|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#501
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix? (Sierra Club and Sprawl)
"George Conklin" wrote in message hlink.net...
No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid? No one. Farmers are sprawled. Urbanites live in areas of extreme population concentration. If Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Denver, Sacramento, Atlanta, etc. are examples of sprawl-lessness, what's an example (to you) of an area that DOES have sprawl? Antarctica is not a valid contrast, you know. This photo (see 2035 x 1581 version) is an undeniable case of sprawl and gross overpopulation: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?7897 (Phoenix, AZ) The caption refers to Phoenix as a place that consumes "an acre of desert an hour," which, even if not literally true, is a good description of how it feels down there. The lack of water to support all that growth is brushed aside by idiots as a "shortage" of dams and canals. E.A. http://enough_already.tripod.com/ If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague. |
Ads |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix? (Sierra Club and Sprawl)
Robert Coté wrote in message ...
No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid? There's a difference between calmly citing the FActs and screaming like chicken little that the sky is falling. One indicator useful for telling the two apart is exclamation points. Another is vague generalities. Let us see as we proceed here. Oh, and a third is anonymous posting So, there can be no such thing as sprawl and overpopulation because my posting style doesn't fit your parameters. I like your evidence-based approach to this. The eastern seaboard is built to capacity in many areas, You, of course, mean places like NYC the epitome of anti-sprawl. So we find out, finally, that you aren't against "sprawl" but against any human footprint regardless of urban form. I said eastern seaboard, not NYC, which is a relatively rare example of high density. It's that way primarily because so much of it is hemmed in by water, plus it's an older city designed originally without cars. But look at the rest of the east coast and you will find a sea of development. Look at all the easily-accessible aerial photos on the Web; they don't lie. the midwest and most fertile valleys are a sea of farmland (needed to feed all those people) Well, the Central Valley of California might disagree given their massive urbanization and as people continue to vote with their feet and abandon huge swaths of the midwest you might reconsider. People may be moving around but the U.S. population is still growing by about 3 million annually, and people like you are in no hurry to apply the brakes. "It creates jobs" is the typical excuse of the growth-addicted. They don't like to ponder the question of why those jobs would be needed without population growth in the first place. Too heavy a concept to think about anything but unending growth. The Bible mandates it, too. and the West is growing in places with barely enough water to sustain it. NYC doesn't have enough water to sustain itself either. That general region is far more lush and makes a poor analogy to the desert West. In the East, major rivers don't have to be reduced to a trickle at their terminus, i.e. the Colorado's fate at the hands of Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix. Take a look at aerial photos of Las Vegas, the Phoenix area, Los Angeles, eastern Colorado, Sacramento and the like. It's the very definition of sprawl, you fool! Really? What you are seeing is called urbanization. You probably also call overpopulation "human expansion" or "economic growth." Those terms make it easy to ignore the cannibalization of land. water and resources that's occurring in the name of endless growth. Los Angeles, for instance, is the densest metro area in the US. Now you are advocating against denser urbanism and in the cases od LV and Phx against using marginal open land for urbanization. First you bitch about valuable farmland being lost and then you bitch about useless desert being lost. You are not anti-sprawl, you are anti-human. Lucky for the rest of us you are not a hypocrite and we all expect you to lead by example below. I am anti human OVERPOPULATION because I see what it's doing to the world at the expense of nature and other species. I am fairly sure you don't care about those "side effects" and it's probably for religious reasons. Genesis 1:28 to be specific: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Zero population growth is an excellent idea, long overdue. You first. Lead by example, prove your sincerity. My personal life has nothing to do with the physical fact that Man is outstripping natural resources, but I will never have more than two kids (do you understand what ZPG is?) and never drive a V-8 car, among other things. I find it funny how so many neo-conservatives have abandoned "waste not, want not" for "waste a lot, want more." When it comes down to major lifestyle decisions, they have little interest in conservation outside of their bank accounts. Every phrase they utter with respect to the environment contains an escape clause. "We all want to protect nature, BUT..." (and so on) People who oppose it don't understand that land and resources are limited (usually a religious viewpoint). The zealot preaches that everyone else is blind. LoL. Are you a Creationist? Most snubbers of nature and apologists for human overpopulation are literal believers in Genesis. See: http://enough_already.tripod.com/genesis.htm There are 290 million people in the U.S. at the moment and it's not doing our quality of life any good, unless you're in the construction business or some other pyramid-scheme industry. Growth-addiction is something to be cured, not satiated. A big appeal of America was once its wide open spaces, but you'd rather bury them in suburbs and asphalt under the pretense of creating "more wealth" or "more jobs" which would be unnecessary without more people in the first place. Growth-addiction is a true sickness. No, Clue Deficit Disorder is the true danger. Growth-addiction is my idea of cluelessness. How many people would you like to see in America by 2050? I think this country was plenty crowded with 200 million people. Do you think the quality of life will improve with 400-500 million? Do you know what causes traffic jams and long lines? Do you know what "finite" means? Do you ever envision a stable population? Ardent watchers of GNP growth and housing starts sure don't. Are you the slightest bit concerned about the ongoing destruction of nature to accommodate growth? I see little evidence of that in your post. It is a fact that Man is altering the face of the Earth dramatically. The main issue for me is why some people see it as a tragedy and others cheer it on. There is a word called "anthropocentric" that covers the latter. E.A. http://enough_already.tripod.com/ If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague. |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix? (Sierra Club and Sprawl)
"George Conklin" wrote in message thlink.net...
In the end, the so-called anti-sprawl advocates end up by saying we have too many people in the USA and the world. But I don't see they are volunteering to become a solution to their problem by eliminating their life so the rest of us can avoid more sprawl. It was only a matter of time before that old suicide reference popped up here. The irony of that cliche is that it shows a subconscious recognition that overpopulation is indeed a problem. It also says a lot about the character of those who utter it. I'm surprised you did't preface it with the other ignorant platitude about fitting the entire world population in Texas. See: http://enough_already.tripod.com/cliches.htm E.A. http://enough_already.tripod.com/ If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague. |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix? (Sierra Club and Sprawl)
"Enough Already" wrote in message m... "George Conklin" wrote in message hlink.net... No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid? No one. Farmers are sprawled. Urbanites live in areas of extreme population concentration. If Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Denver, Sacramento, Atlanta, etc. are examples of sprawl-lessness, what's an example (to you) of an area that DOES have sprawl? Antarctica is not a valid contrast, you know. This photo (see 2035 x 1581 version) is an undeniable case of sprawl and gross overpopulation: Thomas Malthus rides again. Smart Growth advocates simply hate people and love animals. |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix? (Sierra Club and Sprawl)
"Enough Already" wrote in message om... Robert Coté wrote in message ... No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid? There's a difference between calmly citing the FActs and screaming like chicken little that the sky is falling. One indicator useful for telling the two apart is exclamation points. Another is vague generalities. Let us see as we proceed here. Oh, and a third is anonymous posting So, there can be no such thing as sprawl and overpopulation because my posting style doesn't fit your parameters. I like your evidence-based approach to this. Overpopulation is a literary term, not a scientific one. |
#506
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix? (Sierra Club and Sprawl)
"Enough Already" wrote in message om... "George Conklin" wrote in message thlink.net... In the end, the so-called anti-sprawl advocates end up by saying we have too many people in the USA and the world. But I don't see they are volunteering to become a solution to their problem by eliminating their life so the rest of us can avoid more sprawl. It was only a matter of time before that old suicide reference popped up here. The irony of that cliche is that it shows a subconscious recognition that overpopulation is indeed a problem No, it merely asks you to stop being a hypocrite. |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix? (Sierra Club and Sprawl)
In article ,
Enough Already wrote: If Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Denver, Sacramento, Atlanta, etc. are examples of sprawl-lessness, what's an example (to you) of an area that DOES have sprawl? Antarctica is not a valid contrast, you know. "Sprawl" is a loaded term to describe growth. -- Matthew T. Russotto "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of a modicum of security is a very expensive vice. |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix? (Sierra Club and Sprawl)
In article ,
Enough Already wrote: "George Conklin" wrote in message thlink.net... In the end, the so-called anti-sprawl advocates end up by saying we have too many people in the USA and the world. But I don't see they are volunteering to become a solution to their problem by eliminating their life so the rest of us can avoid more sprawl. It was only a matter of time before that old suicide reference popped up here. The irony of that cliche is that it shows a subconscious recognition that overpopulation is indeed a problem. No, it doesn't. It's merely an instance of the subjunctive construction -- "IF overpopulation is a problem, THEN you committing suicide will help". -- Matthew T. Russotto "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of a modicum of security is a very expensive vice. |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix? (Sierra Club and Sprawl)
|
#510
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix? (Sierra Club and Sprawl)
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do bicycles and cars mix? | wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX | General | 62 | September 13th 03 03:24 AM |
why did moths change color? was Do bicycles and cars mix? | Dr Engelbert Buxbaum | Social Issues | 0 | July 18th 03 08:50 AM |