3 ms·

I think you are arguing about centralized vs distributed models. They both have pros and cons. I think it depends what you are optimizing for. And likely you ne

I think you are arguing about centralized vs distributed models. They both have pros and cons. I think it depends what you are optimizing for. And likely you need both especially with 8+ billion people. For example in a centralized model the initial investment in resources is pretty high (like building a large apartment building) but the idea that over time you can manage and operate that building with common resources among the inhabitants. Hopefully over time it uses less resources than a distributed model.

kkfx 2y ago
Yes, but there is an important point: in the past centralized means much, just to have services we need to have them nearby, there was no phones, people have only their feet and so on. Being in a city was not nice due to pollution, from heating (burned wood and coal), sewers, ... but still means having anything around. This is not true anymore. In the past being centralized for a company means having workers and customers nearby, more companies in a tight space means competition that lowered prices and pushed up innovation and so on, it was problematic but needed. Since the '80s thanks to modern logistic assembly a chair in India, with Russian wood, Brazilian caning, Chinese felt and Indonesian nails to sell it in Amsterdam became cheaper than built it nearby. Cities was still needed, most things happen on paper and we can't duplicate archives around employee homes, receiving customer there, conferences was only in person, trade fairs/expo was needed and so on, so again there was no distributed modern model possible. After internet start to spread, TLCs evolve, we do not need the office, we do not need in person conferences or trade fairs and so on. So now we can choose between centralized and distributed models. Stated that: the centralized model is not anymore the one from the past, a big residential building in the past, let's say just from the '80s was typically a big concrete structure, with a concrete or metallic roof, some windows and doors, a simple clean water distribution, hot sanitary and heating water and a common sewers, very simple electricity (since there is not much power needs), phones and TV. That was already significantly more than the '50s where phones was not really a thing and TV was a new thing only few have, no central system. Now? Well, roof need to be an insulated and ventilated one, nothing exceptional, but complex on a large structure. For seismic safety we might need or much more steel or a seismic insulation, witch again it's nothing so exceptional but still means 15-20% more raw materials, of course we need general insulation, ventilated facades, stuff to allow winter Sun penetrate the building for free heating, but not the high summer Sun, VMCs, HAVAC, f.o. maybe security cameras, elevators, .... a modern building of comparable size/number of apartments than the '80s one is more the double it's cost AND you can't count for generations in the future to amortize it, tech change. We have had classic copper phone, than FTTH, and in many cases we was not able to reuse copper ducts, TV now in large part of the western world is distributed on IP, so we need at least home networks because relaying on wifi is horrific and you are not allowed anyway in new buildings, a new cat6a/cat8 LAN per apartment instead of some chained coax, electricity is used for cars and much more powerful appliances so again we need much more stuff for it and I do not take into account how many things are now mandatory for cars, including mere garage space, not demanded in the '50s Long story short in the past, a near past, the cost of building a 40 apartment building was LOWER than building 40 single family homes and the useful life of such building was estimated certainly for 50 years but probably for 100 years. Now the useful life is perhaps 30 years and potentially 50 years and the cost of 40 apartment is greater than 40 single family homes, beside that a 40s apartments building can't evolve much. A single family home can do only a bit better but being a single family home with a bit of ground around in 50 years when the elderly parents having build if for them die their children sell/rebuild it, it's doable at a reasonable price (let's say the price of 4-6 mid-range cars, in a hypothetical spread society) so single family homes remain "up to date" to current tech, needs, human desires and climate change. Large buildings and cities can't. Long story short in the past there was no other options than cities, now cities are too costly and we evolve at a speed we can't amortize such cost, we do not need them also, so it's not much reasonable keeping them and pushing for smart cities which are even more costly and hard to evolve.

kkfx 2y ago

Yes, but there is an important point: in the past centralized means much, just to have services we need to have them nearby, there was no phones, people have only their feet and so on. Being in a city was not nice due to pollution, from heating (burned wood and coal), sewers, ... but still means having anything around. This is not true anymore. In the past being centralized for a company means having workers and customers nearby, more companies in a tight space means competition that lowered prices and pushed up innovation and so on, it was problematic but needed. Since the '80s thanks to modern logistic assembly a chair in India, with Russian wood, Brazilian caning, Chinese felt and Indonesian nails to sell it in Amsterdam became cheaper than built it nearby. Cities was still needed, most things happen on paper and we can't duplicate archives around employee homes, receiving customer there, conferences was only in person, trade fairs/expo was needed and so on, so again there was no distributed modern model possible. After internet start to spread, TLCs evolve, we do not need the office, we do not need in person conferences or trade fairs and so on. So now we can choose between centralized and distributed models. Stated that: the centralized model is not anymore the one from the past, a big residential building in the past, let's say just from the '80s was typically a big concrete structure, with a concrete or metallic roof, some windows and doors, a simple clean water distribution, hot sanitary and heating water and a common sewers, very simple electricity (since there is not much power needs), phones and TV. That was already significantly more than the '50s where phones was not really a thing and TV was a new thing only few have, no central system. Now? Well, roof need to be an insulated and ventilated one, nothing exceptional, but complex on a large structure. For seismic safety we might need or much more steel or a seismic insulation, witch again it's nothing so exceptional but still means 15-20% more raw materials, of course we need general insulation, ventilated facades, stuff to allow winter Sun penetrate the building for free heating, but not the high summer Sun, VMCs, HAVAC, f.o. maybe security cameras, elevators, .... a modern building of comparable size/number of apartments than the '80s one is more the double it's cost AND you can't count for generations in the future to amortize it, tech change. We have had classic copper phone, than FTTH, and in many cases we was not able to reuse copper ducts, TV now in large part of the western world is distributed on IP, so we need at least home networks because relaying on wifi is horrific and you are not allowed anyway in new buildings, a new cat6a/cat8 LAN per apartment instead of some chained coax, electricity is used for cars and much more powerful appliances so again we need much more stuff for it and I do not take into account how many things are now mandatory for cars, including mere garage space, not demanded in the '50s Long story short in the past, a near past, the cost of building a 40 apartment building was LOWER than building 40 single family homes and the useful life of such building was estimated certainly for 50 years but probably for 100 years. Now the useful life is perhaps 30 years and potentially 50 years and the cost of 40 apartment is greater than 40 single family homes, beside that a 40s apartments building can't evolve much. A single family home can do only a bit better but being a single family home with a bit of ground around in 50 years when the elderly parents having build if for them die their children sell/rebuild it, it's doable at a reasonable price (let's say the price of 4-6 mid-range cars, in a hypothetical spread society) so single family homes remain "up to date" to current tech, needs, human desires and climate change. Large buildings and cities can't. Long story short in the past there was no other options than cities, now cities are too costly and we evolve at a speed we can't amortize such cost, we do not need them also, so it's not much reasonable keeping them and pushing for smart cities which are even more costly and hard to evolve.