Legit question: if socialists somehow took power in the US tomorrow, would a mass migration of people from Arizona/NM/other places that defy god simply by existing be a goal?
I'm not sure what the right thing to do would be. Indigenous people have lived in these places for hundreds or thousands of years, so humans can live here without wrecking the ecosystem, but the consumption now is insane.
Most of the water in the west goes to agriculture. I think a lot of it is wasteful and is spent on crops that demand a lot of water, or ends up feeding cows, which is inefficient. People also have green lawns and love to golf out here, which, while not on the same scale as the industrialized agriculture business, is still wasteful and indicative of people's attitudes towards water conservation.
Yeah, if we could somehow turn all the cow pastures into soybean farms or whatever and live with water friendly lawns, it would definitely ease the pressure on the water supply
And if we concentrated populations in those large cities like SF that are close to agricultural centers it vastly increases efficiency of distribution of crops.
NGL I'm not sure how much denser you could really make SF without basically levelling it and starting from scratch. The streets are already crazy dense
SF absolutely needs to grow "up" to accommodate more housing. So many single family houses that could be replaced with multifamily dwellings if not for the power weilded by outspoken homeowners who bought 20 years ago and now own a $1.6 million bungalow.
How fucked up is it that a bunch of drunk extremely online nerds could probably craft better, more efficient, more humane policy than literally 90% of people in office?
I would say yes. We should be doing shit like fixing the decaying infrastructure in the rust belt and rebuilding manufacturing with nationalized industry. Also breaking up Amazon and Tesla and assimilating their respective components into public ownership, e.g. NASA, USPS (this would include taking over UPS and FedEx), Department of Energy, etc.
What about a place like LA? We're in the middle of earthquake, wildfire, and drought country, and the whole place has been built to basically be inaccessible without private automobiles, but also it's the 2nd largest city...
LA was built on a desert, the whole place was a mistake. Yes it's massive but we can fit a lot more people in a lot of big cities if we're talking about a socialist government. Useless offices full of paper pushing unproductive labor could be used for mixed use public housing, services etc. Entire buildings sit empty just because they're investment properties.
Legit question: if socialists somehow took power in the US tomorrow, would a mass migration of people from Arizona/NM/other places that defy god simply by existing be a goal?
I'm not sure what the right thing to do would be. Indigenous people have lived in these places for hundreds or thousands of years, so humans can live here without wrecking the ecosystem, but the consumption now is insane.
Most of the water in the west goes to agriculture. I think a lot of it is wasteful and is spent on crops that demand a lot of water, or ends up feeding cows, which is inefficient. People also have green lawns and love to golf out here, which, while not on the same scale as the industrialized agriculture business, is still wasteful and indicative of people's attitudes towards water conservation.
https://www.csgwest.org/policy/WesternWaterUsage.aspx
Yeah, if we could somehow turn all the cow pastures into soybean farms or whatever and live with water friendly lawns, it would definitely ease the pressure on the water supply
And if we concentrated populations in those large cities like SF that are close to agricultural centers it vastly increases efficiency of distribution of crops.
NGL I'm not sure how much denser you could really make SF without basically levelling it and starting from scratch. The streets are already crazy dense
Thing is it's all artificial scarcity when it comes to housing. There's a lot of dumb NIMBY zoning laws and a lot of capacity for public housing.
And the traffic problems can be alleviate with robust public transit.
SF absolutely needs to grow "up" to accommodate more housing. So many single family houses that could be replaced with multifamily dwellings if not for the power weilded by outspoken homeowners who bought 20 years ago and now own a $1.6 million bungalow.
How fucked up is it that a bunch of drunk extremely online nerds could probably craft better, more efficient, more humane policy than literally 90% of people in office?
I would say yes. We should be doing shit like fixing the decaying infrastructure in the rust belt and rebuilding manufacturing with nationalized industry. Also breaking up Amazon and Tesla and assimilating their respective components into public ownership, e.g. NASA, USPS (this would include taking over UPS and FedEx), Department of Energy, etc.
What about a place like LA? We're in the middle of earthquake, wildfire, and drought country, and the whole place has been built to basically be inaccessible without private automobiles, but also it's the 2nd largest city...
LA was built on a desert, the whole place was a mistake. Yes it's massive but we can fit a lot more people in a lot of big cities if we're talking about a socialist government. Useless offices full of paper pushing unproductive labor could be used for mixed use public housing, services etc. Entire buildings sit empty just because they're investment properties.