Welcome to the Age of the Hermit Consumer(economist.com)
economist.com
Welcome to the Age of the Hermit Consumer
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/10/22/welcome-to-the-age-of-the-hermit-consumer
6 comments
https://archive.ph/D8zQM
I wonder if this is effect is more exaggerated for software developers where they are stereotypically more introverted to start with.
I really think this shift can be a catalyst for a greener world. I am willing to bet there are a bunch of people who would much rather live way out of the city, but they cannot because of work.
If remote work catches on, those people can free up the cities for the people that cannot work remotely, and actually enjoy the city lifestyle.
Only time will tell but I really hope we start inhabiting the rest of the country outside of the big cities (speaking about North America here)
I really think this shift can be a catalyst for a greener world. I am willing to bet there are a bunch of people who would much rather live way out of the city, but they cannot because of work.
If remote work catches on, those people can free up the cities for the people that cannot work remotely, and actually enjoy the city lifestyle.
Only time will tell but I really hope we start inhabiting the rest of the country outside of the big cities (speaking about North America here)
Living in the city is actually more ecological per capita.
This article links to some sources https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/02/green-li...
But it depends on what type of city - European with compact density and shared utilities will fare better than US suburbia.
Also https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-car... -
This article links to some sources https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/02/green-li...
But it depends on what type of city - European with compact density and shared utilities will fare better than US suburbia.
Also https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-car... -
Those links aren't great. That second link even outright conflates residential living versus industrial production, when the latter is more appropriately attributed to where the goods are used.
Obviously public transit uses less energy. But city dwellers go out much more, whereas rural is more likely to just stay home. Even a basic framing that recognizes telecommuting might not be enough to capture this - if farming and factories are generally not in cities, then having a bunch of people living in cities just to do reverse commutes to less dense areas is going to be worse.
Single family detached dwellings most certainly take more energy to heat. On the other hand if the heat is coming from burning wood, that's renewable in both energy and carbon senses. Modulo particulates of course, but that points to an advantage of lower density.
Urban living also results in much higher rents for housing, with that now-centralized wealth being more likely to be squandered on the upper classes' hedonism landfill.
I'm certainly not rejecting the idea that urban living uses less resources. The hive intuition is quite compelling, and the not-city not-rural hour-plus SUV-commute to a suburban office park lifestyle is clearly terrible. But such comparisons are going to be highly dependent on framing, and those links haven't even done the basics of it.
Obviously public transit uses less energy. But city dwellers go out much more, whereas rural is more likely to just stay home. Even a basic framing that recognizes telecommuting might not be enough to capture this - if farming and factories are generally not in cities, then having a bunch of people living in cities just to do reverse commutes to less dense areas is going to be worse.
Single family detached dwellings most certainly take more energy to heat. On the other hand if the heat is coming from burning wood, that's renewable in both energy and carbon senses. Modulo particulates of course, but that points to an advantage of lower density.
Urban living also results in much higher rents for housing, with that now-centralized wealth being more likely to be squandered on the upper classes' hedonism landfill.
I'm certainly not rejecting the idea that urban living uses less resources. The hive intuition is quite compelling, and the not-city not-rural hour-plus SUV-commute to a suburban office park lifestyle is clearly terrible. But such comparisons are going to be highly dependent on framing, and those links haven't even done the basics of it.
Everybody heating their home with wood would be absolute disaster. There's no way you can grow enough wood for every household (cca 15m3/winter). Depending heavily on climate of course.
Factories producing central heating also have much better CO2 and particles capture systems than regular detached house.
For example my whole city is heated very effectively by combusting garbage. Similar to this https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/climate/sweden-garbage-us...
Factories producing central heating also have much better CO2 and particles capture systems than regular detached house.
For example my whole city is heated very effectively by combusting garbage. Similar to this https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/climate/sweden-garbage-us...
Sure - waste to energy is fantastic, but it is not scalable to everybody either. There are different niches to be occupied - talking about one uniform "way to live" doesn't really make sense.
Which is why when trying to create scalars like energy consumption to make comparisons, framing is critical. And I don't see how articles that fail at basic things like attributing industrial production to whom it's actually supporting do anything besides create some feel good narrative.
Which is why when trying to create scalars like energy consumption to make comparisons, framing is critical. And I don't see how articles that fail at basic things like attributing industrial production to whom it's actually supporting do anything besides create some feel good narrative.