The challenge is picking just one per day.

A cynic might agree wholeheartedly with Stewart Brand’s assessment that slums can provide a glimpse into the future of city life.  Although there is likely some truth to the fact that as you pack people tighter and give them less of everything they will have a smaller environmental footprint, it seems quite ridiculous to believe that there is a significant portion of the population in developed cities that would accept such living conditions.

Although economic realities force many people in places such as NYC to live in smaller spaces than they might otherwise wish (excluding the small portion who seem to love tiny apartments), the universal goal seems to be saving up to be able to afford larger, more luxurious surroundings.  Brand’s article even points out that to make city living possible, “subsidised housing could bring down the high cost of city centre living” enough to prevent families from fleeing to more realistically priced suburbs.  Why are subsidies required to make this reality possible, if city living is so efficient?  Because people desire space, and most don’t want to live in a space equivalent to a typical suburban walk in closet.  When you pack people into less space than they really want to have, space becomes a valuable commodity, and the price skyrockets.

The quoted claims from Science that a future “farm on one city block [that] could feed 50,000 people with vegetables, fruit, eggs, and meat” seem likely to be greatly exaggerated.  With the size of a standard city block between 5-10 acres, and the ability to feed 10 people from 1 acre based on the amount of energy falling from the sun, this translates to food for 100 people.  With a greenhouse that is 20 times more efficient than growing in open air (the maximum gain cited in the Science article), make that 2000 people.  Hoping for a build out of new hydro, solar, or geothermal plants to power this hydroponic and artificial light energy sink seems like wishful thinking.  The cost and energy used in building such a 30 story farm will have a very hard time beating (not-quite-as) local produce farmed in natural sunlight and trucked in from the surrounding countryside.  Even assuming that the 50,000 people fed per block number is correct, feeding its 1.7 million residents would require 32 blocks of Manhattan to be converted to farming.  A more realistic number of 10,000 requires 160 blocks, or nearly 2.5% of the land in the borough.

In short, although it may be desirable to try to convince people to emulate some of the qualities of slum life (recycling, reusing) it seems unlikely that most will be willing to give up much of the convenience and luxury that sap the efficiency that comes from living in cities.  Environmental planning that relies on subsistence and sacrifice (the main virtues of the slum living held up as a teaching model) as its main method of energy efficiency seems like a dark plan for the future.

Obviously, Gerard Alexander just doesn’t get it.  Rather than focusing on the fact that there might be actual reasons underlying opposition to a whole host of issues that the government claims to be able to solve, he should should start with the premise that people are dumb and accept that they are intent on voting against their own interests.  Of course, this is because they are prone to being lulled by good stories and bored by “the facts”.

Only the densest of people could possibly still believe that when a politician offers to give you something, they will inevitably be back to seek repayment for their gift.  Rather than focusing on the gifts that they bring, perhaps our benevolent liberal friends should examine the things their opposition believes they may be forced to give up in return.  It, admittedly, requires an almost unthinkable benightedness to wish to give up such benefits for the mere accommodation of being allowed to keep the majority of a hard-earned paycheck, or to maintain the ability to visit a doctor without asking the local politician for permission (or worse yet, the bureaucracy appointed by the politician).  But it is possible that the answer to the liberals nagging suspicion that the common-folk just don’t get it may lie in just such an unlikely, unexamined corner of the conservative mind.  Of course, it may simply be a matter of these schmucks realizing that when their neighbor is helping to foot the bill, the neighbor may also demand a say in what gets paid for.  So free gifts for all, except the fatties, and the smokers, and the drinkers, and, well, you get the idea.  Of course, it is almost certain that the fatties, and the smokers, and the drinkers will all still be expected to pay into the system.  For the good of society; no less.

If only these dimwits would realize that we’ve no shortage of rich uncles to pay the way, perhaps we could convince them that they won’t eventually be forced to pay their own way or suffer the consequences.  Never-mind that rich uncles (and aunts, for surely there are many of those too) often come round less and less once it becomes obvious that their only usefulness is contained within their pockets.

The blue states may claim to want nothing in return for their benevolence, but the red states realize that eventually, “federal fairness” is likely to come round, asking for its money back.  And the red states, with all their conservative mumbo jumbo, have no interest in accepting gifts for which they know they cannot pay.  These same foolish red states may also believe in figuring out how to pay for their shiny new trinkets before they enact them, lest they be required to cut them at an inopportune time.  The fools may even believe that the word “permanent” still means “existing perpetually; everlasting, esp. without significant change.”

Rather than scratching their heads once again, and asking “What’s wrong with those conservative simpletons?”, perhaps the liberals should examine the possibility that there may exist rational reasons for the opposition to their presents.  Until this happens, those crazy conservatives will most likely continue to cling to their guns and religion, forsaking the gifts of liberal progress that the politicians try to sell them.

Apparently, people don’t want privacy anymore.  Zuckerberg has decided that because people use blogs, they will be ok with each and every detail of their lives being published online and mined by anonymous advertisers.  I will admit that some will probably say they wouldn’t care if every detail of their lives are public.  My guess is that their response would change after someone offers to follow them around with an HD camera 24/7, broadcasting all the details of their privacy expunged lives to the internet.

For some reason, Zuckerberg doesn’t seem to understand that just because people share some information online, they may not wish to expose everything.  Based on the photo of him rock-starring it up in full headset gear on stage, he may actually believe in this new paradigm he has seen.  I do hope somebody will offer to chronicle his life, private Facebook board meetings and all, so that he can demonstrate the benefits of a privacy free existence.

Somebody explain the internet to this guy.  He’s obviously too old to realize that search engines drive people to his websites.  Anybody who only wants to read the two sentence google summary of the article was either never going to be his customer, or has decided that the article sucks (and wouldn’t pay for it anyway.)

It was tough to decide, but he wins over Microsoft, who apparently thinks that paying sites for “search content” is going to turn into an economical business model.  Except MSFT is 10 years to late to be able to crush Google via financial competition.

Put the ads on your site, Murdoch, or lock the doors and make people pay to get in.  If you don’t show up in Google’s results, it simply means I’ll click on whichever site does.  Consider search engines to be free advertising.

This nomination is for the ability to so completely miss the point as to make the rest of your premises and conclusions suspect.  In Mr. Kirsch’s review of a new Ayn Rand biography, he references a story about Ms. Rand making a deal to take fewer royalties in exchange for the inclusion of a particular passage of her book, Atlas Shrugged, and then expounds that

Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done. (link)

Of course, a true capitalist would welcome the opportunity to arrive at a fair price between two parties in order to complete a satisfactory deal. Contrary to the beliefs of many (possibly even contrary to the beliefs of some who think they understand the Atlas Shrugged philosophy), capitalism does not need to represent the persuit of the dollar above all else.  It simply requires that all parties involved in the deal are free to negotiate the terms as they see fit.  In Ms. Rand’s case, that price appears to have been $.07 per copy of her book in order to preserve this particular speech.  I suspect it was a deal she was quite happy to have the opportunity to make.