Andy wrote, regarding the logical extreme of having everyone in the county living in one very large building: >1) It would allow for amazing efficiency of getting around because >walking or taking any public transit would be quick. But imagine trying >to get 100,000 people around at 9am or 5pm in an extremely dense >scenario! It just wouldn't happen.
Are you expecting traffic gridlock in the stairwells? >2) Given how many people travel, even if just a few hundred miles for a >short vacation or to visit family occasionally, most everyone will >always want to own a car. Obviously even 20,000 cars would require some >amazing parking system and take us vast amounts of space also. I expect a future with far fewer cars. Since many of us won't be able to afford to buy or use them, intercity transport is likely to be based primarily on public transit options, especially rail. >3) Your scenario would make most everyone poor. Jobs like car >sales-people, landscapers, and road workers, would shrink to almost >nothing. Most other jobs, especially for small businesses, would be >taken over by large ones. I imagine Walmart would buy a floor (or many) >in this building and any small store would have little chance of >competition when Walmart is closer and cheaper. [Maybe #3 is a good >thing if it made population lower though, if my assumption of less jobs >= less money = less likely to have more children is correct] Most of us probably will have less money in the future, but that does not necessarily mean a lower quality of life. There will be a lot more jobs in food production. While they are not apt to be high-paying, they are uniquely satisfying in that they connect us on a basic level to the ecosystem of which we are a part. It is an open question whether big boxes will survive in a high energy cost environment. The benefits of scale largely disappear with increased shipping costs. I'm sure there will be exceptions. We shipped bananas and grain using wind before the cheap energy era. I myself wonder about the fewer children issue. People have fewer children when they do not have to rely on them to support them in their old age and when machines can substitute for their labor in food production. Increasing income and education also results in fewer children. Reverse those trends and you may get more kids instead of fewer. There are tons of studies about this. Google "demographic transition" for a taste. >Better than building one building to hold the county, what if the >population went from 100,000 to 10,000 and lived a bit more communally. >Eventually the world population will go from around 7 billion down to ~1 >billion because we just don't have the resources to support this many >consumers. If the population drops to 10,000, it will most likely be due to starvation or disease. I hope it doesn't come to that. Joel >_______________________________________________ >For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, >please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ > >RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: >[email protected] >http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins >free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
