I don’t see a reason to be sad because I think it’s a wonderful thing more people have a choice now. Whether I end up making perfect decisions or not I wouldn’t trade anything for that.
Why not just raise your kids with a low eco footprint? The whole argument is silly to me. If you want to find the best action you and your children can do about climate change - it’s going vegan.
There’s a ton of info out there that says it better than I can but the consensus is the vegan diet is the biggest thing you can do.
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.
“Agriculture is a sector that spans all the multitude of environmental problems,” he said. “Really it is animal products that are responsible for so much of this. Avoiding consumption of animal products delivers far better environmental benefits than trying to purchase sustainable meat and dairy.”
Yes. The SF Water Department uses goats to keep the Hetch Hetchy water pipeline route clear. The pipeline route is long, narrow, and goes through hills, so it's hard to mow. They fence off a section with portable electric fence and put in about a hundred goats. In a day or two all the brush is gone. Then, on to the next section.
Some of the larger parks use sheep to graze down large grassy open areas. The goats are more useful in hilly areas and less picky about what they will eat.
> The goats are more useful in hilly areas and less picky about what they will eat.
This sort of thing is a problem here in New Zealand. Fragile environments get hit hard by goats, but I’d imagine that wildfires aren’t exactly helpful either.
You only do this in the places where you want everything to become skyscrapers. There is no real need for it in Des Monies or other places that already have reasonable housing costs.
Focusing jobs in one area reduces competition among landlords while fostering multiple job centers with amenities encourages competition including price competition
What "focuses" jobs in one area though? Is it a conscious choice to place a job in a location, or is it the density of the people and the skills that allows the jobs to exist at all?
The idea that jobs can be placed anywhere flies in the face of pretty much every single city's economic development efforts over the past few decades. It's not realistic, or reasonable.
What can be placed anywhere is housing. The only reason that we don't have higher density is a small number of landowners lobbying to keep everything identical to the way that it was when they moved in, and when they moved in they had just massively changed the landscape from fruit groves to suburban sprawl. They said: change to allow me, but no more. And now they benefit massively by restricting density around them.
If you’re talking about Silicon Valley that was converted from fruit groves to sprawl and a job center then how was that the result of density? In terms of density it’s not much different to many areas.
The focusing is done due to a whole host of reasons but certainly encouraging jobs to spread out is not a bad idea for a number of reasons - including having options and livability
People usually cite network effects, or more simply the VC and big money people live in sf and nyc and prefer their workers live there too. How many billionaires live in Boise?
I feel like Uber can always make money as a marketplace - but competitive pressures from other marketplaces will drive profits down. However, is there any further growth in the model? Seemingly no unless they gain monopoly.
You are making me smack my forehead to the point of giving myself a concussion. If your comment were true, market economies as a concept would be unviable. The global economy would not exist if your comment were true. Ride-sharing is a market. People compete in the market. That’s how literally every solvent business in the world operates.
Yes devaluing currency is much less painful. But it creates risk for traders which the monetary union removes. Removing that risk may not be a great idea since one region is bound by a different political structure that is bound to play a role.
