Page 6 of 6

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:45 pm
by Alphaville
classical_Liberal wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:33 pm
They tend to arrange themselves socio-economically. Even smaller towns @alphaville would not consider cities have the working class/first gen immigrant neighborhoods. Those are my "go to" places. They tend to be more skill/social economy based, much friendlier and open to interactions. Add to that generally cheaper housing. On the three ladder system these are the L3-2/G4 neighborhoods.
depends where, you get some mix. real cities are not burbs which are more segregated by car. anything that is designed around the car will segregate people more. pedestrians coexist with others.
classical_Liberal wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:33 pm
Paramilitary compound is an extreme. Big cities have too much population density, and in the US too many opposing groups (us/them mentality). They seem like a powder keg to me vs lower population density, smaller cities. But I think we've had this discussion before :P
cities are fine. people are used to getting along with strangers. it's way safer there than among "deliverance" types :lol:

small towns also don't get much attention and/or armed forces protection. if they burn, they burn.

new york city with all its population density is below 1 covid infection rate now. i'd go today if work/earnings allowed. lovely place full of friendly people. sure, the shock of closing retail will hurt the economy, but more room for me when the rich leave for connecticut. the 70s new york arts scene was something else.

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:54 pm
by classical_Liberal
At least we can agree the burbs are the worst! :lol:

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:07 pm
by Alphaville
classical_Liberal wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:54 pm
At least we can agree the burbs are the worst! :lol:
i'll drink to that!

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:56 am
by Alphaville
CS wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:57 pm
Yes.

Ditto for the social one. I've just been reading along on that one. There is something to be said for walking out the door and knowing there is someone close by for informal interactions. With the exception of college dorms, our society is not set up for that. (I should probably put this comment there but I'm a lazy person today.)
requoting/reanswering from a different angle, because this thing about “informal interactions” and “college dorms” has stayed in the back of my head for days, bouncing around.

there are other situations that promote this, like artist & writing residencies & colonies, science institutes, bohemian neighborhoods, college campuses beyond the dorm, science cities (eg los alamos) etc, where such interactions happen. they may not be permanent, but they are beneficial. in the shorter term, professional conferences and trade fairs generate a similar energy.

here’s a quote from kahneman. i’ve been mulling kahneman over lately. huge implications to his work. btw, i find the “blink” about his famous book highly erroneous and missing the point for reasons i prefer to discuss elsewhere (big tangent). anyway, here’s the quote:
Amos and I had our most productive year in 1971–72, which we spent in Eugene, Oregon. We were the guests of the Oregon Research Institute, which housed several future stars of all the fields in which we worked—judgment, decision making, and intuitive prediction. Our main host was Paul Slovic, who had been Amos’s classmate at Ann Arbor and remained a lifelong friend. Paul was on his way to becoming the leading psychologist among scholars of risk, a position he has held for decades, collecting many honors along the way. Paul and his wife, Roz, introduced us to life in Eugene, and soon we were doing what people in Eugene do—jogging, barbecuing, and taking children to basketball games. We also worked very hard, running dozens of experiments and writing our articles on judgment heuristics. At night I wrote Attention and Effort. It was a busy year.

kahneman, d. (2011) thinking, fast and slow. farrar, strauss, giroux
(not sure how to cite kindle page numbers in apa style, but this is the opening of chapter 12)
that sort of hothouse environment is great for pursuing projects and generating ideas through formal and informal collaboration. and it’s always sad when they end.

maybe the fun thing to do would not be a land co-op (too permanent) but an “ere institute” where people would pursue interesting projects for a limited period.

anyway i’m not asking anyone to do this “for humanity” nor suggest that anyone here must or should or would event want to attend. i’m just saying i think it’s a cool idea that could produce interesting results if implemented correctly—in another universe anyway.

ps i practically live online, but online doesn’t cut it for some things. the thought of attending an “online conference” makes one’s eyes burn in anticipation. and you can’t text someone kefir grains.

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:39 am
by ertyu
oooh. ere institute would be the cool. no lectures, all workshops and applied shit. i'd go. how would they persuade people to leave tho :lol:

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:48 am
by Alphaville
ertyu wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:39 am
oooh. ere institute would be the cool. no lectures, all workshops and applied shit. i'd go. how would they persuade people to leave tho :lol:
when i or friends have been to artist residencies it’s usually for a fixed term set in advance. you apply with your cv/portfolio to carry out a project, plus other forms of participation/collaboration are required (with students/faculty/community/other residents/etc), and then you make a public presentation at the end—that’s the only lecture, or the discussion/presentation of other people’s projects as well. then they swiftly kick you out to make room for the next batch of elected.

i’m assuming it’s similar for the sciences and for humanities scholars though i don’t have direct experience of that and have just peeked from the outside (i’ve taken classes/attended seminars from visiting writers and visiting scientists , but i didn’t pry about their other activities at the time)

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:53 pm
by mathiverse
I don't have many specifics to add other than to point out this thread for the 5th point you are trying to address: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5877&start=240

The thread points to resources to figure out what the regional effects of climate change will be on regions you care about.

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:13 am
by jacob
US climate change maps for 2070 and moderate--high emissions scenarios which are still the most realistic outcome.

https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:25 am
by IlliniDave
jacob wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:13 am
US climate change maps for 2070 and moderate--high emissions scenarios which are still the most realistic outcome.

https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
There's some interesting illustrations in that link. Although 2070 is beyond my horizon, if I consider my future geographic range an ellipse, the foci are well placed for the next 50 years. Where I'm at now is not so good. Wish I could claim some sort of agency in that, but the choices were instinctual and the overlay on this set of future predictions lucky.

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:51 pm
by mathiverse
jacob wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:13 am
US climate change maps for 2070 and moderate--high emissions scenarios which are still the most realistic outcome.

https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
In that map, the northeast gets more unsuitable (the green areas in the first few maps of the US) in high emissions scenarios (ME, VT, etc). I'm surprised since they are pretty close to the ocean and further north. Anyone know the TL; DR for why that happens?

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:05 pm
by jacob
@mathiverse - The [top layers of the] ocean is heating too and thus provides less of a thermal buffer yoy. Same reason why hurricanes will be able to form increasingly to the north (and begin to form in the southern hemisphere too). Also changing weather patterns and [possibly] slow down of the North Atlantic Current which currently brings colder surface water down from Greenland.

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:56 pm
by c4rat0n1a
Alphaville wrote:
Fri Aug 28, 2020 2:56 pm
i’m saying aus/nz are near a very big fish that is hungry for resources. and in a dystopian world... there is nowhere to go.
Only if you use an unusual definition of the word near.

China is closer to the US & Canada west coast than it is to New Zealand. China is several thousand km closer to the UK than China is to New Zealand.

Re: House questions in a new political order

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:16 pm
by Alphaville
c4rat0n1a wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:56 pm
Only if you use an unusual definition of the word near.

China is closer to the US & Canada west coast than it is to New Zealand. China is several thousand km closer to the UK than China is to New Zealand.
with a hypothetical american collapse in the pacific (hawaii bases no longer in play) china is still closer to new zealand than any other major powers, and i'm looking at the south china sea as china's sphere of influence, where there's a clear island hopscotch into australasia.

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiery_Cross_Reef

besides, the economic integration is already in progress: https://oec.world/en/profile/country/nzl/

it's closer from washington dc to london than from washington dc to santiago; but the us-backed coup of "the other 9/11" (1973) didn't happen in england. see: monroe doctrine