what will happen to the suburbs

While, I don't really put much stock in "futurists." This is an interesting well thought out peice, with some interesting points.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/what-is-the-future-of-suburbia-a-freakonomics-quorum/?scp=2&sq=architect&st=cse

A bunch of berkeleying hippies said:If the federal government reduces incentives for sprawl (by shifting funds from highway building, for instance, to mass transit or to sewer construction necessary for “densifying” suburbs), the so-called “smart growth” movement will hasten and spread deeper into suburbia. If the oil cartels and our own consumption habits keep energy prices high, consumers will pressure builders into putting up smaller and “greener” units that may not look like my parents’ split level. Highways may not be as congested or at least they may be safer because people will be driving slower to save on gas. Increased purchases of hybrids and other energy-saving moves will reduce pollution and the “carbon footprint” of suburbia.

Sounds like berkeleying hippy talk to me. How 'bout we just control immigration instead?

A depressing read, but land is finite. If populations continue to rise, and no one likes my idea of getting rid of people that don't contribute to society, then you have no where to go but build up. Of course we've been avoiding the bell curve for a while, but as populations get denser and denser, the spread of disease will become easier, there will be more violence, and so on, so we'll eventually level off.

no one likes my idea of getting rid of people that don't contribute to society

Um, I really like that idea.

I like it too, but I'm mostly a republican and I live down south.

captainzib wrote: no one likes my idea of getting rid of people that don't contribute to society,

new food source?

Actually you are correct that packing people into cities will make disease easier to contract. We will have a modern day Black Death, well so long as we don't get a cure for it right away. Modern medicine has actually interrupted the natural cycle of selection. There are, to be flat about it, people alive today that should not be alive. People that should have died at birth or near birth, people whose deaths have been unnaturally postponed by modern medicine.

We don't need Black Death--the next killer is here already.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/08/11/080811fa_fact_groopman

If you don't want to read all 5 pages, let me condense it for you: Thanks to a proliferation of antibiotic-resistant microbes, we're quickly moving back into a pre-antibiotics age.

Margie

Yeah...I don't really care for modern medicine.

Boasting that the US has the lowest infant mortality rate is inappropriate.

It should be along the lines of "More people die later...not so much right off the bat."

poopshovel wrote:

no one likes my idea of getting rid of people that don't contribute to society

Um, I really like that idea.

I'll second THAT! I'll even go peacfully when it's my time!

The Original Americans had it right. The old ones would go off in the Winter when it was thier time. Not to mention that men fought, f$#%ed, and fished, while women folk did all the real work

Instead we've been fighting Death ( and Insurgents ) ever since.

antibiotic resistant bacteria will kill me. I'm sure of it. With my crazy history of sinus infections and abuses of anitbiotics by doctors early in my life.....

Reminds me of the sci-fi super buildings and cities.

poopshovel wrote:

no one likes my idea of getting rid of people that don't contribute to society

Um, I really like that idea.

Yes, we should kill all the old people! Im glad you agree.

rebelgtp wrote:

captainzib wrote: no one likes my idea of getting rid of people that don't contribute to society,

new food source? Actually you are correct that packing people into cities will make disease easier to contract. We will have a modern day Black Death, well so long as we don't get a cure for it right away. Modern medicine has actually interrupted the natural cycle of selection. There are, to be flat about it, people alive today that should not be alive. People that should have died at birth or near birth, people whose deaths have been unnaturally postponed by modern medicine.

I'm one of them. I was born with hydrocephalus. Born in Iraq, where all the good medicine went to Saddam and his friends, my dad and I came here so I could get treated at the Washington Children's Hospital.

Fast forward 24ish years later, and I'm nearly an engineer, working, and paying taxes.

How do you determine who to save and who to let go? I more or less agree with you, I just think that we as human beings shot ourselves in the foot by saying every life is precious, and everyone must be saved regardless of quality of life. I'm sure plenty of people will call me an shiny happy person for thinking this way, but that's fine, I've been called worse by people that meant more to me.

The world got all upset with the Germans a few years ago for this sort of thinking.

It all depends on how much you agree with the rules.

GlennS wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

no one likes my idea of getting rid of people that don't contribute to society

Um, I really like that idea.

Yes, we should kill all the old people! Im glad you agree.

It's worked out pretty well for Canada.

Don't look for suburbia to disappear anytime soon.

From a town planning perspective, it is a goldmine. First are the overly inflated property taxes. But bigger than that is the sales tax revenue.

Suburbia represents an influential and predominately wealthy cross section of the population, which means large increases in communities sales tax revenues, and their local option taxes. The increased amounts of fuel translate to fuel tax revenues, revenues from vehicles repairs, etc.

There is absolutely no incentive for local authorities to discourage sprawl, as long as they've got the real estate.

I don't think it's a matter of authorities discouraging sprawl. If population continues to rise, these people will need space to live. Inhabitable land on this planet is finite, and surely technology will convert formerly unhospitable locations into barely livable, but eventually people will have to squeeze together, or people will have to die. War, disease, starvation, and who knows what else will ensure this. But on the other hand, technology plays a huge role in medicine.

captainzib said:Fast forward 24ish years later, and I'm nearly an engineer, working, and paying taxes.

Awesome! Glad you're here! Does it infuriate you that the US is welcoming unskilled, non-taxpaying, non-citizens to come here and pound out puppies?

This should be required watchin' for high-schoolers ("immigration by the numbers:")

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&hl=en

captainzib wrote: I don't think it's a matter of authorities discouraging sprawl. If population continues to rise, these people will need space to live. Inhabitable land on this planet is finite, and surely technology will convert formerly unhospitable locations into barely livable, but eventually people will have to squeeze together, or people will have to die. War, disease, starvation, and who knows what else will ensure this. But on the other hand, technology plays a huge role in medicine.

Ever taken a plane trip? I'd wager that less than 1% of the land area is densely populated, and probably 80-90% is barely populated at all. There's a lot of forest, farmland, and desert in between LA and New York.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: We don't need Black Death--the next killer is here already. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/08/11/080811fa_fact_groopman If you don't want to read all 5 pages, let me condense it for you: Thanks to a proliferation of antibiotic-resistant microbes, we're quickly moving back into a pre-antibiotics age. Margie

Not me! After my tour in Ethiopia and Eritrea, I realized quickly that cleanliness is a relative concept. I don't use any of that anti-baterial crap, spent lots of time outdoors and have animals in my house (OK, 4 very pampered dogs, but you get the idea) I chew on pens/pencils, even when I don't know where they came from. I put my ID card in my mouth when riding to the base gate, let the security guy touch and put it back in my mouth as I ride off and unzip my pocket to put it back. I eat undercooked meat and when I am alone in the garage constantly wip my face mouth and eyes with my filthy hands. I clean up with plain old soap or goop. I figure I am alive because I have Three Stogies Syndrome I'm gonna live forever suckas! (or die trying)

poopshovel wrote:

captainzib said:Fast forward 24ish years later, and I'm nearly an engineer, working, and paying taxes.

Awesome! Glad you're here! Does it infuriate you that the US is welcoming unskilled, non-taxpaying, non-citizens to come here and pound out puppies? This should be required watchin' for high-schoolers ("immigration by the numbers:") http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265&hl=en

Just as much as it rewards unskilled, non-taxpaying, citizens to stay uneducated and pound out puppies

Many subdivisions have very interesting road layouts. Lots and lots of racetracks?

I am also one of those people who would not be alive. I almost died when I was 14 from Crohnes Disease. 100 years ago, it would have been a form of consumption.. not that it existed 100 years ago, Crohnes, being an auto-immune system disfunction is a distinctly 1st world disease.

Compared to most of europe and asia, we have LOTS of land and not much people. We are around 250 to 275 million people here in the US. That is not a lot

Mental wrote:

poopshovel wrote: Does it infuriate you that the US is welcoming unskilled, non-taxpaying, non-citizens to come here and pound out puppies?

Just as much as it rewards unskilled, non-taxpaying, citizens to stay uneducated and pound out puppies

Yes and yes. It also annoys me to no end when people come into this country then absolutely refuse to integrate. These are the people that cry 'racist' like they have an itchy trigger finger as they walk around not realizing they are ethnocentric xenophobes.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Ever taken a plane trip? I'd wager that less than 1% of the land area is densely populated, and probably 80-90% is barely populated at all. There's a lot of forest, farmland, and desert in between LA and New York.

I wasn't trying to imply that population would become too dense overnight, just that it would happen eventually. It's not a matter of if it will happen, just when, or better yet, how to prevent it.

Actually I would more than likely be one of those people as well. I was born premature.