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

Make More Land

jefftk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 279 posts

Re: Make More Land

#71

Post by kragen »

derefr wrote: post #24
zackbloom wrote: post #18

> This part of the Bay is primarily industrial salt ponds. For the record, the industrial salt ponds are actually very beautiful. The fact that they are salt ponds is not actually a refutation to the 'but you're destroying beauty' argument.

No, but it is an argument against that part of the bay being, say, a valuable fishery, or valuable marshland for birds, or anything else people might think they’re protecting. Industrial salt ponds aren’t “nature” in the same sense you’d expect a water body to represent. They’re essentially already a sterile, man-made structure.

They're not sterile; their brilliant colors are produced by halophile archaea and in some cases bacteria and algae that flourish in environments that would kill anything else.

Re: Make More Land

#72

Post by generalpass »

hnruss wrote: post #32

”Making more land” requires destruction of relatively rare marine habitats. Sure, there’s a lot of ocean out there, but many species thrive where the land naturally meets the sea. Bays and estuaries are treasures, not just bits of water waiting to be paved.

The Seastead Institute promotes that newly created flotillas in the open ocean create habitat that was previously non-existent.

Re: Make More Land

#73

Post by marvin »

Here's the biggest objection, that would hold true for many expensive areas of the Western world, and any policy that will dramatically increase the supply of real estate:

"I own property here, and if we do this, the value of my property will fall. Therefore, we shouldn't do it".

This is the real motivation, but bring up some environmental concerns, something about retaining the character of the area, something about ensuring that the area won't be mobbed by new inhabitants, just to make the argument plausible. Then vote.

Re: Make More Land

#74

Post by ummonk »

seiferteric wrote: post #35

> The world is very large, and cities are a very small portion of it. The land we set aside for animals should be outside of cities, where far more land is available at far less impact to people. Wetlands in particular are pretty rare and environmentally valuable places though. The fact that you would fill them in and "set aside" some probably less valuable land somewhere else is not very reassuring.

Right, especially when practically every major ever delta is populated by a large city due to historical ports.

Re: Make More Land

#76

Post by l1n »

kragen wrote: post #71
derefr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it is an argument against that part of the bay being, say, a valuable fishery, or valuable marshland for birds, or anything else people might think they’re protecting. Industrial salt ponds aren’t “nature” in the same sense you’d expect a water body to represent. They’re essentially already a sterile, man-made structure.

They're not sterile; their brilliant colors are produced by halophile archaea and in some cases bacteria and algae that flourish in environments that would kill anything else.

If you're interested in reading more about the value of studying halophilic achaeons: https://www.americanscientist.org/article/extreme-microbes

Re: Make More Land

#77

Post by hnruss »

BurningFrog wrote: post #54
hnruss wrote: post #32

”Making more land” requires destruction of relatively rare marine habitats. Sure, there’s a lot of ocean out there, but many species thrive where the land naturally meets the sea. Bays and estuaries are treasures, not just bits of water waiting to be paved.

Land would still meet the sea. Just in a different location.

It is not equivalent.

Ecosystems take many years to develop and often host unique species that don’t just pack up their bags and move where we want them to. When habitat is lost, extinction occurs— maybe not all at once, and maybe not species that we know of, but habitat loss contributes significantly to extinction.

Re: Make More Land

#78

Post by fiter »

bluGill wrote: post #58
melling wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one said it would be easy. Yes, it will require urban planning. Personally, I’d prefer trains/subways to buses. The future of mass transit should arrive within a decade or so as China finishes developing low-speed maglevs that travel around 100 mph. Oakland out 50 miles should become commutable. For now, what’s the subway situation from Oakland to downtown San Francisco? Getting people to commute in that direction…

Technology is not important. The reasons to prefer trains and subways are not the technology so much as most buses are running in the same lane as cars and so they have the same limitations. A bus in a truly dedicated lane would work just as well for most purposes, if only we cared about them. There are a couple advantages to trains/subways over buses, but for the most part they don't apply. They can be longer: have…

Even with a dedicated lane, there will still be more delays than with a grade separation (subway). Intersections are a bottleneck.

Re: Make More Land

#79

Post by hnruss »

generalpass wrote: post #72
hnruss wrote: post #32

”Making more land” requires destruction of relatively rare marine habitats. Sure, there’s a lot of ocean out there, but many species thrive where the land naturally meets the sea. Bays and estuaries are treasures, not just bits of water waiting to be paved.

The Seastead Institute promotes that newly created flotillas in the open ocean create habitat that was previously non-existent.

That’s not the topic of the article and not what I’m arguing against, just to be clear.

Re: Make More Land

#80

Post by blotter_paper »

derefr wrote: post #24
zackbloom wrote: post #18

> This part of the Bay is primarily industrial salt ponds. For the record, the industrial salt ponds are actually very beautiful. The fact that they are salt ponds is not actually a refutation to the 'but you're destroying beauty' argument.

No, but it is an argument against that part of the bay being, say, a valuable fishery, or valuable marshland for birds, or anything else people might think they’re protecting. Industrial salt ponds aren’t “nature” in the same sense you’d expect a water body to represent. They’re essentially already a sterile, man-made structure.

No it's not, the article addresses environmental concerns in a separate paragraph right above that. Whether or not you or I were convinced by the preceeding environmental argument is irrelevant, the quoted excerpt about salt ponds was specifically addressing the issue of percieved beauty (not environmental concerns).
Post reply on HN