4 ms·

my bet is that, broadly speaking, emerging labour markets (our type of industry, for example) based on new technologies for communications and a reformed educat

by kiba 13y ago

my bet is that, broadly speaking, emerging labour markets (our type of industry, for example) based on new technologies for communications and a reformed education system will cause a mass migration of professionals away from cities, back to a more sustainable, decentralized model. You never heard of the economy of scale that comes with urban density? How would lower density makes the environment more "sustainable"?

contingencies 13y ago
In short, being closer to nature breeds efficiency. For some basic examples: with more privacy, less pollution and lower rise building, people have a viable option to open a window when they're hot instead of turning on the air conditioner. Eating food from your own garden. Being more conscious of which food is in season, thus consuming more of it and less of the other stuff, saving on transport and artificial production overheads. Realistic capacity for grid-independent energy generation, wastewater disposal, rainwater capture, etc. There are plenty more. (Edit: Seeing as people are apparently voting this down, I am honestly curious what they disagree with?)
- icebraining 13y ago
  Do you have some numbers? All the ones I know point to rural populations having significantly larger pollution footprints than urban populations, despite those advantages.
  - contingencies 13y ago
    I don't think it's realistic to lump all rural populations together. For example, the unabomber's woodsman hut style existence probably had effectively zero pollution footprint. Whereas, the also American example of a large scale industrial farmer with a four bedroom house, two cars and a family, large scale farming equipment, and expectations of 24x7x365 electricity, water, sewerage, cell phone signals, non-local products and in-school education for his children is going to be worse than an urbanite. If you are ever lucky enough to get the chance visit some more traditional cultures, you can see for yourself just how slight an impact they make on their environment, with houses, food, and clothes alike built from nature. It's amazing.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      So, my position isn't realistic because it doesn't take into account the possibility that large parts of the population may choose to go back to a pre-industrial life?
      - contingencies 13y ago
        No, I was pointing out the methodological problem with your suggested use of statistics, and that of course we have a spectrum of options when moving away from cities. My own feeling is that most of them are going to lead to less impact on nature, but perhaps you are right and in the short term many people will demand the same level of convenient consumption. Time will tell. Eventually, however, it seems clear to me that practicality will triumph convenience, since it's widely acknowledged that the first world presently consumes on a level that is ridiculously unsustainable and we will simply run out of the capacity to continue.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by kiba 13y ago

contingencies 13y ago

In short, being closer to nature breeds efficiency. For some basic examples: with more privacy, less pollution and lower rise building, people have a viable option to open a window when they're hot instead of turning on the air conditioner. Eating food from your own garden. Being more conscious of which food is in season, thus consuming more of it and less of the other stuff, saving on transport and artificial production overheads. Realistic capacity for grid-independent energy generation, wastewater disposal, rainwater capture, etc. There are plenty more. (Edit: Seeing as people are apparently voting this down, I am honestly curious what they disagree with?)

icebraining 13y ago
Do you have some numbers? All the ones I know point to rural populations having significantly larger pollution footprints than urban populations, despite those advantages.
- contingencies 13y ago
  I don't think it's realistic to lump all rural populations together. For example, the unabomber's woodsman hut style existence probably had effectively zero pollution footprint. Whereas, the also American example of a large scale industrial farmer with a four bedroom house, two cars and a family, large scale farming equipment, and expectations of 24x7x365 electricity, water, sewerage, cell phone signals, non-local products and in-school education for his children is going to be worse than an urbanite. If you are ever lucky enough to get the chance visit some more traditional cultures, you can see for yourself just how slight an impact they make on their environment, with houses, food, and clothes alike built from nature. It's amazing.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    So, my position isn't realistic because it doesn't take into account the possibility that large parts of the population may choose to go back to a pre-industrial life?
    - contingencies 13y ago
      No, I was pointing out the methodological problem with your suggested use of statistics, and that of course we have a spectrum of options when moving away from cities. My own feeling is that most of them are going to lead to less impact on nature, but perhaps you are right and in the short term many people will demand the same level of convenient consumption. Time will tell. Eventually, however, it seems clear to me that practicality will triumph convenience, since it's widely acknowledged that the first world presently consumes on a level that is ridiculously unsustainable and we will simply run out of the capacity to continue.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]