Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Sep 15 13:13:51 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Urbanization
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 24 02:13:35
3.4 billion people live in rural areas right now. That will decrease to 3.1 billion people by 2050.

This is interesting from an environmental standpoint.

What impact does rural depopulation in large areas have on natural processes?

I may be clutching at straws here, but I found this projection rather promising.
kargen
Member
Sat Aug 24 02:32:53
Promising why?

Paramount
Member
Sat Aug 24 02:43:01
What is the reason of the rural depopulation? Is it because people are moving closer to nature or because more people are dying?


If people are moving from rural areas to live closer to the nature then it means that these places may evetually also be rural areas. So one can say it is bad for the environment because people will kill the nature.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Aug 24 02:55:00
Any positive impacts to ecosystems from rural depopulation are going to minimal. Rural population densities are already low, so decreasing them a bit more isn't going to change much. In addition, it's not going to reduce the amount of agriculture going on, so you won't see benefits there.

And whatever minor positive impacts do occur would be more than outweighed by the increase in negative effects from continued urbanization and sprawl.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 24 02:57:11
Clutching at straws, assuming linear progression and generally not understand what impacts the environment.
Paramount
Member
Sat Aug 24 03:20:20
oh, I understood rural areas wrong. I thought rural was another word for urban.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 24 03:29:41
Glesbygd du vet.
Paramount
Member
Sat Aug 24 04:30:36
Ja, jag kommer aldrig att glömma eller blanda ihop dom nu.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 24 05:01:25
❤️
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 24 05:52:27
Kargen
Because biodiversity and sustainability are nice things?

WoO
Its not only the decrease, but also avoids a dramatic increase if rural-urban ratios remained the same as today.

Less pressure on say rain forests, or wildlife reserves on the one hand, and perhaps very significant depopulation to almost Chernobyl exclusion zone levels in others.

It simply makes large scale environmental protection schemes a lot more viable than would be the case without urbanization.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Aug 24 12:06:09
Those ares you mentioned are always going to have natural resources that people want to exploit, so the pressure one them won't go away. And you're not going to see population densities drop to the point of being zero.

I don't know where you're getting these ideas, but they feel drug-induced.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Aug 24 12:15:27
Oops, I forgot to add that one factor in areas being totally abandoned is often the collapse of the local ecosystems. And when those areas begin to "recover," they ecosystems are not the same at all. Those altered ecosystems are often home to a number of invasive species rather than the natural ecosystem they replaced, and can as hotspots for spreading into other nearby vulnerable ecosystems. In your already unlikely scenario, I don't see enough resources being put into management to prevent that from causing a lot of problems.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Aug 24 12:22:57
humans will continue to ruin the environment, just more efficiently w/ more machines, fewer people

...and Republicans actually support this
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Aug 24 12:44:33
In some cases, people living in rural areas actually prevent further damage. While some areas that have little to no people in them may be targeted for some kind of natural restoration or preserve, many times companies will be able to buy gather up the land and use it for something more damaging than the small amounts of people that lived there before.

So this idea that abandoned areas automatically revert back to a good ecological state is faulty in several ways.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 24 12:52:23
WoO
Less pressure than would otherwise be the case with an even distribution of population growth between rural and urban.

Of course we will see population = 0 in some areas as indeed we see today. Rural distribution will of course not be equal either.

The scenario is not at all unlikely, though it would of course not be seen universally.

tw
Of course humans will continue to ruin environments. But urbanization leaves room for ecosystem survival.

I had previously thought that rather unlikely.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 24 12:53:00
"So this idea that abandoned areas automatically revert back to a good ecological state is faulty in several ways."

That was luckily never my argument.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Aug 24 13:19:33
It is implied in your argument, though. Because, as I said, never will enough resources be put into management to deal with all of the abandoned areas if your scenario happens.

My argument still stands. Your scenario is extremely unlikely and makes it obvious that you don't really understand how demographic shifts and the resulting ecosystem changes work.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Aug 24 13:24:20
"Less pressure than would otherwise be the case with an even distribution of population growth between rural and urban."

Not necessarily. Again, your approach to this is overly simplistic and shows that you don't understand the shifts that happen in these scenarios. It's a nice, comforting thought that people move to cities and that automatically reduces environmental pressures on an area, etc. But yeah, as I've already explained, it doesn't usually work that way.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 24 13:50:49
WoO
The comforting thought is more along the lines of 1 billion fewer people living in rural areas in 2050 than would have been the case with a more even population growth.

It gives some hope of both ecosystem survival in some areas and of ecosystem expansion in some areas.

Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Aug 24 13:59:04
Again, not necessarily. And probably not in as many as you think, based on what you've posted above. And as I've already said, even if you were correct about ecosystem recovery and/or expansion, the increasing damage from urbanization would more than offset it.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 24 14:41:06
This is why I erased my second post in this thread, I wanted someone else to discover Jergulologic :-)

He only thinks in a straight line, things are bad or good. On or off. Does not understand trade offs (at all on any topic) or that rural living isn’t the antithesis to biodiversity and sustainable living. About the same level of thought as saying that city life is the antithesis to human well being.

What is your background WoO, biology?
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 24 14:51:00
WoO
The "not necessarily" is implied with "gives some hope".

The argument was never that the per person urban load is lower than a rural one.

I am simply pointing out that a lower rural population gives a greater likelihood of ecosystem survival in some areas and ecosystem expansion in some areas.

Nothing you have said contradicts this.

Nimi
Again, there is no assumption of linearity beyond accepting the projection as axiomatic for the purposes of this discussion.

The only thing you are underlining here is how badly you lost our last discussion.

Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Aug 24 14:55:33
Natural systems and resources, though I could probably be referred to a transdisciplinary scientist at this point.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 24 14:56:34
I come from a rural community Nimi. I understand at a fundamental level how those communities support environmental efforts within reason.

I also understand at a fundamental level why protective regimes can be immensely annoying if they come in the way of trying to make a reasonable living.

jergul
large member
Sat Aug 24 14:59:12
WoO
I am not arguing against stakeholder stewardship of cultural landscapes.

I merely think that increasing population pressures locally act against environmental protections at that level.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Aug 24 15:01:47
So your overall point with making this thread was to state your opinion that fewer people in certain areas might have a chance to possibly help with ecosystem recovery under certain conditions sometime in the undefined future, given that none of the persistent and known factors working against that process don't take hold.

Right, I can see why you're proud of that position and are avidly defending it... lol
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 24 15:11:42
WoO
Is your position that fewer people in many local areas will never help ecosystem recovery and/or expansion in any of those areas?

That seems a rather bold generalization.

My position is simply that I find hope in decreasing rural populations.

Where do you see hope given that you feel that the resources for effective management and regulation is off the table?
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 24 15:12:10
Jergul
A combative radicalized feminazi would see an intervention as a discussion to be won, point taken. I refuse to give up on you, the day I give up Jergul is a very grim day when war is on the doorstep..

WoO
”Natural systems and resources”

So, this is actually a topic well within your field of knowledge. This won’t stop jergul from jergulologics.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 24 15:17:33
Nimi
Nothing I have said contradicts what WoO has written.

The main problem with communications seems to be that people expect others to overcommit to blanket statements and will read things that way to score imaginary points.

WoO was wrong to do that in this case.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Aug 24 16:38:37
You say something stupid and retreat to something obvious, but utterly meaningless. Classical bait and switch.

No one should give anyone grief for being wrong, it takes balls to take risks and put yourself out there, and being wrong is fundamental to making progress. However, the guy who never understands he is wrong and why he keeps getting it wrong, that guy ain't going no where.

jergul
large member
Sun Aug 25 01:50:53
Nimi
As are you wrong in this case. You read what you want to read, instead of what is written.

Its called strawmen fallacies if you wanted the correct terminology.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sun Aug 25 02:38:58
"Nothing I have said contradicts what WoO has written."

Wrong.

You are a special kind of stupid, jergul.

Btw, as Nim has pretty much pointed out, there is no point in continuing this discussion with you. Feel free to chalk it up to an "internets win" if you want. But as Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid." And I'm not going to keep trying with you.

Cheers.
jergul
large member
Sun Aug 25 02:46:36
WoO
I disagree.

You simply engaged in a strawman discussion complimented with ad ludicrum fallacies.

I simply did not write or think what you think I did.

Sort of Trumptardy of you. But goes with the nature of what is debate these days.

So, yah.

Cheers.
jergul
large member
Sun Aug 25 02:59:12
"Abandonment of landscape" is anectdotally a main "driver of recovery" for quite a number of species.

Source: Wildlife Comeback in Europe - The recovery of selected mammal and bird species.

http://rew...ed-mammal-and-bird-species.pdf
jergul
large member
Sun Aug 25 03:32:26
There is nothing new about abandonment of lanscape. The high water mark for Norwegian land use was in 1349 (or the year the black death reached the country).

The issue at its core is that rural overpopulation causes exploitation of marginal land that is not even suited for substinence farming, let alone intensive agricultural production.

Is it better for the Amazon rainforest region to have a population of 16 million, instead of the 20 million today, or the 30 million it will have if urban and rural populations increase proportionately?

The answer to that question is of course extremely complex, but proper management regimes seem to be obviously more feasible if indirect population growth pressures locally are not part of the equation.

Which in turn means that yes, general global population growth will add to environmental pressure. But there is hope to be found in that growth occuring in urban areas with high population density.

I am a bit stunned by some posters taking offence to this line of thinking.

But haters have to hate I suppose :).
jergul
large member
Mon Aug 26 01:03:09
The rural population in western Europe is midway in decline from 50 million in 1950 to 33 million in 2019 to a projected 25 million in 2050.

The EU obviously has a corresponding biodiversity plan. One of the main features is to connect ecosystems by establishing green belts between them to allow for migration and genetic spreading.

The US rural population is in less of a decline in raw numbers, but the % is currently 21%. Down from 37% in 1950 and projected to be 11% in 2050.

This is interesting because there is a strong correlation between progressive voting and urban living. Which in turn gives hope of a tendency toward more environmentally friendly legislature.

http://population.un.org/wup/Country-Profiles/

It has to be mentioned that true ecosystem recovery takes centuries. For example, it takes almost 1000 years for mature temperate rainforests to recover after being clearcut (a cleared area has to go through numerous forest cycles). But regreening is in any event a restart. Primarily on marginal land not suited for intensive agriculture, but a start is a start.

kargen
Member
Mon Aug 26 12:30:48
As population increases our need for resources will increase. All those people in the city need water food and all kinds of other stuff. Water is diverted to large population centers devastating the region the water is taken from.

You are concentrating on the wrong side of the population equation. Taking the people out of the rural area isn't going to have any real impact on the environment. Changing how those people act will have an impact. Doesn't matter if it is 1000 people with chainsaws clearing forest or one corporation with heavy machinery either way you lose the forest.

Better management of the land and especially of the water is what we need. We need to get away from corn as feed and back to grass. We need to develop more dry land crops. Across the globe we are growing crops that the land/water can't sustain. That food is being produced for the entire population. Just shifting the population location isn't going to change anything.

If the world population is going to continue to increase we need to make some changes. One easy change would be for those who eat meat to put more rabbit in their diet and get away from beef and pork.


jergul
large member
Mon Aug 26 12:40:59
"Forest area change among high-income countries has been positive over the last 25 years, with a slight increase in the period 2010–2015 (Figure 8). Upper-middle-income countries have managed to reduce annual net loss of forest from about 1.8 million ha per year in 1990–2000 to a slight gain for the period 2010–2015. Annual net loss of forest in lower-middle-income countries has gone from 3.4 million ha in the 1990s to 1.9 million ha between 2010 and 2015, while for low-income countries, there was a decrease from 2.9 million ha in 1990–2000 to 2.4 million ha in 2010–2015."

(page 18)

"Globally about half of total removals are woodfuel, but the share of woodfuel varies significantly by income category (Figure 26). In high-income countries the share of woodfuel is about 17 percent, in upper-middle-income countries it is 40 percent, while in lower-middle-income and low-income countries it is 86 percent and 93 percent, respectively."

(page 34)

Consider country income level as a inverse proxy for rural habitation (the higher the income the lower the rural population).

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4793e.pdf
jergul
large member
Mon Aug 26 12:56:16
Kargen
I trust you see the relevance of what I posted. Deforestation has plummeted against the backdrop of an additional 800 million people.

Woodfuel gathering in low income areas is a rural activity. Fully 88% of wood use in india goes to rural cooking fires.

jergul
large member
Mon Aug 26 13:01:17
An easy fix would be to eat less calorie dense food. An average western person has 3600 calories (less waste in food preparation) and needs 2100 calories.
kargen
Member
Mon Aug 26 15:12:04
Not sure I see much relevance actually. Countries that are well off have started importing more wood not using less wood. In fact Europe is using a lot more wood as they are using wood pellets as part of the bioenergy program.

Your report also shows natural forests are still in decline while planted forests are increasing. Planted forests do not create biodiversity.

"Demand for wood products is likely to continue to increase globally. In high-income countries the share of wood fuel will probably increase as wood is a climate friendly, renewable energy source. Part of the wood fuel will come from lower-quality wood. In low-income countries the share will most likely remain stable or decrease."

also page 34 of your pdf.

Water management is still a more immediate concern than forest management. Both are important but we are diverting a lot of water into cities and that has immediate impact on the environment along with long term impact.
jergul
large member
Mon Aug 26 20:15:12
Kargen
They are much less in decline than before despite a growing population. Wood use per capita is dropping.

I am linking that to a decreasing rural population.

But sure. Waterways are ecosystems too. Mercury, not extraction, is the main cause of waters not making "good" or better status.

"Of the different water bodies recognised by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) across Europe, groundwaters generally have the best status. Good chemical status has been achieved for 74 % of the groundwater area, while 89 % of the area achieved good quantitative status.

Around 40 % of surface waters (rivers, lakes and transitional and coastal waters) are in good ecological status or potential, and only 38 % are in good chemical status.

In most Member States, a few priority substances account for poor chemical status, the most common being mercury.If mercury and other ubiquitous priority substances were omitted, only 3 % of surface water bodies would fail to achieve good chemical status. Improvements for individual substances show that Member States are making progress in tackling the sources of contamination.

Overall, the second RBMPs show limited change in status, as most water bodies have the same status in both cycles.

The proportion of water bodies with unknown status has decreased and confidence in status assessment has grown.

Improvements are usually visible at the level of individual quality elements or pollutants but often do not translate into improved status overall.

The main significant pressures on surface water bodies are hydromorphological pressures (40 %), diffuse sources(38 %), particularly from agriculture, and atmospheric deposition (38 %), particularly of mercury, followed by point sources (18 %) and water abstraction (7 %).

Member States have made marked efforts to improve water quality or reduce pressure on hydromorphology. Some of the measures have had an immediate effect; others will result in improvements in the longer term.

It can be expected that, by the time the third RBMPs are drafted (2019-2021), some of the several thousand individual measures undertaken in the first and second RBMPs should have had a positive effect in terms of achieving good
status."

"Total water abstraction decreased by around 7 %
between 2002 and 2014 (EEA, 2017c)...Water abstractions are a key pressure on many water
bodies, in particular during temporary periods of
drought or in water scarcity-prone areas. Abstractions are a significant pressure for 7 % of surface water bodies in the second RBMPs, with higher regional importance in southern Europe (e.g. in Spain, Italy and France). Abstractions (mainly for agriculture and public water supply) and artificial recharge are the main pressures on groundwater bodies in poor quantitative
status."

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-water/

jergul
large member
Tue Aug 27 01:15:49
Another argument for why lower rural populations is good for the environment (remember that migration is a main driver). I am using the US as an example because it is less pronounced than in developing countries.

In sum. The more people that move to cities, the less children they will have amd the lower the total environmental impact.


Total fertility rates fell across the U.S. during the last decade, even as the gap in rates widened between rural and metropolitan counties, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Total fertility rates – representing the estimated number of lifetime births expected per 1,000 women – fell 18 percent in large metro counties and 16 percent in small or medium metro counties between 2007 and 2017, the report said. Yet while the rate in rural counties fell 12 percent in that time frame, the decline slowed after 2011, resulting in a 14 percent gap between total fertility rates in rural counties and large metro counties last year. The gap was just 5 percent in 2007.

Rural areas have been associated with higher fertility rates and worse birth outcomes than urban and suburban areas, the report said. The total fertility rate was 1,950 births per 1,000 women in rural counties in 2017, compared with 1,778 in small or medium metro counties and 1,712 in large metro counties, according to the CDC.

The age at which women became mothers also rose during the last decade, though gaps remain between rural and urban areas. In 2017, women had their first children, on average, at 27.7 in large metro counties, at 25.8 in small and medium metro counties, and at 24.5 in rural counties.

http://www...tween-rural-and-urban-counties
kargen
Member
Tue Aug 27 13:15:35
"In sum. The more people that move to cities, the less children they will have amd the lower the total environmental impact."

So basically what I have been saying. The answer is less people.

Doesn't matter where they live people will impact the environment. Doesn't matter if it is 10,000 people with machetes clearing land or two remote controlled machines the land will be cleared. Population centers need resources just like everyone else and they make the problem worse by the amount of resources that must be diverted.
jergul
large member
Tue Aug 27 16:30:38
Kargen
We agree that the solution is less people. It does however matter where they live.

*Urban voters are more progressive
*Urban mothers have less children
*Water abstraction falls with falling rural population
*Forest outtake falls with falling rural population
*Wildlife recovers with falling rural population

I am not knocking individual rural denizens. But it is not a bad thing when they or their children choose to move to cities.
kargen
Member
Tue Aug 27 18:34:49
We are going to just disagree. Progressive has little to do with it. I know environmentalism gets attached to progressive types but what I see and is often mentioned by others is those that live out and around nature tend to be more aware of protecting nature. You are conflating rural population and corporate exploiting of the environment. They are not the same. If you took all the rural families and stuck them in cities the land would still be abused. Maybe even more abused as the stewards of the land would be gone.

The less children is simple smaller population.

Your water abstraction argument is just plain silly. Large population centers spend a great amount of time and resources to divert water into nearby reservoirs. Most do not have near the amount of water they need so must bring it in. As example before being diverted the Colorado River dumped 16.3 million acre feet (20.1 km3) per year into the California Gulf. Now there are many years when the water never reaches the gulf. They are planning more diversions of the river now. Cities own water rights amounting to more water than what the river produces. Admittedly a good amount of the water is used for irrigation but that irrigation isn't going to go away simply because the people do. That land will continue to be used to grow crops never intended to grow there.
People use wood. People will continue to use wood. Wood use actually increased in populated areas of Europe. Wood is seen as a clean source of fuel so as clean air initiatives continue we can expect more wood to be used. Good news here is that planted forests work well for fuel wood so it is somewhat sustainable. Bad news is affluent people like exotic woods and those come from natural forests most the time. The desire for luxury items made of wood will increase as wealth increases.
The wildlife recovery argument is pure conjecture. You are assuming when the people leave the land goes back to its natural state. This will not be the case for the majority of privately owned land. That land is used to sustain the number of people we have on this planet and that will continue. I don't know how it is in Europe but in the US most rural people are very aware of the environment and are advocates of nature. For most their livelihood depends on it.

And I think (just personal opinion here) it is a very bad thing that rural people are moving to the cities for a variety of reasons.

I suppose I should have asked earlier but what size community do you consider rural?
jergul
large member
Tue Aug 27 23:50:57
Kargen
I am just using an abstract definition of rural. Whatever the sources I have found consider to be a rural population density.

Sure, there are many bad things that follow from rural depopulation (loss of sense of community may be one).

Wildlife recovery in Europe correlates with decreasing rural populations.

Urban denizens use far less wood per capita. Their energy mix is different. Even including pellets and whatnot harvested from managed forests.

I agree that some areas will not see a decrease in agriculture until the deep aquifers are drained. But deep aquifers are not easily accessed by the natural environment. Meaning of course that degrading those and abandoning the land will not increase or decrease the amount of water available for ecosystem development afterwards.

The rivers have already been diverted, used and polluted. That is the now status. Any positive change is good for the environment. And again, there is a correlation between lower rural populations and decreased overall water usage.

It is hard to trump the fact that simply urbanizing, people have less children. At least if you agree that overall population and population growth plays is problematic.

Progressive voters would not have given us Trump and generally lead to much more environmentally friendly policies (there are exceptions. Nixon did far more than Carter, but the general claim is true.
jergul
large member
Wed Aug 28 01:22:38
"National water use has shown marked reductions in recent years. Total water use in the U.S. in 2010 is lower than it was in 1970, despite continued economic and population growth. This is evident in continued reductions in per capita water use, which was lower in 2010 than it was in 1945. Likewise, the economic productivity of water (dollars of gross domestic product per unit of water used) is higher than it has ever been, nearly tripling over the past three decades, from only $4.00 in 1980 (in 2009 dollars) to more than $11.00 (in 2009 dollars) of GDP per hundred gallons used. These results show that the U.S. now produces far more wealth with far less water than at any time in the past.Thermoelectric power plants represent the single largest use of water — both fresh and saline — in the United States. Thermoelectric power plants, which can be powered by fossil, geothermal, nuclear, and biomass fuels or the sun, use water for cooling purposes and for makeup water that replenishes boiler water lost through evaporation."

http://pac.../Water-Use-Trends-Report-1.pdf

===============

There is lots of other stuff in there that supports my line of thinking.
jergul
large member
Wed Aug 28 01:32:22
Irrigated land is down from 75 million acres in 1980 to 57 million in 2010 to 55 million in 2013

The 2018 Irrigation and Water Management Survey is underway.

Decreases in irrigated land correlates with decreases in rural population.
kargen
Member
Wed Aug 28 09:44:03
"I agree that some areas will not see a decrease in agriculture until the deep aquifers are drained. But deep aquifers are not easily accessed by the natural environment. Meaning of course that degrading those and abandoning the land will not increase or decrease the amount of water available for ecosystem development afterwards."

The Ogallala Aquifer has dropped causing many natural springs to go dry.
jergul
large member
Wed Aug 28 11:46:58
"Ogallala Aquifer (oh-guh-LAH-luh) is a shallow water table aquifer"

I specified deep aquifers.

Anyway, as you can see, irrigated acreaged has decreased quite dramatically as rural populations fall.

Dispelling the theory that machines will simply replace humans without decreasing land used.
kargen
Member
Wed Aug 28 15:32:19
"I specified deep aquifers."

yes you did. We call that cherry picking.

You are using spurious correlations.

GMO's have led to higher yields in both irrigated and dry land. Dry land farming is cheaper than irrigated farming. As yields increase less land will be needed. Problem is as population increases more food will be needed negating some of the advances in food production.

You did get me to wander off course though. Back to water diversion. Moving water from its natural course does all kinds of damage. Water is being diverted to large population centers and as those centers grow the amount of water needed will also grow. We are getting better with water use. Low flow toilets switching to lawns that require less water and things like that will help. Water at this time though is still being diverting in quantities that are changing environments across the globe.
Most large population centers are on a coast. What we really need to push is a viable desalination process.
jergul
large member
Wed Aug 28 22:08:02
Kargen
I specified because my argument was never that absolutely all land and water will become pristine as rural populations decrease.

Total water use in the US is down from 330 billion gallons in 1980 (the top year for irrigation) to 250 billion gallons today). The main reason for improvement is increased water efficiency in thermoelectric production (the largest water use catagory).

The peak year for public water supply was 2005 at about 75 billion gallons compated to about 67 billion gallons today.

In the US, like everywhere, the best way to improve urban water supply is by fixing the damned pipes (old and obsolete water infrastructure causes significant loss).
jergul
large member
Wed Aug 28 22:24:22
I also think reducing calorie consumption is another great fix. 3600 calories per person (less prepping waste) per day is far about the 2100 calories we actually use.

I burned off 4200 calories yesterday (breaking 4000 for the first time in over a decade). There is no way an average person can ever burn 3600 a day over time. I feel about 30 years older today :-).

Less calorie dense food. It would help not only the environment, but also help with not getting as fat.
Asgard
Member
Fri Aug 30 07:41:02
Doesn't matter if rural population decreases.

The more time goes by, the stronger the impact of a single person on the environment than before.

Before you had 1 logger bringing down 10 trees a day.

Now you have 1 logger in a plant overseeing robotic sawing vehicles cutting down 1500 trees an hour, while the rest of his logger buddies went to the city to work as clerks.
jergul
large member
Fri Aug 30 09:31:50
Asgard
We already established that the net loss of forest has decreased dramatically in step with decreasing rural populations.
kargen
Member
Fri Aug 30 12:21:46
Net forest yeah but a planted forest might as well be a wheat field for all the diversity it brings to the game. They are planting rows of quick growing trees to produce cheap lumber. We still have an appetite for exotic wood though and that appetite increases as prosperity increases. That means the loss of natural forests.

You are correct about diet but changing how people think/act is a long tough road.

Drip irrigation has also helped with reducing the amount of water used. We still have a problem that most rivers are being diverted to the benefit of large population centers and to the detriment of natural ecosystems.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 31 01:59:54
Kargen
Globally, we have dramatically slowed the speed at which we are making things worse. This gives a lot of places (primarily in the developed world) were things are getting better in many areas.

It correlates with decreasing rural populations and leaves room for some degree of hope.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 31 04:46:34
http://www...essful-year-of-freeing-rivers/
Asgard
Member
Sat Aug 31 06:38:36
Jergul
It’s a specific example and maybe you’re right about deforestation. However please see the broader picture. We have as a species as horrible effect and is becoming more horrifying by the minute, on all aspects of the environment.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 31 07:06:31
Asgard
It still getting worse globally, but its getting worse at a much slower pace in real terms and is getting better on a per capita basis (the horrible effects per person is actually decreasing).

Both correlate with decreasing rural populations.

It leaves room for some degree of hope.
kargen
Member
Sat Aug 31 15:52:09
"It correlates with decreasing rural populations and leaves room for some degree of hope."

No, that is a false correlation.
jergul
large member
Sat Aug 31 16:29:27
"Rural communities have high concentrations of low-income households that experience high energy burdens and often cannot afford the upfront capital costs needed for energy efficiency improvements"

"Approximately 70% of all manufactured homes are located in rural areas. Even though manufactured homes consume 35% less energy than site-built homes due to their smaller size, residents spend 70% more per square foot on energy"

"Although many rural households rely on propane and fuel oil for heating, providers of these fuels typically do not fund weatherization and efficiency programs"

"Many rural utilities are unable to allocate sufficient funding and capacity to meet the efficiency needs of their communities, leaving many rural households with little or no access to affordable efficiency upgrades"

"Several characteristics of the rural housing stock differentiate it from its urban counterparts. On average, rural housing units tend to be larger than those in urban areas, and the median age of housing units is 45 years.

"The most prominent housing type in rural areas is single-family homes, making up three-quarters of all housing units. The remaining rural households are evenly split between manufactured housing and multifamily buildings"

http://ace...ions/researchreports/u1806.pdf

Check out the FIGURE 1. RURAL CENSUS TRACTS (p. 12). How on earth can there be any expectation at all of mordern and efficient grid and water supplies?

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share