by Soiled fruit roll ups » Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:53 pm
by Tinhampton » Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:59 pm
by Ethel mermania » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:26 pm
by Soiled fruit roll ups » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:33 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Working an office job from home isnt all its cracked up to be. I and most of my colleagues look forward to going back to the office. I find I am more productive, and work less hours in a office. (Though counting commuting time, total time commitment is less at home).
by Rojava Free State » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:34 pm
Rojava Free State wrote:Listen yall. I'm only gonna say it once but I want you to remember it. This ain't a world fit for good men. It seems like you gotta be monstrous just to make it. Gotta have a little bit of darkness within you just to survive. You gotta stoop low everyday it seems like. Stoop all the way down to the devil in these times. And then one day you look in the mirror and you realize that you ain't you anymore. You're just another monster, and thanks to your actions, someone else will eventually become as warped and twisted as you. Never forget that the best of us are just the best of a bad lot. Being at the top of a pile of feces doesn't make you anything but shit like the rest. Never forget that.
by Senkaku » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:36 pm
by Mowte » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:39 pm
Soiled fruit roll ups wrote:And they're environmental disasters.
by Ethel mermania » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:40 pm
Soiled fruit roll ups wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:Working an office job from home isnt all its cracked up to be. I and most of my colleagues look forward to going back to the office. I find I am more productive, and work less hours in a office. (Though counting commuting time, total time commitment is less at home).
Well, I've found the opposite.
I work in rail safety and I've definitely kicked goals this lock down.
My point was more the companies that can make it work are going to significantly reduce costs. Like the monthly commute is a tenth of my pay and I'd happily lose the money to work from home.
Lower wages and no rental costs are going to significantly effect industries.
by Vetalia » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:41 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Working an office job from home isnt all its cracked up to be. I and most of my colleagues look forward to going back to the office. I find I am more productive, and work less hours in a office. (Though counting commuting time, total time commitment is less at home).
by Senkaku » Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:44 pm
Mowte wrote:Soiled fruit roll ups wrote:And they're environmental disasters.
Actually, if managed right, cities can be way more eco-friendly. For example, you do not really need cars if you are living in a concentrated city, and public transport would be way more effective. In addition, recycling can be managed way more efficiently as long as the populace knows how to use the recycling services, just look at Copenhagen. It is easier to buy locally, as there is a higher concentration of shops in a city. By building upwards, you are using less land, and leaving more for agriculture and the wild. I could go on, but I am in a hurry. In short, as long as cities are managed properly, both by its leadership and its populace, they can be far more environmentally efficient than rural areas or the suburbs.
by Vetalia » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:01 pm
Senkaku wrote:Even cities that dump their raw sewage into the ocean or don’t recycle at all or whatever are more eco friendly than suburbs if you want to think abt their land and carbon footprints
by Soiled fruit roll ups » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:06 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Soiled fruit roll ups wrote:
Well, I've found the opposite.
I work in rail safety and I've definitely kicked goals this lock down.
My point was more the companies that can make it work are going to significantly reduce costs. Like the monthly commute is a tenth of my pay and I'd happily lose the money to work from home.
Lower wages and no rental costs are going to significantly effect industries.
I do agree that I think you will see more work from home, after this covid thing. we were told to expect to work from home some of the time. But for meetings, training, site inspections, human to human works best.
by Senkaku » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:11 pm
Vetalia wrote:Senkaku wrote:Even cities that dump their raw sewage into the ocean or don’t recycle at all or whatever are more eco friendly than suburbs if you want to think abt their land and carbon footprints
I am pretty sure the environmental consequences of dumping untreated sewage into waterways is far more severe than the consequences of someone living in a suburb in a developed country with modern infrastructure...
the land impact is pretty negligible, too.
You could argue about the carbon footprint but that can be mitigated just as effectively in a suburb with much higher quality of life to boot.
by Senkaku » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:21 pm
Vetalia wrote:the land impact is pretty negligible, too, and itself can be mitigated effectively with good wildlife management and preservation of green space.
Even good plant management for a conventional suburban grass lawn can create habitats for numerous species and of course there is also plenty of room for gardening and other uses.
much higher quality of life to boot compared to a city, particularly one where people are packed in like sardines.
by Senkaku » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:25 pm
by Loben The 2nd » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:29 pm
Senkaku wrote:Suburban living being more pleasant for many people doesn’t actually make it environmentally superior to urban living (and in fact a lot of the things people like about suburban life versus cities are achieved only at significant environmental cost)
by Vetalia » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:31 pm
Senkaku wrote:Victoria BC has long pumped their sewage into the Salish Sea without catastrophic results (obviously it’s not GOOD, but for medium-sized cities pumping into the ocean, it isn’t necessarily going to totally destroy the coast)—but even if you totally putrefy a river or a lake, I’d argue that’s a lot less severe than razing miles and miles of forest or paving over huge areas of farmland, and then having people move in to start living incredibly inefficient lifestyles.
The land impact of SUBURBS is NEGLIGIBLE? HUH??
This... isn’t true. Being more spread out means much higher transportation costs (lots of driving, low density makes mass transit less viable); it means much higher costs to construct road networks, electrical grids (and more electricity loss from transmission over longer distances), and water and sewage systems. Suburban homes tend to be larger and have much larger yards, consuming more energy and water than urban dwellings to heat and cool and to tend to their yards. “Mitigating” these problems usually boils down to densification... aka, urbanization. Cities are just a far more energy-efficient way to live.
by Senkaku » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:52 pm
Vetalia wrote:Senkaku wrote:Victoria BC has long pumped their sewage into the Salish Sea without catastrophic results (obviously it’s not GOOD, but for medium-sized cities pumping into the ocean, it isn’t necessarily going to totally destroy the coast)—but even if you totally putrefy a river or a lake, I’d argue that’s a lot less severe than razing miles and miles of forest or paving over huge areas of farmland, and then having people move in to start living incredibly inefficient lifestyles.
Vancouver doesn't pump raw sewage into the ocean; it has a combined sewer system which means under certain rare circumstances (such as exceptionally heavy rains) the system overflows and releases the excess stormwater and sewage into the ocean rather than being routed to a treatment plant. This is similar to many other older cities in the United States.
Also, take a look at the history of the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland and Lake Erie (which is where I live)...that ecosystem was literally almost destroyed by the sheer amount of pollution dumped into the river and the impact of it radiated throughout the rest of the area. Destruction of a healthy aquatic ecosystem has knock-on effects on the rest of the region, particularly when rivers are dammed and polluted.
The land impact of SUBURBS is NEGLIGIBLE? HUH??
Yes, with good land and wildlife management and preservation of green space the impact of suburban development can be significantly offset. In reality, suburban development only occupies a minuscule portion of the total land area and rarely, if ever, impacts agricultural areas.This... isn’t true. Being more spread out means much higher transportation costs (lots of driving, low density makes mass transit less viable); it means much higher costs to construct road networks, electrical grids (and more electricity loss from transmission over longer distances), and water and sewage systems. Suburban homes tend to be larger and have much larger yards, consuming more energy and water than urban dwellings to heat and cool and to tend to their yards. “Mitigating” these problems usually boils down to densification... aka, urbanization. Cities are just a far more energy-efficient way to live.
There are multiple ways to generate electricity on a local level, rooftop solar is a particularly good one.
These days working from home is more feasible than ever, cutting down on the need to commute.
Electric vehicles cut down on the need for gasoline to drive your car from place to place,
good building design and investment in property cuts down on heating and building costs.
On top of that, many businesses are relocating to lower cost-of-living areas rather than waste money operating in a city where they are subject to much higher taxes resulting in lower operating costs and reduced commute times for suburbanites.
Really, the entire concept of locating a business in a major city is archaic to begin with, 9/10 there is literally no benefit to doing so.
And let's be honest, the quality of life is much higher in a suburb than in a city.
by Senkaku » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:54 pm
Loben The 2nd wrote:Senkaku wrote:Suburban living being more pleasant for many people doesn’t actually make it environmentally superior to urban living (and in fact a lot of the things people like about suburban life versus cities are achieved only at significant environmental cost)
perhaps some people dont want to be packed in like sardines.
funny how that happens.
by Bear Stearns » Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:55 pm
by James_xenoland » Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:17 pm
Vetalia wrote:Senkaku wrote:Even cities that dump their raw sewage into the ocean or don’t recycle at all or whatever are more eco friendly than suburbs if you want to think abt their land and carbon footprints
I am pretty sure the environmental consequences of cities packed full of millions of people dumping their untreated sewage and industrial wastes into waterways is far more severe than the consequences of someone living in a suburb in a developed country with modern infrastructure...the land impact is pretty negligible, too, and itself can be mitigated effectively with good wildlife management and preservation of green space. Even good plant management for a conventional suburban grass lawn can create habitats for numerous species and of course there is also plenty of room for gardening and other uses.
You could argue about the carbon footprint but that can be mitigated just as effectively in a suburb with much higher quality of life to boot compared to a city, particularly one where people are packed in like sardines.
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
Rikese wrote:From a 14 year old saying that children should vote, to a wankfest about whether or not God exists. Good job, you have all achieved new benchmarks in stupidity.
by An Alan Smithee Nation » Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:32 pm
by Major-Tom » Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:39 pm
by Major-Tom » Wed Jul 08, 2020 11:40 pm
An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:So instead we will have a massive suburban sprawl over all the good agricultural land? Seems foolish.
Build megacities in the deserts.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Jetan, Singaporen Empire
Advertisement