Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ghost Villages for Sale in Spain

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 190 posts

Re: Ghost Villages for Sale in Spain

#151

Post by prawn »

mmjaa wrote: post #111
volkl48 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that is false. A person living in a big city uses drastically less resources and energy than a rural person does. Less/no driving, smaller more energy efficient dwellings (apartment blocks = way more efficient heating/cooling), vastly less infrastructure per capita , etc.

Nonsense. Factor in all the oil that was used to build the resources the city dweller depends on, and to maintain those resources. Factor in the sheer energy waste of cities. An honest appraisal cannot lead to the conclusion that cities are good for us, energy-wise.

What resources are those that the rural dweller doesn't have? Still need roads, walls, pipes, etc. The majority of rural dwellers still have electricity lines and water pipes going out to them.

Re: Ghost Villages for Sale in Spain

#152

Post by village-idiot »

paganel wrote: post #144
village-idiot wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that in jest, but that is actually how this process works. Remember when touchID came out and many people mockingly thanked Apple for not having to enter 4-6 digits? Now how many people get pissed off when their wet thumb doesn’t read right and they have to enter their pin? People get used to new luxuries.

I’m wondering if I’m not the only person who’s not locking his smart-phone. At the same time I’m also making sure to never leave it out of sight and I have no Internet banking. I also have my WiFi network at home open, have had it for more than 10 years now.

That seems unnecessarily risky to me.

Re: Ghost Villages for Sale in Spain

#153

Post by dropofwill »

DamnYuppie wrote: post #145
dropofwill wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WHO still considers hunger the greatest public health threat (more than AIDs, malaria, etc.). Starvation is far from a solved problem. Just because things are slowly improving doesn’t mean we can’t critique the status quo.

I disagree. You argument is because something exists, that has always existed, it should be criticized. Yet this has been consistently declining. So we are making improvements on it year over year.

Rate of change is as important a concept as change itself.

Re: Ghost Villages for Sale in Spain

#154

Post by closeparen »

codingdave wrote: post #142
briandear wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good grief; this has been the case for as long as there have been people. Rich people and extravagant gifts aren’t some kind of new invention. Not everything has to be a commentary on class struggle or some kind of Marxist validation. And the world isn’t burning; it is more prosperous and has higher standards of living as well as the lowest absolute poverty than any other time in history. Life expectancy has never be…

You surely must be aware that life expectancy is dropping in your country, that starving in the streets still does happen, that the wealth gap is very real, and that the planet is on a path to being uninhabitable. And yet you propose that because poor Americans are fat, that the world must be OK? I'n not disagreeing that history repeats itself. It does. And there is good in this world. But you might want to take a wi…

All of those statements are frames for our astronomical & rising across-the-board material abundance.

a) We have so much food and so little need for the human body to expend energy (cars, infrastructure, oil, etc) that it’s a public health crisis.

b) We’d rather have $0 than see our neighbor get $10 while we get $5. Indicating that we have satisfied all material desires and the only thing left to do is play social status games. It’s seriously incredible that inequality (rather than deprivation) can be anyone’s main concern.

c) The planet is profoundly affected because participation in (a) is getting less unequal, spreading from rich countries to the whole world.

You are describing the tradeoffs of too much improvement, not a general downward trend.

Re: Ghost Villages for Sale in Spain

#155

Post by Razengan »

In all these comments re: rural versus urban versus megacities, nobody seems to have brought up arcologies (as per the sci-fi'ish concept, not half-baked experimental villages like Arcosanti):

A city contained within a single megastructure, or a small cluster of megastructures, with large areas of natural/semi-natural, green, forested lands around them.

Manufacturing and energy generation for all the needs of their residents would be done inside the megastructure or adjacent to it.

Let's see:

• People love living spaces that they have complete control over.

• People love being near other people, without being forced to always be near other people.

• People hate feeling crowded, without any convenient escape to solitude.

• People hate long commutes.

• Unbroken stretches of concrete jungles are dystopian and depressing as hell, no matter how "modern" or glamorous they may be (see places like Dubai.)

• People love greenery, occasional communes with nature, the babbling of brooks and seeing other lifeforms flourish without impinging on human habitats.

• If given a choice without giving up convenience, people want to avoid pollution.

Cities compressed into a few ecological + ergonomic + economic megastructures would tick a lot of those boxes.

The tech may not be there yet, but I hope to see a functional arcology in my lifetime.

Re: Ghost Villages for Sale in Spain

#156

Post by Zanni »

Razengan wrote: post #155

In all these comments re: rural versus urban versus megacities, nobody seems to have brought up arcologies (as per the sci-fi'ish concept, not half-baked experimental villages like Arcosanti): A city contained within a single megastructure, or a small cluster of megastructures, with large areas of natural/semi-natural, green, forested lands around them. Manufacturing and energy generation for all the needs of their r…

If you drop the self-sufficiency requirement, then cruise-ships--which are now the size of small cities--fit the bill.

Re: Ghost Villages for Sale in Spain

#157

Post by mmjaa »

lovich wrote: post #130
mmjaa wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because they have immense numbers of people living in them? Because those people do less to support their own survival locally, and therefore cities require immense intake of energy and resources every day, in order to maintain that lifestyle.

>Because those people do less to support their own survival locally That seems to be a critical modification what you originally said. Are you trying to argue that humanity can keep its current quality of life in a less resource intensive manner by spreading out, or are you arguing that we should decrease our quality of life and go back to creating food and goods on our own? If you take city dwellers and put them all…

>Are you trying to argue that humanity can keep its current quality of life in a less resource intensive manner by spreading out, or are you arguing that we should decrease our quality of life and go back to creating food and goods on our own?

Both. We should spread out, gain more local independence in terms of energy harvesting, and we should also change our lives to be not so dependent on massively energy-hungry activities .. like driving 4 miles to get a burger from a drive-through.

Re: Ghost Villages for Sale in Spain

#158

Post by pxndx »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #137
pxndx wrote: post #118

I've been thinking that if I suddenly had a large sum of money, I'd buy one of these villages, renovate it, add amenities and proper internet, and then rent the individual homes to people that work remote, or set it up as a kind of co-living and co-working space, like a company town.

And nobody will come if the closest hospital is a 2 hour drive and the closest store is far enough that whatever you buy costs double when you factor in the transportation. And you can believe it is a great place to raise kids if you want them to be loners, 'cause there is no school or other kid on a 50 kilometer radius. A great place to live for a monk, not regular people.

A store is one of the "amenities" I'd provide. But you're right about the hospital and education part. I'd probably have a daycare, but anything higher gets harder to do. In any case, it'd be a temporary thing for digital nomads

Re: Ghost Villages for Sale in Spain

#159

Post by paganel »

village-idiot wrote: post #152
paganel wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m wondering if I’m not the only person who’s not locking his smart-phone. At the same time I’m also making sure to never leave it out of sight and I have no Internet banking. I also have my WiFi network at home open, have had it for more than 10 years now.

That seems unnecessarily risky to me.

It makes me not put on my phone things that I consider sensitive, like any of my CC details (the Apple account is connected to a spare debit card which hasn’t had any funds on it for quite some time), no sexting, no nude photos etc. I consider that a positive (and that’s why I thought a guy like Bezos would have been smarter than he really was, you cannot trust any electronic security thing when there’s literally a picture of your genital parts involved). On the other hand I’ve encountered lots of security-obsessed people here in HN who have given their fingerprints or, even worse, their face details to Apple on the premises of making their life more secure. I find that incredibly stupid.

Re: Ghost Villages for Sale in Spain

#160

Post by rorykoehler »

mmjaa wrote: post #157
lovich wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because those people do less to support their own survival locally That seems to be a critical modification what you originally said. Are you trying to argue that humanity can keep its current quality of life in a less resource intensive manner by spreading out, or are you arguing that we should decrease our quality of life and go back to creating food and goods on our own? If you take city dwellers and put them all…

>Are you trying to argue that humanity can keep its current quality of life in a less resource intensive manner by spreading out, or are you arguing that we should decrease our quality of life and go back to creating food and goods on our own? Both. We should spread out, gain more local independence in terms of energy harvesting, and we should also change our lives to be not so dependent on massively energy-hungry ac…

> driving 4 miles to get a burger from a drive-through.

That sounds like suburbia. People who live in high density cities don't really do these things. We just walk downstairs.

Post reply on HN