For a different take on this story line, see an essay that ran in the New
Yorker a few years back, arguing that Manhattan is one of the greenest cities
in the US, because it is one of the higher densities, with a good transit
system. Polemical, but still. One copy of this is at:
http://www.greenbelt.org/downloads/resources/newswire/newswire_11_04GreenManhattan.pdf
>From a planning perspective, higher density settlements with well-mixed land
>uses and with high diversity functions (socio-economic, ethnic, housing stock)
>and a decent transit system (e.g., Manhattan) are thought to have a smaller
>per capita ecological foot print than, say, a sprawling suburban development
>(e.g., Levittown). This is the basis for what some of us call "smart growth".
> (For a bibliography of on-line documents, see:
>http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/Smart_Growth_Reports-biblio.htm, or use
>Wikipedia.)
Cheers,
-
Ashwani
Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137
http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth
At 02:04 PM -0700 4/7/07, Warren W. Aney wrote:
>As I understand the situation, in comparison with smaller population
>centers, large population concentrations have relatively higher
>environmental costs due to in-transportation of such things as food and
>water, out-transportation of waste products and greater concentration of
>water, land and air pollutant loads. Large population centers can also have
>higher intra-urban transportation costs because people actually tend to end
>up living farther from where they work, buy things and socialize. Others
>who are more knowledgeable on this probably have the data to back this up.
>
>And of course we can hope no one is advocating dispersing everyone onto 5.7
>acre hobby farms; that's even more costly in terms of infrastructure support
>and transportation costs as well as land use inefficiencies and losses of
>biodiversity. That would certainly result in a much higher consumption of
>resources per capita compared to persons living in compact communities.
>
>
>Warren Aney
>(503)246-8613
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of patrick
>Sent: Saturday, 07 April, 2007 13:01
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution
>
>
>The population density of the earth is estimated to be 112 people per square
>mile of land surface. That approximates a 500 by 500 foot plot of land per
>person, or 5.7 acres per person (~23 acres for a family of four). If
>families were more evenly distributed across the landscape instead of being
>concentrated within cities (and considering that a significant portion of
>the earth's surface is inhospitable to human colonization, e.g. Himalayan
>peaks, Antarctica, Sahara desert), it seems like there would be even more
>serious resource management issues and conflicts than we have today (e.g. a
>grizzly bear home range is between 10 and 380 square miles), despite the
>assumption that people would be consuming the same quantity of resources per
>capita.
>
>Patrick
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ashwani Vasishth
>Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 12:08 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Equilibrium/Steady State and Complexity/Evolution
>
>At 11:32 PM -0700 4/5/07, Warren W. Aney wrote:
>>First, I would hope to see an economy and population that is stabilized and
>>optimized world wide. One in which wealth and amenities are fairly
>>distributed across urban, suburban and rural communities. Where
>>economically and socially viable communities are well dispersed around the
>>world, and each such community has its own stable economy based on a clean
>>and sustainable industry. And less than half of the world's population
>>lives in metropolitan areas or communities of over 100,000 population.
>
>Yes, that would be a start. Give us this much, and the rest gently follows.
>
>The most recent population projections from the UN, taking account of myriad
>factors such as the changing rates of HIV/AIDS and plummeting fertility
>rates, puts world population at over 9 billion by 2050. That number does
>not go away, no matter what we might think to do in the here and now--short
>of massacre and mayhem. We're just going to have to learn to live with
>that.
>
>And that's not all, folks. There's going to be a surge in consumption rates
>across the board that will effectively double the world's population for all
>practical purposes. That's not going away either. The West has set the
>standard for what it means to be modern, and there's a few billion decent
>human beings out there who hard and want a taste of that as well. Thus my
>allusion to Garrett Hardin's call for a "life boat ethic". Can we say to
>them, we've got it, but you can't have any?
>
>(We tried this back in the 1970s, by the way, we really did. We developed
>biogas plants and solar cookers and alternative technologies galore--read
>Victor Papanek's Design for the Real World, for instance. We didn't have
>the Whole Earth Catalog, but we knew the content of it backward and forward.
>We were deep into this stuff, went out to villages, did demonstration
>projects, presentations, trying to convince folks that we had to grow
>smarter not bigger. And we never made it to first base. They weren't
>having any of that. They knew modern when they saw it in the movies, and
>that's what they wanted. If it was good enough for the West, it was just
>what we ought to have.)
>
>So, populations and consumption are both going to go up. Way up. And we're
>simply going to have to adapt. Because, make no mistake, there's a few
>billion people coming down that pike, and they're going to want their fair
>share of the world. They've been fueled by centuries of propaganda telling
>them the West is the best. And you know what? They've bought it!!! As ye
>sow...
>
>None of this is to say that "anything goes." None of this is to say that we
>do not face a clear imperative to find and actualize proper action. But
>these are the parameters within which change must happen. Almost double the
>population, with some legitimate claim to a better material life--more
>stuff. Now, can we do this smarter? How?
>
>Steady state economics tells me nothing about what I need to be doing, here
>and now, in my every day life, to accommodate this reality. I love the
>imagery of Daly's writing, I buy that he is one very, very astute man. For
>years he was my lode stone. But a manifesto does not a plan make.
>
>Finally, carrying capacity and ecological footprint are evolutionary as
>well. They are not finite numbers enscribed on the walls of some obscure
>cave, waiting to be discovered by seekers after the greater truth. I=PAT is
>only the tip of that particular iceberg. Read Robert Kates, "Population,
>Technology and the Human Environment: A Thread Through Time," in that 1996
>issue of Daedalus I mentioned. Carrying capacity has always been at least
>plastic and perhaps entirely organic. We don't know what the carrying
>capacity of the planet actually is, and we never will. Its constantly being
>renegotiated.
>
>Cheers,
>-
> Ashwani
> Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137
> http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
> http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth
