Thanks for checking in. Today will be the first “green” edition of “Amorphous Thoughts.” But, because it involves the environment, it does not mean it won’t be interesting. I stumbled upon a pretty cool graphic from the folks at www.persquaremile.com. Here is a little background on the site and graphic. The folks at PSM simply write about living density. They pontificate about how our world would work if we lived packed like sardines or if we were so spread out we didn’t see anyone for days on end. It’s a really interesting blog, I would suggest it, if you find the time. But, what I’m passing on today was the most surprising item I’ve seen from them so far.
They looked at some of the world’s largest cities (San Francisco, New York, Paris, London, Singapore, Houston). They then extrapolated how much land we would take up, if the whole’s world population lived that same way. It’s difficult to fathom, but amazing to wonder about the ramifications. I immediately thought: How much less would we fly? drive? travel to work? How short of a distance would food have to travel to get to us? Many people don’t know, but food travels from 1,500-2,500 miles on average, before it makes it to your plate. I thought we could negate some of the effects of global warming and sea level rise, by not having to live on coastal areas. Then I got sad, because I thought there would less cool places to travel to. With all good comes some bad, right?
So, here’s the chart, you’d be surprised to know that we can house the world’s population without even using all the land in the USA:
Pretty incredible, we would only use up the land in Texas, if we all lived at the same density as New York City.
2 more things before clearing out for the weekend. Another pretty cool item, that may give a glimpse into our future world. Chances are you’ve never heard of vertical farming. It does tie into this denser living idea in this post. Vertical farming is exactly what it sounds like. Instead of massive fields, taking up acres and acres of space, your land runs upward. The vertical farming is being researched to alleviate some of the problems I mentioned earlier, like food traveling long distances to get to you. You could conceivably have a vertical farm, on the outskirts of a large town or even within an urban setting and lower that 1,500 food mile average by a large amount. For me, it’s just another thing that’s fun to consider. Check out the link and here’s a clip about it as well:
Monday, we have a new blog section called, “Huh, that’s legal?” On Tuesday & Wednesday, I will post direct links to my earlier individual previews of the candidates (so you don’t have to find them in the archives or scroll through all 4). And, some other posts I liked, so people can catch up on things they missed.
A couple of candidates have done some stupid things since the last debate, so there will be at least 2 new video clips. There will be a link posted for a great interview I’ve never put on the site, with another economist, Jeff Madrick. I have another graph to show our income inequality here in the States. And, a great photo album on the Oakland strike/protest on Wednesday, complete with a whopping 122 pics. So, something for the folks who have read all the posts so far too. And, I’ll come back Thursday with a new post.
Have a good weekend,
James