep living in a walkable high density area but greed, complacency, and outright ignorance destroys what could work for more people.
ryandrake 2y ago
It is possible to be generally for lower emissions but value those "personal reasons" more. I would never voluntarily live in an urban area, dense or otherwise. Not willing to make that much of a sacrifice for the planet, sorry. I'm open to considering other ways to improve my carbon footprint, like working remote and not commuting, but living in a city is not one of them.
- okr 2y ago
  I think it is totally fine to live outside of cities. I did this also during corona times bcs of these non-sense rules. Just i do not think its more eco-friendly. Maybe on an individual level, but when all people do this, its not. Well, like with all luxuries.

okr 2y ago

Ultra High Density Living is just the most eco-friendly way of living for the masses. Why would anyone think otherwise, if the same masses live abroad and spread out over vast land with their own infrastructure?

throw0101c 2y ago
> Ultra High Density Living is just the most eco-friendly way of living for the masses. You do not need to go to "ultra high" density, à la Manhattan or Hong Kong. Once you get to densities of Paris, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Munich, Brussels—in the 50 people per hectare (20 per acre) range—there are diminishing returns: * https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environmental-footprint-of-transportation/urban-density-energy-consumption/ https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/environment... I would not call any of those "ultra high" (though perhaps others would?).
- sycamoretrees 2y ago
  Paris - the city itself - is actually surprisingly high density, almost as high as Manhattan if you do not include the two very large 'Bois' (woods) that are technically part of the city.
- volfonibros 2y ago
  I don't know where they get that 50/Ha figure. Paris is more dense than Seoul, with just over 200 people per Ha, or ~20k/km². Figure would actually have been higher at the 1999 date of the cited source, too. The city is (slowly) losing people.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
Morgue drawer style housing is the most efficient. I accept high density cities, but ultra high is misanthropic.
spacemadness 2y ago
Unfortunately America seems to not be able to get its shit together in how it handles larger cities. Mass transit sucks, life threatening noise pollution, rents are too high, and homelessness abounds while many enter some sort of Stockholm syndrome and think these problems are overstated and defend the status quo. I want to keep living in a walkable high density area but greed, complacency, and outright ignorance destroys what could work for more people.

ryandrake 2y ago

It is possible to be generally for lower emissions but value those "personal reasons" more. I would never voluntarily live in an urban area, dense or otherwise. Not willing to make that much of a sacrifice for the planet, sorry. I'm open to considering other ways to improve my carbon footprint, like working remote and not commuting, but living in a city is not one of them.

okr 2y ago
I think it is totally fine to live outside of cities. I did this also during corona times bcs of these non-sense rules. Just i do not think its more eco-friendly. Maybe on an individual level, but when all people do this, its not. Well, like with all luxuries.