The Texas Triangle , between Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, contains 75% of Texans.
Why?
What's special about that triangle?
A map of night lights shows that ppl are concentrated in its tips and edge:
• One of its tips is the massive Houston
• Another tip is an uncommon type of city: the couple Dallas–Fort Worth
• Then there's a line of cities between Dallas and San Antonio w/ Austin, Waco...
Why?
What can the satellite tell us?
If you look carefully, you can see a green and grey line running from San Antonio to Dallas. What is it?
The topography can give is a clue: the mountains drop in altitude on a line from San Antonio to Dallas! This fall line transforms the mountains into hills that can be crossed
Sure enough, many of the most important Texan cities are on the fall line of the Edwards Plateau. These form the grey line on the satellite picture.
But why did these cities emerge at these points on that line, and not others?
They're each at the crossing between that fall line and a river:
• San Antonio: San Antonio River
• Austin: Colorado River
• Waco: Brazos River
• Fort Worth and Dallas: Trinity River
This is the same as on the Atlantic Seaboard
And like on the Atlantic Seaboard, there's a road connecting all these Texan cities: the interstate 35.
The enduring value of this route is revealed in its ancient origins, as this very path is probably the same as the ancient Chisholm Cattle Trail
We'll get back to it
The pbm with these rivers is that they're not very navigable. They did bring water and irrigation to their cities—hence why they appeared there—but their transportation utility was limited. Which is why Texas pushed hard to develop its railroads.
The end of the 19th century saw both a huge construction of railroads and the discovery of oil. Both of these finally started the growth of the Texan population
So that's why one edge of the Texas Triangle is so populated. But why is the other tip in Houston? Why not anywhere else on the coast? There are plenty of other successful ports in Texas, even to this day
Normally, you just have one big port per region, because there's benefits in having all the goods go to the same hub.
And natural bays tend to be the place where they emerge, protected from the ocean. But there are several bays in Texas. Why did Houston's bay win?
It didn't
In the 1800s, Houston was not the biggest port in Texas. It was Galveston, established by the Mexicans in 1825
Galveston grew because of its position:
• Great bay
• Close to N Orleans
• As close as possible to the other main TX cities: San Antonio, Dallas, Austin..
And then in 1900, Galveston learned a lesson that other regions had learned through centuries of storms: Galveston was too close to the sea.
It suffered a hurricane that devastated it. The port and industries moved as inland as they could.
That was Houston.
Houston was at the confluence of two navigable bayous, had invested in improving their navigability, and had received one of the earliest railroads on their way to Galveston. It had all the infra it needed and was close to Galveston. Perfect heir.
Hard for other ports to compete
So that's why 75% of Texans live in the Triangle: 1. End of the Edwards Plateau
➡️easier transportation
➡️rivers form
➡️great spot for cities, which follow the fall line: San Antonio, Austin, Waco, Killeen, Fort Worth, Dallas
2. Houston, heir to well-located Galveston
I write threads like this once a week. Here, on California. Follow for more
I'll write soon about why New York is the biggest city on the Atlantic coast.
Some of you mention rainfall. True: there's more rain east of the line—because altitude is lower! We can see the line in the precipitation maps of spring: a rain line passes through the fall line (left)
But it disappears during late summer rainfall times (right)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2. Los Angeles:
• Trading hub between the world (Pacific) and the US (railways)
• Weather + biggest coastal valley on the Pacific➡️agriculture & cheap building
• Oil
• Landscapes + far from the East Coast centers of power➡️Attracted the film industry
People think we must shrink the world's population to be happy, but they're wrong
A world with shrinking population would be decaying, poor, brutal, violent, hopeless
A world with 100 billion people would be dynamic, rich, innovative, peaceful, hopeful
🧵
1. In the last 2 centuries, the world got better as the population exploded:
• Richer
• Live older
• Lower child mortality
• Fewer homicides
• Fewer war deaths
• Fewer hours worked
• Lower share of poor people
And much more: fewer infections, diseases, accidents. More racial equality, sexual equality. Instant access to all the knowledge in the world. We can go anywhere, whenever we want...
We can raise our population on Earth from 8 billion to 100B humans if we want to
Would we starve?
Be too crowded?
Would pollution explode?
Ecosystems collapse?
No! Don't believe alarmist degrowthers. This is why they're wrong: 🧵
Degrowthers put a label to "how many humans can the Earth sustain": carrying capacity
Their estimates vary wildly
Wait, what? What a surprise, the mode of their estimates is 8B—exactly the current number of ppl on Earth
WHAT A COINCIDENCE!
Or they lack imagination: OMG the Earth is already on the brink. Surely not one more soul fits here!
And then they try to find out what limits we might be hitting. Their most common fears are: 1. Room 2. Food 3. Water 4. Energy 5. Pollution 6. Resources
Let's look at each:
Can desalinated water deliver a future of infinite water?
Yes!
• It's cheap
• It will get even cheaper
• Limited pollution
• Some countries already live off of it
We can transform deserts into paradise. And some countries are already on that path:🧵
Crazy fact:
Over half of Israel's freshwater is desalinated from the Mediterranean!
And the vast majority of its tap water is desalinated too!
And it costs less than municipal water in a city like LA!
It's not the only country. Saudi Arabia is the biggest desalinator in the world. 50% of its drinking water is desalinated. It's 30% in Singapore, a majority of water in the UAE...
What if we applied this, but at scale across the world?
President-elect @realDonaldTrump could own the environmentalists by solving global warming on his first day in office, and do it for 0.1% of current climate investments
Here's how: sulfate injection 🧵
1. GLOBAL WARMING
2024 is the 1st year we pass 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels
This is caused by CO2
Some side-effects of this CO2 are good, but it's undeniable that the planet is warming fast, and it could create some nasty pbms
1. GLOBAL WARMING
2024 is the 1st year we pass 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels
This is caused by CO2
Some side-effects of this CO2 are good, but it's undeniable that the planet is warming fast, and it could create some nasty pbms
Beata Halassy got cancer in 2016, then again in 2018, and again in 2020. That looked awfully bad. She knew if she continued in the traditional route, her cancer might eventually prevail. So she decided to try what she knew about: viruses
Here's the theory: 1. Select a virus that is likely to attack your target cancer cells 2. Because cancer cells neutralize the immune system, they're more likely to be killed by viruses than healthy cells