The Geography of Innovation - Cities, Patents, and Suburbs

The Geography of Innovation

1. RICHARD FLORIDA

 AUG 3, 2017

https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/08/the-geography-of-innovation/530349/

In this fascinating article by famed author Richard Florida, I learned that while it is true that urban areas produce much of U.S. innovation, it is not true that the densest urban areas dominate. You can see on the map below that there is a clear relationship between urbanity and patents. However, it turns out that the suburbs, those middling density places surrounding our great cities, produce the largest number of new inventions. Even more interesting, is the observation he makes that the truly most disruptive and creative innovations are concentrated in our cities, after all. And this is right in line with what I try to convey to my students about the role cities have played in our cultural history because they cause the intersection of so many different types of people, as well as transportation routes, educational institutions, artistic endeavors, and diverse ideological positions.

He's a good writer. Follow the link above for a more thorough discussion of the data.

Rates of innovation by county subdivision across the U.S. (Berkes & Gaetani)

Really Good News for a Change: The short history of global living conditions and why it matters that we know it - by Max Roser

The short history of global living conditions and why it matters that we know it
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts/

These graphs speak for themselves. Analyze them carefully. The one thing I would add to this, however, is that if I were to show you graphs on the health of ecosystems and ecosystem services you would get a much more negative impression of the trajectory of history. So, essentially, what we are facing now is ever improving human welfare and systematic destruction of natural systems. We must find a way to continue these improvements while protecting resources (and wild beauty) for future generations. The whole article is well worth a short read.

Losing Sight of the Forest For the Trees - Journalists Badly Misinform Public About New Deforestation Study

A new study published this month in the journal Nature finds that there are many more trees on Earth than we suspected: 3 trillion. On the other hand, it also used the same sophisticated spatial analysis and satellite observation techniques to conclude that humans have removed a total of 3 trillion trees from the planet. That's right, you read it correctly. We've removed about 1/2 of all trees from the entire planet! Remember, we are just one species out of more than 10 million. 10,000 years ago there were more baboons on the planet than there were humans. And yet, in a few thousand years and, really, in the last two hundred, we've deforested so aggressively for agriculture and urbanization that we have started the 6th mass extinction event - the first caused directly by a species. 

Note how misleading are some of the headlines about the report:
"Scientists discover that the world contains dramatically more trees than previously thought." (Washington Post)
"3 Trillion: Study Finds Many, Many More Trees Than Previously Estimated." (NBC News)
"Good news for the Earth: Study finds there are 3 trillion trees on the planet." (Fox News)

Of course it is nonsense to report this study as "good news," but then Fox and others know that very few people will actually look at the original scientific report. I did, however. The abstract of the report itself says that tree density is determined by, among other things, "the overwhelming effect of humans across most of the world. Based on our projected tree densities, we estimate that over 15 billion trees are cut down each year, and the global number of trees has fallen by approximately 46% since the start of human civilization." Good news. I'd say not.

Here's the reference and link to the original article: Mapping Tree Density at a Global Scale. Crowther, T. W. et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14967 (2015).

A short (2.5 minute) video report from the journal about the article:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=136&v=jqdOkXQngw8

The F-ing Geography of Darned Profanity

In a nice little summary of recent linguistic research, Jay Livingston explains that the swear words we predominantly use in each part of the country vary dramatically. This is not surprising, really, since each region has a unique cultural history. Immigration differences, religious differences, and economic differences all contribute to regional variety in dialects. The original research by Jack Grieve analyzed the frequency of swear words in tweets by location in the U.S.

Having lived in New York, New England, Pennsylvania, St. Louis, and California, I can personally attest to the potty mouths of the coastal folks and the more traditional tongue of the Midwesterner.

Take a good look at the maps. Can you find the places where crass language is less prevalent ("darn") and other places where asshole, shit, and fuck are common? What do you think explains these distributions?

Here are a bunch more maps of other terms for those who are interested:
https://sites.google.com/site/jackgrieveaston/treesandtweets