"news" from Chicago

In article ,
DougC writes:
DennisTheBald wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:30 pm, DougC wrote:

If someone liked bicycling, I would wonder why they would choose to live
an an urban area to begin with. It's rather like a professional
snow-skier living in the middle of Death Valley.
~

As the population density increases it is automobiles that make less
and less sense not, as you purport bicycles - You are clearly the most
annoying git in Chicago.

I see no need for name-calling.

Firstly, I am 300+ miles from Chicago, and have no interest in getting
closer than that.

That's your rightful choice, and it is to be respected as such.

Secondly.... As population density increases, a society automatically
engage in drastic inefficiencies just because individual people lack the
room to grow their own food,

City dwellers are generally well enabled to buy food, and that
benefits the rural market farmers & ranchers. In fact, having
centralized marketplaces (cities) benefits the rural market
farmers & ranchers. It's not an "us vs them" situation, it's
much more co-operative than that.

draw their own water,

In Vancouver at least, we just turn on the tap.
We're up to our knees in water.

or engage in
alternative energy use.

The very city-generated trash you subsequently speak
of is being explored as a source of alternative energy.


Everything that a city needs has to be brought
in from somewhere else, and all the trash a city generates has to be
carried out again. Those transportation-related inefficiencies are
hidden, but they are still present nonetheless.

Rural populations need to get rid of their trash, too.

Urban living is not, and never will be, the most efficient way to
live--in spite of how nice it is to be able to ride your bike or walk to
the corner organic grocery store.

Exclusively urban living wouldn't be efficient. But the combination
of urban living and rural food production we currently have ... works.
Even when it's complicated and sometimes undermined by importation
and certain proprietistic GMO corporations with multi-national
interests.

What's even more efficient is growing
your own vegetables--and most urban living arrangements are crowded onto
areas of real estate that couldn't possibly sustain these populations
directly.

Try growing light bulbs, fenestrated toilet paper, inner tubes,
flashlight batteries, spark plugs, irrigation equipment,
cooking equipment, screwdrivers, seat cushions, teacups,
lemon meringue pies, olives, dates, bananas, mangoes,
sardines, Frank's Original Hot Sauce, etc.

See what I mean? You can get all that stuff in the city.
And it sure beats subsisting on potage heated over open
fires, in cast iron dutch ovens or cauldrons which would
probably have to be purchased in a city anyway.

This shouldn't become an urban vs rural living argument.
And it certainly shouldn't become an urban vs rural riding
argument. We all have our preferences as to where we ride,
and that's part of the beauty of cycling. Just plain cycling
at all is the level upon which we cordially meet.

BTW: I consider Frank's Original Hot Sauce simply as a
freely flowing medium which serves as a vehicle for
spreading certain additional enhancements over food.
It's spicy runniness is its desired quality.
It coats things nicely.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

"DougC" wrote in message
...

If someone liked bicycling, I would wonder why they would choose to live
an an urban area to begin with. It's rather like a professional snow-skier
living in the middle of Death Valley.

There is something to be said for urban cycling. I like a ride along a
country road as much as anyone but exploring an urban landscape can be
pleasing as well.

On Jun 23, 2:08*am, Jym Dyer wrote:
which race is the most annoying

Any race involving the UCI?

Oh, you meant something like brown, pink, or suburban
bottle orange. The last, definitely.

In article ,
Bob writes:
On Jun 23, 10:22*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * Bob writes:

On Jun 23, 5:56*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
So I figure Chicagoans live there to support The Cubs.
It's a nice thought, anyways.
I don't follow professional baseball and I don't care about the
Cubs... but I repeat myself.
Regards,
Bob * (with an apology to Mark Twain)

I like that.

Hey, Bob, It's good to hear from you again.

I hope you're inclined to stick around, some.

cheers,
* * * * Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
Thanks for the welcome back.
Regards,
Bob


Vancouver has a nice li'l ballpark, too (Nat Bailey Stadium.)
It's within walking distance of where I live, and largely
why I chose to live where I do.
It doesn't have the charming ivy like Wrigley, but it'll do.
Back in it's heyday, Nat Bailey was the stompin' grounds of
the AAA Vancouver Canadians: farm for the Milwaukee Brewers.
The likes of Cecil Cooper, Paul Molitor and Robin Yount
trod upon its sod.

I guess Wrigley is the mother of ground rules.

Matron of 'em, anyways.

Ground rules are an interesting topic, but I guess
that belongs in another ng. Along with in-the-park
home runs.

Please forgive me. It's summer, and I luv baseball
almost as much as riding bike.

If I was independently wealthy, I just might be inclined
to do a cycling ballpark tour.


cheers, & there's simply no such thing as a ground rule triple,
Tom


--
Go Cubs! Do what you can. Preferably without steroids.
Y'don't need 'em anyways. Just continue to be The Cubs.

In article ,
Norman writes:
On Jun 23, 2:08*am, Jym Dyer wrote:
which race is the most annoying
Any race involving the UCI?
Oh, you meant something like brown, pink, or suburban
bottle orange. The last, definitely.

If we had horses sick enough to get suburban, bottle-orange
skin, we'd have had baseballs that don't disappear from sight
in the roofs of domed stadia.


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

ZBicyclist wrote:
DougC wrote:
DennisTheBald wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:30 pm, DougC wrote:
If someone liked bicycling, I would wonder why they would choose
to
live an an urban area to begin with. It's rather like a
professional
snow-skier living in the middle of Death Valley.
~
As the population density increases it is automobiles that make
less
and less sense not, as you purport bicycles - You are clearly the
most annoying git in Chicago.
Firstly, I am 300+ miles from Chicago, and have no interest in
getting
closer than that.

Secondly.... As population density increases, a society
automatically
engage in drastic inefficiencies just because individual people
lack
the room to grow their own food, draw their own water, or engage
in
alternative energy use. Everything that a city needs has to be
brought
in from somewhere else, and all the trash a city generates has to
be
carried out again. Those transportation-related inefficiencies are
hidden, but they are still present nonetheless.

Urban living is not, and never will be, the most efficient way to
live--in spite of how nice it is to be able to ride your bike or
walk
to the corner organic grocery store. What's even more efficient is
growing your own vegetables--and most urban living arrangements
are
crowded onto areas of real estate that couldn't possibly sustain
these populations directly.
~

Sure. We all know the most advanced societies are the ones where
subsistence farming is the dominant "industry".


I dare say that one cannot have an "advanced" society that is also
energy-efficient and non-polluting. At least I've not heard of any. Do
you know where one is?

It would be possible (for Chicagoans) to have much lower average energy
usage and pollution levels, but to do that the first thing they'd need
to do was spread out. Urban population densities are not sustainable
except by external means, and that is the very definition of inefficiency.
~

DougC wrote:
ZBicyclist wrote:
DougC wrote:
DennisTheBald wrote:
On Jun 22, 3:30 pm, DougC wrote:
If someone liked bicycling, I would wonder why they would choose to
live an an urban area to begin with. It's rather like a professional
snow-skier living in the middle of Death Valley.
~
As the population density increases it is automobiles that make less
and less sense not, as you purport bicycles - You are clearly the
most annoying git in Chicago.
Firstly, I am 300+ miles from Chicago, and have no interest in getting
closer than that.

Secondly.... As population density increases, a society automatically
engage in drastic inefficiencies just because individual people lack
the room to grow their own food, draw their own water, or engage in
alternative energy use. Everything that a city needs has to be brought
in from somewhere else, and all the trash a city generates has to be
carried out again. Those transportation-related inefficiencies are
hidden, but they are still present nonetheless.

Urban living is not, and never will be, the most efficient way to
live--in spite of how nice it is to be able to ride your bike or walk
to the corner organic grocery store. What's even more efficient is
growing your own vegetables--and most urban living arrangements are
crowded onto areas of real estate that couldn't possibly sustain
these populations directly.
~

Sure. We all know the most advanced societies are the ones where
subsistence farming is the dominant "industry".


I dare say that one cannot have an "advanced" society that is also
energy-efficient and non-polluting. At least I've not heard of any. Do
you know where one is?

If you look at the 2008 Environmental Performance Index, you'll see the
correlation between "advanced" status and pollution is generally positive:

http://epi.yale.edu/CountryScores


It would be possible (for Chicagoans) to have much lower average energy
usage and pollution levels, but to do that the first thing they'd need
to do was spread out. Urban population densities are not sustainable
except by external means, and that is the very definition of inefficiency.

Trains move freight at around 0.6L (diesel) per 100km per ton. This
efficiency favored industrial scale farming over 100 years ago, when
energy was comparatively expensive.

On Jul 5, 2:40*pm, DougC wrote:


I dare say that one cannot have an "advanced" society that is also
energy-efficient and non-polluting. At least I've not heard of any. Do
you know where one is?

It would be possible (for Chicagoans) to have much lower average energy
usage and pollution levels, but to do that the first thing they'd need
to do was spread out. Urban population densities are not sustainable
except by external means, and that is the very definition of inefficiency..

Seems to me that suburban population densities aren't sustainable
except by external means, either. In fact, if you're talking about
sustaining any population without external means, you must be talking
about subsistence farming and hunter-gatherer lifestyles.

- Frank Krygowski

In article ,
Frank Krygowski writes:
On Jul 5, 2:40*pm, DougC wrote:


I dare say that one cannot have an "advanced" society that is also
energy-efficient and non-polluting. At least I've not heard of any. Do
you know where one is?

It would be possible (for Chicagoans) to have much lower average energy
usage and pollution levels, but to do that the first thing they'd need
to do was spread out. Urban population densities are not sustainable
except by external means, and that is the very definition of inefficiency.

Seems to me that suburban population densities aren't sustainable
except by external means, either.

Neither are North American rural, market-supplying populations.

Farmers and ranchers still need stuff like irrigation equipment,
heating fuel, motorized vehicle maintenance, various household
items, and a whole bunch of stuff only obtainable from towns
and cities, even including certain groceries. And a lot of
that stuff is imported from overseas.

We're interdependent. With a certain approach, that could be
a beautiful thing, bringing people together.

A certain cycling activist in Vancouver once suggested
celebrating an Interdependence Day holiday.
I always liked her idea.


cheers,
Tom


--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca