• BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, im good on suburbia, it’s inherently damaging to both our mental health and the natural ecosystems of the planet. You cannot have a sustainable single family suburb.

    • rexxit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ok, well surely you recognize that there are lots of people who agree with me - who feel single family homes are nice and living elbow to elbow with your neighbors in maximum density is not in any way desirable.

      Unfortunately, ultra-urbanist zealots are very loud online. I suspect many of them will change their tunes with age.

      Edit: what’s damaging to the ecosystems of our planet is PEOPLE! There’s no law of nature that states a suburban density isn’t sustainable, just that it’s unsustainable for 8b people. You’re proposing eco-austerity because human population is out of control

        • rexxit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let the population contract to <<1b as it was for thousands of years of civilization before industrial agriculture caused a very recent explosion in population the past 2 centuries (predominantly the 20th century)

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s…not a thing

            Like literally absurd to even consider as a physical possibility.

            How exactly is the population supposed to contract?

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Under 1 billion is unrealistic but some contraction will happen. The main factor dictating how many children people will have is infant mortality of the previous one or two generations as well as the existence of pension systems.

              …which is the reason why developed countries have birth rates below replacement level and with increased wealth elsewhere it’s also going to happen there, which would mean contraction everywhere. I don’t expect that to keep up forever, however, states will get their shit together and set incentive structures (in particular making having kids affordable) long before we’re contracting to one billion.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Developing countries are not anywhere close to that happening. Their populations are still booming.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes. The likely turning point, according to the UN, is around 11bn in 2100, then declining. Plus or minus a billion or two and a couple of decades.

                  Which is btw nowhere close to the earth’ carrying capacity though that’s highly variable in the first place. It’s probably not a good idea to pine for a population increase past that point and leave some room for other species. And no matter how many we are it’s a good idea to minimise ecological impact. Why do people want fresh strawberries in winter anyway those transportation-stable strains taste like water. If you want strawberries in winter eat jam.

                  Also note that this overshoot is happening precisely because developing countries are, well, developing: Their fertility rates still stick to the old child mortality rates but the actual rates are lower so you get a population spike. Keep that up a generation or two and they plateau, then fall as people don’t require kids to provide for them in old age and also are barely affording rent with dual income from three jobs each so they definitely can’t afford a kid. Oh wait that was the US in particular. But yes that’s exactly what you want to avoid to halt contraction.

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s great and all but it doesn’t help us with the much more immediate housing and climate crises.

            • rexxit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Education? Contraception? It’s not fucking rocket science. Every developed country in the world is at well below replacement rates. The idea needs to be promoted and not derided or conflated with eugenics (which it emphatically isn’t). Blunting the impact of an aging population is the most difficult problem.

              Edit: the most difficult problem is that capitalism demands perpetual growth, and billionaires and heads of state with a vested interest in growth would never allow the population to shrink without extreme resistance, like pervasive propaganda and outlawing abortion.

                • rexxit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sure, and so will slowing, stopping, and reversing anthropogenic climate change. Should we give up?

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    My point is, it’s on a timescale that it isn’t useful to discuss as a solution to housing issues.

            • rexxit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Where “fascism” is defined as whatever you want it to be, regardless of any reasonable definition. Is renewable energy eco fascism? How about fuckcars? How about forcing densified housing?

              Not fascism? How convenient.

      • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Do you have an example of a sustainable single family suburb that exists currently, or ways in which to offset the inherent inefficiency present in such structures?

        Why is not living in a suburb austerity? Is all of every city and rural population living in austerity?

        • rexxit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Have you ever been to a small city? I can’t find a logical way in which a small city surrounded by undeveloped land would be unsustainable.

          • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you have to drive to the grocery store? Do you have to commute to work? Do you grow monoculture grass lawns? Are the roads winding instead of straight? Do private lawns create circumstances where to get to the nearest store you have to go multiple times the actual distance to get there? These are all ways in which suburbs are unsustainable.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There’s nothing whatsoever wrong with winding roads. Sincerely, a European.

              I’d rather be worried if they’re straight, are built like highways, and have no sidewalks. If they don’t have sidewalks they better be gravel or cobblestone.

              • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not inherently, no, but in suburbs there is. A 2500ft walk to a store can be 4-5 miles because of the winding suburban streets.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Over here there’s tons of small paths that allow you to take much shorter routes on foot or bike. Sometimes official, sometimes the path belongs to a multiple-entries apartment block connected to two streets, or a street and a park, or whatever, in any way you don’t know your surroundings without having explored them.

                  • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I lived in one of the most viable biking cities in America for sometime, and the paths around and through everything were my favorite part. You could get anywhere in that town and only have to cross 1 or 2 roads, because everything else ran over or under the roads and through beautiful creek paths and walking paths cut through residential and commercial areas alike. Even there, suburbia represents a sort of dead end to all the trails, and you have to bike through miles long streets of housing to get back to a path. Thankfully, there’s great bus routes through those areas, so you can usually get to within a few blocks of your destination even in suburbia.

                • rexxit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That’s ludicrous - I don’t know which hedgerow maze you’re navigating to get to the grocery store. 2500ft is half a mile. You cannot make 0.5 miles into 4-5 miles in any reasonable amount of neighborhood streets, and I have never lived somewhere like that in 6 completely different suburbs in different regions/cities.

                  In my suburban neighborhood, the straight line, as-the-crow-flies distance is 0.52 miles. The driven distance is 0.7 miles. Everywhere I’ve ever lived it’s proportionally similar, though not always as close. Anyplace with public transit - even good public transit - would require more distance than walking and WAY more time than driving.

                  Are there just a bunch of people out there living in insaneland (where?!?)? Everywhere I’ve lived is dense city or completely sane suburbia. Are suburbs just an evil caricature of reality in your mind? Is fuckcars just full of people living in some crazy fictional strawman of a suburban hell?

                  • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Many suburbs have a single entrance and exit, so if there’s something behind the suburb near your house, your only choice would be to go all the way to the entrance, then around the entire neighborhood to get to what’s behind it.

                    There’s varying levels of suburban hell, for sure. It seems like more newly built suburbs near me at least think to put walking paths at all angles through the development, which helps mitigate the issues the long, winding roads can cause. I’d prefer not to build more suburbs at all, though.

                • rexxit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Where are you getting this absurd, fictitious distance? I’ve lived in MANY different suburbs and cities. The driven distance is only ever slightly more than the straight line distance. The only consistently true fact is that public transit takes 3-4x as long to go the same places as driving (and I mean in dense urban areas with real transit). It really seems like there’s a strawman that fuckcars participants have in their head for just how bad it is to drive places in less dense areas - I promise it’s not. Or you just need to find one that isn’t shitty AZ/TX/FL new build HOA hell that exists only to enrich a scummy RE developer.

                  • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That doesn’t sound like good transit, however real it is. I can go from where I am to the capital of my state on a regional bus in 50m, it takes 1h10m by car, not including parking time. Busses have their own lane and speed limit, they go significantly faster than the flow of traffic.

                    I live right next to one of the most bike friendly cities in the US, and even there the suburbs are hell compared to the wonderful creek paths and trails present through the rest of the city. Going from walking down a shaded creek path to walking down a scorching concrete jungle is quite a shock, as is suddenly having to figure out which suburban streets dead end and which wrap around and which go through.

                    You’re also missing the point, you shouldn’t have to drive to get to grocery stores, work, or ANY OTHER place that you need to get to regularly, regardless of how shitty or not the drive is.

                    If you can’t get to the store without using a car or walking miles, it’s an unsustainable development, period.

      • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        just that it’s unsustainable for 8b people

        So is your solution global mass genocide just so you can enjoy your sprawling suburbs?

        • rexxit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What part of “naturally contract” implies genocide? I swear, the resistance to understanding is willful.

          • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.worldOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That will take well over a century, if not multiple centuries. We need actual plans for living sustainably now, not hundreds of years in the future.

          • SolarNialamide@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The ‘under 1 billion’ part implies genocide, because that is literally never gonna happen - in a time frame where we wouldn’t have to rethink housing and nature right now and the next few decades - otherwise without a major worldwide catastrophe. Sure, climate change might take care of it (again, decades away and people need housing now, also, these solutions actually help with climate change) but then we won’t have to worry about silly things like housing ever again.

            • rexxit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Or we could promote education, contraception, and contraction of the global population the same way we promote renewable energy - because the ideas are related. Or do you think that there’s no point in trying to fix the problem? Because you clearly don’t seem to hold that opinion about the climate catastrophe, you just refuse to look at population as part of the problem.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        there are lots of people who agree with me - who feel single family homes are nice

        Lots of people believe in “drill baby drill”

        Fuck em.