Juicy Question from _Collapse_
William P. Baird
preachiness for the end. It wasnt too bad. There's one
quote, a long one, that I'd love to see the group's comments
on.
"People in the Third World aspire to First World living standards.
They develop that aspiration through watching television, seeing
advertisements for First World consumer products sold in their
countries, and observing First World visitors to their countries.
Even in remote villages and refugee camps today, people know about
the outside world. Third World citizens are encouraged in that
aspiration by First World and United Nations Development agencies,
which hold out to them the prospect of achieving their dram if they
will only adopt the right policies, like balancing their national
budgets, investing in education and infrastructure, and so on.
"But no one at the U.N. or First World governments is willing to
acknowledge the dream's impossibility: the unsustainability of a
world in which the Third World's large population were to reach
and maintain current First World living standards."
Chapter 16
The World as a Polder: What does It All Mean to Us Today
Pgs 495 to 496
BS or not?
Will
--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Home: anzhalyu@gmail. has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Work: wba...@nersc.go is something big, mean, with very sharp
Blog: thedragonstales teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
+ com/v/.blogspot.com somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.
Doug Hoff
"William P. Baird" <anzh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107065451....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Ok. I finished it. It was interesting. It saved its
> preachiness for the end. It wasnt too bad. There's one
> quote, a long one, that I'd love to see the group's comments
> on.
>
> "People in the Third World aspire to First World living standards.
> They develop that aspiration through watching television, seeing
> advertisements for First World consumer products sold in their
> countries, and observing First World visitors to their countries.
> Even in remote villages and refugee camps today, people know about
> the outside world. Third World citizens are encouraged in that
> aspiration by First World and United Nations Development agencies,
> which hold out to them the prospect of achieving their dram if they
> will only adopt the right policies, like balancing their national
> budgets, investing in education and infrastructure, and so on.
>
> "But no one at the U.N. or First World governments is willing to
> acknowledge the dream's impossibility: the unsustainability of a
> world in which the Third World's large population were to reach
> and maintain current First World living standards."
>
> Chapter 16
> The World as a Polder: What does It All Mean to Us Today
> Pgs 495 to 496
>
> BS or not?
>
Does he say _why_ he thinks it would be impossible? Resourse limitations, I
assume, given the theme of the book.
--
----------
Doug
douglas...@gmail.com (take out x'es)
Coyu
> Ok. I finished it. It was interesting. It saved its
> preachiness for the end. It wasnt too bad. There's one
> quote, a long one, that I'd love to see the group's comments
> on.
>
> "People in the Third World aspire to First World living standards.
> They develop that aspiration through watching television, seeing
> advertisements for First World consumer products sold in their
> countries, and observing First World visitors to their countries.
> Even in remote villages and refugee camps today, people know about
> the outside world. Third World citizens are encouraged in that
> aspiration by First World and United Nations Development agencies,
> which hold out to them the prospect of achieving their dram if they
> will only adopt the right policies, like balancing their national
> budgets, investing in education and infrastructure, and so on.
Ah. "Don't let the wogs and darkies even _see_ any of the good
stuff." That'll work. I'm sure the South Koreans and the
Botswanans would really have appreciated that advice.
At least he doesn't imply, "wouldn't it be convenient if those
people all removed themselves from the scene? leaving more for
us." Does he?
> "But no one at the U.N. or First World governments is willing to
> acknowledge the dream's impossibility: the unsustainability of a
> world in which the Third World's large population were to reach
> and maintain current First World living standards."
>
> Chapter 16
> The World as a Polder: What does It All Mean to Us Today
> Pgs 495 to 496
>
> BS or not?
I haven't read _Collapse_ yet. I don't trust Diamond's intuition
or his fact-checking ability. I do note that we have several
billion people currently living at early 20th century US living
standards or better, more people than lived on the planet at
that time.
Sustainability is a function of technology. I would guess,
knowing what I know about Diamond's intellectual background,
that his argument is roughly that because of globalization, the
world is now effectively one large island culture in dire danger
of insert-deforesting-Easter-Island-analogy-here.
But _even with current technology_, we're far away from that
point. With the current rate of scientific and technological
growth... well, I just don't see it.
C.
James Nicoll
William P. Baird <anzh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ok. I finished it. It was interesting. It saved its
>preachiness for the end. It wasnt too bad. There's one
>quote, a long one, that I'd love to see the group's comments
>on.
>
>"People in the Third World aspire to First World living standards.
>They develop that aspiration through watching television, seeing
>advertisements for First World consumer products sold in their
>countries, and observing First World visitors to their countries.
>Even in remote villages and refugee camps today, people know about
>the outside world. Third World citizens are encouraged in that
>aspiration by First World and United Nations Development agencies,
>which hold out to them the prospect of achieving their dram if they
>will only adopt the right policies, like balancing their national
>budgets, investing in education and infrastructure, and so on.
>
>"But no one at the U.N. or First World governments is willing to
>acknowledge the dream's impossibility: the unsustainability of a
>world in which the Third World's large population were to reach
>and maintain current First World living standards."
>
>Chapter 16
>The World as a Polder: What does It All Mean to Us Today
>Pgs 495 to 496
>
>BS or not?
>
boat politics it will encourage. There are no resources which
are not either abundant on Earth or for which substitutes do
not exist.
The one possible exception is biodiversity and even
there I can see ways to reintroduce it technologically.
Note that I'm not saying the world will become one large
happy capitalist utopia, just that the technological and material
resources exist to make it so.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.marryanamerican.ca
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
sigi...@yahoo.com
William P. Baird wrote:
> "But no one at the U.N. or First World governments is willing to
> acknowledge the dream's impossibility: the unsustainability of a
> world in which the Third World's large population were to reach
> and maintain current First World living standards."
>
> BS or not?
I hesitate to cry bullshit until I hear the argument underpinning this
statement, but I'm not hopeful.
I assume it's all about resource depletion, especially of oil, with a
healthy dash of environmental degradation thrown in? If so, then yes,
it's BS. (Which is not to say that the Third World necessarily ever
will reach current First World living standards. Nor either to say
that resource depletion, etc., aren't real and serious problems.
Separate questions.)
If he's got something else going on... well, say on.
Doug M.
sigi...@yahoo.com
William P. Baird wrote:
> "But no one at the U.N. or First World governments is willing to
> acknowledge the dream's impossibility: the unsustainability of a
> world in which the Third World's large population were to reach
> and maintain current First World living standards."
>
Jon Leech
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> Complete BS, and pernicious besides because of the life-
>boat politics it will encourage. There are no resources which
>are not either abundant on Earth or for which substitutes do
>not exist.
Homes with trees and yards and quiet neighbors; land in desirable
areas; commute time; space to spread your towel out at the beach; short
waiting lists at national parks; etc. The planet can support a lot of
people, given enough energy, but most of them will have to live in big,
crowded, stressful cities.
Jon
__@/
Doug Hoff
"Coyu" <co...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107104359....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Will Baird wrote:
>
>> Ok. I finished it. It was interesting. It saved its
>> preachiness for the end. It wasnt too bad. There's one
>> quote, a long one, that I'd love to see the group's comments
>> on.
>>
>> "People in the Third World aspire to First World living standards.
>> They develop that aspiration through watching television, seeing
>> advertisements for First World consumer products sold in their
>> countries, and observing First World visitors to their countries.
>> Even in remote villages and refugee camps today, people know about
>> the outside world. Third World citizens are encouraged in that
>> aspiration by First World and United Nations Development agencies,
>> which hold out to them the prospect of achieving their dram if they
>> will only adopt the right policies, like balancing their national
>> budgets, investing in education and infrastructure, and so on.
>
> Ah. "Don't let the wogs and darkies even _see_ any of the good
> stuff." That'll work. I'm sure the South Koreans and the
> Botswanans would really have appreciated that advice.
Dont forget the Taiwanese. Certainly on an island, they could not expect to
prosper, given the resource limitations that must hinder the improvements of
their lifestyle.
>
> At least he doesn't imply, "wouldn't it be convenient if those
> people all removed themselves from the scene? leaving more for
> us." Does he?
That does not get a mention in the NYT review (Easterbrook of 'The New
Republic) and it certainly would have if he advocated a 'keep the wogs poor
so there's more for the rest of us.' It is referenced in the review thusly:
"And is it really an 'impossibility' for developing world living standards
to reach the Western level? A century ago, rationalists would have called
global consumption of 78 million barrels per day of petroleum an
impossibility, and that's the latest figure."
Damien R. Sullivan
>> Complete BS, and pernicious besides because of the life-
>>boat politics it will encourage. There are no resources which
>>are not either abundant on Earth or for which substitutes do
>>not exist.
>
> Homes with trees and yards and quiet neighbors; land in desirable
>areas; commute time; space to spread your towel out at the beach; short
Spaced out homes and low commute times are kind of intrinsically at odds. But
I don't think lack of space is a problem: Assume, over-generously, an acre
(4000 m^2) per household: 2 billion households would be 8e12 m^2, or 8e6
square kilometers, vs. a land area of about 148e6 km^2. We'd all fit in the
US, or Canada, or half of Russia.
>waiting lists at national parks; etc. The planet can support a lot of
Desirable areas of cities, and competition for coasts and small parks, yeah,
that's a problem.
>people, given enough energy, but most of them will have to live in big,
>crowded, stressful cities.
Doesn't have to be that crowded. As for stress, how much does good
soundproofing cost?
-xx- Damien X-)
Coyu
> The planet can support a lot of
> people, given enough energy, but most of them will have to live in
big,
> crowded, stressful cities.
You've got a big unexamined assumption that big&crowded =>
stressful. Ain't necessarily so.
Jon Leech
Damien R. Sullivan <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>Spaced out homes and low commute times are kind of intrinsically at odds.
Well, my list wasn't intended to be a dependency chain... but for
counterexamples see semirural areas like those surrounding the Research
Triangle in North Carolina. The key is not to be commuting into a city
like Boston or San Francisco.
>But I don't think lack of space is a problem: Assume, over-generously,
>an acre (4000 m^2) per household: 2 billion households would be 8e12
>m^2, or 8e6 square kilometers, vs. a land area of about 148e6 km^2. We'd
>all fit in the US, or Canada, or half of Russia.
Thought experiment: pick out ten random locations in the United
States and decide how many of them would be places you would voluntarily
move to (assuming you're reasonably happy where you are now). Granted
that application of enough water, energy, and cheap Mexican labor can
make the deserts bloom, but it's hard to imagine, say, too many more
Phoenixes being built without outstripping the freshwater supply of the
American Southwest (OK, maybe with enough nuclear-powered desalination
plants on the California coast...)
>Doesn't have to be that crowded. As for stress, how much does good
>soundproofing cost?
For an apartment dweller, more than they can possibly afford.
Jon
__@/
Jon Leech
It's so for many people. Maybe those people will be selectively bred
out of the species, but we're a long way away from that.
Jon
__@/
sigi...@yahoo.com
Jon Leech wrote:
> Thought experiment: pick out ten random locations in the United
> States and decide how many of them would be places you would
voluntarily
> move to (assuming you're reasonably happy where you are now).
? That's not very useful. Would I live in the middle of Montana?
Well, damn -- have I won the lottery, or just gotten a really nice job
offer?
> that application of enough water, energy, and cheap Mexican labor can
> make the deserts bloom, but it's hard to imagine, say, too many more
> Phoenixes being built without outstripping the freshwater supply of
the
> American Southwest [..]
> >Doesn't have to be that crowded. As for stress, how much does good
> >soundproofing cost?
>
> For an apartment dweller, more than they can possibly afford.
But the discussion was implicitly about long-term futures. A future
where everyone has First World standards of living is a future that
will have figured out desal plants and soundproofing.
Note that pretty much everyone can be happy in a well designed city.
(1) The problem is that, at the moment, a lot of cities aren't very
well designed.
Also, your argument seems to be that trees and yards are more important
than -- say -- excellent second-hand bookshops, all-night diners,
coffee shops with good live music wi-fi, and more options on a Saturday
night than "Bingo at the Elks Hall, or let's see what's on cable?"
Fond as I am of trees and yards, I don't think the argument begins and
ends there.
Further: you've got a fallacy of the excluded middle setup here. Yet
city vs. rural is hardly an either/or. We may end up covering the land
area of the planet with several million square kilometers of suburb.
Doug M.
(1) Which is not the same as a planned city, at all.
Noel
Jon Leech wrote:
> In article <ctjqn8$ee1$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>,
> Damien R. Sullivan <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> >Spaced out homes and low commute times are kind of intrinsically at
odds.
>
> Well, my list wasn't intended to be a dependency chain... but for
> counterexamples see semirural areas like those surrounding the
Research
> Triangle in North Carolina. The key is not to be commuting into a
city
> like Boston or San Francisco.
---Actually, not. Let's use some real data:
Average commute, Wake County (a "semirural" area): 22.7 minutes.
Average commute, Cuyahoga County (an urban area): 22.3 minutes.
Average commute, Salt Lake County (an urban area of high density,
and yes, that is true): 19.8 minutes.
Or you could move to Silicon Valley and watch your
commute rise by ... 90 seconds.
Live in the O.C. and it goes up again by another
ninety seconds.
Go for Fort Lauderdale for an additional 42 seconds.
Manhattan dwellers have an additional seven minutes.
Source:
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T050.htm
It appears that your hypothesis is not correct, but
that's obvious, I think, to anyone who has commuted
in the various areas.
> >But I don't think lack of space is a problem: Assume,
over-generously,
> >an acre (4000 m^2) per household: 2 billion households would be 8e12
> >m^2, or 8e6 square kilometers, vs. a land area of about 148e6 km^2.
We'd
> >all fit in the US, or Canada, or half of Russia.
>
> Thought experiment: pick out ten random locations in the United
> States and decide how many of them would be places you would
voluntarily
> move to (assuming you're reasonably happy where you are now). Granted
> that application of enough water, energy, and cheap Mexican labor can
> make the deserts bloom, but it's hard to imagine, say, too many more
> Phoenixes being built without outstripping the freshwater supply of
the
> American Southwest (OK, maybe with enough nuclear-powered
desalination
> plants on the California coast...)
---This doesn't seem to be true either. You could,
in fact, quadruple the population of the southwest
without straining the freshwater supplies.
For California alone:
On the other hand, you would have to stop subsidizing
desert agriculture that probably shouldn't be there in
the first place. You knew that, right? The rural-
urban conflict over water is hard to ignore in those
states.
> >Doesn't have to be that crowded. As for stress, how much does good
> >soundproofing cost?
>
> For an apartment dweller, more than they can possibly afford.
---I hate to say this, but this is a snarky ans-
wer that makes no sense.
I live in Cambridge. I've never been bothered by
the noise.
Mileage may vary. Right now, for example, I can
hear dim traffic noise. On the other hand, I can
also stroll right outside and find multiple bars
from which I can stumble home without getting in
my car, meet thousands of people whom I do not
yet know, and great music places that will sur-
prise me.
On the other hand, I'd find Manhattan less stress-
ful still, and I like San Francisco more than either.
Stressful, then, is in the eye of the beholder.
Best,
Noel
Noel
This is beginning to get silly. Some people find cities
stressful because of the poeple. Some people find
small towns and rural areas stressful because of the
isolation.
Your first sentence and your second don't logically
follow in the slightest.
Noel
James Nicoll
Noel <mau...@itam.mx> wrote:
>You're joking, right?
>
>This is beginning to get silly. Some people find cities
>stressful because of the poeple. Some people find
>small towns and rural areas stressful because of the
>isolation.
Actually (anyone else here grow up on a farm?) you
can get both isolation -and- the living in each other's
pockets effect on a farm. After all, other people may
be one of the main sources of entertainment, out in
the Land Beyond Cable [1]. There's nothing quite like
hearing the ring for your phone, picking it up and
hearing the breathing of all the neighbors eavesdropping
on the call [2].
You also get the benefit of health and safety stats that
are so appalling as to justify treating them seperately from the
rest of industry, lest they drag the average down. If you live on
a farm, try not to suffer any injury that will kill you in less
than 30 minutes.
1: I guess satellite TV is popular on farms.
2: Do I have to explain what a party line is?
James Nicoll
Assuming we are not talking about some utopian setting where all
meat is human but something not dissimilar to now (10^10ish people), I
disagree. To be exact, while I expect most people _will_ choose to live
in cities because cities are the best places to live, I take exception
to your description of cities.
A fast BOTEC says that if we confine humans to land and throw
away 90% of the land as unsuitable for human habitation*, we still have
about 1200 m^2 per person, without getting into fancy techniques like
"second stories". Assuming a family of five can pool their area, that's
a lot about 78 m on a side, which isn't that intolerable even for sub-
urbanites.
James Nicoll
* But not for other uses.
William P. Baird
> I hesitate to cry bullshit until I hear the argument underpinning
this
> statement, but I'm not hopeful.
Don't get your hopes up. I'll summarize his 12 points this afternoon
at lunch when I have time.
> I assume it's all about resource depletion, especially of oil, with a
> healthy dash of environmental degradation thrown in? If so, then
yes,
> it's BS.
Not so much the oil, but everything else, yes. Environmental
degradation and resource depletion. Esp in the hardrock mining sector,
actually.
> (Which is not to say that the Third World necessarily ever
> will reach current First World living standards. Nor either to say
> that resource depletion, etc., aren't real and serious problems.
> Separate questions.)
Understood.
However, one of the things that urks me about the book is that he is
very dismissive of new technologies. His stance is that new tech
doesn't solve anything. I have my doubts about that. It might not
be a cure-all, but after reading a bit about London's killer smog
in the 19th century I have to wonder a bit if his dismissiveness is
completely wrong. Additionally, to go down the hole he really beats
on of hardrock mining for metal, phytoextraction looks to be
very, very interesting in the next 10 years, frex. Test plots are
cropping up and there seems to be actually two nickel phytomines
underway. It's not to say that it doesn't cause its /own/ issues,
but its an example of tech that changes the question and consequences.
Will
> Doug M.
Lady Chatterly
Noel <mau...@itam.mx> wrote:
>
>You're joking, right?
>
>This is beginning to get silly. Some people find cities
>stressful because of the poeple. Some people find
>small towns and rural areas stressful because of the
>isolation.
I'm sure you'll get your chance to make fun of me. Someday. When you
do, try to be creative, mmmkay?
>Your first sentence and your second don't logically
>follow in the slightest.
Careful. You're disagreeing with our resident kook.
--
Lady Chatterly
"At the risk of being the object of auk's ridicule, I don't think it
is a bot. It's made a few mistakes. I think it's someone *pretending
to be* a bot." -- Dr. Zen
Jon Leech
Noel <mau...@itam.mx> wrote:
>It appears that your hypothesis is not correct, but
>that's obvious, I think, to anyone who has commuted
>in the various areas.
People in Silicon Valley do not live in semirural areas. They live
in apartments or small condos or 50 year old, crumbling Eichlers and
have shorter commutes, rather than driving up 101 from Gilroy, over the
Altamont Pass, or one of the other routes into the area used by people
who have bigger houses and much longer commutes. Likewise Manhattan
apartment dwellers live in Manhattan apartments, not big houses near the
Jersey Shore from which they have to take long car/train/bus combos to
get to work in the city. I don't see how your data has any bearing on
what I said.
>I live in Cambridge. I've never been bothered by the noise.
Happy day for you. I never had any interest in staggering home drunk
from bars, so that wasn't a factor for me in choosing a place to live,
but to each their own.
I live in Mountain View, and I'm bothered by the noise. Mostly from
neighbors, not traffic, but it's all a result of living close together.
I've been to Boston and Manhattan long enough to know I would not ever
want to live there.
Jon
__@/
Doug Hoff
"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ctlpim$ohq$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> 1: I guess satellite TV is popular on farms.
Oh, yeah. I recall the pre-digital sattelite dishes, the size of
kiddie-pools, sprouting up all over the landscape in rural areas. I mean, a
lot of these people are not only beyond the reach of cable, but beyond that
of standard broadcast TV. They got the unscrambled, commercial free (IIRC -
or at least fewer commercials) signals that the networks sent to the local
affiliates. My recollection is that they cost $7-10k. Now I think most
network sattelite broadcasts are scrambled.
>
> 2: Do I have to explain what a party line is?
Nope. My grandparents had one - in the inner suburb where they lived. I
annoyed a number of people by picking up and starting dialing without first
listening to see if someone else was on the line.
And speaking of rural phone service:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/31/first.phone.ap/index.html
I wonder if anyone looked into whether it would have been cheaper to (1)
plunk a cell-tower down there; and (2) provide subsidized cell service to
every inhabitant.
Coyu
> I live in Mountain View, and I'm bothered by the noise. Mostly
from
> neighbors, not traffic, but it's all a result of living close
together.
> I've been to Boston and Manhattan long enough to know I would not
ever
> want to live there.
[shrug] I grew up on the edge of the North Woods. Green Bay was
the major metropolis, and that was a drive. The countryside was
160-acre family farms and swamp, which works out to 20-30 people
per square mile. Desolate and boring and everyone lived in
everyone else's pockets. Ever read _Babbitt_? Babbitt was
cosmopolitan in comparison. Incidentally, Wisconsinners drink
more than the Scots; there's a bar in every crossroads town of
more than 25, and a single-digit percentage of Wisconsin's
population works in bars or taverns. There's really not much
else to do, and even less in the winter.
I think you have a very romantic view of low population density.
Thank goodness for public radio, which occasionally reminded me
there was a world that extended beyond Lambeau Field.
Noel
Jon, you are being very cranky. The point, which you
seem to have missed is that people have different
tastes, not that Boston is quiet. How you missed this
point is beyond me.
The other point, which you also seem to have missed,
is that commutes are little better in the Raleigh metropoli-
tan area than in other, larger cities. God only know what
you mean by semi-rural, but you're not making it clear
that you know what you mean either. I like the fact-free
arguments, which you can, in fact, check by going to
the website I linked to and checking commute times
in the New York exurbs.
Ironically enough, I lived in Mountain View. Whisman
Road and then, a few years later, Higdon Court. I can
say with some certainty that Higdon Court was noisier
than my neighborhood in Cambridge, what with the
fellow who practiced his tuba at 3am, the cars that
go boom cruising California Street and Shoreline
Boulevard, and the stray cats in heat.
But like I said, mileage varies. I lived in the lousiest
part of a not-very-lousy burb.
Best,
Noel
Damien R. Sullivan
>Jon Leech wrote:
>
>> Thought experiment: pick out ten random locations in the United
>> States and decide how many of them would be places you would voluntarily
>> move to (assuming you're reasonably happy where you are now).
The question seem ill-posed. What's the sample space? Throwing darts at a
map? Selecting names of towns from a list? Selecting towns above a certain
size?
>? That's not very useful. Would I live in the middle of Montana?
I wouldn't -- not Montana as it is now. If lots of other people were living
there in a nice city, then yeah.
[ freshwater supply problems ]
Most water usage in the US goes to agriculture, followed by industry.
Residential usage isn't that big a deal, or wouldn't be given sane pricing.
Mining the aquifers beneath the Great Plains isn't sustainable, no, but I
wasn't suggesting the whole population of the world really be fit into the US
at one household per acre; I was just showing that living room is not the
problem.
>> >Doesn't have to be that crowded. As for stress, how much does good
>> >soundproofing cost?
>>
>> For an apartment dweller, more than they can possibly afford.
Really? I've never seen numbers. I'd also imagine that soundproofing an
existing apartment vs. building an apartment building for sonic isolation
would two separate issues.
>Further: you've got a fallacy of the excluded middle setup here. Yet
>city vs. rural is hardly an either/or. We may end up covering the land
>area of the planet with several million square kilometers of suburb.
Though for some of us, suburb is the worst of both worlds. :)
Well, I'd probably pick suburb over rural. Not that I've lived rural, but,
ack. But I think I've seen people say that with suburb you're not really
Close to Nature, if that's what floats your boat. Not counting invading deer.
That article on phone service coming to a town in Louisiana was interesting.
Highlights the infrastructure costs of being spread out. Someone on rasfw --
Stirling, maybe? -- pointed out that given a population crash people wouldn't
spread out, they'd clump together, because they'd be collectively poorer and
couldn't afford to be spread out.
-xx- Damien X-)
Dave
a low percentage of folks that prefer rural life.
IMO there are several factors that make urban life very uncomfortable for at
least some of the rural population.
#1) Rural Lifestyle versus access to Urban Conveniences.
For people that enjoy racing dirt bikes/four wheelers, the cities aren't
exactly accommodating. Fishing, hunting, canoeing, and rafting aren't
activities that can be pursued with much frequency when you live in a city.
Gardens become impractical unless you are independently wealthy. Bird
watching in a city consists of counting the variety of vermin on wings. Less
important to everyday life are the intangibles; Waking up and smelling the
smell of pines and looking over an empty landscape or the ability to have
absolute quiet when you have a headache. The ability to walk into a forest
and be alone without the feeling of confinement that an appartment gives.
Many of the activities that make up a rural lifestyle aren't easy to sustain
in an urban environment. For people that enjoy the rural life, the city
isn't comfortable.
#2) Easy Anonymity versus Ever-Present Community
In the urban setting most of the people you see are non-entities that you
filter out. They do the same. For people from rural areas that can be
exhilarating or unsettling. The first time I went to a city and had someone
erect their middle finger in my direction (because I was driving the speed
limit on a crowded road) it was spooky. The experience was unusual because I
realized the other driver knew they would never see me again and could
behave in _any way_ that was short of involving the police. This illicits a
certain sense of insecurity.
#3) The pace of urban life versus the lack of opportunity of rural life. In
urban settings life moves at a pace that isn't conducive to much reflection.
For the _average_ urbanite you have to work at a frenetic pace to enjoy the
ideal lifestyle. In rural areas there are less places and ways to spend
money. This is compensated by excesses of free time. This allows people to
put more time into community activities in churches, organizations, and
their families(If you prefer sipping mocha lattes at Starbucks and
discussing Contract Curves this usually isn't for you).
Of course none of this is universal but it is a general outline of the
continuum between urban and rural. For most people adapting to urban life is
a fair trade for a higher income and greater conveniences. For a minority it
isn't.
David Kohlhoff
OBFWI:
Will psychology and economics ever be joined to determine the psychological
effects of economic phenomenon?
Andrew Gray
>
> That article on phone service coming to a town in Louisiana was interesting.
> Highlights the infrastructure costs of being spread out. Someone on rasfw --
> Stirling, maybe? -- pointed out that given a population crash people wouldn't
> spread out, they'd clump together, because they'd be collectively poorer and
> couldn't afford to be spread out.
Possibly to an extent... but how poor can you get before having to
spread out again? Subsistence farming is pretty poor, and virtually
requires having to be spread out to some degree.
--
-Andrew Gray
andre...@dunelm.org.uk
Alistair Davidson
> Ok. I finished it. It was interesting. It saved its
> preachiness for the end. It wasnt too bad. There's one
> quote, a long one, that I'd love to see the group's comments
> on.
>
> "People in the Third World aspire to First World living standards.
> They develop that aspiration through watching television, seeing
> advertisements for First World consumer products sold in their
> countries, and observing First World visitors to their countries.
> Even in remote villages and refugee camps today, people know about
> the outside world. Third World citizens are encouraged in that
> aspiration by First World and United Nations Development agencies,
> which hold out to them the prospect of achieving their dram if they
> will only adopt the right policies, like balancing their national
> budgets, investing in education and infrastructure, and so on.
>
> acknowledge the dream's impossibility: the unsustainability of a
> world in which the Third World's large population were to reach
>
> Chapter 16
> The World as a Polder: What does It All Mean to Us Today
> Pgs 495 to 496
>
> BS or not?
IMO there are enough resources for a reaonable standard of living for
all. With better energy/fuel efficiency and more sustainable forms of
production, a standard of living similar to that in the first world ATM
should be achievable globally. I don't think everyone can have an SUV,
but everyone can have a small car or moped or something, especially if
they're electic/fuel cell* powered.
That said, the poor standard of living in the third world (and in the
poor parts of first world countries) is a matter of wealth distribution
more than the absolute amount of wealth in the world, so IMHO to create
first world standards of living for all would take a political-economic
shift that I wouldn't expect to see for many years if ever.
* Yes I'm aware of the problems with fuel cells. This is a.h.FUTURE ;) I
know a guy who's working on more efficient ways of splitting water, in
his spare time no less... it's to make him fell better because the
company he works for has him in the nuclear department instead of
renewables like he asked for.
--
Alistair Davidson
"the greatest total idiot that there is on God's Earth" - General Tommy
Franks on Paul Wolfowitz
remove the bringer of doom from my email to send stuff...
Alistair Davidson
>
> Thought experiment: pick out ten random locations in the United
> States and decide how many of them would be places you would voluntarily
> move to (assuming you're reasonably happy where you are now). Granted
> that application of enough water, energy, and cheap Mexican labor can
> make the deserts bloom, but it's hard to imagine, say, too many more
> Phoenixes being built without outstripping the freshwater supply of the
> American Southwest (OK, maybe with enough nuclear-powered desalination
> plants on the California coast...)
They already import water from as far away as canada for places like
Phoenix, according to my canadian gf.
Damien R. Sullivan
Not necessarily at the individual level. Is the Midwest/Plains pattern of one
farmhouse every 4 miles at all historically normal, actually? The other rural
model is of everyone living in villages and going out to the fields
surrounding the village. The villages are spread out, but each actual village
is clumped up. I'm imagining, not that I've been in many villages. But
people like to be near each other, and the water supply, and maybe compact for
defense if they can even think of that, and if a post-apocalyptic society can
squeeze out some utilities, they wouldn't want to waste wire, cable, or pipe
in connecting houses.
-xx- Damien X-)
Bernard Guerrero
Bernard Guerrero
Bernard "Farmboy" Guerrero
Damien R. Sullivan
>> "But no one at the U.N. or First World governments is willing to
>> acknowledge the dream's impossibility: the unsustainability of a
>> world in which the Third World's large population were to reach
>> and maintain current First World living standards."
>IMO there are enough resources for a reaonable standard of living for
>all. With better energy/fuel efficiency and more sustainable forms of
Yeah.
Summary:
First World World is 10 billion people, using 1% of solar insolation, and
possibly 1/4 of the renewable freshwater supply. Caveats regard energy
storage and distribution; water collection and distribution; and whether the
"renewable supply" numbers I used were too high. "The physics is willing, but
the technology [or infrastructure] is weak."
Details (lots of numbers, and sources):
USA usages of energy and water: 10 kilowatts, and 1950 m^3 per person year.
The latter number comes from
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/
Total usage per US person: 1950 m^3/year. Half of that is thermoelectric
cooling; irrigation is 65% of the remainder. 15% of the total is saline, used
mostly for cooling. Says how much land is used by different irrigation
systems, but not how much water. Does withdrawing water really count as
"using it up"? Mu. Though there is a move toward closed-loop rather than
once-through systems.
I'd expected a number closer to 1000; I think most people don't include power
cooling, just agriculture/industry/domestic usages. Of those agriculture
dominates; I think Israel's usage is reported at 500 m^3 /person due to better
irrigation.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_usa_per_per
says US uses 8.35 tonnes of oil equivalent per person year; 4e7 joules per
tonne, 10 kilowatts.
So. A stable world population of 1e10 people at US standards would want 1e14
watts and 2e13 m^3 of water a year. The US is considered wasteful by some,
but Italy is more than 1/3 of US energy usage and is 18th on the list, so
there's not that much fudge room there. Transportation is a big chunk of US
usage, but that's like 1/3, not 90%; SUVs can't take that much blame.
Insolation is about 1e16 watts, though, so decent solar, or 100,000 breeder
reactors, should take care of us, if we can figure out how to distribute the
energy.
Water is tighter:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_wat_ava&int=-1
seems to say there's 6.68e3 m^3 of renewable freshwater per person per year,
and that's with current populations. At 1e10 people that drops to 4e3 m^3 per
person. Even if we handwave powerplant cooling away in the name of "doesn't
count, can use saline, solar doesn't need cooling" that still would have us
using 1/4 of the water supply -- doable, but we really are taking over a large
chunk of the ecosystem, and moving it around (people don't always live where
the rain falls.) If we all farm like Israel, then 1/8th of the supply.
Caveat:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/freshwater_supply/freshwater.html
says we're already using 30% of the *accessible* renewal water supply.
Desalination:
Say we wanted 5e12 m^3 (not counting cooling water, high efficiency of use.)
5e15 kilograms.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309091578/html/28.html
gives 7.56e3 J/kg with "state of the art" reverse osmosis. So aboue 4e19
Joules... per year, adding about 2% to the energy requirements. 4% at US
usage levels. Huh, I thought it was more expensive than that.
Oh, googled on Israel.
http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Water_facts
gives Israel using about 360 m^3/person. I don't know if that includes power
plants. Probably not; "60% of freshwater goes to agriculture."
>should be achievable globally. I don't think everyone can have an SUV,
>but everyone can have a small car or moped or something, especially if
>they're electic/fuel cell* powered.
Hey, if we could make synthetic oil from atmospheric CO2, we could run all the
SUVs we wanted.
-xx- Damien X-)
Alfred Montestruc
William P. Baird wrote:
> Ok. I finished it. It was interesting. It saved its
> preachiness for the end. It wasnt too bad. There's one
> quote, a long one, that I'd love to see the group's comments
> on.
>
> "People in the Third World aspire to First World living standards.
> They develop that aspiration through watching television, seeing
> advertisements for First World consumer products sold in their
> countries, and observing First World visitors to their countries.
> Even in remote villages and refugee camps today, people know about
> the outside world. Third World citizens are encouraged in that
> aspiration by First World and United Nations Development agencies,
> which hold out to them the prospect of achieving their dram if they
> will only adopt the right policies, like balancing their national
> budgets, investing in education and infrastructure, and so on.
>
> acknowledge the dream's impossibility:
----------this is BS
>the unsustainability of a
> world in which the Third World's large population were to reach
> and maintain current First World living standards."
------------this is BS
It cannot be done the same way older western high technology societies
developed, but the technology to produce the required power and other
resources exists and can and is being brought to market.
We cannot sustain an infinite population at any level of technology,
but current population or any small multiple of that can be with
existing or near term technology given time to develop the
infrastructure. That is with long term sustainable tehnology.
thetitan...@gmail.com
depends on what you're doing job-wise. Also, in "city life", there is
nothing stopping people from spending time with their families,
churches, or other organizations (though more city dwellers are
irreligious, that only takes out one of the three).
thetitan...@gmail.com
all the
>SUVs we wanted.
Not really. Making CO2 into oil takes a (most likely considerably)
larger amount of energy than we'd get back from it. It is more like an
inefficient battery than a power source, and if transportation costs a
third of our current energy, it would increase overall power
consumption by a bit. Not to mention most likely the process will
involve freshwater.
Also - does Isreal provide enough food by itself to feed its
population, or do they have to import food?
Alfred Montestruc
thetitan...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Hey, if we could make synthetic oil from atmospheric CO2, we could
run
> all the
> >SUVs we wanted.
>
> Not really. Making CO2 into oil takes a (most likely considerably)
> larger amount of energy than we'd get back from it. It is more like
an
> inefficient battery than a power source, and if transportation costs
a
> third of our current energy, it would increase overall power
> consumption by a bit. Not to mention most likely the process will
> involve freshwater.
The natural process ususally uses seawater, or brine, but that takes
millions of years and conversion of CO2 into plant matter (at least)
first.
Damien R. Sullivan
>>Hey, if we could make synthetic oil from atmospheric CO2, we could run
>all the
>>SUVs we wanted.
>
>Not really. Making CO2 into oil takes a (most likely considerably)
>larger amount of energy than we'd get back from it. It is more like an
>inefficient battery than a power source, and if transportation costs a
I *know* that. The same is true of hydrogen. There are no plausible
sustainable power sources at the car level. But synthetic oil wouldn't
require redoing all the infrastructure.
>Also - does Isreal provide enough food by itself to feed its
>population, or do they have to import food?
http://www.negev.org/About/need.htm
says Israel produces 85% of its food.
Ah, but this may be better
http://www.negev.org/Mission/annual_report.htm
produces 85% of what it consumes, but exports 62% of what it produces.
"Imports more than offset by exports." So I think it can feed itself.
Why?
-xx- Damien X-)