Thread: FLU
View Single Post
  #37  
Old November 27th 17, 09:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default FLU

On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:15:34 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 18:46, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/26/2017 12:49 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 09:48, wrote:
On Sunday, November 26, 2017 at 9:03:32 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-25 16:30,
wrote:

goo.gl/CshRPR

assuming your superior healthy is an error ...


It isn't an error.


... around you people are not...

the 'satellite city' boom grew more high towers

I assume one n 2 stories are cheaper

nice photo couldn't find a view north of NYC

http://mossien.com/wp-content/upload...chester_NY.jpg



No ten horses would get me to live there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

no no no the local pop's health. who gives a damn abt your health.


I do. If someone choses to smoke which rural folks often do that isn't
my problem, it's theirs.


If rural life is so wonderful, what drives those people to ruin their
lives by getting into their "long term substance abuse problems" that
you mentioned?


Faulty government rules (tell'em pot is "harmless", let's grab those
extra taxes!), peer pressure, sometimes boredom. None of this applies to
us or any of our neighbors.


FWIW: When I was about 30 years old I thought it would be wonderful to
live a rural life. I'm extremely glad that I chose otherwise.


100% opposite here. Same for my wife who grew up in a huge metropolis
and never ever wants to go back to that sort of living.


Well, you're certainly into dichotomies.

In reality, there's quite a spectrum of living or housing densities; and there are people who choose every condition on that spectrum, from hermits living in caves to city denizens living in 500 square foot efficiency apartments packed into skyscrapers. Each choice has its own benefits and detriments.

One problem with the most fashionable choice (which is a new development in some cornfield, within driving distance of city amenities) is that the choice is extremely dependent on transportation by car, and consumes resources very inefficiently. Yes, there is one hero in Cameron Park who does epic bike rides to avoid using his car. But for every bike hero who moves to such a place, there are hundreds of motorists who say "It's another half hour to my job and the grocery store, but I don't mind."

Then, once the community is established, developers spot the opportunity for a convenience store and gas station out at the highway. They'll run power lines and sewer out to that. The new sewer will trigger another housing development, which sprouts an entire plaza by the highway, which attracts more housing. And so it goes, an endless cycle of paving the rural landscape.

All this demands money to extend the infrastructure. It paves more ground to generate flash runoff from storms, increases the area the police must patrol, lengthens the routes of the school bus and trash pickup, etc. On a global scale, it's far less "green" than dense city living.

And it's all done so people can satisfy their atavistic pioneer urges - but ruin the atmosphere for the few that have always lived there.

Years ago, I came across a poster by Robert Crumb that summarized all this. It had about a dozen panels showing one intersection of roads as time marched on decade by decade. It started with a pretty rural scene with two dirt roads and a large shade tree. It progressed through "development" step by step, ending with a dingy scene with clotted car traffic in front of crumbling buildings with trash blowing. The caption, IIRC, was "What are we doing?"

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home