thisisweirdok

Your only point is that the suggestion of the earth supporting 10bn people is akin to terrorism (which you later amended to "intellectual terrorism"), which I'd argue is objectively disingenuous... and completely pointless.

This conversation has reached the point of unproductive a while ago.

I'm sure you'll try to bait me back into it, because you fit that MO, but you're on your own.

I don't know if anyone's ever told you this, but you're being outwardly shitty when you have no reason to be. You're just throwing the word terrorism around disingenuously to get a rise out of people.

Please, describe to me how pointing out the inevitability of population increase is terrorism.

You don't need to weaponize "sorry" — just don't say it.

It doesn't make sense to jump to ad hominem attacks because someone's calling you out on a statement that seems completely irrelevant.

If you want to put the Panama Canal through Boston it's going to cost astronomically more than $24bn — the logistics (not to mention the requirements and processes of the time period) are entirely different.

> If you don't live within the inner 1-2 city ring around Boston and you're not on the commuter rail, you have no choice but to drive.

Right, but how many people are driving who live within that ring? Just eliminating those commuters would likely solve the congestion issues...

It is because I didn't say it was "just fine" I said "can" as in "is possible" — which is objectively true.

...and even if I did say it was "just fine" it wouldn't be tantamount to terrorism because I was pointing out something that is very likely inevitable.

I'm not invoking 3 billion people by assuming one day they will exist.

I think catch-up sleep is just an excuse we grant ourselves for sleeping more on the weekends... we've been conditioned to feel bad for not feeling productive, so we need to grant ourselves special permission.

>Lastly, the planet has trouble with us now... It's terrorism to suggest that 10 billion is just fine.

Calling it terrorism is a bit absurd.

It's totally possible (and even likely within our lifetimes), but that doesn't mean that there aren't huge logistical issues to overcome for it to be comfortable.

One of the main problems is that the world population is so widely distributed. We can already feed and house everyone, we already have more resources than what would be required... they're just not distributed appropriately (some due to hoarding, some due to supply chain barriers, political borders, etc).

People typically have fewer kids as their society develops. Average age in the developed world is almost double of places like Africa. There is some evidence that slowing or decline in population is a reasonable expectation.

Also, from Wikipedia:

Low estimates suggest a decline

Moderate estimates suggest a plateau

High estimates suggest constant increase

Time will tell, and estimates suggest that the earth can comfortably support ~10bn

---

I don't think housing prices have much to do with population increase, but more to do with urbanization (as well as increasing wage gaps).

People are flocking to existing cities, and the more center you are the higher prices are.

This pushes people to the outskirts, which become more urbanized, which spreads urbanization through the same cycle.

because the wealth gap keeps increasing and we need to do more about it

I don't disagree. We should have a lot more streetcars and (everyone has their own priorities). Reducing traffic from the suburbs would be massive.

There's also a huge amount of inequality in Boston proper due to the removal of the elevated Orange Line (which is inadequately serviced by the Silver Line and other busses). The most used bus routes (which mostly serve Roxbury and Dorchester) should be converted.

Agree on the NH front too. I don't envy the people who commute from NH to Boston every day, but they should absolutely be tolled.

I think more radical traffic easing will need to happen eventually. Do we really need hundreds of thousands of people commuting in to sit in some cubicle downtown from 9-5? Shit no. I'm not sure what needs to happen there... reducing property taxes on business that shift their working hours or let their employees work from home X amount of days per week? I hate reducing corporate costs, but what else would convince them?

>As well as paying for the burden of the corruption involved in Bostonian construction projects that (at least) doubled the cost of what it should have gone for

Is there evidence of this? Everyone says it but it always seems extreme (Seriously? $11bn to corruption?). I think there's credence to the fact that these projects often go to the lowest bidders, and in this instance there was a lot of rework done to compensate for cheap materials and poor workmanship.

>you and your people compel others to bear the burden of your personal value choices

New Hampshire is an hour away if you don't want a tax-supported public infrastructure.

Can't speak for everyone, but the consensus here in Massachusetts feels like "I don't use the MBTA so I don't want to pay for it in taxes/tolls." (Surprise, we also have a massive congestion problem because our population increases 300% during the workweek).

It's the I got mine and fuck the rest mentality. People always ignore that infrastructure benefits everyone (and in this case public transit improvements are MASSIVE for the lower classes).

Sure, I absolutely think better accountability needs to be in place — but people didn't want the project at $8bn either.

People complained before ground was even broken. Looking at the scope of the project in retrospect, as well as the known unknowns, I'm surprised anyone thought it would cost $8bn ($22bn seems too high, but I'm just an interested layman).