Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Population vs. Limited Resources

1356789

Posts

  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.

    Sure but how much? Is relying on technology a good idea? Isn't that going to increase energy usage rates overall?


    You know what is a horrible blight on society? Cities. Complete waste of energy. Packing a bunch of people ina small space and ferrying food into them at huge cost.

    I like cities, but they're still terrible.

    Actually the weighted elevator is the most efficient mode of human transportation. If we could produce crops in cities (cross your fingers for fusion power), the suburbs would hopefully be wiped off the map.

    Yes but fusion would change everything.

    Anyway I'm not saying get rid of cities so stop defending them I like cities goddamit.

    I'm being critical of them from the point of view of overpopulation. all this irrelevant shit about industrialisation (ie when we really seriously started using up resources) and people going out into the city from where we are now (how exactly is that an argument? Of course it's going to be different if you just go out into the bush right now. The whole economy is currently based around cities!)

    I'm criticising it from the point of view as humans as an animal, a not very special animal.

    Cities are great for tons and tons of reasons. Tons and tons of really great reasons.

    They're just terrible for keeping a populace small because they encourage growth.

    Do you get it? Can we move on? this is pointless! It was just a throwaway comment.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Melkster wrote: »
    Wait, aren't we already overpopulated?

    What would happen if 6,000,000,000 billion people suddenly started driving cars and using resources at the same level as Americans?

    It seems pretty obvious to me that the planet can't support every person in the world having real access to the same standard of living as the United States. If we're cool with that injustice, then there's no such thing as overpopulation right now. But if we're not, overpopulation is a huge problem.

    I don't like framing the problem as overpopulation. Overpopulation is not the problem. Overconsumption is the problem.

    While it's true that we could curb out consumption dramatically and still be happy as soon as you frame it as overcomsumption your pretty much advocating we lower our standard of living.

    Not necessarily.

    Does walking 15 minutes to work rather than driving 60 minutes lower your standard of living? How about taking public transit?

    Does eating more vegetables and less red meat lower your standard of living?

    Those are two clear examples where reducing consumption actually improves your standard of living. At least, it improves it by any objective standard. There are plenty of people who think that eating a salad instead of a hamburger is a reduction in "standard of living" but that is purely a matter of preference, and we can't allow any preference no matter how silly or personal to dictate what "standard of living" means.

    If we look at the problem in basic objective terms, such as disease rates, longevity, leisure time, nutrition, availability of housing and education, and so forth, then I believe that we can adopt more sustainable lifestyles, bolstered by greener technology, without dramatically impacting our quality of life.

    If you choose to only eat meat once per week and eat a mostly vegetarian diet, or you choose to live and work such that you can walk to work that's great and doesn't lower your standard of living.

    If you are forced to do those things because the alternative is suddenly too expensive it's a different story.

    Taking away peoples choices has a psychological effect that I associate with lowering their standard of living and making them unhappy, even if the two options were equally valid.

    Also, humans are creatures of habit and inherently resistant to change. We don't want to change our daily routines, our favorite foods, our opinions ....

    I guarantee it would be political suicide to put a huge tax on meat and gas even if it was accompanied by lowering other taxes to make it tax neutral overall

    Dman on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    You can modify the planet's carrying capacity through technology, so it's not really a static overwhelming limitation on human progress. This was in fact one of the major oversights of Malthus' theories.

    yes. but a neoclassical retort should always have the prefix: hopefully, blah blah technology etc.

    The neomathusian is here to remind us that: maybe not...

    let me add that...

    Drinking water, is what i would say our next limiting factor will be.

    You mean water for agriculture and industrial use right? Drinking water is a trivial concern, barring the earth hurtling toward the sun or something there isn't an issue there (except for the vast swaths of the planet that don't have acceptable drinking water and have to drink filth)

    The real problem is first world ick factor for things like grey water. We'll get over it when push comes to shove.

    My point was that drinking water, something that is required to live is a tiny, tiny fraction of our water supply. We use what? 10% for home use or something in the United States? Out of that 10% what percentage is drinking water? Maybe 10%?

    Lets be generous and say 3% of our water usage is for drinking, we aren't going to run out of water for that purpose in the first world at any point in the forseeable future.

    ah. i didn't realize we were only concerned with the first world. Western US, you're good to go.

    Not just the US, I'd imagine other first world countries have similar figures. For developing nations, well I did mention that lots of the world already has shitty access to drinking water.

    override367 on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Klyka wrote: »
    Klyka wrote: »
    But people care about sex more than they care about children.

    And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.

    I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?

    It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
    Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.

    Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.

    And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".

    I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".

    It's not impossible. China's taxation benefit/legal penalty system, while extremely controversial, actually works. China's growth rate is 0.554%, lower than that of the US.

    But where would you rather live for the rest of your life?

    Me personally? It's hard to say, given that I'm a Taiwanese national (if you think I'm living in the United States for the rest of my life, you're probably being unrealistically optimistic). Plus, I live in the South--the poor South, not the wealthy dainty Dixie south. In 30 years, this place could be a shit-hole compared to anywhere in China, the way things are progressing.

    Where would the the environment prefer I live for the rest of my life? China, with close to no doubt.

    China has a lot of work to do in regards to environmental protection, and this is something that is part of standard of living on a subtle level. The ability to live a comfortable life here in the states with the little amount of noticable impact we have is a very poignant reminder of how good we have it.

    I personally don't consider consuming 26% of the world's total oil for the sake of 4.5% of the world's total population a "little amount of noticeable impact", or 760 kg of municipal waste per person per year (with the world's average around 570 kg), among other things. If it could, I'd pretty sure the environment would not thank us for our "little amount of noticeable impact", though it might appreciate the fact that there are 'only' 300 million Americans, and not a billion of them.

    Are we more comfortable? No doubt (even if your comparing our poverty stricken with theirs), but that's not really the issue that comes to mind here.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    In cities, you can get better cheese and ethnic food, and the bars are better. There's really no need to go beyond that, but if you must, they're also incredibly (relatively) efficient. It's like Christmas.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • KlykaKlyka DO you have any SPARE BATTERIES?Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    We should just do it like the Japanese always show in their animes and have specialized cities.

    The ACADEMY CITY. The CITY OF DOCTORS. The FARMLAND CITY. The SOLDIER CITY.

    "Mom, I'm going to the doctor,I'll be back in 3 weeks"
    "Take care dear!"

    What I'm saying is that cities are pretty cool.

    Klyka on
    SC2 EU ID Klyka.110
    lTDyp.jpg
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Klyka wrote: »
    Klyka wrote: »
    But people care about sex more than they care about children.

    And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.

    I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?

    It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
    Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.

    Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.

    And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".

    I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".

    It's not impossible. China's taxation benefit/legal penalty system, while extremely controversial, actually works. China's growth rate is 0.554%, lower than that of the US.

    But where would you rather live for the rest of your life?

    Me personally? It's hard to say, given that I'm a Taiwanese national (if you think I'm living in the United States for the rest of my life, you're probably being unrealistically optimistic). Plus, I live in the South--the poor South, not the wealthy dainty Dixie south. In 30 years, this place could be a shit-hole compared to anywhere in China, the way things are progressing.

    Where would the the environment prefer I live for the rest of my life? China, with close to no doubt.

    China has a lot of work to do in regards to environmental protection, and this is something that is part of standard of living on a subtle level. The ability to live a comfortable life here in the states with the little amount of noticable impact we have is a very poignant reminder of how good we have it.

    I personally don't consider consuming 26% of the world's total oil for the sake of 4.5% of the world's total population a "little amount of noticeable impact", among other things.

    Are we more comfortable? No doubt (even if your comparing our poverty stricken with theirs), but that's not really the issue that comes to mind here.

    Is it noticable for Americans? Not, do other people aroudn the world notice what we do, rather do we notice what we do here in the States? And I can say no, we are privilidged that we don't shit where we eat. Beijing Olympics highlighted quality of life issues in China when viewed through an American lens. We have a higher quality of life, not just through what we have in terms of goods, services, etc etc, but we also don't have the same awful side effects up in our face, and that in itself is a function of exporting, regulation, etc etc. So when people lament manufacturing job loss, I think it's nice to remember that factories reduce the quality of life by their externalities even if they provided jobs at a point in time for most people in our country.

    mrt144 on
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    They are efficient.
    If you want to encourage growth. Up until now everybody has wanted to encourage growth. Growth was the big cheese.

    However unchecked growth is what overpopulation doesn't want.
    So from that point of view not so efficient.

    Do you see how that is a very particular argument. Do you see how anything other than growth isn't really relevant here? It's a single criticism that got taken out of proportion because people thought I was bagging everything about cities.

    Talk about being overdefensive!

    I'm not making another post on this issue, so if anyone wants to take this up with me further please do it in a pm. I'm done.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    In cities, you can get better cheese and ethnic food, and the bars are better. There's really no need to go beyond that, but if you must, they're also incredibly (relatively) efficient. It's like Christmas.
    But you must endure the soul-crushing horror of living in a city, unable to ever really escape the milling throngs of humanity that shuffle and churn just a few meters away.

    The weird thing is that I never knew anyone who felt differently until I went to college. Some people genuinely like cities, whereas I've always thought of them as necessary evils.

    CycloneRanger on
  • KlykaKlyka DO you have any SPARE BATTERIES?Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    You have no idea how many tears of joys I cried when I FINALLY met someone in real life who agreed with me that a place without any children at all would be paradise.

    I mean,I am fucked up regarding this. I watched "Children of Men" with a big group of people,quite a few women also and no one could understand why I was dumbfounded about the movie being filled by all these super depressed people because they could pretty much just go on and have parties and what not but no everyone is all "NO MORE CHILDREN WE ARE DOOMED". No. No you are not doomed. There won't be anyone after you,yes,but YOU are here and YOU are not doomed. You don't need children to live.

    Klyka on
    SC2 EU ID Klyka.110
    lTDyp.jpg
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I want a kid.

    I know I'm terrible. I really shouldn't have a kid.

    I still want one.

    Mind you more than one is a bit much.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Klyka wrote: »
    Klyka wrote: »
    But people care about sex more than they care about children.

    And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.

    I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?

    It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
    Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.

    Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.

    And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".

    I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".

    It's not impossible. China's taxation benefit/legal penalty system, while extremely controversial, actually works. China's growth rate is 0.554%, lower than that of the US.

    But where would you rather live for the rest of your life?

    Me personally? It's hard to say, given that I'm a Taiwanese national (if you think I'm living in the United States for the rest of my life, you're probably being unrealistically optimistic). Plus, I live in the South--the poor South, not the wealthy dainty Dixie south. In 30 years, this place could be a shit-hole compared to anywhere in China, the way things are progressing.

    Where would the the environment prefer I live for the rest of my life? China, with close to no doubt.

    China has a lot of work to do in regards to environmental protection, and this is something that is part of standard of living on a subtle level. The ability to live a comfortable life here in the states with the little amount of noticable impact we have is a very poignant reminder of how good we have it.

    I personally don't consider consuming 26% of the world's total oil for the sake of 4.5% of the world's total population a "little amount of noticeable impact", among other things.

    Are we more comfortable? No doubt (even if your comparing our poverty stricken with theirs), but that's not really the issue that comes to mind here.

    Is it noticable for Americans? Not, do other people aroudn the world notice what we do, rather do we notice what we do here in the States? And I can say no, we are privilidged that we don't shit where we eat. Beijing Olympics highlighted quality of life issues in China when viewed through an American lens.

    So, we can solve our current problems of population versus consumption of limited problems by not noticing it? I mean, by virtue of living where I do, I can kind people who shit where they eat, quite easily. But if I close my eyes and hum very loudly to myself, I won't notice...but the problem remains.

    As China's economic growth continues, I don't doubt they'll consume and waste more, and even adopt various American niceties on a wider level--what we consider ordinary comforts. But for the numbers, they have quite a way to catch up. And I don't see why I can't congratulate them for reaching their own aspirations of greater comfort, while fearing for the consumption of finite resources, as I do for the US, where I currently reside.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Synthesis,

    The people of china who live similarly to US middle class consume and pollute just as much as the US.

    China might look better per capital but that's only because they have a ton of people living below what is considered the poverty line in the US.

    You insist on viewing things per capita, but I'd be just as keen to argue we measure per square mile.

    one way canada looks like one of the worlds worst consumers and polluters, the other way and we are saints.

    Dman on
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Klyka wrote: »
    You have no idea how many tears of joys I cried when I FINALLY met someone in real life who agreed with me that a place without any children at all would be paradise.

    It'd certainly undercut a lot of expense and consumption for the people living now.

    mrt144 on
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I want a kid.

    I know I'm terrible. I really shouldn't have a kid.

    I still want one.
    If you don't mind my asking something potentially offensive, why do you want a kid? I've never liked kids or felt even the slightest twinge of desire to create them.

    CycloneRanger on
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    They're so good for studying to tell how people work though.

    er

    er

    uh

    <_< sorry that's the experimenter in me speaking

    @Cycloneranger: I've always liked kids. I want to watch my child grow up someday, shape him into a person.

    On the other hand I'm quite a messed up person so this wouldn't end well so I probably shouldn't have a kid. It's not very rational to want one and I do my best to ignore it.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    They are efficient.
    If you want to encourage growth. Up until now everybody has wanted to encourage growth. Growth was the big cheese.

    However unchecked growth is what overpopulation doesn't want.
    So from that point of view not so efficient.

    Do you see how that is a very particular argument. Do you see how anything other than growth isn't really relevant here? It's a single criticism that got taken out of proportion because people thought I was bagging everything about cities.

    Talk about being overdefensive!

    I'm not making another post on this issue, so if anyone wants to take this up with me further please do it in a pm. I'm done.

    In what sense of growth are you talking about that it should not be encouraged?

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    China has a huge number of people living in absolute third-world peasant producer conditions, which really helps them fudge their pollution numbers.

    However.

    The Chinese populace are becoming increasingly restive on environmental issues, something that the sitting government will undoubtedly draw uncomfortable parallels to the downfall of the USSR over. Environmentally-charged revolutions have been the most popular and effective revolutions in the world, because they are nearly impossible to argue effectively against, and are non-partisan in nature.

    Robman on
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I think most people like the idea of having a child more than the reality. And since we have primal urges to keep trying to have kids lots of us manage to succeed.

    Dman on
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    I think most people like the idea of having a child more than the reality. And since we have primal urges to keep trying to have kids lots of us manage to succeed.

    Yup that's the primary reason I try to ignore it.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Klyka wrote: »
    Klyka wrote: »
    But people care about sex more than they care about children.

    And regulations still allow you to have both sex AND children.

    I mean,seriously,do you need more than 2 children? Are you seriously telling me there is going to be some terrible fucking hole in your heart because " I NEED 4 CHILDREN GOD DAMMIT 2 IS NOT ENOUGH"?

    It isn't something based on reason so reasonable arguments aren't going to help you understand it.
    Most people don't use reason and good logic. The world would be a lot less fucked up if they did for a start.

    Yeah but,I mean, even if you are a stupid couple without reason, you WILL understand that if you have more than 2 children,you will be punished.

    And you can't tell me those people are gonna have more than 2 children. MAYBE once they'll go astray and then get kicked down by the punishment and realize "ok, we can just fuck with a condom on or I get a vasectomy or whatever".

    I just don't see ANYONE who is living under that rule going "but I really, really NEED more than 2 children".

    It's not impossible. China's taxation benefit/legal penalty system, while extremely controversial, actually works. China's growth rate is 0.554%, lower than that of the US.

    But where would you rather live for the rest of your life?

    Me personally? It's hard to say, given that I'm a Taiwanese national (if you think I'm living in the United States for the rest of my life, you're probably being unrealistically optimistic). Plus, I live in the South--the poor South, not the wealthy dainty Dixie south. In 30 years, this place could be a shit-hole compared to anywhere in China, the way things are progressing.

    Where would the the environment prefer I live for the rest of my life? China, with close to no doubt.

    China has a lot of work to do in regards to environmental protection, and this is something that is part of standard of living on a subtle level. The ability to live a comfortable life here in the states with the little amount of noticable impact we have is a very poignant reminder of how good we have it.

    I personally don't consider consuming 26% of the world's total oil for the sake of 4.5% of the world's total population a "little amount of noticeable impact", among other things.

    Are we more comfortable? No doubt (even if your comparing our poverty stricken with theirs), but that's not really the issue that comes to mind here.

    Is it noticable for Americans? Not, do other people aroudn the world notice what we do, rather do we notice what we do here in the States? And I can say no, we are privilidged that we don't shit where we eat. Beijing Olympics highlighted quality of life issues in China when viewed through an American lens.

    So, we can solve our current problems of population versus consumption of limited problems by not noticing it? I mean, by virtue of living where I do, I can kind people who shit where they eat, quite easily. But if I close my eyes and hum very loudly to myself, I won't notice...but the problem remains.

    As China's economic growth continues, I don't doubt they'll consume and waste more, and even adopt various American niceties on a wider level--what we consider ordinary comforts. But for the numbers, they have quite a way to catch up.

    I wasn't proposing a solution at all and I don't know how you read it as such.

    I'm saying that our quality of life is higher in one factor because our pollution problems are tamer (ie. our pollution domestically isn't as noticable) than those in China and the Chinese quality of life will never usurp ours even if they reach consumption parity, if there are still grave environmental problems there. American standards of living aren't just about what we consume, but how we are able to consume without noticing the impact of our consumption. No solutions here, just the world as I see it.

    mrt144 on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    Synthesis,

    The people of china who live similarly to US middle class consume and pollute just as much as the US.

    China might look better per capital but that's only because they have a ton of people living below what is considered the poverty line in the US.

    You insist on viewing things per capita, but I'd be just as keen to argue we measure per square mile.

    one way canada looks like one of the worlds worst consumers and polluters, the other way and we are saints.

    We've had a decent number of "how to decrease income disparity" threads in the past, I think--but this is dealing consumption of finite resources, and how rising populations will manage those finite resources. Or, inversely, rising populations, and they'll deal with dwindling resources.

    I mean, that's what we're talking about here, right? Not "how to expand the Chinese middle class at any costs"? It's certainly a laudable goal, but there are costs, as has already been mentioned. And while they're not always mutually exclusive, I think the consumption is still a pretty big problem. If it's not, then this thread's title is somewhat misleading.
    mrt144 wrote: »
    I wasn't proposing a solution at all and I don't know how you read it as such.

    I'm saying that our quality of life is higher in one factor because our pollution problems are tamer than those in China and the Chinese quality of life will never usurp ours even if they reach consumption parity, if there are still grave environmental problems there. American standards of living aren't just about what we consume, but how we are able to consume without noticing the impact of our consumption. No solutions here, just the world as I see it.

    That's a fair point, but I'm personally more worried about our habit of consuming more than a quarter of the world's oil produced. And I suspect that, eventually, we'll start to notice the impacts of our consumption.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • KlykaKlyka DO you have any SPARE BATTERIES?Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I like watching my niece and nephew. I like hanging out with them and doing stuff with them,it can be very fun and usually is.

    I enjoy these times because I know that at the end of the day they go to THEIR home and I go to MY home.
    It makes me very,very comfortable around children to know that they are not my long term problem.

    Klyka on
    SC2 EU ID Klyka.110
    lTDyp.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    In cities, you can get better cheese and ethnic food, and the bars are better. There's really no need to go beyond that, but if you must, they're also incredibly (relatively) efficient. It's like Christmas.
    But you must endure the soul-crushing horror of living in a city, unable to ever really escape the milling throngs of humanity that shuffle and churn just a few meters away.

    The weird thing is that I never knew anyone who felt differently until I went to college. Some people genuinely like cities, whereas I've always thought of them as necessary evils.

    Having grown up in a small yet sprawling town with unsightly parking lots and a car being absolutely necessary, living in a big city just seemed so right to me.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The great efficiency of cities is not that they encourage growth, but simply that people consume where they live. Bringing a bunch of people to live in one area reduces transportation costs by many orders of magnitude. It's cheaper for everyone to get to work, and cheaper for the products of that labor (be it iPods or haircuts) to get to those who need them.

    It is in fact for this reason that cities enable specialization—the costs of transportation for someone living far from everyone else are so vast that he can't really afford to specialize. The hermit living on the mountaintop has to be way more self-sufficient than anyone in the city and therefore doesn't have time to do something like building rocket engines.

    You don't need some kind of underlying assumption of growth for cities to be more efficient. They are more efficient for a zero-growth economy, too, although it's unclear to me why that sort of thing is desirable. At the very least there should always be growth owing to technological progress and new invention.

    Of course, this becomes less relevant as transportation becomes easier (hence the rise of the suburb along with the car). I guess if we had transporter pads like they do in Star Trek (and unlimited use of them), there'd be no need for cities anymore.

    CycloneRanger on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I wonder how you design a green city...

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I'm willing to concede that this long held bias against cities is simply based on my huge inability to understand economics. I tend to zone out of such conversations. I only have a rudimentary understanding.

    I've held it for a long time and I'm stubborn, but you win okay? Please can we stop now, I didn't think it would get this big. I really don't care.

    I just want it to stop because it's going off topic.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    In cities, you can get better cheese and ethnic food, and the bars are better. There's really no need to go beyond that, but if you must, they're also incredibly (relatively) efficient. It's like Christmas.
    But you must endure the soul-crushing horror of living in a city, unable to ever really escape the milling throngs of humanity that shuffle and churn just a few meters away.

    The weird thing is that I never knew anyone who felt differently until I went to college. Some people genuinely like cities, whereas I've always thought of them as necessary evils.

    Having grown up in a small yet sprawling town with unsightly parking lots and a car being absolutely necessary, living in a big city just seemed so right to me.

    I was born in a very, very unpleasant city, but even then, I'd prefer it to the suburbs of the South (on purely the matter of where to live, not working opportunities or other factors).

    Frankly, the appeal of the suburbs strikes me as incredibly superficial, and leaving me with one of two choices: have everything I need mailed to me, or doing the reverse, driving everywhere I need to obtain things. I'd say the same thing for work, but I've never had the opportunity to work from home.

    From a purely health standpoint, the suburbs might have benefited me (cleaner air), but might have harmed me (I probably walk about a tenth of how much I used to walk when I lived in cities, perhaps less, since I'm simply not capable of walking twenty miles to a grocery store, and then twenty miles back).

    That being said, being born in a city (and being acclimated to the noise and air) has made me biased. Someone mentioned the "horror of the inescapable throng of people". Couldn't it be just as possible to suffer from the "horror of self-imposed isolation and exile"? I've lived in some suburbs where I literally knew maybe two or three people in about four square miles....

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Cantido wrote: »
    I wonder how you design a green city...
    I wish we could divorce the ridiculous faux-futuristic architecture of these plans from their actual content. The cities pictured always look like something Apple would concoct if glass suddenly became free and it just makes the whole look less credible.

    CycloneRanger on
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I lived on a farm for most of my early life, if that helps anyone understand my terrible wrongness.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Klyka wrote: »
    I like watching my niece and nephew. I like hanging out with them and doing stuff with them,it can be very fun and usually is.

    I enjoy these times because I know that at the end of the day they go to THEIR home and I go to MY home.
    It makes me very,very comfortable around children to know that they are not my long term problem.

    That's true, but don't you ever think:

    one day I'll be dead and gone

    if people are the sum of their experience and genetic code then when you have a child it will be partially you in terms of both nature & nurture, he will share your memories in the form of stories you tell him, reading the same books, watching the same movies, living in the same environment.

    It's really the only way you can live on. I realize this is an odd way of looking at it but is it better to live free of obligations or to have perhaps a more difficult and stressful life but know that your child (and his child etc) will go on with your ideas and genetic code in them?

    Am I crazy?

    Dman on
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Cantido wrote: »
    I wonder how you design a green city...
    I wish we could divorce the ridiculous faux-futuristic architecture of these plans from their actual content. The cities pictured always look like something Apple would concoct if glass suddenly became free and it just makes the whole look less credible.

    I'm not necessarily an architect so correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a building made completely out of glass have some serious insulation issues?

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    I wonder how you design a green city...
    I wish we could divorce the ridiculous faux-futuristic architecture of these plans from their actual content. The cities pictured always look like something Apple would concoct if glass suddenly became free and it just makes the whole look less credible.

    I'm not necessarily an architect so correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a building made completely out of glass have some serious insulation issues?

    greenhouses?

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    I wasn't proposing a solution at all and I don't know how you read it as such.

    I'm saying that our quality of life is higher in one factor because our pollution problems are tamer than those in China and the Chinese quality of life will never usurp ours even if they reach consumption parity, if there are still grave environmental problems there. American standards of living aren't just about what we consume, but how we are able to consume without noticing the impact of our consumption. No solutions here, just the world as I see it.

    That's a fair point, but I'm personally more worried about our habit of consuming more than a quarter of the world's oil produced. And I suspect that, eventually, we'll start to notice the impacts of our consumption.

    I think we'll notice it more in what is relatively expensive to the past and how our paradigm of high standard of living will shift. Leisure travel will decline if energy prices go way higher. We can fight something seemingly insignificant like that by doing all sorts of political things to prop up tourism etc, or we can work on ways to create more value for the visits we do get so that there isn't a perception of less bang for a more expensive buck.

    I think we'll notice the direct impact of ourselves more if the rest of the world catches up really quickly and it becomes economically practical to return heavy pollution creating industry back the United States.

    mrt144 on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Cantido wrote: »
    I wonder how you design a green city...
    I wish we could divorce the ridiculous faux-futuristic architecture of these plans from their actual content. The cities pictured always look like something Apple would concoct if glass suddenly became free and it just makes the whole look less credible.

    It might be a lack of ambition, but I'd be happy if we were to create more efficient methods of recycling and transit, as well as water treatment and recover, and perhaps energy generation on roofs.

    You could quite easily have all of these things in a city that looked completely unremarkable either (well, except for fewer privately-owned automobiles in the streets). It wouldn't require the iCity that seems to be so popular in concept.

    Of course, a lot of people would say that's ugly.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    I wonder how you design a green city...
    I wish we could divorce the ridiculous faux-futuristic architecture of these plans from their actual content. The cities pictured always look like something Apple would concoct if glass suddenly became free and it just makes the whole look less credible.

    I'm not necessarily an architect so correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a building made completely out of glass have some serious insulation issues?

    greenhouses?

    I don't think one necessarily lives in a greenhouse. Especially during the winter.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Aegis wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    Cantido wrote: »
    I wonder how you design a green city...
    I wish we could divorce the ridiculous faux-futuristic architecture of these plans from their actual content. The cities pictured always look like something Apple would concoct if glass suddenly became free and it just makes the whole look less credible.

    I'm not necessarily an architect so correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a building made completely out of glass have some serious insulation issues?

    greenhouses?

    I don't think one necessarily lives in a greenhouse. Especially during the winter.

    No I'm saying "can't glass can be used to regulate an environment?".

    And it was a question, I was giving a possible answer, I don't really know.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Dman wrote: »
    Klyka wrote: »
    I like watching my niece and nephew. I like hanging out with them and doing stuff with them,it can be very fun and usually is.

    I enjoy these times because I know that at the end of the day they go to THEIR home and I go to MY home.
    It makes me very,very comfortable around children to know that they are not my long term problem.

    That's true, but don't you ever think:

    one day I'll be dead and gone

    if people are the sum of their experience and genetic code then when you have a child it will be partially you in terms of both nature & nurture, he will share your memories in the form of stories you tell him, reading the same books, watching the same movies, living in the same environment.

    It's really the only way you can live on. I realize this is an odd way of looking at it but is it better to live free of obligations or to have perhaps a more difficult and stressful life but know that your child (and his child etc) will go on with your ideas and genetic code in them?

    Am I crazy?

    It only matters if there's other people around to notice it.

    mrt144 on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    mrt144 wrote: »
    I wasn't proposing a solution at all and I don't know how you read it as such.

    I'm saying that our quality of life is higher in one factor because our pollution problems are tamer than those in China and the Chinese quality of life will never usurp ours even if they reach consumption parity, if there are still grave environmental problems there. American standards of living aren't just about what we consume, but how we are able to consume without noticing the impact of our consumption. No solutions here, just the world as I see it.

    That's a fair point, but I'm personally more worried about our habit of consuming more than a quarter of the world's oil produced. And I suspect that, eventually, we'll start to notice the impacts of our consumption.

    I think we'll notice it more in what is relatively expensive to the past and how our paradigm of high standard of living will shift. Leisure travel will decline if energy prices go way higher. We can fight something seemingly insignificant like that by doing all sorts of political things to prop up tourism etc, or we can work on ways to create more value for the visits we do get so that there isn't a perception of less bang for a more expensive buck.

    I think we'll notice the impact of ourselves more if the rest of the world catches up really quickly and it becomes economically practical to return heavy pollution creating industry back the United States.

    Or we'll ignore it. I remember reading magazine articles from the early 1990s declaring the SUV dead, and the electric car the wave of the future, as the importance of oil as an industrial commodity, and not for private consumption like beef. I suspect people will hold onto that "26% for 4% of the world population" right up to the point of disaster. It's not guaranteed, of course, but I think it's entirely plausible.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mrt144 wrote: »
    Dman wrote: »
    Klyka wrote: »
    I like watching my niece and nephew. I like hanging out with them and doing stuff with them,it can be very fun and usually is.

    I enjoy these times because I know that at the end of the day they go to THEIR home and I go to MY home.
    It makes me very,very comfortable around children to know that they are not my long term problem.

    That's true, but don't you ever think:

    one day I'll be dead and gone

    if people are the sum of their experience and genetic code then when you have a child it will be partially you in terms of both nature & nurture, he will share your memories in the form of stories you tell him, reading the same books, watching the same movies, living in the same environment.

    It's really the only way you can live on. I realize this is an odd way of looking at it but is it better to live free of obligations or to have perhaps a more difficult and stressful life but know that your child (and his child etc) will go on with your ideas and genetic code in them?

    Am I crazy?

    It only matters if there's other people around to notice it.

    That is a kind of social instinct I also try to ignore. It's a pretty selfish one and I don't find much value in it.
    I personally think that's an abstraction of the very real need to belong to a grouping, only taken further than it needs to be and pressed onto our children.
    If you think about it, how important is that, really? Can you think of a good reason for wanting that? When I sit down and think about it, I can't. So I devalue it consciously because it's obviously something fundamental that isn't necessary nowadays.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Sign In or Register to comment.