Originally Posted by
cooker
Obviously a lot less, since they are all concentrated in a small area and also have the advantage of an ocean port, than if they were spread out over an area the size of Utah or something.
Yes less, but not as much less as you seem to believe. Further, there is nothing about dense urbanization that requires proximity to oceans or even navigable waterways...
Originally Posted by
cooker
A lot less than getting suburban residents to the mall or job every single day. And even downtown in the densest cities there are plenty of parks and waterfronts and courtyards where people happily commune with nature all the time.
First, not all urban areas have waterfronts or such. Courtyards with potted plants are not nature. And Manhattan is a perfect example of the lack of open space. Compare the open space available to the same population (about 1.6 million) in Providence MSA (urban area) Who has more open space those in Manhattan who have a total land area of 23 square miles or those in Providence with a total of about 1600 square miles?
Originally Posted by
cooker
If we go back to a stone age lifestyle, and stone age populaton levels I will withdraw my objections to low density – in that case it would be admittedly be better than high density. But as long as there are several billion people on earth, expecting to own cars and electronics, high density cities are the best way to preserve nature.
Sorry, but as I have tried to explain the answer is no. Density increase per capita pollution and waste, further it make treating much of that waste more hazardous.
Originally Posted by
cooker
The more people who live in dense cities, the less pressure there is to develop rural land.
Really, at the turn of the 20th century most people lived in dense cities (1st world). As soon as the ability to develop rural land occurred they moved to the suburbs. And as I mentioned that started with the bicycle long before the car which just expanded the existing trend.
Originally Posted by
cooker
Maybe until we learn to exploit it as a resource?
Sure, and when and if we do, density might have a second advantage. Of course by then we may no longer have the environmental advantage that transit offers. Because as I said, technology is reducing the environmental benefits of transit on a continual basis. And of course you seem to be ignoring that bicycles can also eliminate much of the transportation environmental disadvantage of less dense communities...
Originally Posted by
cooker
I don’t have any reason to believe New Yorkers produce anymore garbage than anyone else (except perhaps because they are richer), or that they would produce less if they lived farther apart. And there’s no reason why you couldn’t have urban composting, in fact it is common.
No I don't either. But they don't have any local means to deal with what they produce. They have developed all of their dense land and are required to export it. Which is what your ideal urban area would do to all of that pristine wilderness that you believe would surround it...
And NY simply doesn't have enough space for every family to compost all of its organic waste... That takes a surprising about of space, which doesn't exist. Certainly not outside their dwellings, since compost and inside living areas don't go well.