So sand shortages, and water shortages are not a thing?
We have better solutions already, getting people to use then when they can abuse the situation for short term profit is the hard bit.
And ironically, if you intend to abuse the system for short term profit, one of your best moves is to claim the problem is not solvable (though only once claiming it's not happening stops working).
I'd say it's a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. They're definitely are physical limits to those things, and they are definitely subject to unpriced externalities at present. I think the water shortages in South Africa are a good case study where the public reacted to avert a crisis once they were made acutely aware that a crisis was imminent if they didn't act. People just take water for granted, until they no longer can. But in saying that there is almost certainly a point at which things just can't keep up, or the alternative cannot be procured/switched to in a short enough time to avoid the disaster. I see it less as a problem of pure physical limits and more as a problem in control theory.
The earth has 149mil sq km of land area so those suburbs would take up about 1.7% of the land. If you subtract out antarctica (14 mil sq km), siberia (13 mil sq km) and 3/4 of canada (7 mil sq km), the sahara desert (9mil sq km)... you're still left with about 106 mil sq km so we're using about 1.8% of the land.
Density isn't evenly distributed you say? Well, let's look at only china then... Some 1.4 bil people in 9.6mil sq km. Everyone living on in 500 sq m lots means 350,000 sq km, or about 5% of the land. Lots of western china is too inhospitable you say? Fine, subtract out Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xining (forget the fact that 60mil+ people live there). That's half of china's land area! You're still left with around 4.860 mil sq km. So everyone's suburban lots would fit in about 7% of the land.
My point here is that the earth is not really as crowded as many people seem to believe. It only seems crowded if you spend the majority of your life in or near dense urban areas. Which most people do these days. So most see it that way. There are still vast tracts of nearly uninhabited land and even vaster expanses of sparsely inhabited land. Sure, these are typically not the really nice bits of the earth (from a human perspective), but we do have central heating and A/C now, right? :-)
We should be aiming to design houses so that minimal HVAC is necessary to maintain comfortable conditions, not building ramshackle houses in the desert and patching the inefficiencies with massively energy-consuming devices.
The broader point I'm trying to make is that we should be aiming for effective improvements in living standards - and there are two components in effectiveness, correct orientation and efficiency. American suburbs are pretty backwards in terms of cost/benefit: they're expensive to maintain infrastructure-wise, they isolate people from each other, and you have to drive for an hour to get to anything leading to even more expensive car-centric infrastructure. We should be aiming to fulfil human needs on a planetary scale, which means efficient use of resources.
I'd rather push for population control. I don't want to live in a world where humans have to live like insects, crammed into giant hive cities.
> However, if we're a little more clever with how we allocate and share our resources, we can scale up standards of living in a sustainable way - urban transit and a fleet of automated electric taxis, community pools, zero energy building techniques and mixed developments, and so on. This just requires that we head back in the direction of sharing things (social democracy) and away from economic individualism (neoliberalism).
I'd rather use cleverness to sustain our quality of life with smaller populations. If we had your sci fi utopia, we could have a population of 1 million total humans, each living like a king. I don't understand why you want to use sci fi magic just to have everyone live like an ant in a box
Not only is population control completely unnecessary, but it requires either mass murder or forced sterilisation. I would prefer that we not do either of those things.
As standards of living increase, population growth also naturally shrinks to even or below-even maintenance rates; so if you're worried about a future with 100 billion humans crammed into Hong Kong style bed cages, your best bet is to try to improve living standards around the world.
By whose definition? Living in a city is not a great quality of life for me. I've done it and hated it compared to living in a suburb.
> Not only is population control completely unnecessary, but it requires either mass murder or forced sterilisation. I would prefer that we not do either of those things.
Educated people have way fewer children than poor and uneducated people. Not to mention placing a cap on immigration, etc. Your argument is reductivist and leaves out a lot of valid ways to reduce populations.
Number of children is tied to economic status, not education - "poor and uneducated" should just be "poor". That's exactly what I said. A cap on immigration doesn't change the population - but with all your arguments put together, it certainly gives me a vibe of what you actually want.
have you lived in the US? there are lots of different kinds of suburbs. my suburbs have shops
> I have to drive long distances to get to the nearest economic hub because it was plonked down in the middle of nowhere
long distances is relative so I can't comment here.
> I want walkable human-friendly environments with a mix of high- and low-density accomodation to suit people's preferences.
I want low-density accommodations. I want everybody to have acres of land and I want to go days without seeing other people.
> A cap on immigration doesn't change the population
Take Japan, or any other country with negative rate of change in population. Without immigrants, how do you imagine their population will change?
> it certainly gives me a vibe of what you actually want.
Why so cryptic? I'll tell you what I want so you don't make some weird assumptions. I want to live in a world where people have the option to live with acres and acres of land. I want to be a hermit so I never have to see other human beings unless I have to go into town to buy groceries. People who enjoy cities should go ahead and live there if they want, but in your hive world, there are no countrysides or suburbs left, just sprawling concrete scars on the landscape where people go to rooftop mini-parks and think they're experiencing nature
Well, good - that's not the type of suburb I was taking issue with, as I would hope was apparent.
> I want low-density accommodations. I want everybody to have acres of land and I want to go days without seeing other people.
That's not possible. If everybody were to live in that kind of isolation, nothing would get done.
> Take Japan, or any other country with negative rate of change in population. Without immigrants, how do you imagine their population will change?
That doesn't change the population level globally. It's just shifting people between borders.
> Why so cryptic?
Because its just an impression and people tend to take suggestions that they have eco-fascist inclinations pretty badly. Talking about population control and low-education immigrants isn't definitive but it certainly smells bad.
> I want to be a hermit so I never have to see other human beings unless I have to go into town to buy groceries
I'm not against that, if it can be done in such a way where everybody gets what they want. I'm only really against hording of resources to the detriment of others.
> but in your hive world, there are no countrysides or suburbs left, just sprawling concrete scars on the landscape where people go to rooftop mini-parks and think they're experiencing nature
Nice 40k reference, but you have a strange impression of what I've said. I want a world where people's personal preferences are maximised, which includes living arrangements; we just have to do it sustainably so the biosphere doesn't collapse. I love nature too, see - I live just on the edge of the countryside myself.
If you want unbounded human population growth and unbounded immigration, that smells pretty bad, just not to you.
> I'm not against that, if it can be done in such a way where everybody gets what they want. I'm only really against hording of resources to the detriment of others
Then this is the closest point we have to common ground. I don't want to force anyone to live in the countryside, and in fact I would rather nobody did so I could live there alone, but I want people to have the option to, just like you want people to have the option to live in cities. However there's a limit to how much livable space we have and that means we can't just keep expanding cities forever. We do differ though on our view of property, it seems. Where you seem to view resources as inherently collective, I see property as a human right and reject the premise that we should take from those with plenty just because others have little. I'm all for taxes though,
> we just have to do it sustainably so the biosphere doesn't collapse.
IMO, that inherently means keeping urban development and population growth contained. I think the evidence speaks for itself: just look at how many animal species have died, how many biospheres have already collapsed, how much pollution and other climate damage has been done, just in the past century, when many countries were still developing and the population was much smaller. Now you're suggesting that with the current population continuing to grow freely, and urban development continuing freely, we'll somehow manage to both ensure everyone can live according to their preferred lifestyle and preserve nature? Sorry, but I think that's fantastically utopian. At the end of the day there's nothing I can do about it, but I do wish we were heading a different direction.
Car traffic and road maintenance are limiting factors here, but I don't see any reason why the private air conditioning and even heating a pool (the space for a private pool, on the other hand is a traffic generator) would be limited by energy availability.
Way too many people live in places where the environment temperatures are outside of the survivable range, or in places that get so hot, it's hard to do anything (often even at night). You just can't fight those by designing you building differently. You can improve the situation a little bit, but not enough.
Qanats seem like 'aliens did it' level of technological sophistication from my limited understanding of when and how they were built, but I guess that's more due to my lack of understanding than genuine alien influence.
But are there experts out there that know how they actually built them, and how would they rank qanats vs pyramids or great cathedrals? Like how many lifetimes were needed to plan and execute them?
Basically, everything that makes them so damn inhospitable also makes it easy to manage the temperature of a building.
You will have a much harder time on any other place.