Or (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-12-08 03:35 (#WZYE) Build fibre out to remote cities, stop the current waste of petrol and other resources used for people to all commute to a central location, build cities outwards and remove the need for more ckyscrapers. We have high speed net now. Do we all need to work in the city? Re: Or (Score: 2, Interesting) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-12-08 14:55 (#X1J7) Building cities outwards necessarily either requires removing farmland or destroying ecosystems, which is far and wide the largest contributor to extinctions. Since a significant goal of lower emissions is to save the environment and all its inhabitants, urban sprawl goes directly against this.Building out fiber to remote areas doesn't help either as jobs continue to demand the worker be there during work hours. Look at what Yahoo did for an example.I'm not saying building up is the answer either, as skyscrapers aren't exactly environmentally friendly either. If the answer were to be to retrofit existing buildings, and the process to build the transparent solar cells was sustainable and economical, then I'm all for it. Unfortunately, we've all heard the spiel before, and yet years have gone by and no one is building buildings with integrated solar windows. I'm not holding my breath that it starts now. Re: Or (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-12-09 13:05 (#X4Y1) Building cities outwards necessarily either requires removing farmland or destroying ecosystems, which is far and wide the largest contributor to extinctions. Since a significant goal of lower emissions is to save the environment and all its inhabitants, urban sprawl goes directly against this.The US population keeps moving south and west... The Southwestern US is not farms or forests (except in small spots), but mostly-empty desert. While there are some endangered species there, it's a very small number. Maybe it's just me, but I can't get myself worked-up that development of thousands of square miles of desert land might eventually endanger a couple bird sub-species. Particularly in the light of so much more damage being caused if that land development was done outside the sparsely populated desert. Several (certainly not all) desert animals do much better in suburbs, anyhow.Besides, whatever may be theoretically best, the economics show sprawl, even with commuting, is still massively more affordable than high-demand city living. People will continue to want to live without neighbors above and below them, and will want decent-sized yards that they don't have to share. Cutting-out the energy wasted by daily commuting is a net-positive result, regardless.Building out fiber to remote areas doesn't help either as jobs continue to demand the worker be there during work hours. Look at what Yahoo did for an example.The fact that Yahoo discontinued telecommuting, is not evidence that telecommuting doesn't work... Your link turns up opinion pieces on both sides, some saying it was a good idea, others saying it was a mistake, and most saying the number of companies who allow telecommuting keeps increasing. For Yahoo, I think it was just a tool to cut employees without as much downside as firings or layoffs. Re: Or (Score: 1) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-12-10 16:59 (#X9DX) I'm not sure I get the distinction between protecting forest ecosystems and desert ecosystems. As someone who lives in the west I can tell you there are lots and lots of plants in the "mostly-empty" desert. Very few parts of the vast expanse between the continental divide in Colorado and the Sierra Nevadas in California are not filled with sage brush, juniper trees, pinyon pines, etc. Just because it's not an old-growth forest doesn't mean it isn't worth protecting. The whole "it's just the desert" mentality is why there are hundreds of threatened, endangered, and critically endangered species in the west. The whole idea of protecting individual animals and plants is that all species play a role in the ecosystem, and taking one species out threatens others in ways that are often unpredictable.
Re: Or (Score: 2, Interesting) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-12-08 14:55 (#X1J7) Building cities outwards necessarily either requires removing farmland or destroying ecosystems, which is far and wide the largest contributor to extinctions. Since a significant goal of lower emissions is to save the environment and all its inhabitants, urban sprawl goes directly against this.Building out fiber to remote areas doesn't help either as jobs continue to demand the worker be there during work hours. Look at what Yahoo did for an example.I'm not saying building up is the answer either, as skyscrapers aren't exactly environmentally friendly either. If the answer were to be to retrofit existing buildings, and the process to build the transparent solar cells was sustainable and economical, then I'm all for it. Unfortunately, we've all heard the spiel before, and yet years have gone by and no one is building buildings with integrated solar windows. I'm not holding my breath that it starts now. Re: Or (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-12-09 13:05 (#X4Y1) Building cities outwards necessarily either requires removing farmland or destroying ecosystems, which is far and wide the largest contributor to extinctions. Since a significant goal of lower emissions is to save the environment and all its inhabitants, urban sprawl goes directly against this.The US population keeps moving south and west... The Southwestern US is not farms or forests (except in small spots), but mostly-empty desert. While there are some endangered species there, it's a very small number. Maybe it's just me, but I can't get myself worked-up that development of thousands of square miles of desert land might eventually endanger a couple bird sub-species. Particularly in the light of so much more damage being caused if that land development was done outside the sparsely populated desert. Several (certainly not all) desert animals do much better in suburbs, anyhow.Besides, whatever may be theoretically best, the economics show sprawl, even with commuting, is still massively more affordable than high-demand city living. People will continue to want to live without neighbors above and below them, and will want decent-sized yards that they don't have to share. Cutting-out the energy wasted by daily commuting is a net-positive result, regardless.Building out fiber to remote areas doesn't help either as jobs continue to demand the worker be there during work hours. Look at what Yahoo did for an example.The fact that Yahoo discontinued telecommuting, is not evidence that telecommuting doesn't work... Your link turns up opinion pieces on both sides, some saying it was a good idea, others saying it was a mistake, and most saying the number of companies who allow telecommuting keeps increasing. For Yahoo, I think it was just a tool to cut employees without as much downside as firings or layoffs. Re: Or (Score: 1) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-12-10 16:59 (#X9DX) I'm not sure I get the distinction between protecting forest ecosystems and desert ecosystems. As someone who lives in the west I can tell you there are lots and lots of plants in the "mostly-empty" desert. Very few parts of the vast expanse between the continental divide in Colorado and the Sierra Nevadas in California are not filled with sage brush, juniper trees, pinyon pines, etc. Just because it's not an old-growth forest doesn't mean it isn't worth protecting. The whole "it's just the desert" mentality is why there are hundreds of threatened, endangered, and critically endangered species in the west. The whole idea of protecting individual animals and plants is that all species play a role in the ecosystem, and taking one species out threatens others in ways that are often unpredictable.
Re: Or (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-12-09 13:05 (#X4Y1) Building cities outwards necessarily either requires removing farmland or destroying ecosystems, which is far and wide the largest contributor to extinctions. Since a significant goal of lower emissions is to save the environment and all its inhabitants, urban sprawl goes directly against this.The US population keeps moving south and west... The Southwestern US is not farms or forests (except in small spots), but mostly-empty desert. While there are some endangered species there, it's a very small number. Maybe it's just me, but I can't get myself worked-up that development of thousands of square miles of desert land might eventually endanger a couple bird sub-species. Particularly in the light of so much more damage being caused if that land development was done outside the sparsely populated desert. Several (certainly not all) desert animals do much better in suburbs, anyhow.Besides, whatever may be theoretically best, the economics show sprawl, even with commuting, is still massively more affordable than high-demand city living. People will continue to want to live without neighbors above and below them, and will want decent-sized yards that they don't have to share. Cutting-out the energy wasted by daily commuting is a net-positive result, regardless.Building out fiber to remote areas doesn't help either as jobs continue to demand the worker be there during work hours. Look at what Yahoo did for an example.The fact that Yahoo discontinued telecommuting, is not evidence that telecommuting doesn't work... Your link turns up opinion pieces on both sides, some saying it was a good idea, others saying it was a mistake, and most saying the number of companies who allow telecommuting keeps increasing. For Yahoo, I think it was just a tool to cut employees without as much downside as firings or layoffs. Re: Or (Score: 1) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-12-10 16:59 (#X9DX) I'm not sure I get the distinction between protecting forest ecosystems and desert ecosystems. As someone who lives in the west I can tell you there are lots and lots of plants in the "mostly-empty" desert. Very few parts of the vast expanse between the continental divide in Colorado and the Sierra Nevadas in California are not filled with sage brush, juniper trees, pinyon pines, etc. Just because it's not an old-growth forest doesn't mean it isn't worth protecting. The whole "it's just the desert" mentality is why there are hundreds of threatened, endangered, and critically endangered species in the west. The whole idea of protecting individual animals and plants is that all species play a role in the ecosystem, and taking one species out threatens others in ways that are often unpredictable.
Re: Or (Score: 1) by fishybell@pipedot.org on 2015-12-10 16:59 (#X9DX) I'm not sure I get the distinction between protecting forest ecosystems and desert ecosystems. As someone who lives in the west I can tell you there are lots and lots of plants in the "mostly-empty" desert. Very few parts of the vast expanse between the continental divide in Colorado and the Sierra Nevadas in California are not filled with sage brush, juniper trees, pinyon pines, etc. Just because it's not an old-growth forest doesn't mean it isn't worth protecting. The whole "it's just the desert" mentality is why there are hundreds of threatened, endangered, and critically endangered species in the west. The whole idea of protecting individual animals and plants is that all species play a role in the ecosystem, and taking one species out threatens others in ways that are often unpredictable.