Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Economies of scale . .

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Economies of scale . .

    Someone asked how much it costs to live in the bush. In this day of environmental awareness, that's a question I've pondered: How much does it cost the planet to live a rural/bush lifestyle?

    Each of us exacts costs from the planet and the global, economic infrastructure, and each of us puts something back. A person in, say, New York City, I'd guess, is, on average, probably a more productive member of the global system than is a resident of, say, Nome. Moreover, whatever costs a resident of NYC exacts from the planet is amortized in a densely populated area—in terms of economies of scale, his existence costs the planet relatively little.

    On the other hand, the very rural or bush dweller is, in terms of the global system, relatively unproductive, and, in some ways, exacts less cost from the system. However, in other ways, the rural/bush dweller in spite of lower contribution, exacts, per capita, greater costs from the system. All his gasoline, flour, sugar, snow machines, chain saws, and much, much more, have to transported over greater distances and at greatly increased cost, especially considered on a per capita basis.

    That's all . . just wondering. At one end of the scale we have residents of the world' great population centers. At the other end of the scale we have the bush types, here and elsewhere. Which of the two costs the planet and the global infrastructure the most? Which contributes most?

    Any way to measure such things?

  2. #2
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    There is probably no way to measure it. I doubt very much that the Bush lifestyles of Alaskans and Canadians, whether Native or not, would have a difficult time existing without the government funding that is spent supporting it. However, the same could be said for many different areas of the country.

  3. #3
    Member tabmarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Just yards from the Big Su
    Posts
    328

    Default

    NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles and most other large metro areas are toilets with gangs, drug addicts, thieves,
    homeless people and other undesirables that could give a crap about the environment. These communities
    foster dependence and laziness and waste of lots of money on schools that can't teach, programs that only
    add to the problems and create a society of wothless whinney turds.

    So in my opinion The Bush dwellers are much more positive to the big picture.

  4. #4
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    Plenty of drug addicts, thieves and squaters in the bush living off government handouts. In fact, I'd wager that the percentage of them vs. good people is the same in the bush as it is in the cities. Just tough to have a gang out there.

  5. #5

    Default

    Sometimes you just gotta apply a little common sense in seeking answers.
    What does it cost to send a Local Advisory Representative from the bush/rural Alaska to attend BOG Hearings in Anchorage vs sending one from Palmer? What does it cost to send bypass mail to every bush community in the state? What does it cost to maintain schools, jails, LEO, medical clinics and community centers in every bush community in the state vs larger hospitals, schools, LEO and prisons in the urban centers? Why is gas $8+ a gallon in the bush?

    The real question to be answered publically is:
    WHO is paying?
    Economies of Scale are only a matter of concern to those that are picking up the tab.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    ............................
    On the other hand, the very rural or bush dweller is, in terms of the global system, relatively unproductive, and, in some ways, exacts less cost from the system. However, in other ways, the rural/bush dweller in spite of lower contribution, exacts, per capita, greater costs from the system. All his gasoline, flour, sugar, snow machines, chain saws, and much, much more, have to transported over greater distances and at greatly increased cost, especially considered on a per capita basis.

    That's all . . just wondering. At one end of the scale we have residents of the world' great population centers. At the other end of the scale we have the bush types, here and elsewhere. Which of the two costs the planet and the global infrastructure the most? Which contributes most?

    Any way to measure such things?
    Hmmm, very rural or bush dweller has less impact on the local ecosystem, but a higher impact on the global ecosystem. "All his gasoline, flour, sugar, snow machines, chain saws, and much, much more, have to transported over greater distances and at greatly increased cost...."

    The NYC dwellers, as a group, have a larger impact on the local ecosystem. ie; it's all concrete.. But I think use less consumables on a global scale.
    Or I should say have the opportunity to use less, if they choose to do so.

    I think it's a wash, if we are talking about impact to the earth and not to our pocket books.

    The folks in the suburbs, I think have the largest negative impact. Got to keep up with the Jones' you know.
    "The older I get, the better I was."

  7. #7
    Member tabmarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Just yards from the Big Su
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKDoug View Post
    Plenty of drug addicts, thieves and squaters in the bush living off government handouts. In fact, I'd wager that the percentage of them vs. good people is the same in the bush as it is in the cities. Just tough to have a gang out there.
    I have to admit I was assuming. I did not realize it was that bad. As long as the Government keeps funding this free ride
    we all pay for it. It does not do anybody any good at all. I have very little compassion for someone who is not
    willing to help themselves.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    fishhook, ak
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    Marcus, you haven't attempted to define what you mean by the global system. there are many systems, biotic, abiotic, and theoretical. Yet another longwinded non-specific post. your categories of city-dweller versus bush-dweller are nonspecific B.S., don't get caught in the dichotomous thinking trap.

    seems most of what you are describing are material transactions...


    p.s. the planet doesn't care what you (we) do to it. it's a big rock orbiting a nuclear reactor.

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    867

    Default

    I wonder how big the carbon footprint of a city dweller verses the rural dweller? Keep in mind the factor to keep public buildings and commercial buildings heated/cooled/lit all the street lights etc. Rural entertainment verses urban, commuting cost/energy to get to and fro. In my mind the rural person uses less over a year than urban. I have lived 35+ in rural, 25 in urban, I have a perspective of both.

    George

  10. #10

    Thumbs up Answer Coming

    I think the answer to the question is coming soon. When public funding is curtailed abruptly and deeply, we will all hear whom squeals the loudest. I am betting the loudest screeching will come from the rural areas. I also predict there will be an increase in the numbers of folks migrating to the urban areas. In mass, I believe the urban areas will better be able to cope with reduced govt subsidies and fare well enough to maintain a decent standard of living, by the sheer volume of dollars they have available to swap. Time will tell.
    "96% of all Internet Quotes are suspect and the remaining 4% are fiction."
    ~~Abraham Lincoln~~

  11. #11
    Member tabmarine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Just yards from the Big Su
    Posts
    328

    Default

    [QUOTE=George Riddle;1037949]I wonder how big the carbon footprint of a city dweller verses the rural dweller? Keep in mind the factor to keep public buildings and commercial buildings heated/cooled/lit all the street lights etc. Rural entertainment verses urban, commuting cost/energy to get to and fro. In my mind the rural person uses less over a year than urban. I have lived 35+ in rural, 25 in urban, I have a perspective of both.




    I agree. I cannot believe that you would consume more in the remote than in the city. I currently live in
    Large metro srea and you can see the waste every place you go. I have been realizing that once I build
    my remote cabin I will have to cut way back on what I consume as well as being econonical and sensable
    on how I tarnsport supplies.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •