Recent searches
Search options
@jaystephens @CelloMomOnCars @jackofalltrades
Maybe, but a lot of bigger cities will fall apart. It takes a lot of energy to keep a skyscraper functioning, for example. And the bigger the city, the further things have to come, which requires energy.
@cian @jaystephens @CelloMomOnCars
It sounds counterintuitive, that urban areas are much cheaper energy wise than rural areas, that is. How do you know this? Where can I read more about it?
Perhaps it is not a matter of efficiency, but of logistics. Rural areas can sustain themselves using the land they occupy. In contract, cities fall apart without a constant stream of resources flowing into them from the outside. They can only get so dense strictly because they are parasitic on rural areas.
@jackofalltrades @jaystephens @CelloMomOnCars
Well at the most extreme rural areas are cheaper. Just look at Africa. It's hard to beat self-sufficient peasant farmers (even if that's not a life anyone should aspire too).
At the other extreme if rural life is US life, well yes that's grotesquely inefficient. But that's largely due to cultural issues. The car has made forms of life that would seem insane 100 years ago possible.
And its the same for cities. They can be made pretty efficient, so long as they don't get too big, don't have skyscrapers, are built around good enough public transport, incorporate some form of urban gardening and you can solve the logistical problems.
If you know of any US cities that look like that, let me know. New York? I'm a little skeptical. Houston? Atlanta? Not a chance.