The CSL

I am in one of last states not to have a shelter in place enacted, so I drove out to go pick up lunch yesterday since it was the first time I wanted solid food. the roads didn't look all that much lighter than a normal workday

Our government released their projections today for the province of Ontario. Expecting 3000-15000 deaths with current measures and if we didn't have measures they say we'd have 100K deaths. Along with this they say at current state approximately 1600 people will die by April 30 and a lot of it in the Toronto area. Pretty intense stuff.

It’s super scary and I’ve to admit that I’m super happy to have so much work on my plate. It helps to get distracted from what is happening out there.

This is gonna push people to leave cities like other historical pandemics I think. Population density is playing a major part in the ferocity of this.

drumr wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:06 pm This is gonna push people to leave cities like other historical pandemics I think. Population density is playing a major part in the ferocity of this.

I mean not really....Singapore, Seoul, Tokyo, all some of the densest places on earth and handled this brilliantly

Cities are the only places that create the capacity to deal with these issues on a large scale. Hospitals, supply chains, everything is only possible in cities.

All of them are having resurgences and having to lock down again because disease spreads quickly. Actually just watched this being debated in realtime. Good arguments on both sides, but I personally fall on the side of people spreading out more.

drumr wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:55 pm All of them are having resurgences and having to lock down again because disease spreads quickly. Actually just watched this being debated in realtime. Good arguments on both sides, but I personally fall on the side of people spreading out more.

Yea i just don’t believe you can put the virus in a vacuum like that — people “spreading out” is disastrous for the environment, makes people less trusting of one another, and just makes for a shittier quality of life (in my opinion). Can’t defeat a virus by making climate change worse

First off I love hearing different povs so thanks for the discussion. It's not in a vacuum? I mean that's a heavily researched fact. There is more disease and greater spread in cities. Also I disagree about people being less trusting, polarization politically has increased as more liberal populations have trended towards urban. I don't like "polls" but that's what they reflect. I've also lived in rural areas that had better standards of living (and worse). Small towns in the NE US are beautiful.

Why curious why would you think people spreading out would be worse for climate change? Cities are by far the greatest source of pollution and waste. Cities themselves are extremely impactful on the environment and there's quite a bit of research showing they wreck havoc on indigenous animal populations. I can source what I'm saying but there's research both ways. Some cities have started intentionally going greener, but it's still ongoing.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... n-threats/

I agree - healthy debate is a beautiful thing!

I'm actually glad you bring this up as this is my academic background. I'll (try to) be brief so we can get back to basketball.

It sounds like there's two different threads here. Diversity/inclusivity & environmental impact. Let's just touch on both from a 30,000 foot lens.

On the diversity component, I'd ask you to step back before you equate inclusivity with the political spectrum.

Think of that as putting a 2020 U.S. spin on a 10,000 year old phenomenon.

Literally since Babylon, cities have brought different people together. Of course, this is more true in centers of trade (Constantinople, Amsterdam, New York, etc) than it is in industrial hubs (St. Louis, Stuttgart, etc.) but the trend holds true across time & geography: The more exposure, the less bigotry.

Does that mean that cities are problem free? Lord no. Humans suck, so we'll always see swastikas, race riots, you name it. But that's missing the forest for the trees: You don't get diversity & immigration without the city.

Today (in the US context), that plays out in a political divide. Which -- i'll quickly point out -- is the first time in the history of the US that politics have become so closely linked to the urban/rural split. This is likely a result of "identity" politics, where Republican no longer means being for "small government" but for stuff that's probably best not to get into here (asshole-ism?).

The point is, being "inclusive" does not mean having a mix of people who are both, for example, pro and anti-immigration. If one political party takes on a xenophobic stance, then you shouldn't be surprised to see that party struggle in urban settings nationwide. Cities voting increasingly for one party does not mean they're becoming less open-minded. Instead, it's a pretty strong indication that one side of the political spectrum is becoming increasingly close-minded. And that should terrify us.

And as to the environment, let's break down that first sentence that "cities are by far the greatest source of pollution and waste." This is not a per capita calculation.
If you have 10 million people, and you put 5 million in a city and 5 million in a rural setting, the rural population has a far greater carbon emission and loss of natural wildlife. The most obvious causes are 1) increased auto dependency and 2) more land being occupied per household.

In a planet with 7 billion humans, literally the only way to create a sustainable way of life is to encourage as many people as possible to live in urban areas. Transit systems, shorter travel distances, less auto-dependence, greener living (apartments are far more efficient to heat than houses), all combine to make the per-person environmental impact of a city far less that of a rural or even suburban environment.

If you want to preserve natural habitat, 1 apartment building can house as many people as 1 square mile of low-density dwellings. If you want to lower the carbon footprint, 1 train can get as many people to work as 500 cars.

And now that we are living in an increasingly post-industrial society, the case for the City is easier to make than ever before. In a developed society, the benefits of the city are felt by everyone. They preserve open space for nature, they create opportunity for disenfranchised populations, and hell they even lower obesity rates. I can go on all day about this, but I'm happy to point you in the direction of some books or videos too if you're interested.

Side note, what on earth was that Nat. Geo. article? I've almost never seen that many logical fallacies in one place, and I'm forced to listen to Trump.

That was actually a very informative and even enjoyable read. Thanks

There is no basketball lol. I'd much rather learn something and ask questions of someone learned in a topic I find interesting so thanks again for engaging. I've actually pulled a few peer reviewed studies to read later because I've always been told the opposite for the most part. I would like to know how largely theoretical some of this is and gow successful we've been creating cities you've described. Whenever I think of cities I've lived in the first things that come to mind are wealth and housing inequalities. When thinking of an ideal city many variables come to mind like city architecture, transportation, fuel sources, etc so I'm gonna try to learn more. Still have one question the above didn't quite answer to me. How does this jib with the relationship between population density and disease.

After reading (lol I'll make sure I check the quality here on out) I'm still not sure how it could be argued that urban population centers are safer in relation to disease. The two studies I've read so far seem to agree with that so I'd love it if you'd point me in the right direction regarding that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4481042/

I do get the point that climate change and pollution are closely tied to underlying health conditions so with what you stated I understand your you don't kill the virus that way premise but again where do studies like above fit into this discussion?

Lastly as a military brat who traveled alot I agree with and would not argue against the benefits of globalization on diversity and inclusion. However when you include politics (which you have to) the migration of people into cities has been detrimental to me in that you now have the phenomenon of a majority of states being red with urban centers being overwhelmingly blue. Not to mention there's so many other variables we haven't began to touch on like local media and cost of living that play a role as well. I personally think polarization in society is largely due to the monopolization of local media and the high numbers of low information voters in these areas moreso than the effect of cities.

P.S. Regarding identify politics. I would call it assholism as well LOL.

I have been working during this mess and haven't caught it yet. Thousands of people come in and out every day at my store, and don't even keep distance. Just walk by me and cough and what not.

I however, did have a scare a week ago. I went to the doctor because of difficulty breathing. My girlfriend also was coughing. Decided to take a leave of absence because of my asthma and this virus mess.
Took the tests and thankfully both were negative for us.


Anyway, since we are quarantined, we decided to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and donate water to Saint John's hospice today, to give back lol.

https://imgur.com/a/Pj0WOBp