It's not evolutionary theory, physics, economics, or any of the other usual suspects that a lot of people do not know and are illiterate in.

It is geography.

I am convinced that the geographic thinking of 99% of people begins and ends with political maps.

99% of people do not know any concepts or theories from the science of human geography, such as push and pull factors in migration; settlement forms; urban morphology; etc. They certainly do not know geographic research methods; cartography as a form of communication; etc. They may be familiar with GPS (the device on their car dashboard, anyway; they probably know nothing about the system/network behind it) because they don't use printed maps, but they don't know what GIS is.

I don't even know what the geography-illiterate think. They think that the locations of cities, soils, water, etc. were randomly determined​ by the flip of a coin, maybe? Places are in vacuums and do not affect each other, maybe?

How does​ so much obliviousness to geography continue in highly-educated societies? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Now I understand why geography is the only subject I ever failed in school >:O

When Trump was elected I sought to understand how it happened and read books like Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Hoshschild (sociologist). Apparently I'm so geography-illiterate that I still don't understand the significance of geography in relation to Trump. I read the Huffington article.

I can sympathize with Trump supporters, now that I understand their situation and beliefs a bit better. I'm a liberal from Southern California. But it seems to be the case that Trump simply uses his base against themselves via right-wing populism.

I'm not suggesting that geography literacy is unimportant, just that I don't see an obvious significance in relation to the election.

If schools are devolving, and I think some school districts are devolving into collapse, it's a result of collapsing communities. The very very best schools can not repair economic and social problems (at least as presently constituted). Given reasonably healthy communities, adequately funded schools, and reasonable expectations, schools perform at least reasonably well. — Bitter Crank

Interesting. I would agree.

See, that's why I need to change my user name. What was bitter or crankish about that post? — Bitter Crank

I don't know how to answer this. It just seemed like it was? Twas only a joke, in any case. I like your username.

Did you know that Houston, TX has no zoning laws? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Houston Is Drowning—In Its Freedom From Regulations

---

More Zoning Wouldn’t Have Protected Houston From Harvey’s Fury, But Less Sprawl Would Have Helped

Houston was a mess before the flood, but lots of cities have failed to do any strategic planning for their growth. For instance, large developments generally won't get built if the city says, "No, we are not putting water and sewer 10 miles into rural countryside." Instead, they just lay the lines wherever some developer wants them, whether it's on top of an earthquake fault, in a flood plain, below unstable mountain sides, or next to a poorly managed high-level radioactive waste dump. Liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels all.

Them ice age ladies didn't know how to dust! :)

Houston was a mess before the flood, but lots of cities have failed to do any strategic planning for their growth. For instance, large developments generally won't get built if the city says, "No, we are not putting water and sewer 10 miles into rural countryside." Instead, they just lay the lines wherever some developer wants them, whether it's on top of an earthquake fault, in a flood plain, below unstable mountain sides, or next to a poorly managed high-level radioactive waste dump. Liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels all. — Bitter Crank

I was just showing how a tidbit from my own personal inquiries into geography now has some context.

Notice that the two commentators have different views on the role of zoning.

It's the first time that I have heard of Houston being an example of sprawl and poor planning. I had always heard Atlanta, GA being the go-to example of sprawl.

And Portland, OR seems​ to be the go-to example of good planning.

It seems like our dominant geographic patterns, such as most of the population living on coasts, will increasingly be things that can no longer be absent from our conscious minds. Things like aesthetic desirability may now take a back seat behind physical safety and security in people's choices of where to live. If the electoral college remains in the U.S. Constitution all of that relocating could dramatically affect politics. Etc. Etc.

Who would have thought that a small variable like zoning laws might have such far-reaching consequences?

Hopefully our lessons from Hurricane Katrina and other previous disasters will help the victims of Hurricane Harvey.

Plenty of subjects are less familiar to regular people than they are to professionals. Take doctors. One lady read in her diagnosis something about sinus. All she knew that sinus relates to the nose. So she was sure something is wrong with her nose, while in reality the word pertained to the sinus in her heart.

Portland has done some good things like their bicycle promotion, light rail and traffic management. They also (I've heard, never been there) avoided building more freeways. Minnesota was at one time an example of good planning. The legislature chartered the Metropolitan Council to conduct the boundary crossing affairs of 2 large, 10 medium, and a dozen small towns in the metro area, plus 5 counties. Water, sewers, sewage treatment, and mass transit are their bailiwicks. It does give them leverage, but over the several decades it has existed, it seems to have lost some of its clout. Metro Twin Cities may not be quite as scattered as Houston--there just aren't nearly as many people here. Back in the 80s the bicycle clubs always said "every year you have to ride another mile to get out of town" and that seems to have held true since then.

I have been reading the history of Boston and New York City Mass Transit, and the middle-history of Boston --1850-1920. I was a bit relieved to discover that 150 years ago the cities took about as long to get projects off the ground and completed as they do today--5, 10, 20, 30, sometimes 50 years. Plans were drawn up, everybody's support was marshaled, legislature approval was gotten, then at the last minute the coalitions would fall apart, and another decade or two would pass.

And once they finally got going, it took them about as long as it does now--certainly not much longer. New York laid their first subway (20 miles worth) in about 3 years, if I remember. That was in 1904, +/-. Most of it was cut and cover, and some of it was blasting through tough or dangerous rock. And, once it was finished, it worked -- and it's still working. The problem now is that it is old and working harder to move ever larger numbers of people.

I was particularly interested in how small Boston was originally -- not population wise, but acreage wise. So much of the central part of the city is reclaimed bay. That started in the 1700s. "Boston" (also known as Shawmut) was originally a small square patch of land in the bay connected by a long narrow neck of land. Once rail became available (1840s?) they started infilling in earnest, hauling gravel in from a fair distance (at the time) and dumping it into the bay. The Beacon Hill above Boston Commons where the State House sits, was a once much higher hill and was cut down a great deal, and the rubble was dumped into a piece of what would become the Public Gardens. Later it was decidedly the toniest of neighborhoods when the filing in was finished. Beacon Street runs on top of what was a very wide dam across the bay -- they were going to use the bay for water power -- didn't work out.

It just amazes me what energetic and effective civil engineers they had back then.

Portland has done some good things like their bicycle promotion, light rail and traffic management. They also (I've heard, never been there) avoided building more freeways. Minnesota was at one time an example of good planning. The legislature chartered the Metropolitan Council to conduct the boundary crossing affairs of 2 large, 10 medium, and a dozen small towns in the metro area, plus 5 counties. Water, sewers, sewage treatment, and mass transit are their bailiwicks. It does give them leverage, but over the several decades it has existed, it seems to have lost some of its clout. Metro Twin Cities may not be quite as scattered as Houston--there just aren't nearly as many people here. Back in the 80s the bicycle clubs always said "every year you have to ride another mile to get out of town" and that seems to have held true since then.

I have been reading the history of Boston and New York City Mass Transit, and the middle-history of Boston --1850-1920. I was a bit relieved to discover that 150 years ago the cities took about as long to get projects off the ground and completed as they do today--5, 10, 20, 30, sometimes 50 years. Plans were drawn up, everybody's support was marshaled, legislature approval was gotten, then at the last minute the coalitions would fall apart, and another decade or two would pass.

And once they finally got going, it took them about as long as it does now--certainly not much longer. New York laid their first subway (20 miles worth) in about 3 years, if I remember. That was in 1904, +/-. Most of it was cut and cover, and some of it was blasting through tough or dangerous rock. And, once it was finished, it worked -- and it's still working. The problem now is that it is old and working harder to move ever larger numbers of people.

I was particularly interested in how small Boston was originally -- not population wise, but acreage wise. So much of the central part of the city is reclaimed bay. That started in the 1700s. "Boston" (also known as Shawmut) was originally a small square patch of land in the bay connected by a long narrow neck of land. Once rail became available (1840s?) they started infilling in earnest, hauling gravel in from a fair distance (at the time) and dumping it into the bay. The Beacon Hill above Boston Commons where the State House sits, was a once much higher hill and was cut down a great deal, and the rubble was dumped into a piece of what would become the Public Gardens. Later it was decidedly the toniest of neighborhoods when the filing in was finished. Beacon Street runs on top of what was a very wide dam across the bay -- they were going to use the bay for water power -- didn't work out.

It just amazes me what energetic and effective civil engineers they had back then. — Bitter Crank

This reminds me of a story I saw recently. There's a bunch of tunnels underneath Cincinnati, OH and most people don't know about them (I didn't). They were going to build a subway system--early 1900's, I believe--but an interruption in funding or something like that prevented the project from ever being completed.

If I had any clout I would funnel everything towards infill and towards pedestrian-friendly, bicycle-friendly developments that encourage people to keep their automobiles parked. I'm sure that the heirs of that earlier civil engineering could pull it off.

This animation shows the manner in which Boston filled in the bay to achieve the present (mostly by 1900) size/shape of the city.

This animation shows the manner in which Boston filled in the bay to achieve the present (mostly by 1900) size/shape of the city. — Bitter Crank

And it conveys information that sociology, political science, economics, psychology, etc. barely, if at all, convey.

"...you still might get your entire plan chucked into the round file because some computer has determined your business plan will attract automobile traffic in excess of the carrying capacity of nearby roads".

Uh, GIS?