Urban areas conserve far more resources than suburban or rural per person. They also use less land per person, allowing more land to be used for natural processes and agriculture. Imagine if all 30 million people in Shanghai moved to the suburbs of NYC in a .5 acre house, and started watering their lawns.
In some regions, such as much of the American southwest, demand for water is too high for how much water they get, they're covering the difference with fossil aquifers but those are finite and rapidly draining. Most n those regions just pretend that a solution will magically appear some day, maybe they'll somehow get other neighboring regions to pipe all their water over hundreds of miles, but that's a pipe dream. Realistically those areas are too crowded and people need to move to more ecological sensible regions.
High density almost always leads to more efficient use of resources and economies of scale. The negatives stem from the externalities due to overuse of commons (garbage, pollution, etc.). It's not that water runs out, as it can always be transported in. It's that the runoff becomes increasingly harder to manage.
Cities are efficient and naturally occurring. I think you might be thinking of suburbs. The US has really stupid urban planning, but that says more about how we run things here than it does about cities imo
Huh? High density living is way more environmentally friendly than those same people living in sprawled suburban single family homes. It might not be as nicer to live, but that's another topic.
Also, calling people who don't see eye to eye with you as "idiots" is a poor choice to try to make a point.
Yeah honestly. US urban planning is unfortunately hostile by default, but cities can be dense, efficient, and pleasant if local politics allow it. Unfortunately, a lot of places will block nice things like parks and green spaces, because "the wrong kind of person" might be able to enjoy themselves a bit before or after work.
Urban areas conserve far more resources than suburban or rural per person. They also use less land per person, allowing more land to be used for natural processes and agriculture. Imagine if all 30 million people in Shanghai moved to the suburbs of NYC in a .5 acre house, and started watering their lawns.
For the uninformed, tell me more. Is it the density causing too much demand on the resource in a specific geographic region? Something else?
In some regions, such as much of the American southwest, demand for water is too high for how much water they get, they're covering the difference with fossil aquifers but those are finite and rapidly draining. Most n those regions just pretend that a solution will magically appear some day, maybe they'll somehow get other neighboring regions to pipe all their water over hundreds of miles, but that's a pipe dream. Realistically those areas are too crowded and people need to move to more ecological sensible regions.
High density almost always leads to more efficient use of resources and economies of scale. The negatives stem from the externalities due to overuse of commons (garbage, pollution, etc.). It's not that water runs out, as it can always be transported in. It's that the runoff becomes increasingly harder to manage.
Cities are efficient and naturally occurring. I think you might be thinking of suburbs. The US has really stupid urban planning, but that says more about how we run things here than it does about cities imo
Water is a local/regional issue. Some big cities are in retarded locations and obviously aren't sustainable. Others are perfectly fine.
Huh? High density living is way more environmentally friendly than those same people living in sprawled suburban single family homes. It might not be as nicer to live, but that's another topic.
Also, calling people who don't see eye to eye with you as "idiots" is a poor choice to try to make a point.
Yeah honestly. US urban planning is unfortunately hostile by default, but cities can be dense, efficient, and pleasant if local politics allow it. Unfortunately, a lot of places will block nice things like parks and green spaces, because "the wrong kind of person" might be able to enjoy themselves a bit before or after work.