This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
To open federal lands or not?
Most people in the US are unaware that the Federal government owns like half of the land in the western states. In states like Utah and Nevada, the ratio is even higher. Some people, mostly on the right, have proposed opening up this land for settlement and development. I'm of two minds but mostly against. Here's some arguments I see against and for.
Against:
Development is permanent. Once land is developed, it is almost never returned to its natural state.
Development is ugly. I love the beautiful wide open spaces in the west. In the east, there is very little true wilderness. Everything is someone's private property, with the associated buildings, trailers, junky cars, trash, etc...
Development turns public spaces into private property denying citizens of their birthright to enjoy the open spaces
For:
Development is pro-natal. Cities are fertility and IQ shredders. Density increases prices and decreases fertility, especially among high IQ people. If we want people having 3, 4, 5 kids, we need cheap housing with lots of space. But states like Utah, Colorado, and Nevada have relatively expensive housing despite lots of open space.
Development is good for the economy.
Should we open the public lands?
Is it ? I believe the causation is reversed. People who want kids move to suburbs because American inner-cities are the shame of the 1st world. Mormons moved because they wanted more kids, but more land won't magically create more mormons. Fertility rate is a super-national phenomenon. Intra-national fertility shows low variance (eg: Europe) and at times clashes with the more space = more fertility assumption (eg: France)
83% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. So, at most, people would move to suburbs or exurbs. Suburbs and exurbs are already quite sparse and privately owned. People are tied to their job and profession. They move to cities for work. As long as jobs exist in cities, people aren't leaving urban areas.
Blatantly false. High demand and low supply increases prices.. Density increases supply, and therefore decreases prices. It's just that the densest places have such a high demand, that no amount of density can limit housing price increase. Places like Austin and Auckland have seen slower housing price growth because of permissive zoning (densification). On the other hand, Bay Area suburb prices keep shooting up because it's already full with single family homes, and rezoning isn't permitted.
Name one 1st world nation with a fertility rate above 2.5. The decline in fertility is relentless & global. I appreciate every genuine attempt towards increasing fertility. But, there is no evidence that more space leads to people having more kids.
Israel may count, but zoom in on any Israeli exurb/suburb and it's vastly denser than most American cities. Clearly density was not the issue. I want to offer a counter-solution for the same problem. Densify aggressively instead.
Jobs are in cities. People won't move and they can't move. But, you can make it easier for them to own property near where they work. If space is the issue, then going from 2 -> 4 bed apartments should solve those issues.
Is it ? First the multi-year infrastructure spending sink & then the annual drain on low-density infrastructure. All for a bunch of people who were unemployable enough to move to the middle of nowhere ? How is it any different than social science fake-jobs in the govt. It creates temporary jobs, with negative long term value.
The US needs to aggressively build out family-sized apartments within its existing cities. SJ, SF & LA should be the first targets. Boston, DC & Miami should be next. Austin & Phoenix (Tempe) area already in the middle of a build out, so non-coastal America is covered. In the north, I think Canada (Vancouver & Toronto) will cannibalize growth potential from Seattle & Chicago....so imma leave the north out of this.
The typical argument is that fertility is closer to an AND/ALL relation, not an OR/ANY relation, and that we have a limited enough sample size compared to the number of pertinent variables that every nation is doing something or other to negate the statement. In which case strict demands for evidence before doing anything are utterly doomed to failure.
("Draining the coolant out of all our cars has nothing to do with cars breaking down - see, the next nation over has cars breaking down all over too and they don't take the coolant out. What? Yeah, they drain the transmission fluid out, but that's irrelevant - we don't take the transmission fluid out and we have cars breaking down all over the place!")
Fair, I'll state my claim more clearly.
Jobs force people to agglomerate around cities. Sprawl forces low density, which then forces low supply (high prices) or longer commutes.
Space, time & disposable income affect fertility. Leaving cities comes with a high cost on time and disposable income. Building larger apartments is the answer. IE. large towers, densely packed within the city, but not within the building itself. We don't want to have a canned tuna situation.)
Examples above. It allows people to be near their work, school and amenities Taller apartments allows for larger apartments on the same footprint/number of families. Staying in the city means disposable income isn't at risk.
We can do both. Sprawl horizontally and vertically. But both groups always find each other on opposite sides of arguments. I've conceded that this phenomena is inevitable. Therefore, I find myself opposing your proposal of horizontal sprawl in favor of my desire for vertical sprawl.
Absolutely. You seem to be under the misimpression that this 'space' is just 'square footage (or number of bedrooms) of the private indoor living area'. It really isn't.
I spent a chunk of my childhood in a fairly large apartment complex - that my parents moved out of the instant they got the means to do so, because it was terrible for raising a family in. It did have a fair few families - who were ubiquitously there because they had no other choice.
We then moved to renting a house that was much smaller than the apartment (yes, really)... that had far more space.
...because the population density was lower, meaning that the cul-de-sac had little enough traffic that the neighborhood kids could and did play on it.
...because the population density was lower, meaning that the number of people we had to trust to e.g. allow kids to play was low enough to be feasible.
...because there was a yard, and we had reasonable confidence the neighbors weren't going to be replaced tomorrow with someone my parents didn't trust.
...because when kids were jumping on the floor it didn't annoy anyone except the parents.
...because we could go out and garden in the yard.
...because we could go places that weren't just the basic necessities and box stores.
You're correct. The kind of place you describe is a hellish sardine can. Building vertical with no considerations is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, post 1970s white flight, many American cities have become hostile to things families care about.
I mentioned in another post that I frequent French and Swiss cities. Even in Paris proper there is an abundance of parks, rentable gardens, playgrounds and just generally - open space. Go away from the touristy parts, and Paris gets fairly quiet, car free and residential. The Swiss cities have all of this but 1 level better.
Car death numbers are so high in sprawling America, that at some point suburbs are creating the problems they claim to solve. Parisians dont have to worry about cars, because it's impossible for maniacs to drive 50 mph in residential zones. Similarly, violence and child safety is organically taken care of when there are a dozen observers around at any given moment.
I would let my kid qander by themselves in an American inner city with 4 lane arterials in every direction. But, thats the outcome of the destruction of American cities....not a property of city by itself.
To me, America has less than 10 cities. Everywhere else is a downtown mall and business area surrounded with endless suburbs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link