Boundless Bull: Americans still don't respect LIMITS

[Enough Already]

There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
"conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.

In America, the attitude is NO limits to "human potential" and
whatever physical aspects of consumption go with it. A sense of
endless entitlement to natural resources is gluttony by any other
name. People had more restraint in the old days before oil created the
illusion of infinite wealth. Don't tell a modern individual that their
quest for no boundaries is excess, not progress. They'll invoke the
Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" or any distraction from physical
reality.

Growth-addicts don't respect limits to economic growth (aka population
growth), urban sprawl boundaries, speed limits, limits to the taking
of water, limits on the amount of trees that can be cut, limits on the
number of fish being caught, limits on potential income, and so on.
"Everyone can be a millionaire," they tell us. But who would grow the
food and haul the trash?

Nearly two decades ago, steady-state economist Herman Daly wrote an
article, "Boundless Bull," which nails the difference between the real
world and a psychological construct of no limits.

http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew910508

[quote] "To grow" means to increase in size by the accretion or
assimilation of material. "Growth" therefore means a quantitative
increase in the scale of the physical dimensions of the economy. "To
develop" means to expand or realize the potentialities of; to bring
gradually to a fuller, greater or better state. "Development"
therefore means the qualitative improvement in the structure, design
and composition of the physical stocks of wealth that results from
greater knowledge, both of technique and of purpose. A growing economy
is getting bigger; a developing economy is getting better. [end quote]


American is still stuck in frontier mode, having vanquished most of
them. Old Europe, which has realized limits to growth, is taking a
much wiser approach these days. Must America become as crowded as
Europe before the brakes are applied? Who really thinks that growth-as-
usual with NO limits is compatible with protecting the environment or
halting global warming? It doesn't appear that sustainability is the
goal of most Americans. It's more like get while the getting's good
and to hell with the rest.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

A corrupt equation, passed off as progress: Overpopulation + Depletion
= Economic Growth

[Steve Campbell]

On Jul 28, 11:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>
> In America, the attitude is NO limits to "human potential" and
> whatever physical aspects of consumption go with it. A sense of
> endless entitlement to natural resources is gluttony by any other
> name. People had more restraint in the old days before oil created the
> illusion of infinite wealth. Don't tell a modern individual that their
> quest for no boundaries is excess, not progress. They'll invoke the
> Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" or any distraction from physical
> reality.
>
> Growth-addicts don't respect limits to economic growth (aka population
> growth), urban sprawl boundaries, speed limits, limits to the taking
> of water, limits on the amount of trees that can be cut, limits on the
> number of fish being caught, limits on potential income, and so on.
> "Everyone can be a millionaire," they tell us. But who would grow the
> food and haul the trash?
>
> Nearly two decades ago, steady-state economist Herman Daly wrote an
> article, "Boundless Bull," which nails the difference between the real
> world and a psychological construct of no limits.
>
> http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew910508
>
> [quote] "To grow" means to increase in size by the accretion or
> assimilation of material. "Growth" therefore means a quantitative
> increase in the scale of the physical dimensions of the economy. "To
> develop" means to expand or realize the potentialities of; to bring
> gradually to a fuller, greater or better state. "Development"
> therefore means the qualitative improvement in the structure, design
> and composition of the physical stocks of wealth that results from
> greater knowledge, both of technique and of purpose. A growing economy
> is getting bigger; a developing economy is getting better. [end quote]
>
> American is still stuck in frontier mode, having vanquished most of
> them. Old Europe, which has realized limits to growth, is taking a
> much wiser approach these days. Must America become as crowded as
> Europe before the brakes are applied? Who really thinks that growth-as-
> usual with NO limits is compatible with protecting the environment or
> halting global warming? It doesn't appear that sustainability is the
> goal of most Americans. It's more like get while the getting's good
> and to hell with the rest.
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>
> A corrupt equation, passed off as progress: Overpopulation + Depletion
> = Economic Growth

Old Europe has already had its fling with capitalistic growth and now
it has decided to embrace socialist ideas that seem like a good idea
because they offer the promise of living off the fat of what it's
already accumulated. The socialists say, "To hell with the third world
and its desire to create wealth and a better standard of living
through capitalism."

That makes socialists in old Europe conservative too. They want to
retain their wealth and let the rest of the world wallow in poverty,
maintaining the status quo. But that thinking is delusional and will
only result in an impoverished old Europe.

Oh, by the way, the climate might be warming but the greenhouse-gas
theory of causation is a load of hogwash that only serves as a
rhetorical attack on capitalism. Variance in the radiance of the SUN
is the driving factor in controlling temperature change on Earth.

[owl]

On Jul 28, 2:05 pm, Steve Campbell <***@avicorcho.com>
wrote:
>
> Oh, by the way, the climate might be warming but the greenhouse-gas
> theory of causation is a load of hogwash that only serves as a
> rhetorical attack on capitalism.

Oh, don't hold back ... you didn't tell us how you felt about Al Gore.

> Variance in the radiance of the SUN
> is the driving factor in controlling temperature change on Earth.

Over longer cycles, yep. At more granular levels, and especially in
the last half century, it has come up wanting as the explanation.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650

Claims of more recent correlations have been used by venues such as
the Swindle documentary, but digging a little deeper hasn't supported
the claim source:-

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

hth.

[Enough Already]

On Jul 28, 11:05 am, Steve Campbell <***@avicorcho.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 28, 11:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> > A corrupt equation, passed off as progress: Overpopulation + Depletion
> > = Economic Growth
>
> Old Europe has already had its fling with capitalistic growth and now
> it has decided to embrace socialist ideas that seem like a good idea
> because they offer the promise of living off the fat of what it's
> already accumulated. The socialists say, "To hell with the third world
> and its desire to create wealth and a better standard of living
> through capitalism."

You don't say a single word about PHYSICAL LIMITS in your reply. Why
is that? Everything just kind of shows up on store shelves, eh? Take a
chance on learning something and actually read the "Boundless Bull"
article.

> That makes socialists in old Europe conservative too. They want to
> retain their wealth and let the rest of the world wallow in poverty,
> maintaining the status quo. But that thinking is delusional and will
> only result in an impoverished old Europe.

That's not the physical limits issue that should be the focus here.
Even in 2007, economists are stuck on the idea of nature as an
abstraction. Do they eat credit card data for breakfast and bank
statements for dinner? Do they drink stock profits when the water runs
low? Think about what's really keeping you alive (nature) before going
off on tangents about socialism.

> Oh, by the way, the climate might be warming but the greenhouse-gas
> theory of causation is a load of hogwash that only serves as a
> rhetorical attack on capitalism. Variance in the radiance of the SUN
> is the driving factor in controlling temperature change on Earth.

Did you get that from the hack film, "The Great Global Warming
Swindle?" It's also the Sun's fault when careless people leave their
babies in cars with the windows rolled up. Global warming can't be Man-
made because people have done zero historical harm to anything. Such a
benign species has never been seen on the face of the Earth. Here's a
group photo:

http://enough_already.tripod.com/harmless_humans.gif


E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

Never ask a "conservative" to conserve anything.

[Joe the Aroma]

"Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:***@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 28, 11:05 am, Steve Campbell <***@avicorcho.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 28, 11:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > A corrupt equation, passed off as progress: Overpopulation + Depletion
>> > = Economic Growth
>>
>> Old Europe has already had its fling with capitalistic growth and now
>> it has decided to embrace socialist ideas that seem like a good idea
>> because they offer the promise of living off the fat of what it's
>> already accumulated. The socialists say, "To hell with the third world
>> and its desire to create wealth and a better standard of living
>> through capitalism."
>
> You don't say a single word about PHYSICAL LIMITS in your reply. Why
> is that? Everything just kind of shows up on store shelves, eh? Take a
> chance on learning something and actually read the "Boundless Bull"
> article.

Energy is, for all intents and purposes, limitless. With renewable energy,
there really isn't any limit to the energy you can consume. Will we ever run
out of solar energy? Doubtful. Economics will help solve that problem.

>> That makes socialists in old Europe conservative too. They want to
>> retain their wealth and let the rest of the world wallow in poverty,
>> maintaining the status quo. But that thinking is delusional and will
>> only result in an impoverished old Europe.
>
> That's not the physical limits issue that should be the focus here.
> Even in 2007, economists are stuck on the idea of nature as an
> abstraction. Do they eat credit card data for breakfast and bank
> statements for dinner? Do they drink stock profits when the water runs
> low? Think about what's really keeping you alive (nature) before going
> off on tangents about socialism.

That's exactly what economics is actually, it's an abstraction of our
resources. These things such as investment and money is just a way to
abstract and reward people for making rational choices. We have an economic
system because it delivers these things to us in an efficient manner. The
chances of the economic system breaking down fast enough for stocks and
paper money to be worthless and actual resources to become the sole valued
commodity is extremely slim. Resources don't disappear overnight. As they
gradually become scarcer, this is why we have an economic system wherein as
they become scarcer the prices on them rise and they become more valuable.
Nice how that works out, no?

Are you arguing for a system with no money and no banks and no investments?
That's pretty silly, no?

>> Oh, by the way, the climate might be warming but the greenhouse-gas
>> theory of causation is a load of hogwash that only serves as a
>> rhetorical attack on capitalism. Variance in the radiance of the SUN
>> is the driving factor in controlling temperature change on Earth.
>
> Did you get that from the hack film, "The Great Global Warming
> Swindle?" It's also the Sun's fault when careless people leave their
> babies in cars with the windows rolled up. Global warming can't be Man-
> made because people have done zero historical harm to anything. Such a
> benign species has never been seen on the face of the Earth. Here's a
> group photo:

Humans have certainly done harm, all the more reason to have a system in
which there is private ownership of land. People will not tend to pollute
their plots of land and waste their resources.

Of course, not everything fits nicely into this system. Nobody "owns" the
atmosphere. Look up "tragedy of the commons". When something is communally
owned, there is not incentive to look after it nicely. There's no incentive
not to pollute. I believe in pollution controls for this reason.

As far as global warming, I consider myself an agnostic. I do think that
humans are affecting the climate, I just don't think the effects will be as
bad as people say. There will be some minor flooding and that's it. If it
did ever become more of a problem then that, I'm sure we could devise a way
to get carbon out of the atmosphere somehow. Other than some changes (for
example, encouraging nuclear power) I don't think global warming is worth
changing our entire lifestyle and living pattern in drastic ways.

> http://enough_already.tripod.com/harmless_humans.gif

Cute.

> Never ask a "conservative" to conserve anything.

Capitalism is the best way to preserve our resources, it's just that we need
to stop subsidizing certain things that people want to subsidize. But this
is a democracy, so that ain't going to be easy.

[mrbawana2u]

On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:

[hatred for mankind snipped]

Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. They want mass infanticide,
zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.
Most crucially, they want Americans to stop with their infernal
deodorant use. Ann Coulter

[drydem]

On Jul 28, 11:39 am, mrbawana2u <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> [hatred for mankind snipped]
>
> Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
> environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. They want mass infanticide,
> zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.
> Most crucially, they want Americans to stop with their infernal
> deodorant use. Ann Coulter


Luckily for us, Miss Coulter has decided not to breed. :-)

[George Conklin]

"mrbawana2u" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> [hatred for mankind snipped]
>
> Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
> environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. They want mass infanticide,
> zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.
> Most crucially, they want Americans to stop with their infernal
> deodorant use. Ann Coulter
>
>

Cute, it I wonder how Democrats are going to win elections with the idea
that we need to eat less, avoid fruit since it has to be transported, and
wear hair shirts.

[Talk-n-Dog]

George Conklin wrote:
> "mrbawana2u" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>> [hatred for mankind snipped]
>>
>> Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
>> environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. They want mass infanticide,
>> zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.
>> Most crucially, they want Americans to stop with their infernal
>> deodorant use. Ann Coulter
>>
>>
>
> Cute, it I wonder how Democrats are going to win elections with the idea
> that we need to eat less, avoid fruit since it has to be transported, and
> wear hair shirts.
>
>

Women can weave their shirts out of their armpit hair....

--
http://OutSourcedNews.com
Our constitution protects aliens, drunks and U.S. Senators. Which at
times are, one and the same...

The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bullshit to ruin the
whole thing. - Gump That -

[Amy Blankenship]

"George Conklin" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3WNqi.11888$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "mrbawana2u" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>> [hatred for mankind snipped]
>>
>> Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
>> environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. They want mass infanticide,
>> zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.
>> Most crucially, they want Americans to stop with their infernal
>> deodorant use. Ann Coulter
>>
>>
>
> Cute, it I wonder how Democrats are going to win elections with the idea
> that we need to eat less, avoid fruit since it has to be transported, and
> wear hair shirts.

I have three types of fruit either ripe or nearly ripe on my property right
now. I think probably most states will have several types of fruit that are
available locally at least 50% of the year.

[Server 13]

"George Conklin" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3WNqi.11888$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "mrbawana2u" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>> [hatred for mankind snipped]
>>
>> Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
>> environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. They want mass infanticide,
>> zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.
>> Most crucially, they want Americans to stop with their infernal
>> deodorant use. Ann Coulter
>>
>>
>
> Cute, it I wonder how Democrats are going to win elections with the idea
> that we need to eat less, avoid fruit since it has to be transported, and
> wear hair shirts.

I'll bet you do. lol

[Enough Already]

On Jul 28, 11:39 am, mrbawana2u <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> [hatred for mankind snipped]
>
> Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
> environmentalism is a hatred for mankind.

Do people also "hate" dogs and cats by wanting to see them spayed to
diminish their suffering? Try logic sometime instead of being a
mindless reactionary. Too much of anything is bad news.

Try a simple population experiment by inviting all your inbred cousins
to live with you. You can ease them in, maybe one per month. As your
dwelling gets more and more crowded, watch as your quality of life
deteriorates. This is exactly what population growth (70+ million
annual net gain) is slowly doing to the Earth. More people means more
crowding no matter how you twist the logic.

> They want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.

Far more babies are starving due to overcrowding than are being killed
deliberately. Growth-addicts and "pro life" (pro birth) drones are too
stupid to look at actual cause & effect. Current high standards of
living are mostly made possible by finite oil. Pretending that
physical limits don't matter won't make them go away. Facts like those
are nuisances to feeble minds, but one can only tell the truth.

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/

Nature doesn't forgive willful ignorance.

[mrbawana2u]

On Jul 28, 9:12 pm, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 11:39 am, mrbawana2u <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > [hatred for mankind snipped]
>
> > Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
> > environmentalism is a hatred for mankind.
>
> Do people also "hate" dogs and cats by wanting to see them spayed to
> diminish their suffering?

I'd want to change the subject too, if I had a lobotomy and was you.

> Try logic sometime instead of being a
> mindless reactionary. Too much of anything is bad news.
>
> Try a simple population experiment by inviting all your inbred cousins
> to live with you. You can ease them in, maybe one per month. As your
> dwelling gets more and more crowded, watch as your quality of life
> deteriorates. This is exactly what population growth (70+ million
> annual net gain) is slowly doing to the Earth. More people means more
> crowding no matter how you twist the logic.

If it wasn't for lies and shitty metaphors, you tards wouldn't have
anything to say.

> > They want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.
>
> Far more babies are starving due to overcrowding than are being killed
> deliberately. Growth-addicts and "pro life" (pro birth) drones are too
> stupid to look at actual cause & effect. Current high standards of
> living are mostly made possible by finite oil. Pretending that
> physical limits don't matter won't make them go away. Facts like those
> are nuisances to feeble minds, but one can only tell the truth.

So, out in your lunatic world, everything said is correct:

Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. They want mass infanticide,
zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.
Most crucially, they want Americans to stop with their infernal
deodorant use. Ann Coulter

[Joe the Aroma]

"Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:***@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 28, 11:39 am, mrbawana2u <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>> [hatred for mankind snipped]
>>
>> Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
>> environmentalism is a hatred for mankind.
>
> Do people also "hate" dogs and cats by wanting to see them spayed to
> diminish their suffering? Try logic sometime instead of being a
> mindless reactionary. Too much of anything is bad news.

I think that there is certainly an undercurrent of hatred for modernism and
humanity with the current crop of environmentalism.

> Try a simple population experiment by inviting all your inbred cousins
> to live with you. You can ease them in, maybe one per month. As your
> dwelling gets more and more crowded, watch as your quality of life
> deteriorates. This is exactly what population growth (70+ million
> annual net gain) is slowly doing to the Earth. More people means more
> crowding no matter how you twist the logic.

Actually, doesn't the UN predict that growth will level off in 2050
sometime? More people does mean more crowding but doesn't population go down
after an economy has become industrialized? Look at "Old Europe", Japan and
the like. I'd wager that even the US's population growth (minus immigration)
has gone down. As women gain rights, population levels off. Nice how that
works out, huh?

>> They want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of
>> living and vegetarianism.
>
> Far more babies are starving due to overcrowding than are being killed
> deliberately.

That may be true, but I don't know if it's due to "overcrowding". If
anything I'd say that it's due to political strife and unefficient economic
systems. Look at the civil wars in Africa and the like.

> Growth-addicts and "pro life" (pro birth) drones are too
> stupid to look at actual cause & effect. Current high standards of
> living are mostly made possible by finite oil.

Partially. Energy drives the economy, but human innovation is the other side
of the equation you're missing.

> Pretending that
> physical limits don't matter won't make them go away. Facts like those
> are nuisances to feeble minds, but one can only tell the truth.

Technically speaking, there are no "physical limits". The universe is
limitless. Renewable energy sources are, for all intents and purposes,
infinite. Is there any limit to how efficient we can make ourselves? Maybe
in an asymptotic sense, perhaps. But not practically.

> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>
> Nature doesn't forgive willful ignorance.
>

[(David P.)]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That may be true, but I don't know if it's due to "overcrowding".
> If anything I'd say that it's due to political strife and unefficient
> economic systems. Look at the civil wars in Africa and the like.

Yeah, political strife caused by overpopulation! And inefficient
economic systems that get that way because uncontrolled
population growth stymies efficiency!
.
.
--

[Pat]

On Jul 28, 9:12 pm, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 11:39 am, mrbawana2u <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > [hatred for mankind snipped]
>
> > Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
> > environmentalism is a hatred for mankind.
>
> Do people also "hate" dogs and cats by wanting to see them spayed to
> diminish their suffering? Try logic sometime instead of being a
> mindless reactionary. Too much of anything is bad news.
>
> Try a simple population experiment by inviting all your inbred cousins
> to live with you. You can ease them in, maybe one per month. As your
> dwelling gets more and more crowded, watch as your quality of life
> deteriorates. This is exactly what population growth (70+ million
> annual net gain) is slowly doing to the Earth. More people means more
> crowding no matter how you twist the logic.
>
> > They want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.
>
> Far more babies are starving due to overcrowding than are being killed
> deliberately. Growth-addicts and "pro life" (pro birth) drones are too
> stupid to look at actual cause & effect. Current high standards of
> living are mostly made possible by finite oil. Pretending that
> physical limits don't matter won't make them go away. Facts like those
> are nuisances to feeble minds, but one can only tell the truth.
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>
> Nature doesn't forgive willful ignorance.

You are THE most anti-woman person I've ever heard of. For years,
women have fought for the right to control their own bodies. They
have fought for the right to choose to have babies or to choose not
to.

Now, you want to end that and force population restrictions. You want
to take all reproductive rights, responsibilities, and decision making
out of the hands of the individual and put it into your hands, because
YOU know better than HER whether SHE should have a baby or not.

That is the ultimate arrogance. You don't get to decide and with a
little help from God, people like you will never get to decide.

Malthus had the same idea you had. Sorry, but you're 200 years behind
the times. Guess what, the doom and gloom that he envisioned never
happened. It didn't happen then, it isn't happening now, and it won't
happen in the future. You are trying to make linear projections of
non-linear trends. Go learn something about demographics.

Poor areas of Africa or other places don't need infanticide. They
need economic development, food aid, and medical help. A rising tide
lifts all boats.

I suppose you find it too bad that women have rights. They have the
right to choose about their bodies, their health, their families,
their mates, their jobs, and believe it or not, they can vote.

So take this every-6-months thread of yours and end it. It is stupid
and you are making a fool of yourself.

[(David P.)]

Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
> Now, you want to end that and force population restrictions. You want
> to take all reproductive rights, responsibilities, and decision making
> out of the hands of the individual and put it into your hands, because
> YOU know better than HER whether SHE should have a baby or not.

Technology isn't lifting all boats, but we keep adding more boats!
As our numbers increase, there will be more conflicts at all levels --
local, regional, national, international and global -- that wouldn't
happen if population were stabilized.
It would be much more equitable having each individual fight the
flu on his own, rather than waste resources having armies fight each
other over resources. By stopping the suppression of influenza,
everyone could be on the front lines, instead of just a few good men.
.
.
--

[Pat]

On Aug 1, 1:11 pm, "(David P.)" <***@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
> > Now, you want to end that and force population restrictions. You want
> > to take all reproductive rights, responsibilities, and decision making
> > out of the hands of the individual and put it into your hands, because
> > YOU know better than HER whether SHE should have a baby or not.
>
> Technology isn't lifting all boats, but we keep adding more boats!
> As our numbers increase, there will be more conflicts at all levels --
> local, regional, national, international and global -- that wouldn't
> happen if population were stabilized.
> It would be much more equitable having each individual fight the
> flu on his own, rather than waste resources having armies fight each
> other over resources. By stopping the suppression of influenza,
> everyone could be on the front lines, instead of just a few good men.

I truly don't understand that last paragraph. Are you seriously
saying that you feel a world-wide pandemic caused by deliberately
allowing (if not actually encouraging) the spread of diseases is in
some way good? Are you also so naive that you don't believe that a
killer-flu epidemic would not, by itself, cause some sort of major
military action by someone.

Further, you don't think that the wealth would not ensure their own
health through secret vaccinations. This would ensure that the flu
does not wipe out a proportion of everyone, but the poor and the
weak. So basically, you are saying that you want to kill of the poor,
which tend to be disproportion ally persons of color. So basically
you want to use biological weapons to effect racial cleansing. You
want to create a new, final solution for minorities.

Is this something out of a Klu Klux Klan handbook? You want to take
away the most basic rights from women through, effectively, forced
sterilization of people you don't want to have children. Then you
want to slaughter the poor and minorities through rampant diseases.

You are not only a sexist, but you are also a racist. Be thankful you
were born rich and white so that you are not in someones sights.

[(David P.)]

Pat <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> "(David P.)" <***@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > It would be much more equitable having each individual fight the
> > flu on his own, rather than waste resources having armies fight each
> > other over resources. By stopping the suppression of influenza,
> > everyone could be on the front lines, instead of just a few good men.
>
> I truly don't understand that last paragraph. Are you seriously
> saying that you feel a world-wide pandemic caused by deliberately
> allowing (if not actually encouraging) the spread of diseases is in
> some way good?

You (like everyone else) just want to pass the buck
to future generations! Irresponsible procrastination!
.
.
--

[U***@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG]

In article
<***@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
***@artisticphotography.us says...
> On Jul 28, 9:12 pm, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 11:39 am, mrbawana2u <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:

> > > [hatred for mankind snipped]

> > > Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
> > > environmentalism is a hatred for mankind.

> > Do people also "hate" dogs and cats by wanting to see them spayed to
> > diminish their suffering? Try logic sometime instead of being a
> > mindless reactionary. Too much of anything is bad news.
> >
> > Try a simple population experiment by inviting all your inbred cousins
> > to live with you. You can ease them in, maybe one per month. As your
> > dwelling gets more and more crowded, watch as your quality of life
> > deteriorates. This is exactly what population growth (70+ million
> > annual net gain) is slowly doing to the Earth. More people means more
> > crowding no matter how you twist the logic.

> > > They want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.

> > Far more babies are starving due to overcrowding than are being killed
> > deliberately. Growth-addicts and "pro life" (pro birth) drones are too
> > stupid to look at actual cause & effect. Current high standards of
> > living are mostly made possible by finite oil. Pretending that
> > physical limits don't matter won't make them go away. Facts like those
> > are nuisances to feeble minds, but one can only tell the truth.


> You are THE most anti-woman person I've ever heard of. For years,
> women have fought for the right to control their own bodies. They
> have fought for the right to choose to have babies or to choose not
> to.
>
> Now, you want to end that and force population restrictions. You want
> to take all reproductive rights, responsibilities, and decision making
> out of the hands of the individual and put it into your hands, because
> YOU know better than HER whether SHE should have a baby or not.


I didn't see anything about oppressing women specifically in the
previous post.

After all, a more efficient approach to forced contraception
would be to sterilise males. Since one male can parent many,
many more children than one female.


> That is the ultimate arrogance. You don't get to decide and with a
> little help from God, people like you will never get to decide.


It depends on who is expected to take responsibility for
supporting the child. It would be rather arrogant to say, "I'm
gonna control my body by having a kid, but you have to cough up
the resources to feed/house/educate/etc that kid."

It is a lot like the way I don't feel comfortable telling someone
which chemicals s/he can or cannot put into his/her body. But I
definitely resent paying for somebody else's smoking-induced lung
cancer.


> Malthus had the same idea you had. Sorry, but you're 200 years behind
> the times. Guess what, the doom and gloom that he envisioned never
> happened. It didn't happen then, it isn't happening now, and it won't
> happen in the future. You are trying to make linear projections of
> non-linear trends. Go learn something about demographics.


How about we jam as many "demographics" into as little space as
possible? Like, right around where you are located? Competing
for housing, food, medical care, etc? While also creating
burdens on sewage, road, and other type infrastructures?


> Poor areas of Africa or other places don't need infanticide.


OK, maybe they don't need infanticide. But how about some
reliable birth control? You know, so those women who prefer NOT
to get pregnant, can avoid it, like that whole choice and
personal body control thang you mentioned?


> They need economic development, food aid, and medical help.


In the shoes of many turd-world women, I would prefer
sterilisation over a month's food for a baby that I didn't want.


> A rising tide lifts all boats.


And plenty of women, including in developed nations, can
contribute to a general "rising tide" much better without kids
whom they cannot support.


> I suppose you find it too bad that women have rights. They have the
> right to choose about their bodies, their health, their families,
> their mates, their jobs, and believe it or not, they can vote.


You mean like the right to NOT have a child whom they cannot
support?


> So take this every-6-months thread of yours and end it. It is stupid
> and you are making a fool of yourself.


So, how do you feel about the prospect of totally out-of-control
population growth? Reaching a breaking point, where hundreds of
millions of people (of all ages) are going hungry, because the
environment and infrastructure CAN'T support all those new
children? How brutal and oppressive do you think THAT might be?


--
Want Privacy?
http://www.MinistryOfPrivacy.com/

[Pat]

On Aug 2, 2:14 am, ***@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG <***@THE-DOMAIN-
IN.SIG> wrote:
> In article
> <***@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> ***@artisticphotography.us says...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 28, 9:12 pm, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 28, 11:39 am, mrbawana2u <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
> > > > [hatred for mankind snipped]
> > > > Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of
> > > > environmentalism is a hatred for mankind.
> > > Do people also "hate" dogs and cats by wanting to see them spayed to
> > > diminish their suffering? Try logic sometime instead of being a
> > > mindless reactionary. Too much of anything is bad news.
>
> > > Try a simple population experiment by inviting all your inbred cousins
> > > to live with you. You can ease them in, maybe one per month. As your
> > > dwelling gets more and more crowded, watch as your quality of life
> > > deteriorates. This is exactly what population growth (70+ million
> > > annual net gain) is slowly doing to the Earth. More people means more
> > > crowding no matter how you twist the logic.
> > > > They want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of living and vegetarianism.
> > > Far more babies are starving due to overcrowding than are being killed
> > > deliberately. Growth-addicts and "pro life" (pro birth) drones are too
> > > stupid to look at actual cause & effect. Current high standards of
> > > living are mostly made possible by finite oil. Pretending that
> > > physical limits don't matter won't make them go away. Facts like those
> > > are nuisances to feeble minds, but one can only tell the truth.
> > You are THE most anti-woman person I've ever heard of. For years,
> > women have fought for the right to control their own bodies. They
> > have fought for the right to choose to have babies or to choose not
> > to.
>
> > Now, you want to end that and force population restrictions. You want
> > to take all reproductive rights, responsibilities, and decision making
> > out of the hands of the individual and put it into your hands, because
> > YOU know better than HER whether SHE should have a baby or not.
>
> I didn't see anything about oppressing women specifically in the
> previous post.

No oppression? What is forced birth control.

>
> After all, a more efficient approach to forced contraception
> would be to sterilise males. Since one male can parent many,
> many more children than one female.

Oh, like that is somehow better.

>
> > That is the ultimate arrogance. You don't get to decide and with a
> > little help from God, people like you will never get to decide.
>
> It depends on who is expected to take responsibility for
> supporting the child. It would be rather arrogant to say, "I'm
> gonna control my body by having a kid, but you have to cough up
> the resources to feed/house/educate/etc that kid."
>
> It is a lot like the way I don't feel comfortable telling someone
> which chemicals s/he can or cannot put into his/her body. But I
> definitely resent paying for somebody else's smoking-induced lung
> cancer.

You don't feel comfortable telling someone which chemicals s/he can or
cannot put into his/her body, but you want force sterilization? Huh?

>
> > Malthus had the same idea you had. Sorry, but you're 200 years behind
> > the times. Guess what, the doom and gloom that he envisioned never
> > happened. It didn't happen then, it isn't happening now, and it won't
> > happen in the future. You are trying to make linear projections of
> > non-linear trends. Go learn something about demographics.
>
> How about we jam as many "demographics" into as little space as
> possible? Like, right around where you are located? Competing
> for housing, food, medical care, etc? While also creating
> burdens on sewage, road, and other type infrastructures?

It seems that no one wants to live where I live, sorry. But that
works for me. I live in a rural area.

>
> > Poor areas of Africa or other places don't need infanticide.
>
> OK, maybe they don't need infanticide. But how about some
> reliable birth control? You know, so those women who prefer NOT
> to get pregnant, can avoid it, like that whole choice and
> personal body control thang you mentioned?

I'll all for providing birth control and other health care to those
who need it. It is a matter of choice birth control, not forced.

>
> > They need economic development, food aid, and medical help.
>
> In the shoes of many turd-world women, I would prefer
> sterilisation over a month's food for a baby that I didn't want.

I think this sums up your stereotypical, racist, sexist, and arrogant
views quite nicely. Only a biggot would refer to it as turd-world.
The good news: I hear the KKK is recruiting. Maybe you should go join
your brethren for a hate-fest.

>
> > A rising tide lifts all boats.
>
> And plenty of women, including in developed nations, can
> contribute to a general "rising tide" much better without kids
> whom they cannot support.

Again, it is their choice, not your. They don't decide if you have
kids, you don't decide if they do.

>
> > I suppose you find it too bad that women have rights. They have the
> > right to choose about their bodies, their health, their families,
> > their mates, their jobs, and believe it or not, they can vote.
>
> You mean like the right to NOT have a child whom they cannot
> support?

Yes, if that is their choice. They choose, not you.

>
> > So take this every-6-months thread of yours and end it. It is stupid
> > and you are making a fool of yourself.
>
> So, how do you feel about the prospect of totally out-of-control
> population growth? Reaching a breaking point, where hundreds of
> millions of people (of all ages) are going hungry, because the
> environment and infrastructure CAN'T support all those new
> children? How brutal and oppressive do you think THAT might be?

Go read Malthus. He was wrong 200 years ago. You are wrong now.

>
> --
> Want Privacy?http://www.MinistryOfPrivacy.com/

[Green Turtle]

I not really sure this idea of freedom and growth is an American concept at
all.

Here, most places has banned smoking. Someplace even in pubic.

In lots of places in Europe, they still smoke like crazy.

and, drinking laws in the USA are extremely tough. 21 in many states..that
even before you can vote!!!

In Europe, I don't think have that strong of drinking age (in some
places...I don't even think they have a drinking age).

And, while I hi-ways are full of cops handing out speeding tickets, there is
places in Europe where no speed limits exists..


So, I somewhat at a loss as to how you think there is some "America" concept
of limits when actually laws in other countries are far more liberal and
free when it comes to things like driving too fast, drinking age, or
smoking....

The state of New York has banned transfats in restaurants, and in places in
Europe they eat enough rich food to kill most Americans (but, that red wine
seems to offset this problem).

and, while the USA not built a nuclear reactor in 30+ years, France
generates 80% of its energy from Nuclear energy.

The way I see it, the American are rather soft, and if you speed, eat too
much fat, drink before your 21, have sex before your married, and a host of
other issues..they seem to be leaders in trying to limit what people do.....


Super Turtle.

[Joe the Aroma]

"Green Turtle" <Super ***@greenpiece.com> wrote in message
news:BnQqi.13618$***@pd7urf2no...
>I not really sure this idea of freedom and growth is an American concept at
>all.
>
> Here, most places has banned smoking. Someplace even in pubic.

Yes, in limousine liberal type places. Not all places are like this.

> In lots of places in Europe, they still smoke like crazy.
>
> and, drinking laws in the USA are extremely tough. 21 in many states..that
> even before you can vote!!!
>
> In Europe, I don't think have that strong of drinking age (in some
> places...I don't even think they have a drinking age).
>
> And, while I hi-ways are full of cops handing out speeding tickets, there
> is places in Europe where no speed limits exists..
>
> So, I somewhat at a loss as to how you think there is some "America"
> concept of limits when actually laws in other countries are far more
> liberal and free when it comes to things like driving too fast, drinking
> age, or smoking....

Yes, in terms of "sin" things, they are generally less restrictive in
Europe. However in terms of economics, free speech, living patterns etc. we
have more freedom here.

> The state of New York has banned transfats in restaurants, and in places
> in Europe they eat enough rich food to kill most Americans (but, that red
> wine seems to offset this problem).

It's the emphasis here in the US on a low-fat, high refined food diet. It's
actually killing us and making us fatter when it was intended to be the
opposite.

> and, while the USA not built a nuclear reactor in 30+ years, France
> generates 80% of its energy from Nuclear energy.

That's what the econuts wanted so what can you do?

> The way I see it, the American are rather soft, and if you speed, eat too
> much fat, drink before your 21, have sex before your married, and a host
> of other issues..they seem to be leaders in trying to limit what people
> do.....

Thank limousine liberals for their watchful eye on the "health" of America.
I don't know why you threw in the sex before you're married thing, that's
still legal.

Also, try to learn English "gooder", you might enjoy it better here.

[Jack May]

"Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:***@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> American is still stuck in frontier mode, having vanquished most of
> them. Old Europe, which has realized limits to growth, is taking a
> much wiser approach these days. Must America become as crowded as
> Europe before the brakes are applied? Who really thinks that growth-as-
> usual with NO limits is compatible with protecting the environment or
> halting global warming? It doesn't appear that sustainability is the
> goal of most Americans. It's more like get while the getting's good
> and to hell with the rest.
>
Nonsense that assumes that there is a fixed pie and every activity takes the
same amount of resources. An ignorant approach since it totally ignores how
we have grown the economy with technology even as we shrink resources
required. Especially in California the policies have reduced resources
while growing the economy.

[Joe the Aroma]

"Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:***@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.

You're a smug, self righteous prick.

> In America, the attitude is NO limits to "human potential" and
> whatever physical aspects of consumption go with it. A sense of
> endless entitlement to natural resources is gluttony by any other
> name. People had more restraint in the old days before oil created the
> illusion of infinite wealth. Don't tell a modern individual that their
> quest for no boundaries is excess, not progress. They'll invoke the
> Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" or any distraction from physical
> reality.

What "physical reality"? It's called economics, the rational division of
resources. The public demands low gas prices, and politicians give them what
they want. When oil companies try raising the price, Congress hauls them in
to testify. What do you want? It's a democracy.

> Growth-addicts don't respect limits to economic growth (aka population
> growth), urban sprawl boundaries, speed limits, limits to the taking
> of water, limits on the amount of trees that can be cut, limits on the
> number of fish being caught, limits on potential income, and so on.
> "Everyone can be a millionaire," they tell us. But who would grow the
> food and haul the trash?

It't called economics.

> Nearly two decades ago, steady-state economist Herman Daly wrote an
> article, "Boundless Bull," which nails the difference between the real
> world and a psychological construct of no limits.
>
> http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew910508
>
> [quote] "To grow" means to increase in size by the accretion or
> assimilation of material. "Growth" therefore means a quantitative
> increase in the scale of the physical dimensions of the economy. "To
> develop" means to expand or realize the potentialities of; to bring
> gradually to a fuller, greater or better state. "Development"
> therefore means the qualitative improvement in the structure, design
> and composition of the physical stocks of wealth that results from
> greater knowledge, both of technique and of purpose. A growing economy
> is getting bigger; a developing economy is getting better. [end quote]
>
>
> American is still stuck in frontier mode, having vanquished most of
> them. Old Europe, which has realized limits to growth, is taking a
> much wiser approach these days. Must America become as crowded as
> Europe before the brakes are applied? Who really thinks that growth-as-
> usual with NO limits is compatible with protecting the environment or
> halting global warming? It doesn't appear that sustainability is the
> goal of most Americans. It's more like get while the getting's good
> and to hell with the rest.

You have to balance planning for the future with living for the moment.
There's a chance you may not even see the future. Americans have chosen
their lifestyle and Europe has chosen there's. Incidentally, judging by
import export/patterns, it appears that "Old Europe" is perfectly willing to
give it's resources away to us for the cheap.

[altheim]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>
>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>
> You're a smug, self righteous prick.

Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.

>> In America, the attitude is NO limits to "human potential" and
>> whatever physical aspects of consumption go with it. A sense of
>> endless entitlement to natural resources is gluttony by any other
>> name. People had more restraint in the old days before oil created the
>> illusion of infinite wealth. Don't tell a modern individual that their
>> quest for no boundaries is excess, not progress. They'll invoke the
>> Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" or any distraction from physical
>> reality.
>
> What "physical reality"? It's called economics, the rational division of
> resources. The public demands low gas prices, and politicians give them
> what they want. When oil companies try raising the price, Congress hauls
> them in to testify. What do you want? It's a democracy.

Of course it is "economics". But what you describe, eg giving in to
demands for cheap oil, is the antithesis of economy. It is wasteful,
it sets a bad example to developing capitalist markets, like China,
and it is likely to alienate friends, like Europe.

>> Growth-addicts don't respect limits to economic growth (aka population
>> growth), urban sprawl boundaries, speed limits, limits to the taking
>> of water, limits on the amount of trees that can be cut, limits on the
>> number of fish being caught, limits on potential income, and so on.
>> "Everyone can be a millionaire," they tell us. But who would grow the
>> food and haul the trash?
>
> It't called economics.

You clearly haven't read one word of Enough's paragraph above
else you would realise that he is talking about economics. It is
also undeniably true that there are physical limits on how far
economies can grow. Do you have any counter argument, or
are you just going to keep on parroting "economics"?

>> Nearly two decades ago, steady-state economist Herman Daly wrote an
>> article, "Boundless Bull," which nails the difference between the real
>> world and a psychological construct of no limits.
>>
>> http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew910508
>>
>> [quote] "To grow" means to increase in size by the accretion or
>> assimilation of material. "Growth" therefore means a quantitative
>> increase in the scale of the physical dimensions of the economy. "To
>> develop" means to expand or realize the potentialities of; to bring
>> gradually to a fuller, greater or better state. "Development"
>> therefore means the qualitative improvement in the structure, design
>> and composition of the physical stocks of wealth that results from
>> greater knowledge, both of technique and of purpose. A growing economy
>> is getting bigger; a developing economy is getting better. [end quote]
>>
>>
>> American is still stuck in frontier mode, having vanquished most of
>> them. Old Europe, which has realized limits to growth, is taking a
>> much wiser approach these days. Must America become as crowded as
>> Europe before the brakes are applied? Who really thinks that growth-as-
>> usual with NO limits is compatible with protecting the environment or
>> halting global warming? It doesn't appear that sustainability is the
>> goal of most Americans. It's more like get while the getting's good
>> and to hell with the rest.
>
> You have to balance planning for the future with living for the moment.
> There's a chance you may not even see the future. Americans have chosen
> their lifestyle and Europe has chosen there's.

You think lifestyles cannot be altered? Are you unable to adapt,
or just unwilling?

> ... Incidentally, judging by import export/patterns, it appears that "Old
> Europe" is perfectly willing to give it's resources away to us for the
> cheap.

Oh! this is interesting; do tell us why.

--
altheim

[Rich]

altheim wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>
> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.

"act on their waste earth's resources"?

How could anybody refuse to do what they don't understand?

>>> In America, the attitude is NO limits to "human potential" and
>>> whatever physical aspects of consumption go with it. A sense of
>>> endless entitlement to natural resources is gluttony by any other
>>> name. People had more restraint in the old days before oil created the
>>> illusion of infinite wealth. Don't tell a modern individual that their
>>> quest for no boundaries is excess, not progress. They'll invoke the
>>> Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" or any distraction from physical
>>> reality.
>> What "physical reality"? It's called economics, the rational division of
>> resources. The public demands low gas prices, and politicians give them
>> what they want. When oil companies try raising the price, Congress hauls
>> them in to testify. What do you want? It's a democracy.
>
> Of course it is "economics". But what you describe, eg giving in to
> demands for cheap oil, is the antithesis of economy.

Say what? FYI, I think there's a difference between "economics" and
"economy". They may look similar, but they don't mean the same thing.

> It is wasteful,

Economics or economy?

> it sets a bad example to developing capitalist markets, like China,
> and it is likely to alienate friends, like Europe.

They don't follow America around and copy everything (or anything) we
do. They don't look to America for an example, not a little, not at
all, they look at America and see a market and money, period. They
don't like us, they don't want to be like us and if we commit economic
suicide you can bet your life savings that they will not follow.

This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments on the net, don't
blame America for China's doings, blame China.

>>> Growth-addicts don't respect limits to economic growth (aka population
>>> growth), urban sprawl boundaries, speed limits, limits to the taking
>>> of water, limits on the amount of trees that can be cut, limits on the
>>> number of fish being caught, limits on potential income, and so on.
>>> "Everyone can be a millionaire," they tell us. But who would grow the
>>> food and haul the trash?
>> It't called economics.
>
> You clearly haven't read one word of Enough's paragraph above
> else you would realise that he is talking about economics. It is
> also undeniably true that there are physical limits on how far
> economies can grow.

What is that limit?

I realize that there are limits to physical growth, but economic
growth is something different.

> Do you have any counter argument, or
> are you just going to keep on parroting "economics"?

You've not posted anything about economics that makes any sense to
me this post.

[...]

>> You have to balance planning for the future with living for the moment.
>> There's a chance you may not even see the future. Americans have chosen
>> their lifestyle and Europe has chosen there's.
>
> You think lifestyles cannot be altered? Are you unable to adapt,
> or just unwilling?

You think the American lifestyle is the same as it was 200 years ago?
Wow. Not much basis for discussion here.

>> ... Incidentally, judging by import export/patterns, it appears that "Old
>> Europe" is perfectly willing to give it's resources away to us for the
>> cheap.
>
> Oh! this is interesting; do tell us why.

I'm curious about that too.

Cheers,

Rich

[altheim]

"Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
> altheim wrote:
>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>
>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>
> "act on their waste earth's resources"?
>
> How could anybody refuse to do what they don't understand?

Editing error - sorry about that - it should have read "Americans
selfishly waste earth's resources.

>>>> In America, the attitude is NO limits to "human potential" and
>>>> whatever physical aspects of consumption go with it. A sense of
>>>> endless entitlement to natural resources is gluttony by any other
>>>> name. People had more restraint in the old days before oil created the
>>>> illusion of infinite wealth. Don't tell a modern individual that their
>>>> quest for no boundaries is excess, not progress. They'll invoke the
>>>> Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" or any distraction from physical
>>>> reality.
>>>>
>>> What "physical reality"? It's called economics, the rational division of
>>> resources. The public demands low gas prices, and politicians give them
>>> what they want. When oil companies try raising the price, Congress hauls
>>> them in to testify. What do you want? It's a democracy.
>>
>> Of course it is "economics". But what you describe, eg giving in to
>> demands for cheap oil, is the antithesis of economy.
>
> Say what? FYI, I think there's a difference between "economics" and
> "economy". They may look similar, but they don't mean the same thing.

So? Economics is the study of economy. Does that make
my observation wrong?

>> It is wasteful,
>
> Economics or economy?
>
>> it sets a bad example to developing capitalist markets, like China,
>> and it is likely to alienate friends, like Europe.
>
> They don't follow America around and copy everything (or anything) we
> do. They don't look to America for an example, not a little, not at
> all, they look at America and see a market and money, period. They
> don't like us, they don't want to be like us and if we commit economic
> suicide you can bet your life savings that they will not follow.
>
> This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments on the net, don't
> blame America for China's doings, blame China.

Oh! there you go again: It doesn't matter a hoot if China
refuses to follow suit. It is just morally wrong to expect
them to act on climate change while you continue to
squander earth's rescources.

>>>> Growth-addicts don't respect limits to economic growth (aka population
>>>> growth), urban sprawl boundaries, speed limits, limits to the taking
>>>> of water, limits on the amount of trees that can be cut, limits on the
>>>> number of fish being caught, limits on potential income, and so on.
>>>> "Everyone can be a millionaire," they tell us. But who would grow the
>>>> food and haul the trash?
>>> It't called economics.
>>
>> You clearly haven't read one word of Enough's paragraph above
>> else you would realise that he is talking about economics. It is
>> also undeniably true that there are physical limits on how far
>> economies can grow.
>
> What is that limit?
>
> I realize that there are limits to physical growth, but economic
> growth is something different.
>
>> Do you have any counter argument, or
>> are you just going to keep on parroting "economics"?
>
> You've not posted anything about economics that makes any sense to
> me this post.
>
> [...]
>
>>> You have to balance planning for the future with living for the moment.
>>> There's a chance you may not even see the future. Americans have chosen
>>> their lifestyle and Europe has chosen there's.
>>
>> You think lifestyles cannot be altered? Are you unable to adapt,
>> or just unwilling?
>
> You think the American lifestyle is the same as it was 200 years ago?
> Wow. Not much basis for discussion here.
>
>>> ... Incidentally, judging by import export/patterns, it appears that
>>> "Old Europe" is perfectly willing to give it's resources away to us for
>>> the cheap.
>>
>> Oh! this is interesting; do tell us why.
>
> I'm curious about that too.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rich

--
altheim

[Rich]

altheim wrote:
> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>> altheim wrote:
>>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
>>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
>>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>> "act on their waste earth's resources"?
>>
>> How could anybody refuse to do what they don't understand?
>
> Editing error - sorry about that - it should have read "Americans
> selfishly waste earth's resources.

How do Americans do this?

>>>>> In America, the attitude is NO limits to "human potential" and
>>>>> whatever physical aspects of consumption go with it. A sense of
>>>>> endless entitlement to natural resources is gluttony by any other
>>>>> name. People had more restraint in the old days before oil created the
>>>>> illusion of infinite wealth. Don't tell a modern individual that their
>>>>> quest for no boundaries is excess, not progress. They'll invoke the
>>>>> Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" or any distraction from physical
>>>>> reality.
>>>>>
>>>> What "physical reality"? It's called economics, the rational division of
>>>> resources. The public demands low gas prices, and politicians give them
>>>> what they want. When oil companies try raising the price, Congress hauls
>>>> them in to testify. What do you want? It's a democracy.
>>> Of course it is "economics". But what you describe, eg giving in to
>>> demands for cheap oil, is the antithesis of economy.
>> Say what? FYI, I think there's a difference between "economics" and
>> "economy". They may look similar, but they don't mean the same thing.
>
> So? Economics is the study of economy.

No, it is not. Economics is the study of money and economies.

> Does that make my observation wrong?

Yes.

>>> It is wasteful,
>> Economics or economy?
>>
>>> it sets a bad example to developing capitalist markets, like China,
>>> and it is likely to alienate friends, like Europe.
>> They don't follow America around and copy everything (or anything) we
>> do. They don't look to America for an example, not a little, not at
>> all, they look at America and see a market and money, period. They
>> don't like us, they don't want to be like us and if we commit economic
>> suicide you can bet your life savings that they will not follow.
>>
>> This has got to be one of the stupidest arguments on the net, don't
>> blame America for China's doings, blame China.
>
> Oh! there you go again: It doesn't matter a hoot if China
> refuses to follow suit.

It matters that you keep hoisting this flag as if you've won some
moral argument though, given that it's not just wrong, it's idiotic.

> It is just morally wrong to expect
> them to act on climate change while you continue to
> squander earth's rescources.

And by "squander" you mean what exactly?

[ dead text cut ]

Cheers,

Rich

[altheim]

"Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
> altheim wrote:
>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>> altheim wrote:
>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at
>>>>>> odds
>>>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call
>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>>>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>>>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>>> "act on their waste earth's resources"?
>>>
>>> How could anybody refuse to do what they don't understand?
>>
>> Editing error - sorry about that - it should have read "Americans
>> selfishly waste earth's resources.
>
> How do Americans do this?

You drive bigger cars than anyone else. You drive more miles
than anyone else (don't give me reasons, you just do). Because
gas is cheap (compared with Europe) you get out the car to drive
shorter distances, where Europeans would walk or take the bus.
Americans are all fat so you probably eat too much. Then there's
the air conditioning thing. You have a lousy recycling record
compared with Europe.

And, as if all that weren't enough, you aren't even ashamed of
yourselves. While Britain and Europe are readying themselves
for cutbacks in consumption that might, one day in the future,
be reminiscent of the hardships of wartime, you propose to go
on living it up.

Or maybe it is just you - Heaven forbid I should indulge in stereotyping.

[...]
>> It is just morally wrong to expect
>> them to act on climate change while you continue to
>> squander earth's rescources.
>
> And by "squander" you mean what exactly?

It's another word for waste (find a dictionary). More than
anything I'm talking about oil, but your need for oil for fuel is
affecting food production too, apparently, where corn etc.
is being grown for biofuels. It is wasteful, I have no doubt
of that but I think I should have emphasised instead Europe's
objection to your continued refusal to cut back because of
global warming.

--
altheim

[Joe the Aroma]

"altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:PZkri.4009$***@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>> altheim wrote:
>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>>> altheim wrote:
>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at
>>>>>>> odds
>>>>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call
>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>>>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>>>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>>>>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>>>>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>>>> "act on their waste earth's resources"?
>>>>
>>>> How could anybody refuse to do what they don't understand?
>>>
>>> Editing error - sorry about that - it should have read "Americans
>>> selfishly waste earth's resources.
>>
>> How do Americans do this?
>
> You drive bigger cars than anyone else. You drive more miles
> than anyone else (don't give me reasons, you just do). Because
> gas is cheap (compared with Europe) you get out the car to drive
> shorter distances, where Europeans would walk or take the bus.
> Americans are all fat so you probably eat too much. Then there's
> the air conditioning thing. You have a lousy recycling record
> compared with Europe.

Wow, this is original. And no, we don't care. Make sure you scream at us
when we're over there on vacation.

> And, as if all that weren't enough, you aren't even ashamed of
> yourselves. While Britain and Europe are readying themselves
> for cutbacks in consumption that might, one day in the future,
> be reminiscent of the hardships of wartime, you propose to go
> on living it up.

Why are you readying yourselves for cutbacks in consumption? It's kind of
silly.

> Or maybe it is just you - Heaven forbid I should indulge in stereotyping.
>
> [...]
>>> It is just morally wrong to expect
>>> them to act on climate change while you continue to
>>> squander earth's rescources.
>>
>> And by "squander" you mean what exactly?
>
> It's another word for waste (find a dictionary). More than
> anything I'm talking about oil, but your need for oil for fuel is
> affecting food production too, apparently, where corn etc.
> is being grown for biofuels. It is wasteful, I have no doubt
> of that but I think I should have emphasised instead Europe's
> objection to your continued refusal to cut back because of
> global warming.

Do you realize how much of an elderly woman you sound like?

[altheim]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> "altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>> altheim wrote:
>>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>>>> altheim wrote:
>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>>>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>>>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at
>>>>>>>> odds
>>>>>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>>>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call
>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it
>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>>>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>>>>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>>>>>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>>>>>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>>>>> "act on their waste earth's resources"?
>>>>>
>>>>> How could anybody refuse to do what they don't understand?
>>>>
>>>> Editing error - sorry about that - it should have read "Americans
>>>> selfishly waste earth's resources.
>>>
>>> How do Americans do this?
>>
>> You drive bigger cars than anyone else. You drive more miles
>> than anyone else (don't give me reasons, you just do). Because
>> gas is cheap (compared with Europe) you get out the car to drive
>> shorter distances, where Europeans would walk or take the bus.
>> Americans are all fat so you probably eat too much. Then there's
>> the air conditioning thing. You have a lousy recycling record
>> compared with Europe.
>
> Wow, this is original. And no, we don't care. Make sure you scream at us
> when we're over there on vacation.
>
>> And, as if all that weren't enough, you aren't even ashamed of
>> yourselves. While Britain and Europe are readying themselves
>> for cutbacks in consumption that might, one day in the future,
>> be reminiscent of the hardships of wartime, you propose to go
>> on living it up.
>
> Why are you readying yourselves for cutbacks in consumption? It's kind of
> silly.
>
>> Or maybe it is just you - Heaven forbid I should indulge in stereotyping.
>>
>> [...]
>>>> It is just morally wrong to expect
>>>> them to act on climate change while you continue to
>>>> squander earth's rescources.
>>>
>>> And by "squander" you mean what exactly?
>>
>> It's another word for waste (find a dictionary). More than
>> anything I'm talking about oil, but your need for oil for fuel is
>> affecting food production too, apparently, where corn etc.
>> is being grown for biofuels. It is wasteful, I have no doubt
>> of that but I think I should have emphasised instead Europe's
>> objection to your continued refusal to cut back because of
>> global warming.
>
> Do you realize how much of an elderly woman you sound like?

Do you think a few pathetic jibes and insults cut it? I note
you have offered no real answer to my charges so I'll take
it you have none. Loser.

--
altheim

[Rich]

altheim wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

> Do you think a few pathetic jibes and insults cut it?

When you vented your spleen in the direction of all Americans
you seemed to think so.

> I not you have offered no real answer to my charges

You have posted your beliefs yes, but you have not substantiated
your charges of "waste" in any way.

> so I'll take it you have none.

How can one answer vague ill-formed objections?

I can see that you don't like Americans. I'm good with that,
you don't have to. I don't like you either.

> Loser.

Another fine rebuttal by altheim.

Cheers,

Rich

[Joe the Aroma]

"Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
> altheim wrote:
>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Do you think a few pathetic jibes and insults cut it?
>
> When you vented your spleen in the direction of all Americans
> you seemed to think so.

Yeah, I forgot that this was coming from a little man who said that "all
Americans are fat".

[Joe the Aroma]

"altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:cjlri.2861$***@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>>> altheim wrote:
>>>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>>>>> altheim wrote:
>>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>>>>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at
>>>>>>>>> odds
>>>>>>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>>>>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call
>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it
>>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>>>>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>>>>>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>>>>>>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>>>>>> "act on their waste earth's resources"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How could anybody refuse to do what they don't understand?
>>>>>
>>>>> Editing error - sorry about that - it should have read "Americans
>>>>> selfishly waste earth's resources.
>>>>
>>>> How do Americans do this?
>>>
>>> You drive bigger cars than anyone else. You drive more miles
>>> than anyone else (don't give me reasons, you just do). Because
>>> gas is cheap (compared with Europe) you get out the car to drive
>>> shorter distances, where Europeans would walk or take the bus.
>>> Americans are all fat so you probably eat too much. Then there's
>>> the air conditioning thing. You have a lousy recycling record
>>> compared with Europe.
>>
>> Wow, this is original. And no, we don't care. Make sure you scream at us
>> when we're over there on vacation.
>>
>>> And, as if all that weren't enough, you aren't even ashamed of
>>> yourselves. While Britain and Europe are readying themselves
>>> for cutbacks in consumption that might, one day in the future,
>>> be reminiscent of the hardships of wartime, you propose to go
>>> on living it up.
>>
>> Why are you readying yourselves for cutbacks in consumption? It's kind of
>> silly.
>>
>>> Or maybe it is just you - Heaven forbid I should indulge in
>>> stereotyping.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>>> It is just morally wrong to expect
>>>>> them to act on climate change while you continue to
>>>>> squander earth's rescources.
>>>>
>>>> And by "squander" you mean what exactly?
>>>
>>> It's another word for waste (find a dictionary). More than
>>> anything I'm talking about oil, but your need for oil for fuel is
>>> affecting food production too, apparently, where corn etc.
>>> is being grown for biofuels. It is wasteful, I have no doubt
>>> of that but I think I should have emphasised instead Europe's
>>> objection to your continued refusal to cut back because of
>>> global warming.
>>
>> Do you realize how much of an elderly woman you sound like?
>
> Do you think a few pathetic jibes and insults cut it? I note
> you have offered no real answer to my charges so I'll take
> it you have none. Loser.

What "cuts it" in your opinion? I've already said what I need to say. I
don't know why Europe is preparing for Armegeddon. While I believe humans
may be contributing to global warming, I think the effects will probably be
minor or we will be able to solve the problem through some sort of
technology. "Europe" has no imagination it seems. Other than that, it's
really just a bout of postmodern teenage angst.

[Rich]

altheim wrote:
> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>> altheim wrote:
>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>>> altheim wrote:
>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at
>>>>>>> odds
>>>>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call
>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>>>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>>>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>>>>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>>>>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>>>> "act on their waste earth's resources"?
>>>>
>>>> How could anybody refuse to do what they don't understand?
>>> Editing error - sorry about that - it should have read "Americans
>>> selfishly waste earth's resources.
>> How do Americans do this?
>
> You drive bigger cars than anyone else.

Than anyone else? Are you sure? Or do you mean that Americans drive
bigger cars than Europeans?

And how is this a waste.

> You drive more miles
> than anyone else (don't give me reasons, you just do).

What are your numbers?

And why is it that reasons don't count?

Where's the waste?

> Because gas is cheap (compared with Europe)

You greenies are the most unlikely shills for big oil.

> you get out the car to drive
> shorter distances, where Europeans would walk or take the bus.

Post your evidence.

And again, where is the waste?

> Americans are all fat so you probably eat too much.

Hey, Europe is porking up quite nicely also. There seem to
be several causes for this, the most prominent being prescription
drugs. This also seems to be the cause of the porking up of
Europe.

But you've failed again to show any waste.

You have shown by now that you'll believe anything about
Americans, anything bad at any rate.

> Then there's the air conditioning thing.

The air conditioning thing?

> You have a lousy recycling record compared with Europe.

What is the American record?

What is the European record?

And perhaps you'd be so good as to correlate this usage to
heat and humidity? Oh yeah, reasons don't matter (unless
you're China).

> And, as if all that weren't enough, you aren't even ashamed of
> yourselves.

What, specifically, have I done to be ashamed of? Not living
in Europe?

> While Britain and Europe are readying themselves
> for cutbacks in consumption that might, one day in the future,
> be reminiscent of the hardships of wartime,

They've done damn little up to now. I'll take your predictions
as such and wait to see what, if anything, Europe does.

> you propose to go on living it up.

Can you quantify this?

> Or maybe it is just you - Heaven forbid I should indulge in stereotyping.

What kind of vehicle do I drive altheim?

Please, show me the error of my ways.

> [...]
>>> It is just morally wrong to expect
>>> them to act on climate change while you continue to
>>> squander earth's rescources.
>> And by "squander" you mean what exactly?
>
> It's another word for waste (find a dictionary).

You've so far shown that you believe that any and every American
/use/ of resources is a waste. You've not shown that this belief
is meaningful.

> More than
> anything I'm talking about oil, but your need for oil for fuel is
> affecting food production too, apparently, where corn etc.
> is being grown for biofuels.

So does Europe old chap.

> It is wasteful, I have no doubt of that

That you believe this I accept, that it's a fact you have not
shown. You apparently cannot differentiate between 'use' and
waste.

> but I think I should have emphasised instead Europe's
> objection to your continued refusal to cut back because of
> global warming.

Unless some drastic action is taken Europe ain't even gonna
meet their 'easy' Kyoto targets. I don't expect they shall,
but we shall see.

Cheers,

Rich

[Amy Blankenship]

"Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
> altheim wrote:
>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>> altheim wrote:
>>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>>>> altheim wrote:
>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>>>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>>>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at
>>>>>>>> odds
>>>>>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>>>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call
>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it
>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>>>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>>>>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>>>>>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>>>>>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>>>>> "act on their waste earth's resources"?
>>>>>
>>>>> How could anybody refuse to do what they don't understand?
>>>> Editing error - sorry about that - it should have read "Americans
>>>> selfishly waste earth's resources.
>>> How do Americans do this?
>>
>> You drive bigger cars than anyone else.
>
> Than anyone else? Are you sure? Or do you mean that Americans drive
> bigger cars than Europeans?
>
> And how is this a waste.

It uses more fuel than is necessary to accomplish the goal of
transportation.

>> You drive more miles
>> than anyone else (don't give me reasons, you just do).
>
> What are your numbers?

I'm fairly sure this has been posted in alt.planning.urban in the past.
Maybe you could google it.

> And why is it that reasons don't count?

Because they all boil down to we can't be bothered to even see the problem
(as you exemplify), much less fix it.

> Where's the waste?

Using more than you need to to accomplish the goal is the definition of
waste.

>> Because gas is cheap (compared with Europe)
>
> You greenies are the most unlikely shills for big oil.

The pre-tax price of gas in the UK, at least, is lower than here. I suspect
similar is true for Europe as a whole.

>> you get out the car to drive
>> shorter distances, where Europeans would walk or take the bus.
>
> Post your evidence.

If you look at most American towns, they're designed where walking is not
even possible.

> And again, where is the waste?

If you are forced to get into the car and drive a block to accomplish
something you could do by walking that block, the waste of time and gas is
colossal (hint: you still do the same amount of walking to and from parking
lots, but you have to drive in between).

>> Americans are all fat so you probably eat too much.
>
> Hey, Europe is porking up quite nicely also. There seem to
> be several causes for this, the most prominent being prescription
> drugs. This also seems to be the cause of the porking up of
> Europe.

I have yet to see anyone in Europe using one of those handicapped carts
because he/she is too fat to walk. I see it _every time_ I go to the local
Wal-Mart.

> But you've failed again to show any waste.

Nearly all of the population has built in transportation equipment called
feet. To have to use gas when feet could accomplish the goal in the same or
less time is wasteful. How is this not obvious?
...

-Amy

[Rich]

Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
> news:***@comcast.com...
>> altheim wrote:
>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>>> altheim wrote:
>>>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>>>>> altheim wrote:
>>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>>>>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>>>>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at
>>>>>>>>> odds
>>>>>>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>>>>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call
>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it
>>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>>>>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>>>>>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>>>>>>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>>>>>>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>>>>>> "act on their waste earth's resources"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How could anybody refuse to do what they don't understand?
>>>>> Editing error - sorry about that - it should have read "Americans
>>>>> selfishly waste earth's resources.
>>>> How do Americans do this?
>>> You drive bigger cars than anyone else.
>> Than anyone else? Are you sure? Or do you mean that Americans drive
>> bigger cars than Europeans?
>>
>> And how is this a waste.
>
> It uses more fuel than is necessary to accomplish the goal of
> transportation.

How much fuel is used?

How much fuel is necessary?

>>> You drive more miles
>>> than anyone else (don't give me reasons, you just do).
>> What are your numbers?
>
> I'm fairly sure this has been posted in alt.planning.urban in the past.
> Maybe you could google it.

It's not *my* argument.

>> And why is it that reasons don't count?
>
> Because they all boil down to we can't be bothered to even see the problem
> (as you exemplify), much less fix it.

How do you plan to shrink America to reduce driving and distances?

A few years back the UK was way over it's Kyoto target. Their excuse?
That they'd had an unusually cold winter. It's good to know that reality
and circumstance are irrelevant, well, for America anyway.

>> Where's the waste?
>
> Using more than you need to to accomplish the goal is the definition of
> waste.

I'm not clear that this is exactly right.

waste (wāst) Pronunciation Key
v. wast·ed, wast·ing, wastes

v. tr.

1. To use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly.
2. To cause to lose energy, strength, or vigor; exhaust, tire, or enfeeble:
Disease wasted his body.
3. To fail to take advantage of or use for profit; lose: waste an opportunity.
4.
1. To destroy completely.
2. Slang To kill; murder.

v. intr.

1. To lose energy, strength, weight, or vigor; become weak or enfeebled:
wasting away from an illness.
2. To pass without being put to use: Time is wasting.

=================

I think 'v tr 1' is what we want.

When I drive to work, or to the store to get groceries, how am I
'consuming, spending, or expending thoughtlessly or carelessly'?

>>> Because gas is cheap (compared with Europe)
>> You greenies are the most unlikely shills for big oil.
>
> The pre-tax price of gas in the UK, at least, is lower than here. I suspect
> similar is true for Europe as a whole.

American oil companies are making record windfall profits.

And a large part of the price of every gallon bought in the US
is state and federal taxes.

>>> you get out the car to drive
>>> shorter distances, where Europeans would walk or take the bus.
>> Post your evidence.
>
> If you look at most American towns, they're designed where walking is not
> even possible.

American towns?

We don't have many of those anymore. We seem to have cities and
suburbs.

>> And again, where is the waste?
>
> If you are forced to get into the car and drive a block to accomplish
> something you could do by walking that block, the waste of time and gas is
> colossal (hint: you still do the same amount of walking to and from parking
> lots, but you have to drive in between).

Colossal?

And WRT time, it takes more time to walk.

>>> Americans are all fat so you probably eat too much.
>> Hey, Europe is porking up quite nicely also. There seem to
>> be several causes for this, the most prominent being prescription
>> drugs. This also seems to be the cause of the porking up of
>> Europe.
>
> I have yet to see anyone in Europe using one of those handicapped carts
> because he/she is too fat to walk. I see it _every time_ I go to the local
> Wal-Mart.

=================================================================

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2701322.ece

Huge weight gains reported by patients on prescription drugs
By Roger Dobson
Published: 24 June 2007

Thousands of people who take prescription medicines for everyday conditions are
gaining large amounts of weight as an unexpected side effect, scientists have
warned.

Researchers, who found that some patients were putting on up to 22lbs in a year,
say that the drugs may even be contributing to the nation's rocketing obesity
epidemic.

All of the patients they studied, on medication for conditions as diverse as
diabetes, epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure and schizophrenia, showed
evidence of weight increase.

"Given the common and long-term use of many of these drugs," said the
researchers, "it is likely that they play a significant contributory role in the
increasing prevalence of obesity."

A team from Glasgow University and Glasgow Royal Infirmary reviewed and analysed
data on drug use by more than 25,000 people to quantify the effects of
prescription drugs.

All of the drugs included in the review are used to treat chronic diseases by
large numbers of people. In the UK, it is estimated that around 2.6 million
people have been diagnosed with coronary heart disease, for which beta-blockers
are widely prescribed. More than 400,000 people have epilepsy, and around 1.3
million people have type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

"In the light of these figures, the number of individuals in the population
receiving treatment with an obesogenic drug is potentially quite high. In
Scotland alone, the number of prescriptions dispensed for beta-blockers and
tricyclic antidepressants between 2004 and 2005 exceeded one million and two
million respectively," says the report.

With many of the drugs, weight gain was significant and rapid, according to the
researchers. Just how they lead to weight gain varies, and is in some cases
unknown. Some, like corticosteroids, increase appetite, while beta-adrenoceptor
blockers reduce metabolic rate.

[...]

=================================================================

>> But you've failed again to show any waste.
>
> Nearly all of the population has built in transportation equipment called
> feet. To have to use gas when feet could accomplish the goal in the same or
> less time is wasteful. How is this not obvious?
> ...

But you've already pointed out that feet are rarely adequate due to the
distance between things in America. Where I used to live I could walk
to the local grocery store and often did, depending on what I needed.
When stocks were low and I needed lots, I would drive. It's all a
matter of circumstance.

When it's necessary to drive, and you drive, it ain't a waste. That
things could be better planned (WRT transportation) is nether here nor
there as things are not better planned WRT transportation. Europe is
small and everything is close(r) together. Also most of the town
layouts are from when the area was agrarian years ago. This is a matter
of history, not planning.

Cheers,

Rich


> -Amy
>
>

[Amy Blankenship]

"Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
news:r4mdnSfw05nfbTDbnZ2dnUVZ_u-***@comcast.com...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
>> news:***@comcast.com...
>>> altheim wrote:
>>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>>>> altheim wrote:
>>>>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
>>>>>>> altheim wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>>>>>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at
>>>>>>>>>> odds
>>>>>>>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>>>>>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call
>>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it
>>>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>>>>>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>>>>>>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>>>>>>>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>>>>>>> "act on their waste earth's resources"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How could anybody refuse to do what they don't understand?
>>>>>> Editing error - sorry about that - it should have read "Americans
>>>>>> selfishly waste earth's resources.
>>>>> How do Americans do this?
>>>> You drive bigger cars than anyone else.
>>> Than anyone else? Are you sure? Or do you mean that Americans drive
>>> bigger cars than Europeans?
>>>
>>> And how is this a waste.
>>
>> It uses more fuel than is necessary to accomplish the goal of
>> transportation.
>
> How much fuel is used?
>
> How much fuel is necessary?

Typically, cars in Europe have a fuel efficiency of around 35 mpg. I think
the average in the US is around 18 mpg. so, if you're using 1/18 of a
gallon to go each mile when only 1/35 is necessary (or probably less), then
you're using roughly double what is necessary, and thus wasting half of what
you ise.

>>>> You drive more miles
>>>> than anyone else (don't give me reasons, you just do).
>>> What are your numbers?
>>
>> I'm fairly sure this has been posted in alt.planning.urban in the past.
>> Maybe you could google it.
>
> It's not *my* argument.
>
>>> And why is it that reasons don't count?
>>
>> Because they all boil down to we can't be bothered to even see the
>> problem (as you exemplify), much less fix it.
>
> How do you plan to shrink America to reduce driving and distances?

It's not s shrinking thing. Let me give you an example. The bank I used to
go to was about a block north of the grocery store that is closest to my
house. Both are on a major north-south artery. So, if I want to go by the
bank to get money to spend at the store, I need to leave the south-bound
lane of the highway and cross the north-bound lane of the highway (average
idle time in the median, five minutes). Then I get into the parking lot,
get out of my car, go into the bank, get the money, go back out to the car,
get in, cross the median again (5 more minutes at idle), drive a block
South, and drive into the grocery store parking lot. There are large deep
ditches between the two businesses, making walking impossible, even if the
traffic and lack of sidewalks didn't make it impractical. If walking were
possible, it would take less time than the time spent just crossing the
median ONCE.

This type of completely idiotic design is repeated over and over when you
start to look around you. This is plain and simple waste built into how we
construct our environment. A little thoughtfulness as we build would
eliminate a colossal amount of waste. Clustering businesses rather than
stretching them all over the place would also be benificial to both the
businesses and shoppers, but it seems to me many business owners don't
actually think of cooperating on something like that.

> A few years back the UK was way over it's Kyoto target. Their excuse?
> That they'd had an unusually cold winter. It's good to know that reality
> and circumstance are irrelevant, well, for America anyway.

At least they had a Kyoto target.

>>> Where's the waste?
>>
>> Using more than you need to to accomplish the goal is the definition of
>> waste.
>
> I'm not clear that this is exactly right.
>
> waste (wast) Pronunciation Key
> v. wast·ed, wast·ing, wastes
>
> v. tr.
>
> 1. To use, consume, spend, or expend thoughtlessly or carelessly.
> 2. To cause to lose energy, strength, or vigor; exhaust, tire, or
> enfeeble:
> Disease wasted his body.
> 3. To fail to take advantage of or use for profit; lose: waste an
> opportunity.
> 4.
> 1. To destroy completely.
> 2. Slang To kill; murder.
>
> v. intr.
>
> 1. To lose energy, strength, weight, or vigor; become weak or
> enfeebled:
> wasting away from an illness.
> 2. To pass without being put to use: Time is wasting.
>
> =================
>
> I think 'v tr 1' is what we want.

You apparently didn't spot v. intr. 2 :). We let many opportunities pass
because we have wasted the means to take advantage of them.

> When I drive to work, or to the store to get groceries, how am I
> 'consuming, spending, or expending thoughtlessly or carelessly'?

See above. It's not just your solitary action. It's the way your
environment conspires to force you to have to drive when perhaps you could
walk. It's also the fact that you may well be driving something that uses
more fuel than you need to do it.

>>>> Because gas is cheap (compared with Europe)
>>> You greenies are the most unlikely shills for big oil.
>>
>> The pre-tax price of gas in the UK, at least, is lower than here. I
>> suspect similar is true for Europe as a whole.
>
> American oil companies are making record windfall profits.

So who are the shills, exactly?

> And a large part of the price of every gallon bought in the US
> is state and federal taxes.

But not as large as in Europe.

>>>> you get out the car to drive
>>>> shorter distances, where Europeans would walk or take the bus.
>>> Post your evidence.
>>
>> If you look at most American towns, they're designed where walking is not
>> even possible.
>
> American towns?
>
> We don't have many of those anymore. We seem to have cities and
> suburbs.

OK, refuse to look around you on a smeantical basis. It's all right, you're
allowed to stay ignorant if you want.

>>> And again, where is the waste?
>>
>> If you are forced to get into the car and drive a block to accomplish
>> something you could do by walking that block, the waste of time and gas
>> is colossal (hint: you still do the same amount of walking to and from
>> parking lots, but you have to drive in between).
>
> Colossal?

Yes, when you have to repeat it over and over daily it is colossal. We
budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit 4-5 parking
lots to accmplish what needs to get done.

> And WRT time, it takes more time to walk.

In a typical American environment, you are quite right. It does not have to
be so.

>>>> Americans are all fat so you probably eat too much.
>>> Hey, Europe is porking up quite nicely also. There seem to
>>> be several causes for this, the most prominent being prescription
>>> drugs. This also seems to be the cause of the porking up of
>>> Europe.
>>
>> I have yet to see anyone in Europe using one of those handicapped carts
>> because he/she is too fat to walk. I see it _every time_ I go to the
>> local Wal-Mart.
>
> =================================================================
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2701322.ece
>
> Huge weight gains reported by patients on prescription drugs
> By Roger Dobson
> Published: 24 June 2007
>
> Thousands of people who take prescription medicines for everyday
> conditions are
> gaining large amounts of weight as an unexpected side effect, scientists
> have
> warned.
>
> Researchers, who found that some patients were putting on up to 22lbs in a
> year,
> say that the drugs may even be contributing to the nation's rocketing
> obesity
> epidemic.
>
> All of the patients they studied, on medication for conditions as diverse
> as
> diabetes, epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure and schizophrenia,
> showed
> evidence of weight increase.
>
> "Given the common and long-term use of many of these drugs," said the
> researchers, "it is likely that they play a significant contributory role
> in the
> increasing prevalence of obesity."
>
> A team from Glasgow University and Glasgow Royal Infirmary reviewed and
> analysed
> data on drug use by more than 25,000 people to quantify the effects of
> prescription drugs.
>
> All of the drugs included in the review are used to treat chronic diseases
> by
> large numbers of people. In the UK, it is estimated that around 2.6
> million
> people have been diagnosed with coronary heart disease, for which
> beta-blockers
> are widely prescribed. More than 400,000 people have epilepsy, and around
> 1.3
> million people have type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
>
> "In the light of these figures, the number of individuals in the
> population
> receiving treatment with an obesogenic drug is potentially quite high. In
> Scotland alone, the number of prescriptions dispensed for beta-blockers
> and
> tricyclic antidepressants between 2004 and 2005 exceeded one million and
> two
> million respectively," says the report.
>
> With many of the drugs, weight gain was significant and rapid, according
> to the
> researchers. Just how they lead to weight gain varies, and is in some
> cases
> unknown. Some, like corticosteroids, increase appetite, while
> beta-adrenoceptor
> blockers reduce metabolic rate.

I doubt these people are so fat they can't walk, a condition common here.

> =================================================================
>
>>> But you've failed again to show any waste.
>>
>> Nearly all of the population has built in transportation equipment called
>> feet. To have to use gas when feet could accomplish the goal in the same
>> or less time is wasteful. How is this not obvious?
>> ...
>
> But you've already pointed out that feet are rarely adequate due to the
> distance between things in America. Where I used to live I could walk
> to the local grocery store and often did, depending on what I needed.
> When stocks were low and I needed lots, I would drive. It's all a
> matter of circumstance.

No, due to the design and layout of things here in America. The two are
quite different, as you apparently know, since you have lived where it was
sometimes easier for you to walk to the grocery store.

> When it's necessary to drive, and you drive, it ain't a waste. That
> things could be better planned (WRT transportation) is nether here nor
> there as things are not better planned WRT transportation.

Sure. Just accept that crap planning is inevitable and live your life fat,
dumb, and happy.

> Europe is
> small and everything is close(r) together. Also most of the town
> layouts are from when the area was agrarian years ago. This is a matter
>of history, not planning.

Sure, no one ever planned any city in Europe :-). And the fact that what we
do without planning here has such dire consequences in terms of fuel and
time efficiency shouldn't induce us to ever want anything different. God
has obviously spoken, and sprawl is our manifest destiny.

-Amy

[altheim]

"Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
[...]
>> How do you plan to shrink America to reduce driving and distances?
>
> It's not s shrinking thing. Let me give you an example. The bank I used
> to go to was about a block north of the grocery store that is closest to
> my house. Both are on a major north-south artery. So, if I want to go by
> the bank to get money to spend at the store, I need to leave the
> south-bound lane of the highway and cross the north-bound lane of the
> highway (average idle time in the median, five minutes). Then I get into
> the parking lot, get out of my car, go into the bank, get the money, go
> back out to the car, get in, cross the median again (5 more minutes at
> idle), drive a block South, and drive into the grocery store parking lot.
> There are large deep ditches between the two businesses, making walking
> impossible, even if the traffic and lack of sidewalks didn't make it
> impractical. If walking were possible, it would take less time than the
> time spent just crossing the median ONCE.
>
> This type of completely idiotic design is repeated over and over when you
> start to look around you. This is plain and simple waste built into how
> we construct our environment. A little thoughtfulness as we build would
> eliminate a colossal amount of waste. Clustering businesses rather than
> stretching them all over the place would also be benificial to both the
> businesses and shoppers, but it seems to me many business owners don't
> actually think of cooperating on something like that.

Thanks Amy, for posting that. It kind of helps explain some of the
criticism I've heard and read over the years about American
avarice, though in this case it's not something any member of the
public could do anything about.


>>>>> Americans are all fat so you probably eat too much.
>>>> Hey, Europe is porking up quite nicely also. There seem to
>>>> be several causes for this, the most prominent being prescription
>>>> drugs. This also seems to be the cause of the porking up of
>>>> Europe.
>>>
>>> I have yet to see anyone in Europe using one of those handicapped carts
>>> because he/she is too fat to walk. I see it _every time_ I go to the
>>> local Wal-Mart.
>>
>> =================================================================
>>
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2701322.ece
>>
>> Huge weight gains reported by patients on prescription drugs
>> By Roger Dobson
>> Published: 24 June 2007
>>
>> Thousands of people who take prescription medicines for everyday
>> conditions are gaining large amounts of weight as an unexpected side
>> effect, scientists have warned.
>>
>> Researchers, who found that some patients were putting on up to 22lbs in
>> a year, say that the drugs may even be contributing to the nation's
>> rocketing obesity epidemic.
>>
>> All of the patients they studied, on medication for conditions as diverse
>> as diabetes, epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure and schizophrenia,
>> showed evidence of weight increase.
>>
>> "Given the common and long-term use of many of these drugs," said the
>> researchers, "it is likely that they play a significant contributory role
>> in the increasing prevalence of obesity."
>>
>> A team from Glasgow University and Glasgow Royal Infirmary reviewed and
>> analysed data on drug use by more than 25,000 people to quantify the
>> effects of prescription drugs.
>>
>> All of the drugs included in the review are used to treat chronic
>> diseases by large numbers of people. In the UK, it is estimated that
>> around 2.6 million people have been diagnosed with coronary heart
>> disease, for which beta-blockers are widely prescribed. More than 400,000
>> people have epilepsy, and around 1.3 million people have type 1 or type 2
>> diabetes.
>>
>> "In the light of these figures, the number of individuals in the
>> population
>> receiving treatment with an obesogenic drug is potentially quite high. In
>> Scotland alone, the number of prescriptions dispensed for beta-blockers
>> and tricyclic antidepressants between 2004 and 2005 exceeded one million
>> and two million respectively," says the report.
>>
>> With many of the drugs, weight gain was significant and rapid, according
>> to the researchers. Just how they lead to weight gain varies, and is in
>> some cases unknown. Some, like corticosteroids, increase appetite, while
>> beta-adrenoceptor blockers reduce metabolic rate.
>
> I doubt these people are so fat they can't walk, a condition common here.

It so happens that I take a beta-blocker (Inderal) daily. Have done for
years and I am not fat, though I do have to watch my weight.

I'm not contesting the truth of the above report but I do see a
significant difference between weight affected by drug use and
weight affected by junk food intake. Now don't deny it, you do
eat far too many burgers and donuts.

--
altheim

[Rich]

altheim wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote:
> [...]
>>> How do you plan to shrink America to reduce driving and distances?
>> It's not s shrinking thing. Let me give you an example. The bank I used
>> to go to was about a block north of the grocery store that is closest to
>> my house. Both are on a major north-south artery. So, if I want to go by
>> the bank to get money to spend at the store, I need to leave the
>> south-bound lane of the highway and cross the north-bound lane of the
>> highway (average idle time in the median, five minutes). Then I get into
>> the parking lot, get out of my car, go into the bank, get the money, go
>> back out to the car, get in, cross the median again (5 more minutes at
>> idle), drive a block South, and drive into the grocery store parking lot.
>> There are large deep ditches between the two businesses, making walking
>> impossible, even if the traffic and lack of sidewalks didn't make it
>> impractical. If walking were possible, it would take less time than the
>> time spent just crossing the median ONCE.
>>
>> This type of completely idiotic design is repeated over and over when you
>> start to look around you. This is plain and simple waste built into how
>> we construct our environment. A little thoughtfulness as we build would
>> eliminate a colossal amount of waste. Clustering businesses rather than
>> stretching them all over the place would also be benificial to both the
>> businesses and shoppers, but it seems to me many business owners don't
>> actually think of cooperating on something like that.
>
> Thanks Amy, for posting that. It kind of helps explain some of the
> criticism I've heard and read over the years about American
> avarice,

All it shows is that Amy's not smart enough to use an ATM card or
write a check. And it's a very sad thing.

> though in this case it's not something any member of the
> public could do anything about.

Everyone else uses ATM or writes a check.

>>>>>> Americans are all fat so you probably eat too much.
>>>>> Hey, Europe is porking up quite nicely also. There seem to
>>>>> be several causes for this, the most prominent being prescription
>>>>> drugs. This also seems to be the cause of the porking up of
>>>>> Europe.
>>>> I have yet to see anyone in Europe using one of those handicapped carts
>>>> because he/she is too fat to walk. I see it _every time_ I go to the
>>>> local Wal-Mart.
>>> =================================================================
>>>
>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2701322.ece
>>>
>>> Huge weight gains reported by patients on prescription drugs
>>> By Roger Dobson
>>> Published: 24 June 2007
>>>
>>> Thousands of people who take prescription medicines for everyday
>>> conditions are gaining large amounts of weight as an unexpected side
>>> effect, scientists have warned.
>>>
>>> Researchers, who found that some patients were putting on up to 22lbs in
>>> a year, say that the drugs may even be contributing to the nation's
>>> rocketing obesity epidemic.
>>>
>>> All of the patients they studied, on medication for conditions as diverse
>>> as diabetes, epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure and schizophrenia,
>>> showed evidence of weight increase.
>>>
>>> "Given the common and long-term use of many of these drugs," said the
>>> researchers, "it is likely that they play a significant contributory role
>>> in the increasing prevalence of obesity."
>>>
>>> A team from Glasgow University and Glasgow Royal Infirmary reviewed and
>>> analysed data on drug use by more than 25,000 people to quantify the
>>> effects of prescription drugs.
>>>
>>> All of the drugs included in the review are used to treat chronic
>>> diseases by large numbers of people. In the UK, it is estimated that
>>> around 2.6 million people have been diagnosed with coronary heart
>>> disease, for which beta-blockers are widely prescribed. More than 400,000
>>> people have epilepsy, and around 1.3 million people have type 1 or type 2
>>> diabetes.
>>>
>>> "In the light of these figures, the number of individuals in the
>>> population
>>> receiving treatment with an obesogenic drug is potentially quite high. In
>>> Scotland alone, the number of prescriptions dispensed for beta-blockers
>>> and tricyclic antidepressants between 2004 and 2005 exceeded one million
>>> and two million respectively," says the report.
>>>
>>> With many of the drugs, weight gain was significant and rapid, according
>>> to the researchers. Just how they lead to weight gain varies, and is in
>>> some cases unknown. Some, like corticosteroids, increase appetite, while
>>> beta-adrenoceptor blockers reduce metabolic rate.
>> I doubt these people are so fat they can't walk, a condition common here.
>
> It so happens that I take a beta-blocker (Inderal) daily. Have done for
> years and I am not fat, though I do have to watch my weight.

So there's no problem, eh?

> I'm not contesting the truth of the above report but I do see a
> significant difference between weight affected by drug use and
> weight affected by junk food intake.

There's a lot of chemicals in that junk food, almost none of which
have been rigorously tested for biological effects. But you might
want to look into MSG.

> Now don't deny it, you do eat far too many burgers and donuts.

Hardly ever.

Cheers,

Rich

[Rich]

Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
> news:r4mdnSfw05nfbTDbnZ2dnUVZ_u-***@comcast.com...

[...]

>>>> And how is this a waste.
>>> It uses more fuel than is necessary to accomplish the goal of
>>> transportation.
>> How much fuel is used?
>>
>> How much fuel is necessary?
>
> Typically, cars in Europe have a fuel efficiency of around 35 mpg.

I thought they used liters and kilometers?

> I think the average in the US is around 18 mpg.

You think?

> so, if you're using 1/18 of a
> gallon to go each mile when only 1/35 is necessary (or probably less), then
> you're using roughly double what is necessary, and thus wasting half of what
> you ise.

Assuming that those sardine cans on wheels in Europe would do the job.
They would not haul my family, so they would not fit my needs. My 1994
Honda Accord gets about 30 mpg fully loaded, which ain't too bad.

[...]

>>>> And why is it that reasons don't count?
>>> Because they all boil down to we can't be bothered to even see the
>>> problem (as you exemplify), much less fix it.
>> How do you plan to shrink America to reduce driving and distances?
>
> It's not s shrinking thing. Let me give you an example. The bank I used to
> go to was about a block north of the grocery store that is closest to my
> house. Both are on a major north-south artery. So, if I want to go by the
> bank to get money to spend at the store, I need to leave the south-bound
> lane of the highway and cross the north-bound lane of the highway (average
> idle time in the median, five minutes). Then I get into the parking lot,
> get out of my car, go into the bank, get the money, go back out to the car,
> get in, cross the median again (5 more minutes at idle), drive a block
> South, and drive into the grocery store parking lot. There are large deep
> ditches between the two businesses, making walking impossible, even if the
> traffic and lack of sidewalks didn't make it impractical. If walking were
> possible, it would take less time than the time spent just crossing the
> median ONCE.

So do cars traveling south have this problem?

> This type of completely idiotic design is repeated over and over when you
> start to look around you.

Everything should be planned for your convenience I agree, not matter
how much anyone else is inconvenienced.

This particular example does not, in my eyes, make any point worth making.

> This is plain and simple waste built into how we
> construct our environment.

No matter how you place things, people traveling the other way are gonna
have to drive or travel extra distance.

But I have a solution for you, ATM or check. No trip to the bank necessary.
Or were you looking for solutions?

> A little thoughtfulness as we build would eliminate a colossal amount
> of waste.

That is, if things were oriented so that they are in the proper order
from your perspective. The hell with everyone else.

> Clustering businesses rather than
> stretching them all over the place would also be benificial to both the
> businesses and shoppers,

Every grocery store I shop at except for 2 have bank branches on location.
I don't even bank there but I get quarters for laundry there all the
time.

> but it seems to me many business owners don't
> actually think of cooperating on something like that.

I think you need a reality check. Or maybe you could do some thinking
instead of bitching? Free clue, no matter how impossible it may
seem, you are not the center of the universe.

>> A few years back the UK was way over it's Kyoto target. Their excuse?
>> That they'd had an unusually cold winter. It's good to know that reality
>> and circumstance are irrelevant, well, for America anyway.
>
> At least they had a Kyoto target.

Political posturing.

[...]

>> 2. To pass without being put to use: Time is wasting.
>>
>> =================
>>
>> I think 'v tr 1' is what we want.
>
> You apparently didn't spot v. intr. 2 :). We let many opportunities pass
> because we have wasted the means to take advantage of them.

Assuming that they *are* opportunities rather than money sinks. This
is a vast colossal unsupported assumption. You don't *know* what lies
down the road not traveled, and your dreams of utopias seem to have
clouded your vision.

>> When I drive to work, or to the store to get groceries, how am I
>> 'consuming, spending, or expending thoughtlessly or carelessly'?
>
> See above. It's not just your solitary action.

It's the sum of solitary actions, doing things necessary for survival.
You have not shown the waste, or are you one of those eugenicists who
thinks that survival is the problem and a few billion deaths desirable?

> It's the way your
> environment conspires to force you to have to drive when perhaps you could
> walk.

That's the problem with these clustered businesses you tout, they are
all mostly remote from population centers. And if they were not
remote, you'd have heavy trucking through the residential sections,
with all the particulate pollution and other issues.

> It's also the fact that you may well be driving something that uses
> more fuel than you need to do it.

Or not. Your assumptions prove only that you are good at making
assumptions, or is that assertions?

>>>>> Because gas is cheap (compared with Europe)
>>>> You greenies are the most unlikely shills for big oil.
>>> The pre-tax price of gas in the UK, at least, is lower than here. I
>>> suspect similar is true for Europe as a whole.
>> American oil companies are making record windfall profits.
>
> So who are the shills, exactly?

You environmentalists who get all glassy-eyed at the thought of
$10/gal gas.

>> And a large part of the price of every gallon bought in the US
>> is state and federal taxes.
>
> But not as large as in Europe.

You got any numbers?

>>>>> you get out the car to drive
>>>>> shorter distances, where Europeans would walk or take the bus.
>>>> Post your evidence.
>>> If you look at most American towns, they're designed where walking is not
>>> even possible.
>> American towns?
>>
>> We don't have many of those anymore. We seem to have cities and
>> suburbs.
>
> OK, refuse to look around you on a smeantical basis.

A "smeantical basis"? Does this have anything to do with Smeagol?

> It's all right, you're
> allowed to stay ignorant if you want.

This from the woman who can't figure out to use an ATM or write a check
to avoid that little extra trip to the bank? You ain't a genius Amy,
you're more like a parrot.

>>>> And again, where is the waste?
>>> If you are forced to get into the car and drive a block to accomplish
>>> something you could do by walking that block, the waste of time and gas
>>> is colossal (hint: you still do the same amount of walking to and from
>>> parking lots, but you have to drive in between).
>> Colossal?
>
> Yes, when you have to repeat it over and over daily it is colossal.

If you have to do anything over and over again on a daily basis, you can't
plan your way outta a paper bag. This is another idiotic argument.

> We
> budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit 4-5 parking
> lots to accmplish what needs to get done.

Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.

>> And WRT time, it takes more time to walk.
>
> In a typical American environment, you are quite right.

In any environment. You walk much much slower than you drive.

> It does not have to be so.

I'm not at all impressed by your planning skills or problem solving
skills, they stink to high heaven. Maybe if you could solve some of
these ridiculously easy problems that have you so baffled your claims
might at least give the appearance of holding water.

>>>>> Americans are all fat so you probably eat too much.
>>>> Hey, Europe is porking up quite nicely also. There seem to
>>>> be several causes for this, the most prominent being prescription
>>>> drugs. This also seems to be the cause of the porking up of
>>>> Europe.
>>> I have yet to see anyone in Europe using one of those handicapped carts
>>> because he/she is too fat to walk. I see it _every time_ I go to the
>>> local Wal-Mart.
>> =================================================================
>>
>> http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2701322.ece
>>
>> Huge weight gains reported by patients on prescription drugs
>> By Roger Dobson Published: 24 June 2007
>>
>> Thousands of people who take prescription medicines for everyday
>> conditions are gaining large amounts of weight as an unexpected
>> side effect, scientists have warned.
>>
>> Researchers, who found that some patients were putting on up to 22lbs in a
>> year, say that the drugs may even be contributing to the nation's rocketing
>> obesity epidemic.
>>
>> All of the patients they studied, on medication for conditions as diverse
>> as diabetes, epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure and schizophrenia,
>> showed evidence of weight increase.
>>
>> "Given the common and long-term use of many of these drugs," said the
>> researchers, "it is likely that they play a significant contributory role
>> in the increasing prevalence of obesity."
>>
>> A team from Glasgow University and Glasgow Royal Infirmary reviewed and
>> analysed data on drug use by more than 25,000 people to quantify the
>> effects of prescription drugs.
>>
>> All of the drugs included in the review are used to treat chronic diseases
>> by large numbers of people. In the UK, it is estimated that around 2.6
>> million people have been diagnosed with coronary heart disease, for which
>> beta-blockers are widely prescribed. More than 400,000 people have epilepsy,
>> and around 1.3 million people have type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
>>
>> "In the light of these figures, the number of individuals in the
>> population receiving treatment with an obesogenic drug is potentially
>> quite high. In Scotland alone, the number of prescriptions dispensed
>> for beta-blockers and tricyclic antidepressants between 2004 and 2005
>> exceeded one million and two million respectively," says the report.
>>
>> With many of the drugs, weight gain was significant and rapid, according
>> to the researchers. Just how they lead to weight gain varies, and is in some
>> cases unknown. Some, like corticosteroids, increase appetite, while
>> beta-adrenoceptor blockers reduce metabolic rate.
>
> I doubt these people are so fat they can't walk, a condition common here.

You can assume all you want. It does not take long gaining 22 pounds a
year though, especially if you start on these drugs while young. In ten
years you'd *gain* 220 pounds.

>> =================================================================
>>
>>>> But you've failed again to show any waste.
>>> Nearly all of the population has built in transportation equipment called
>>> feet. To have to use gas when feet could accomplish the goal in the same
>>> or less time is wasteful. How is this not obvious?
>>> ...
>> But you've already pointed out that feet are rarely adequate due to the
>> distance between things in America. Where I used to live I could walk
>> to the local grocery store and often did, depending on what I needed.
>> When stocks were low and I needed lots, I would drive. It's all a
>> matter of circumstance.
>
> No, due to the design and layout of things here in America. The two are
> quite different, as you apparently know, since you have lived where it was
> sometimes easier for you to walk to the grocery store.

I lived close to the store at that point. I don't now. It was a matter of
my location, not the stores.

>> When it's necessary to drive, and you drive, it ain't a waste. That
>> things could be better planned (WRT transportation) is nether here nor
>> there as things are not better planned WRT transportation.
>
> Sure. Just accept that crap planning is inevitable and live your life fat,
> dumb, and happy.

Says Amy, who can't plan her way around the simple obstacles life plants
in everyone's path.

>> Europe is
>> small and everything is close(r) together. Also most of the town
>> layouts are from when the area was agrarian years ago. This is a matter
>> of history, not planning.
>
> Sure, no one ever planned any city in Europe :-).

They did have the opportunity to do so in many cases after WW2. So which
American cities do you want to bomb into rubble?

> And the fact that what we
> do without planning here has such dire consequences in terms of fuel and
> time efficiency shouldn't induce us to ever want anything different.

Texas is as large as most of Europe all by itself. You can't make things
closer together like they are in Europe.

> God has obviously spoken, and sprawl is our manifest destiny.

I guess you should know.

Cheers,

Rich


> -Amy
>
>

[Amy Blankenship]

"Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
>> news:r4mdnSfw05nfbTDbnZ2dnUVZ_u-***@comcast.com...
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> And how is this a waste.
>>>> It uses more fuel than is necessary to accomplish the goal of
>>>> transportation.
>>> How much fuel is used?
>>>
>>> How much fuel is necessary?
>>
>> Typically, cars in Europe have a fuel efficiency of around 35 mpg.
>
> I thought they used liters and kilometers?
>
>> I think the average in the US is around 18 mpg.
>
> You think?
>
>> so, if you're using 1/18 of a gallon to go each mile when only 1/35 is
>> necessary (or probably less), then you're using roughly double what is
>> necessary, and thus wasting half of what you ise.
>
> Assuming that those sardine cans on wheels in Europe would do the job.
> They would not haul my family, so they would not fit my needs. My 1994
> Honda Accord gets about 30 mpg fully loaded, which ain't too bad.

Which is better than most US cars.

> [...]
>
>>>>> And why is it that reasons don't count?
>>>> Because they all boil down to we can't be bothered to even see the
>>>> problem (as you exemplify), much less fix it.
>>> How do you plan to shrink America to reduce driving and distances?
>>
>> It's not s shrinking thing. Let me give you an example. The bank I used
>> to go to was about a block north of the grocery store that is closest to
>> my house. Both are on a major north-south artery. So, if I want to go
>> by the bank to get money to spend at the store, I need to leave the
>> south-bound lane of the highway and cross the north-bound lane of the
>> highway (average idle time in the median, five minutes). Then I get into
>> the parking lot, get out of my car, go into the bank, get the money, go
>> back out to the car, get in, cross the median again (5 more minutes at
>> idle), drive a block South, and drive into the grocery store parking lot.
>> There are large deep ditches between the two businesses, making walking
>> impossible, even if the traffic and lack of sidewalks didn't make it
>> impractical. If walking were possible, it would take less time than the
>> time spent just crossing the median ONCE.
>
> So do cars traveling south have this problem?

Obviously. Cars leaving the South-bound lane and crossing the North-bound
lane ARE travelling South. If you're asking about cars travelling North,
they have the same problem + 1/2, if they want to visit the bank before the
store. If they want to visit the store before the bank, then they "only"
have to merge out into traffic after leaving the store, drive the one block
which is impossible to walk, enter the bank parking lot, do their banking,
get back into the car, leave the parking lot, cross the median, and head
back South.

>> This type of completely idiotic design is repeated over and over when you
>> start to look around you.
>
> Everything should be planned for your convenience I agree, not matter
> how much anyone else is inconvenienced.

Everyone is inconvenienced by that. Just ask the employees of the bank.

> This particular example does not, in my eyes, make any point worth making.

Of course not. If you don't want to see the problem, there is no way to
induce you to see it. You are completely unwilling to grasp how this flawed
design results in additional gas consumption for everyone.

>> This is plain and simple waste built into how we construct our
>> environment.
>
> No matter how you place things, people traveling the other way are gonna
> have to drive or travel extra distance.

You apparently have missed the point that if you made it possible to walk or
even connected the parking lots, it would *not* be necessary to drive the
extra distance.

> But I have a solution for you, ATM or check. No trip to the bank
> necessary.
> Or were you looking for solutions?
>
>> A little thoughtfulness as we build would eliminate a colossal amount
>> of waste.
>
> That is, if things were oriented so that they are in the proper order
> from your perspective. The hell with everyone else.

Again, you don't want to see the point. This discussion is a waste of time.
>> Clustering businesses rather than stretching them all over the place
>> would also be benificial to both the businesses and shoppers,
>
> Every grocery store I shop at except for 2 have bank branches on location.
> I don't even bank there but I get quarters for laundry there all the
> time.
>
>> but it seems to me many business owners don't actually think of
>> cooperating on something like that.
>
> I think you need a reality check. Or maybe you could do some thinking
> instead of bitching? Free clue, no matter how impossible it may
> seem, you are not the center of the universe.
>
>>> A few years back the UK was way over it's Kyoto target. Their excuse?
>>> That they'd had an unusually cold winter. It's good to know that reality
>>> and circumstance are irrelevant, well, for America anyway.
>>
>> At least they had a Kyoto target.
>
> Political posturing.
>
> [...]
>
>>> 2. To pass without being put to use: Time is wasting.
>>>
>>> =================
>>>
>>> I think 'v tr 1' is what we want.
>>
>> You apparently didn't spot v. intr. 2 :). We let many opportunities pass
>> because we have wasted the means to take advantage of them.
>
> Assuming that they *are* opportunities rather than money sinks. This
> is a vast colossal unsupported assumption. You don't *know* what lies
> down the road not traveled, and your dreams of utopias seem to have
> clouded your vision.
>
>>> When I drive to work, or to the store to get groceries, how am I
>>> 'consuming, spending, or expending thoughtlessly or carelessly'?
>>
>> See above. It's not just your solitary action.
>
> It's the sum of solitary actions, doing things necessary for survival.
> You have not shown the waste, or are you one of those eugenicists who
> thinks that survival is the problem and a few billion deaths desirable?

Certainly I have. It is not my fault that you're actually not too stupid to
see the point, but that you see the point and then turn your head away.
Those solitary actions are made necessary because people have not spoken up
to request another way of laying out the environment. I'm not sure where
your whole eugenics thing came from. I'm simply requesting a bit more
thought in how things are laid out.

>> It's the way your environment conspires to force you to have to drive
>> when perhaps you could walk.
>
> That's the problem with these clustered businesses you tout, they are
> all mostly remote from population centers. And if they were not
> remote, you'd have heavy trucking through the residential sections,
> with all the particulate pollution and other issues.

Yes, they are. Because no one thought about things when they were laid out.
The pollution is going to happen anyway, but less if there is not such a
long drive to get to things.

>> It's also the fact that you may well be driving something that uses more
>> fuel than you need to do it.
>
> Or not. Your assumptions prove only that you are good at making
> assumptions, or is that assertions?

I said "may well." I didn't say "is". You are arguing in favor of the
"typical" American way of doing things, so apparently you see that as an ok
way of doing things, even if you do not in this instance engage in it
yourself.

>>>>>> Because gas is cheap (compared with Europe)
>>>>> You greenies are the most unlikely shills for big oil.
>>>> The pre-tax price of gas in the UK, at least, is lower than here. I
>>>> suspect similar is true for Europe as a whole.
>>> American oil companies are making record windfall profits.
>>
>> So who are the shills, exactly?
>
> You environmentalists who get all glassy-eyed at the thought of
> $10/gal gas.

That doesn't even make any sense.

>>> And a large part of the price of every gallon bought in the US
>>> is state and federal taxes.
>>
>> But not as large as in Europe.
>
> You got any numbers?

http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/internationalprices.htm

>>>>>> you get out the car to drive
>>>>>> shorter distances, where Europeans would walk or take the bus.
>>>>> Post your evidence.
>>>> If you look at most American towns, they're designed where walking is
>>>> not even possible.
>>> American towns?
>>>
>>> We don't have many of those anymore. We seem to have cities and
>>> suburbs.
>>
>> OK, refuse to look around you on a smeantical basis.
>
> A "smeantical basis"? Does this have anything to do with Smeagol?

Sorry, typo. Semantical.

>> It's all right, you're allowed to stay ignorant if you want.
>
> This from the woman who can't figure out to use an ATM or write a check
> to avoid that little extra trip to the bank? You ain't a genius Amy,
> you're more like a parrot.

For one thing, it was an example. You may or may not be familiar with the
concept. Obviously (to me at least) when I was using that bank I also had
other things I needed to do like make deposits. For another thing, if I
want to go to the bank to get money before shopping, I should be able to do
that without such a torturous route. Both the bank and the store have been
in those locations for at least 10 years, before every grocery store had an
atm at the checkout.

>>>>> And again, where is the waste?
>>>> If you are forced to get into the car and drive a block to accomplish
>>>> something you could do by walking that block, the waste of time and gas
>>>> is colossal (hint: you still do the same amount of walking to and from
>>>> parking lots, but you have to drive in between).
>>> Colossal?
>>
>> Yes, when you have to repeat it over and over daily it is colossal.
>
> If you have to do anything over and over again on a daily basis, you can't
> plan your way outta a paper bag. This is another idiotic argument.

But you apparently can't see that I am not talking about that one place. I
am talking about every place, because most places are equally poorly
designed. And I am not talking about just me, but about the bank employees,
who may want to shop after work, and everyone else who has to contend with
these small madnesses everywhere.

>> We budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit 4-5
>> parking lots to accmplish what needs to get done.
>
> Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.

The mall is another 15 miles away, idiot. Plus there is no grocery store at
the mall.

>>> And WRT time, it takes more time to walk.
>>
>> In a typical American environment, you are quite right.
>
> In any environment. You walk much much slower than you drive.

You don't have to park when you walk, nor do you get stuck in traffic. Come
on, I know you're not as stupid as you preted.

>> It does not have to be so.
>
> I'm not at all impressed by your planning skills or problem solving
> skills, they stink to high heaven. Maybe if you could solve some of
> these ridiculously easy problems that have you so baffled your claims
> might at least give the appearance of holding water.

Yeah whatever.


...stuff snipped.

>>>>> But you've failed again to show any waste.
>>>> Nearly all of the population has built in transportation equipment
>>>> called feet. To have to use gas when feet could accomplish the goal in
>>>> the same or less time is wasteful. How is this not obvious?
>>>> ...
>>> But you've already pointed out that feet are rarely adequate due to the
>>> distance between things in America. Where I used to live I could walk
>>> to the local grocery store and often did, depending on what I needed.
>>> When stocks were low and I needed lots, I would drive. It's all a
>>> matter of circumstance.
>>
>> No, due to the design and layout of things here in America. The two are
>> quite different, as you apparently know, since you have lived where it
>> was sometimes easier for you to walk to the grocery store.
>
> I lived close to the store at that point. I don't now. It was a matter of
> my location, not the stores.

And that was your choice, and it had consequences.

>>> When it's necessary to drive, and you drive, it ain't a waste. That
>>> things could be better planned (WRT transportation) is nether here nor
>>> there as things are not better planned WRT transportation.
>>
>> Sure. Just accept that crap planning is inevitable and live your life
>> fat, dumb, and happy.
>
> Says Amy, who can't plan her way around the simple obstacles life plants
> in everyone's path.

That's the point. Life does not plant them in everyone's path. The built
environment does not just "come to be." Someone had to make decisions that
affect the layout. Good decisions can be made as easily as poor ones, but
we are not in the habit of making good decisions.

>>> Europe is
>>> small and everything is close(r) together. Also most of the town
>>> layouts are from when the area was agrarian years ago. This is a matter
>>> of history, not planning.
>>
>> Sure, no one ever planned any city in Europe :-).
>
> They did have the opportunity to do so in many cases after WW2. So which
> American cities do you want to bomb into rubble?

The idea is that as we build new construction to plan _that_ better.

>> And the fact that what we do without planning here has such dire
>> consequences in terms of fuel and time efficiency shouldn't induce us to
>> ever want anything different.
>
> Texas is as large as most of Europe all by itself. You can't make things
> closer together like they are in Europe.
>
>> God has obviously spoken, and sprawl is our manifest destiny.
>
> I guess you should know.

I do know sarcasm when I use it. Apparently it was too subtle for you.

[Joe the Aroma]

"Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:0vIri.9072$***@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
> news:***@comcast.com...
>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
>>> news:r4mdnSfw05nfbTDbnZ2dnUVZ_u-***@comcast.com...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> And how is this a waste.
>>>>> It uses more fuel than is necessary to accomplish the goal of
>>>>> transportation.
>>>> How much fuel is used?
>>>>
>>>> How much fuel is necessary?
>>>
>>> Typically, cars in Europe have a fuel efficiency of around 35 mpg.
>>
>> I thought they used liters and kilometers?
>>
>>> I think the average in the US is around 18 mpg.
>>
>> You think?
>>
>>> so, if you're using 1/18 of a gallon to go each mile when only 1/35 is
>>> necessary (or probably less), then you're using roughly double what is
>>> necessary, and thus wasting half of what you ise.
>>
>> Assuming that those sardine cans on wheels in Europe would do the job.
>> They would not haul my family, so they would not fit my needs. My 1994
>> Honda Accord gets about 30 mpg fully loaded, which ain't too bad.
>
> Which is better than most US cars.

What, you can't afford a car that gets that MPG?

>>>>>> And why is it that reasons don't count?
>>>>> Because they all boil down to we can't be bothered to even see the
>>>>> problem (as you exemplify), much less fix it.
>>>> How do you plan to shrink America to reduce driving and distances?
>>>
>>> It's not s shrinking thing. Let me give you an example. The bank I
>>> used to go to was about a block north of the grocery store that is
>>> closest to my house. Both are on a major north-south artery. So, if I
>>> want to go by the bank to get money to spend at the store, I need to
>>> leave the south-bound lane of the highway and cross the north-bound lane
>>> of the highway (average idle time in the median, five minutes). Then I
>>> get into the parking lot, get out of my car, go into the bank, get the
>>> money, go back out to the car, get in, cross the median again (5 more
>>> minutes at idle), drive a block South, and drive into the grocery store
>>> parking lot. There are large deep ditches between the two businesses,
>>> making walking impossible, even if the traffic and lack of sidewalks
>>> didn't make it impractical. If walking were possible, it would take
>>> less time than the time spent just crossing the median ONCE.
>>
>> So do cars traveling south have this problem?
>
> Obviously. Cars leaving the South-bound lane and crossing the North-bound
> lane ARE travelling South. If you're asking about cars travelling North,
> they have the same problem + 1/2, if they want to visit the bank before
> the store. If they want to visit the store before the bank, then they
> "only" have to merge out into traffic after leaving the store, drive the
> one block which is impossible to walk, enter the bank parking lot, do
> their banking, get back into the car, leave the parking lot, cross the
> median, and head back South.
>
>>> This type of completely idiotic design is repeated over and over when
>>> you start to look around you.
>>
>> Everything should be planned for your convenience I agree, not matter
>> how much anyone else is inconvenienced.
>
> Everyone is inconvenienced by that. Just ask the employees of the bank.
>
>> This particular example does not, in my eyes, make any point worth
>> making.
>
> Of course not. If you don't want to see the problem, there is no way to
> induce you to see it. You are completely unwilling to grasp how this
> flawed design results in additional gas consumption for everyone.

It's horrible around here, actually. Cambridge tries to discourage cars, but
they actually just make cars sit in traffic longer, creating more pollution.

>>> This is plain and simple waste built into how we construct our
>>> environment.
>>
>> No matter how you place things, people traveling the other way are gonna
>> have to drive or travel extra distance.
>
> You apparently have missed the point that if you made it possible to walk
> or even connected the parking lots, it would *not* be necessary to drive
> the extra distance.

They weren't connected by a sidewalk?

>> But I have a solution for you, ATM or check. No trip to the bank
>> necessary.
>> Or were you looking for solutions?
>>
>>> A little thoughtfulness as we build would eliminate a colossal amount
>>> of waste.
>>
>> That is, if things were oriented so that they are in the proper order
>> from your perspective. The hell with everyone else.
>
> Again, you don't want to see the point. This discussion is a waste of
> time.
>>> Clustering businesses rather than stretching them all over the place
>>> would also be benificial to both the businesses and shoppers,
>>
>> Every grocery store I shop at except for 2 have bank branches on
>> location.
>> I don't even bank there but I get quarters for laundry there all the
>> time.
>>
>>> but it seems to me many business owners don't actually think of
>>> cooperating on something like that.
>>
>> I think you need a reality check. Or maybe you could do some thinking
>> instead of bitching? Free clue, no matter how impossible it may
>> seem, you are not the center of the universe.
>>
>>>> A few years back the UK was way over it's Kyoto target. Their excuse?
>>>> That they'd had an unusually cold winter. It's good to know that
>>>> reality
>>>> and circumstance are irrelevant, well, for America anyway.
>>>
>>> At least they had a Kyoto target.
>>
>> Political posturing.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> 2. To pass without being put to use: Time is wasting.
>>>>
>>>> =================
>>>>
>>>> I think 'v tr 1' is what we want.
>>>
>>> You apparently didn't spot v. intr. 2 :). We let many opportunities
>>> pass because we have wasted the means to take advantage of them.
>>
>> Assuming that they *are* opportunities rather than money sinks. This
>> is a vast colossal unsupported assumption. You don't *know* what lies
>> down the road not traveled, and your dreams of utopias seem to have
>> clouded your vision.
>>
>>>> When I drive to work, or to the store to get groceries, how am I
>>>> 'consuming, spending, or expending thoughtlessly or carelessly'?
>>>
>>> See above. It's not just your solitary action.
>>
>> It's the sum of solitary actions, doing things necessary for survival.
>> You have not shown the waste, or are you one of those eugenicists who
>> thinks that survival is the problem and a few billion deaths desirable?
>
> Certainly I have. It is not my fault that you're actually not too stupid
> to see the point, but that you see the point and then turn your head away.
> Those solitary actions are made necessary because people have not spoken
> up to request another way of laying out the environment. I'm not sure
> where your whole eugenics thing came from. I'm simply requesting a bit
> more thought in how things are laid out.

That's NOT what most planner want, they want us all to live in dense cities
in townhouses or apartments. The detached single family house is their
enemy.

>>> It's the way your environment conspires to force you to have to drive
>>> when perhaps you could walk.
>>
>> That's the problem with these clustered businesses you tout, they are
>> all mostly remote from population centers. And if they were not
>> remote, you'd have heavy trucking through the residential sections,
>> with all the particulate pollution and other issues.
>
> Yes, they are. Because no one thought about things when they were laid
> out. The pollution is going to happen anyway, but less if there is not
> such a long drive to get to things.

How much fuel is wasted by having traffic lights every 2 feet? I'd like to
get rid of about half of all the traffic lights here around Boston.

> For one thing, it was an example. You may or may not be familiar with the
> concept. Obviously (to me at least) when I was using that bank I also had
> other things I needed to do like make deposits. For another thing, if I
> want to go to the bank to get money before shopping, I should be able to
> do that without such a torturous route. Both the bank and the store have
> been in those locations for at least 10 years, before every grocery store
> had an atm at the checkout.

It's too much planning! I'm tellin' ya'!!! ;)

>> If you have to do anything over and over again on a daily basis, you
>> can't
>> plan your way outta a paper bag. This is another idiotic argument.
>
> But you apparently can't see that I am not talking about that one place.
> I am talking about every place, because most places are equally poorly
> designed. And I am not talking about just me, but about the bank
> employees, who may want to shop after work, and everyone else who has to
> contend with these small madnesses everywhere.

Most places aren't that badly planned out.

>>> We budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit 4-5
>>> parking lots to accmplish what needs to get done.
>>
>> Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.
>
> The mall is another 15 miles away, idiot. Plus there is no grocery store
> at the mall.

Move to the city then. Why do we have to change for you?

>>>> And WRT time, it takes more time to walk.
>>>
>>> In a typical American environment, you are quite right.
>>
>> In any environment. You walk much much slower than you drive.
>
> You don't have to park when you walk, nor do you get stuck in traffic.
> Come on, I know you're not as stupid as you preted.

You're whining. Ride a bike, while most distances are beyond walking
distances, they are NOT beyond biking distances.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lvedncU_Bs2dTjLbnZ2dnUVZ_t-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:0vIri.9072$***@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
>> news:***@comcast.com...
>>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
>>>> news:r4mdnSfw05nfbTDbnZ2dnUVZ_u-***@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> And how is this a waste.
>>>>>> It uses more fuel than is necessary to accomplish the goal of
>>>>>> transportation.
>>>>> How much fuel is used?
>>>>>
>>>>> How much fuel is necessary?
>>>>
>>>> Typically, cars in Europe have a fuel efficiency of around 35 mpg.
>>>
>>> I thought they used liters and kilometers?
>>>
>>>> I think the average in the US is around 18 mpg.
>>>
>>> You think?
>>>
>>>> so, if you're using 1/18 of a gallon to go each mile when only 1/35 is
>>>> necessary (or probably less), then you're using roughly double what is
>>>> necessary, and thus wasting half of what you ise.
>>>
>>> Assuming that those sardine cans on wheels in Europe would do the job.
>>> They would not haul my family, so they would not fit my needs. My 1994
>>> Honda Accord gets about 30 mpg fully loaded, which ain't too bad.
>>
>> Which is better than most US cars.
>
> What, you can't afford a car that gets that MPG?
>
>>>>>>> And why is it that reasons don't count?
>>>>>> Because they all boil down to we can't be bothered to even see the
>>>>>> problem (as you exemplify), much less fix it.
>>>>> How do you plan to shrink America to reduce driving and distances?
>>>>
>>>> It's not s shrinking thing. Let me give you an example. The bank I
>>>> used to go to was about a block north of the grocery store that is
>>>> closest to my house. Both are on a major north-south artery. So, if I
>>>> want to go by the bank to get money to spend at the store, I need to
>>>> leave the south-bound lane of the highway and cross the north-bound
>>>> lane of the highway (average idle time in the median, five minutes).
>>>> Then I get into the parking lot, get out of my car, go into the bank,
>>>> get the money, go back out to the car, get in, cross the median again
>>>> (5 more minutes at idle), drive a block South, and drive into the
>>>> grocery store parking lot. There are large deep ditches between the two
>>>> businesses, making walking impossible, even if the traffic and lack of
>>>> sidewalks didn't make it impractical. If walking were possible, it
>>>> would take less time than the time spent just crossing the median ONCE.
>>>
>>> So do cars traveling south have this problem?
>>
>> Obviously. Cars leaving the South-bound lane and crossing the
>> North-bound lane ARE travelling South. If you're asking about cars
>> travelling North, they have the same problem + 1/2, if they want to visit
>> the bank before the store. If they want to visit the store before the
>> bank, then they "only" have to merge out into traffic after leaving the
>> store, drive the one block which is impossible to walk, enter the bank
>> parking lot, do their banking, get back into the car, leave the parking
>> lot, cross the median, and head back South.
>>
>>>> This type of completely idiotic design is repeated over and over when
>>>> you start to look around you.
>>>
>>> Everything should be planned for your convenience I agree, not matter
>>> how much anyone else is inconvenienced.
>>
>> Everyone is inconvenienced by that. Just ask the employees of the bank.
>>
>>> This particular example does not, in my eyes, make any point worth
>>> making.
>>
>> Of course not. If you don't want to see the problem, there is no way to
>> induce you to see it. You are completely unwilling to grasp how this
>> flawed design results in additional gas consumption for everyone.
>
> It's horrible around here, actually. Cambridge tries to discourage cars,
> but they actually just make cars sit in traffic longer, creating more
> pollution.
>
>>>> This is plain and simple waste built into how we construct our
>>>> environment.
>>>
>>> No matter how you place things, people traveling the other way are gonna
>>> have to drive or travel extra distance.
>>
>> You apparently have missed the point that if you made it possible to walk
>> or even connected the parking lots, it would *not* be necessary to drive
>> the extra distance.
>
> They weren't connected by a sidewalk?

No. That was the entire point.

... <stuff snipped>

>>> It's the sum of solitary actions, doing things necessary for survival.
>>> You have not shown the waste, or are you one of those eugenicists who
>>> thinks that survival is the problem and a few billion deaths desirable?
>>
>> Certainly I have. It is not my fault that you're actually not too stupid
>> to see the point, but that you see the point and then turn your head
>> away. Those solitary actions are made necessary because people have not
>> spoken up to request another way of laying out the environment. I'm not
>> sure where your whole eugenics thing came from. I'm simply requesting a
>> bit more thought in how things are laid out.
>
> That's NOT what most planner want, they want us all to live in dense
> cities in townhouses or apartments. The detached single family house is
> their enemy.

I'm not sure how it is that you think you know what most planners want, but
I am not speaking for most planners, but only for myself. And I'm just a
random citizen who happens to care what becomes of her community,

>>>> It's the way your environment conspires to force you to have to drive
>>>> when perhaps you could walk.
>>>
>>> That's the problem with these clustered businesses you tout, they are
>>> all mostly remote from population centers. And if they were not
>>> remote, you'd have heavy trucking through the residential sections,
>>> with all the particulate pollution and other issues.
>>
>> Yes, they are. Because no one thought about things when they were laid
>> out. The pollution is going to happen anyway, but less if there is not
>> such a long drive to get to things.
>
> How much fuel is wasted by having traffic lights every 2 feet? I'd like to
> get rid of about half of all the traffic lights here around Boston.

Around here, the reason for traffic lights being close together is usually
that when we get a main throughfare businesses immediately cluster right on
it, increasing traffic along it exponentially. I have never been to Boston,
so I have no idea what the situation is there.

>> For one thing, it was an example. You may or may not be familiar with
>> the concept. Obviously (to me at least) when I was using that bank I
>> also had other things I needed to do like make deposits. For another
>> thing, if I want to go to the bank to get money before shopping, I should
>> be able to do that without such a torturous route. Both the bank and the
>> store have been in those locations for at least 10 years, before every
>> grocery store had an atm at the checkout.
>
> It's too much planning! I'm tellin' ya'!!! ;)
>
>>> If you have to do anything over and over again on a daily basis, you
>>> can't
>>> plan your way outta a paper bag. This is another idiotic argument.
>>
>> But you apparently can't see that I am not talking about that one place.
>> I am talking about every place, because most places are equally poorly
>> designed. And I am not talking about just me, but about the bank
>> employees, who may want to shop after work, and everyone else who has to
>> contend with these small madnesses everywhere.
>
> Most places aren't that badly planned out.

In the South, they absolutely are. And the more recently they were built,
the more likely it is that they will be very badly planned.

>>>> We budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit 4-5
>>>> parking lots to accmplish what needs to get done.
>>>
>>> Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.
>>
>> The mall is another 15 miles away, idiot. Plus there is no grocery store
>> at the mall.
>
> Move to the city then. Why do we have to change for you?

The grocery store I was talking about is in the same town as the mall.
They're just on opposite sides.

I'm not asking you to change. The issue was why Americans use more fuel
than people in other nations. If you find that from that discussion, you
feel you or something ought to change, then great.

>>>>> And WRT time, it takes more time to walk.
>>>>
>>>> In a typical American environment, you are quite right.
>>>
>>> In any environment. You walk much much slower than you drive.
>>
>> You don't have to park when you walk, nor do you get stuck in traffic.
>> Come on, I know you're not as stupid as you preted.
>
> You're whining. Ride a bike, while most distances are beyond walking
> distances, they are NOT beyond biking distances.

The issue is not distance, but design. If you physically cannot drive or
walk, why then would you be able to bike?

-Amy

[Joe the Aroma]

"Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:oISri.9280$***@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> I'm not sure how it is that you think you know what most planners want,
> but I am not speaking for most planners, but only for myself. And I'm
> just a random citizen who happens to care what becomes of her community,

As am I. I think we all want that, no?

>> How much fuel is wasted by having traffic lights every 2 feet? I'd like
>> to get rid of about half of all the traffic lights here around Boston.
>
> Around here, the reason for traffic lights being close together is usually
> that when we get a main throughfare businesses immediately cluster right
> on it, increasing traffic along it exponentially. I have never been to
> Boston, so I have no idea what the situation is there.

It's the cost of progress I guess. You have no idea how much I hate needless
traffic lights. I think we should completely get rid of lights and all stops
on certain roads around here and instantly make them "mini freeways".

>> Most places aren't that badly planned out.
>
> In the South, they absolutely are. And the more recently they were built,
> the more likely it is that they will be very badly planned.

Florida wasn't that bad when I was down there last spring.

>>>>> We budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit 4-5
>>>>> parking lots to accmplish what needs to get done.
>>>>
>>>> Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.
>>>
>>> The mall is another 15 miles away, idiot. Plus there is no grocery
>>> store at the mall.
>>
>> Move to the city then. Why do we have to change for you?
>
> The grocery store I was talking about is in the same town as the mall.
> They're just on opposite sides.
>
> I'm not asking you to change. The issue was why Americans use more fuel
> than people in other nations. If you find that from that discussion, you
> feel you or something ought to change, then great.

I'd make a gander that the reason Americans use more fuel is because they
like to drive.

>>>>>> And WRT time, it takes more time to walk.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a typical American environment, you are quite right.
>>>>
>>>> In any environment. You walk much much slower than you drive.
>>>
>>> You don't have to park when you walk, nor do you get stuck in traffic.
>>> Come on, I know you're not as stupid as you preted.
>>
>> You're whining. Ride a bike, while most distances are beyond walking
>> distances, they are NOT beyond biking distances.
>
> The issue is not distance, but design. If you physically cannot drive or
> walk, why then would you be able to bike?

So in other words this bank is surrounded by walls, with archers and a moat?
;)

[Amy Blankenship]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:oISri.9280$***@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> I'm not sure how it is that you think you know what most planners want,
>> but I am not speaking for most planners, but only for myself. And I'm
>> just a random citizen who happens to care what becomes of her community,
>
> As am I. I think we all want that, no?

Apparently many people are afraid to want that.

>>> How much fuel is wasted by having traffic lights every 2 feet? I'd like
>>> to get rid of about half of all the traffic lights here around Boston.
>>
>> Around here, the reason for traffic lights being close together is
>> usually that when we get a main throughfare businesses immediately
>> cluster right on it, increasing traffic along it exponentially. I have
>> never been to Boston, so I have no idea what the situation is there.
>
> It's the cost of progress I guess. You have no idea how much I hate
> needless traffic lights. I think we should completely get rid of lights
> and all stops on certain roads around here and instantly make them "mini
> freeways".

I guess you're one of the people who is either too afraid or too
unimaginative to think that anything different is possible. Poor design and
implementation are not inevitable, any more than it is inevitable that you
paint your house white rather than blue. We have choices, and bad ones are
not preordained. It seems that Americans are as fatalistic about the poor
quality of their environments as drivers in some countries who will not wear
seatbelts, because if they die it is the will of God.

By the same token, many of the things we take as progress are not progress.
We do not need more than 20 square feet of retail space for every man,
woman, and child in the nation.

The problem with making roads into limited access highways is that (at least
around here) people have a distressing habit of building with their
driveways dumping directly onto a major thoroughfare. This means that to
turn a road into a limited access thoroughfare you have to build in access
roads, which more or less triples the amount of land needed for the road.
This can get politically dicey.

>>> Most places aren't that badly planned out.
>>
>> In the South, they absolutely are. And the more recently they were
>> built, the more likely it is that they will be very badly planned.
>
> Florida wasn't that bad when I was down there last spring.

I'd be willing to bet you probably weren't looking out for it and you also
probably weren't contending with the day-to-day activities of the locals. I
know that the public face of Orlando is amazing, with efficient transit and
highly walkable. But when you get away from that and go to where the
residents go, it's like anywhere else in the South.

>>>>>> We budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit 4-5
>>>>>> parking lots to accmplish what needs to get done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.
>>>>
>>>> The mall is another 15 miles away, idiot. Plus there is no grocery
>>>> store at the mall.
>>>
>>> Move to the city then. Why do we have to change for you?
>>
>> The grocery store I was talking about is in the same town as the mall.
>> They're just on opposite sides.
>>
>> I'm not asking you to change. The issue was why Americans use more fuel
>> than people in other nations. If you find that from that discussion, you
>> feel you or something ought to change, then great.
>
> I'd make a gander that the reason Americans use more fuel is because they
> like to drive.

Certainly that is some of the people. But if everyone's car were suddenly
taken away tomorrow, how many people would starve? We HAVE to drive, and
the way we build things significantly increases the amount we have to drive.

>>>>>>> And WRT time, it takes more time to walk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a typical American environment, you are quite right.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any environment. You walk much much slower than you drive.
>>>>
>>>> You don't have to park when you walk, nor do you get stuck in traffic.
>>>> Come on, I know you're not as stupid as you preted.
>>>
>>> You're whining. Ride a bike, while most distances are beyond walking
>>> distances, they are NOT beyond biking distances.
>>
>> The issue is not distance, but design. If you physically cannot drive or
>> walk, why then would you be able to bike?
>
> So in other words this bank is surrounded by walls, with archers and a
> moat? ;)

Worse. Traffic. Plus, in the situation I was talking about, a bike would
not have solved the problem. The problem was that once you drove to either
of the businesses, you could not walk to the other, less than a block away.
In the scenario posed, the car would indeed have been necessary to carry the
groceries, but a significant portion of the extra driving was made necessary
just by the way the two businesses were situated. The fact that you have
_still_ not understood this suggests that even if you were directly
confronted with the situation in Florida or elsewhere you probably would not
be able to recognize it.

-Amy

[Joe the Aroma]

"Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:CE1si.9647$***@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> news:oISri.9280$***@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> I'm not sure how it is that you think you know what most planners want,
>>> but I am not speaking for most planners, but only for myself. And I'm
>>> just a random citizen who happens to care what becomes of her community,
>>
>> As am I. I think we all want that, no?
>
> Apparently many people are afraid to want that.

Really? You think people who disagree with you are afraid to care about what
becomes of "her" community?

>>>> How much fuel is wasted by having traffic lights every 2 feet? I'd like
>>>> to get rid of about half of all the traffic lights here around Boston.
>>>
>>> Around here, the reason for traffic lights being close together is
>>> usually that when we get a main throughfare businesses immediately
>>> cluster right on it, increasing traffic along it exponentially. I have
>>> never been to Boston, so I have no idea what the situation is there.
>>
>> It's the cost of progress I guess. You have no idea how much I hate
>> needless traffic lights. I think we should completely get rid of lights
>> and all stops on certain roads around here and instantly make them "mini
>> freeways".
>
> I guess you're one of the people who is either too afraid or too
> unimaginative to think that anything different is possible. Poor design
> and implementation are not inevitable, any more than it is inevitable that
> you paint your house white rather than blue. We have choices, and bad
> ones are not preordained. It seems that Americans are as fatalistic about
> the poor quality of their environments as drivers in some countries who
> will not wear seatbelts, because if they die it is the will of God.

We have poor quality environments? People seem to like to live here. Maybe
you were upset about it because you were looking for it?

> By the same token, many of the things we take as progress are not
> progress. We do not need more than 20 square feet of retail space for
> every man, woman, and child in the nation.

Haha, where'd you get that statistic? That's a classic quote if I ever heard
one.

> The problem with making roads into limited access highways is that (at
> least around here) people have a distressing habit of building with their
> driveways dumping directly onto a major thoroughfare. This means that to
> turn a road into a limited access thoroughfare you have to build in access
> roads, which more or less triples the amount of land needed for the road.
> This can get politically dicey.

I don't want to make roads in limited access highways, I'd simply remove
some of the traffic lights to get traffic moving faster.

>>>> Most places aren't that badly planned out.
>>>
>>> In the South, they absolutely are. And the more recently they were
>>> built, the more likely it is that they will be very badly planned.
>>
>> Florida wasn't that bad when I was down there last spring.
>
> I'd be willing to bet you probably weren't looking out for it and you also
> probably weren't contending with the day-to-day activities of the locals.
> I know that the public face of Orlando is amazing, with efficient transit
> and highly walkable. But when you get away from that and go to where the
> residents go, it's like anywhere else in the South.

I was mostly in the Fort Myers area. Getting around didn't seem too hard to
me, although the island was a bit congested.

>>>>>>> We budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit 4-5
>>>>>>> parking lots to accmplish what needs to get done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mall is another 15 miles away, idiot. Plus there is no grocery
>>>>> store at the mall.
>>>>
>>>> Move to the city then. Why do we have to change for you?
>>>
>>> The grocery store I was talking about is in the same town as the mall.
>>> They're just on opposite sides.
>>>
>>> I'm not asking you to change. The issue was why Americans use more fuel
>>> than people in other nations. If you find that from that discussion,
>>> you feel you or something ought to change, then great.
>>
>> I'd make a gander that the reason Americans use more fuel is because they
>> like to drive.
>
> Certainly that is some of the people. But if everyone's car were suddenly
> taken away tomorrow, how many people would starve? We HAVE to drive, and
> the way we build things significantly increases the amount we have to
> drive.

People can choose to live in cities if they wish. Plenty of mass transit
there.


>> So in other words this bank is surrounded by walls, with archers and a
>> moat? ;)
>
> Worse. Traffic. Plus, in the situation I was talking about, a bike would
> not have solved the problem. The problem was that once you drove to
> either of the businesses, you could not walk to the other, less than a
> block away. In the scenario posed, the car would indeed have been
> necessary to carry the groceries, but a significant portion of the extra
> driving was made necessary just by the way the two businesses were
> situated. The fact that you have _still_ not understood this suggests
> that even if you were directly confronted with the situation in Florida or
> elsewhere you probably would not be able to recognize it.

Well, I can't say for sure that it doesn't exist, but I don't run into that
much up here.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:POqdnfHaJ6mc1izbnZ2dnUVZ_h-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:CE1si.9647$***@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>>> news:oISri.9280$***@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>> I'm not sure how it is that you think you know what most planners want,
>>>> but I am not speaking for most planners, but only for myself. And I'm
>>>> just a random citizen who happens to care what becomes of her
>>>> community,
>>>
>>> As am I. I think we all want that, no?
>>
>> Apparently many people are afraid to want that.
>
> Really? You think people who disagree with you are afraid to care about
> what becomes of "her" community?

No, I think many people don't allow themselves to hope, and hence they will
argue down someone who does. http://home.earthlink.net/~gring2/id12.html

>>>>> How much fuel is wasted by having traffic lights every 2 feet? I'd
>>>>> like to get rid of about half of all the traffic lights here around
>>>>> Boston.
>>>>
>>>> Around here, the reason for traffic lights being close together is
>>>> usually that when we get a main throughfare businesses immediately
>>>> cluster right on it, increasing traffic along it exponentially. I have
>>>> never been to Boston, so I have no idea what the situation is there.
>>>
>>> It's the cost of progress I guess. You have no idea how much I hate
>>> needless traffic lights. I think we should completely get rid of lights
>>> and all stops on certain roads around here and instantly make them "mini
>>> freeways".
>>
>> I guess you're one of the people who is either too afraid or too
>> unimaginative to think that anything different is possible. Poor design
>> and implementation are not inevitable, any more than it is inevitable
>> that you paint your house white rather than blue. We have choices, and
>> bad ones are not preordained. It seems that Americans are as fatalistic
>> about the poor quality of their environments as drivers in some countries
>> who will not wear seatbelts, because if they die it is the will of God.
>
> We have poor quality environments? People seem to like to live here. Maybe
> you were upset about it because you were looking for it?

In regards to the issue at hand, which is an environment which forces more
fuel consumption than necessary, yes, we do have a poor quality environment.
Many people don't see it, don't care if they do see it, or care but care
about other factors more. So, yes it is possible to enjoy living in an
environment that is poor in some ways.

>> By the same token, many of the things we take as progress are not
>> progress. We do not need more than 20 square feet of retail space for
>> every man, woman, and child in the nation.
>
> Haha, where'd you get that statistic? That's a classic quote if I ever
> heard one.

http://www.newrules.org/retail/smabandon.html

>> The problem with making roads into limited access highways is that (at
>> least around here) people have a distressing habit of building with their
>> driveways dumping directly onto a major thoroughfare. This means that to
>> turn a road into a limited access thoroughfare you have to build in
>> access roads, which more or less triples the amount of land needed for
>> the road. This can get politically dicey.
>
> I don't want to make roads in limited access highways, I'd simply remove
> some of the traffic lights to get traffic moving faster.

So then you have people entering where there are lights now, but without
lights? If you'd ever seen how many people die when you do that, you might
not be so happy to ask for it.

>>>>> Most places aren't that badly planned out.
>>>>
>>>> In the South, they absolutely are. And the more recently they were
>>>> built, the more likely it is that they will be very badly planned.
>>>
>>> Florida wasn't that bad when I was down there last spring.
>>
>> I'd be willing to bet you probably weren't looking out for it and you
>> also probably weren't contending with the day-to-day activities of the
>> locals. I know that the public face of Orlando is amazing, with efficient
>> transit and highly walkable. But when you get away from that and go to
>> where the residents go, it's like anywhere else in the South.
>
> I was mostly in the Fort Myers area. Getting around didn't seem too hard
> to me, although the island was a bit congested.

What were you getting around TO, and were you actually looking out for
wasted distance you traveled due to poor design?

>>>>>>>> We budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit
>>>>>>>> 4-5 parking lots to accmplish what needs to get done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The mall is another 15 miles away, idiot. Plus there is no grocery
>>>>>> store at the mall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Move to the city then. Why do we have to change for you?
>>>>
>>>> The grocery store I was talking about is in the same town as the mall.
>>>> They're just on opposite sides.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not asking you to change. The issue was why Americans use more
>>>> fuel than people in other nations. If you find that from that
>>>> discussion, you feel you or something ought to change, then great.
>>>
>>> I'd make a gander that the reason Americans use more fuel is because
>>> they like to drive.
>>
>> Certainly that is some of the people. But if everyone's car were
>> suddenly taken away tomorrow, how many people would starve? We HAVE to
>> drive, and the way we build things significantly increases the amount we
>> have to drive.
>
> People can choose to live in cities if they wish. Plenty of mass transit
> there.

Again, you miss the point.

>
>>> So in other words this bank is surrounded by walls, with archers and a
>>> moat? ;)
>>
>> Worse. Traffic. Plus, in the situation I was talking about, a bike
>> would not have solved the problem. The problem was that once you drove
>> to either of the businesses, you could not walk to the other, less than a
>> block away. In the scenario posed, the car would indeed have been
>> necessary to carry the groceries, but a significant portion of the extra
>> driving was made necessary just by the way the two businesses were
>> situated. The fact that you have _still_ not understood this suggests
>> that even if you were directly confronted with the situation in Florida
>> or elsewhere you probably would not be able to recognize it.
>
> Well, I can't say for sure that it doesn't exist, but I don't run into
> that much up here.

You live in an older area of the country, which was planned better when it
was laid out. I am talking about the way that we currently build new
construction.

-Amy

[Joe the Aroma]

On Aug 2, 12:24 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:POqdnfHaJ6mc1izbnZ2dnUVZ_h-***@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> >news:CE1si.9647$***@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> >> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:***@comcast.com...
>
> >>> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:oISri.9280$***@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >>>> I'm not sure how it is that you think you know what most planners want,
> >>>> but I am not speaking for most planners, but only for myself. And I'm
> >>>> just a random citizen who happens to care what becomes of her
> >>>> community,
>
> >>> As am I. I think we all want that, no?
>
> >> Apparently many people are afraid to want that.
>
> > Really? You think people who disagree with you are afraid to care about
> > what becomes of "her" community?
>
> No, I think many people don't allow themselves to hope, and hence they will
> argue down someone who does. http://home.earthlink.net/~gring2/id12.html
>
>
>
> >>>>> How much fuel is wasted by having traffic lights every 2 feet? I'd
> >>>>> like to get rid of about half of all the traffic lights here around
> >>>>> Boston.
>
> >>>> Around here, the reason for traffic lights being close together is
> >>>> usually that when we get a main throughfare businesses immediately
> >>>> cluster right on it, increasing traffic along it exponentially. I have
> >>>> never been to Boston, so I have no idea what the situation is there.
>
> >>> It's the cost of progress I guess. You have no idea how much I hate
> >>> needless traffic lights. I think we should completely get rid of lights
> >>> and all stops on certain roads around here and instantly make them "mini
> >>> freeways".
>
> >> I guess you're one of the people who is either too afraid or too
> >> unimaginative to think that anything different is possible. Poor design
> >> and implementation are not inevitable, any more than it is inevitable
> >> that you paint your house white rather than blue. We have choices, and
> >> bad ones are not preordained. It seems that Americans are as fatalistic
> >> about the poor quality of their environments as drivers in some countries
> >> who will not wear seatbelts, because if they die it is the will of God.
>
> > We have poor quality environments? People seem to like to live here. Maybe
> > you were upset about it because you were looking for it?
>
> In regards to the issue at hand, which is an environment which forces more
> fuel consumption than necessary, yes, we do have a poor quality environment.
> Many people don't see it, don't care if they do see it, or care but care
> about other factors more. So, yes it is possible to enjoy living in an
> environment that is poor in some ways.
>
> >> By the same token, many of the things we take as progress are not
> >> progress. We do not need more than 20 square feet of retail space for
> >> every man, woman, and child in the nation.
>
> > Haha, where'd you get that statistic? That's a classic quote if I ever
> > heard one.
>
> http://www.newrules.org/retail/smabandon.html
>
> >> The problem with making roads into limited access highways is that (at
> >> least around here) people have a distressing habit of building with their
> >> driveways dumping directly onto a major thoroughfare. This means that to
> >> turn a road into a limited access thoroughfare you have to build in
> >> access roads, which more or less triples the amount of land needed for
> >> the road. This can get politically dicey.
>
> > I don't want to make roads in limited access highways, I'd simply remove
> > some of the traffic lights to get traffic moving faster.
>
> So then you have people entering where there are lights now, but without
> lights? If you'd ever seen how many people die when you do that, you might
> not be so happy to ask for it.
>
> >>>>> Most places aren't that badly planned out.
>
> >>>> In the South, they absolutely are. And the more recently they were
> >>>> built, the more likely it is that they will be very badly planned.
>
> >>> Florida wasn't that bad when I was down there last spring.
>
> >> I'd be willing to bet you probably weren't looking out for it and you
> >> also probably weren't contending with the day-to-day activities of the
> >> locals. I know that the public face of Orlando is amazing, with efficient
> >> transit and highly walkable. But when you get away from that and go to
> >> where the residents go, it's like anywhere else in the South.
>
> > I was mostly in the Fort Myers area. Getting around didn't seem too hard
> > to me, although the island was a bit congested.
>
> What were you getting around TO, and were you actually looking out for
> wasted distance you traveled due to poor design?
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> We budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit
> >>>>>>>> 4-5 parking lots to accmplish what needs to get done.
>
> >>>>>>> Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.
>
> >>>>>> The mall is another 15 miles away, idiot. Plus there is no grocery
> >>>>>> store at the mall.
>
> >>>>> Move to the city then. Why do we have to change for you?
>
> >>>> The grocery store I was talking about is in the same town as the mall.
> >>>> They're just on opposite sides.
>
> >>>> I'm not asking you to change. The issue was why Americans use more
> >>>> fuel than people in other nations. If you find that from that
> >>>> discussion, you feel you or something ought to change, then great.
>
> >>> I'd make a gander that the reason Americans use more fuel is because
> >>> they like to drive.
>
> >> Certainly that is some of the people. But if everyone's car were
> >> suddenly taken away tomorrow, how many people would starve? We HAVE to
> >> drive, and the way we build things significantly increases the amount we
> >> have to drive.
>
> > People can choose to live in cities if they wish. Plenty of mass transit
> > there.
>
> Again, you miss the point.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> So in other words this bank is surrounded by walls, with archers and a
> >>> moat? ;)
>
> >> Worse. Traffic. Plus, in the situation I was talking about, a bike
> >> would not have solved the problem. The problem was that once you drove
> >> to either of the businesses, you could not walk to the other, less than a
> >> block away. In the scenario posed, the car would indeed have been
> >> necessary to carry the groceries, but a significant portion of the extra
> >> driving was made necessary just by the way the two businesses were
> >> situated. The fact that you have _still_ not understood this suggests
> >> that even if you were directly confronted with the situation in Florida
> >> or elsewhere you probably would not be able to recognize it.
>
> > Well, I can't say for sure that it doesn't exist, but I don't run into
> > that much up here.
>
> You live in an older area of the country, which was planned better when it
> was laid out. I am talking about the way that we currently build new
> construction.
>
> -Amy

[Joe the Aroma]

On Aug 2, 12:24 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:

> No, I think many people don't allow themselves to hope, and hence they will
> argue down someone who does. http://home.earthlink.net/~gring2/id12.html

Maybe. Or maybe people just have a different idea about what' s good
for the community. Or different ideals.

> In regards to the issue at hand, which is an environment which forces more
> fuel consumption than necessary, yes, we do have a poor quality environment.
> Many people don't see it, don't care if they do see it, or care but care
> about other factors more. So, yes it is possible to enjoy living in an
> environment that is poor in some ways.

Or maybe people might not find it's a poor quality environment.


> http://www.newrules.org/retail/smabandon.html

I read that. I didn't see anything supporting your assertion on how
much retail space is needed per person in the country.

> So then you have people entering where there are lights now, but without
> lights? If you'd ever seen how many people die when you do that, you might
> not be so happy to ask for it.

I don't think it will make too much of a difference in terms of
safety. Major roads will still require a light (although I'd change
many of these to rotaries).


> What were you getting around TO, and were you actually looking out for
> wasted distance you traveled due to poor design?

The only thing I noticed was more strip malls, less over congested
cities. It was quite pleasant.

> > People can choose to live in cities if they wish. Plenty of mass transit
> > there.
>
> Again, you miss the point.

What point? If you truly like the European way, move into cities. When
developers see all these people move into cities, it will start a run
on that sort of development. Put your money where your mouth is and
move into a city.


> You live in an older area of the country, which was planned better when it
> was laid out. I am talking about the way that we currently build new
> construction.

That's the thing, this area grew up with NO planning whatsoever. Many
of the greatest cities in the world developed without planning.

[george conklin]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>
> What point? If you truly like the European way, move into cities. When
> developers see all these people move into cities, it will start a run
> on that sort of development. Put your money where your mouth is and
> move into a city.
>

Most people have to move to urban areas, but they prefer suburban areas
which combine the best of both rural and urban, so states an ad from a
railroad company in 1885 (or so).




>
>> You live in an older area of the country, which was planned better when
>> it
>> was laid out. I am talking about the way that we currently build new
>> construction.
>
> That's the thing, this area grew up with NO planning whatsoever. Many
> of the greatest cities in the world developed without planning.

Now that is a radical thought -:)

[Amy Blankenship]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 2, 12:24 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>
>> No, I think many people don't allow themselves to hope, and hence they
>> will
>> argue down someone who does. http://home.earthlink.net/~gring2/id12.html
>
> Maybe. Or maybe people just have a different idea about what' s good
> for the community. Or different ideals.
>
>> In regards to the issue at hand, which is an environment which forces
>> more
>> fuel consumption than necessary, yes, we do have a poor quality
>> environment.
>> Many people don't see it, don't care if they do see it, or care but care
>> about other factors more. So, yes it is possible to enjoy living in an
>> environment that is poor in some ways.
>
> Or maybe people might not find it's a poor quality environment.
>
>
>> http://www.newrules.org/retail/smabandon.html
>
> I read that. I didn't see anything supporting your assertion on how
> much retail space is needed per person in the country.

What was in there was the statistic on how much exists. It is my own
opinion that we don't need that much.

>> So then you have people entering where there are lights now, but without
>> lights? If you'd ever seen how many people die when you do that, you
>> might
>> not be so happy to ask for it.
>
> I don't think it will make too much of a difference in terms of
> safety. Major roads will still require a light (although I'd change
> many of these to rotaries).

Do you mean roundabouts?

>> What were you getting around TO, and were you actually looking out for
>> wasted distance you traveled due to poor design?
>
> The only thing I noticed was more strip malls, less over congested
> cities. It was quite pleasant.

So no answer to either question.

>> > People can choose to live in cities if they wish. Plenty of mass
>> > transit
>> > there.
>>
>> Again, you miss the point.
>
> What point? If you truly like the European way, move into cities. When
> developers see all these people move into cities, it will start a run
> on that sort of development. Put your money where your mouth is and
> move into a city.

I lived in the city I described for a number of years. Its design has only
gotten worse and worse over the past 15 years or so. The older parts are
actually pretty ok, but the newer parts have been put together without any
thought whatsoever.

>> You live in an older area of the country, which was planned better when
>> it
>> was laid out. I am talking about the way that we currently build new
>> construction.
>
> That's the thing, this area grew up with NO planning whatsoever. Many
> of the greatest cities in the world developed without planning.

So you're telling me that no one decided where the streets would run, and
people ran around with blindfolds deciding where to put homes and businesses
like some great big game of pin the tail on the donkey? There is always
SOME sort of planning, even if it is poor. Otherwise streets would not
connect, etc.

-Amy

[Pat]

On Aug 2, 5:46 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:***@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 2, 12:24 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> > <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>
> >> No, I think many people don't allow themselves to hope, and hence they
> >> will
> >> argue down someone who does. http://home.earthlink.net/~gring2/id12.html
>
> > Maybe. Or maybe people just have a different idea about what' s good
> > for the community. Or different ideals.
>
> >> In regards to the issue at hand, which is an environment which forces
> >> more
> >> fuel consumption than necessary, yes, we do have a poor quality
> >> environment.
> >> Many people don't see it, don't care if they do see it, or care but care
> >> about other factors more. So, yes it is possible to enjoy living in an
> >> environment that is poor in some ways.
>
> > Or maybe people might not find it's a poor quality environment.
>
> >>http://www.newrules.org/retail/smabandon.html
>
> > I read that. I didn't see anything supporting your assertion on how
> > much retail space is needed per person in the country.
>
> What was in there was the statistic on how much exists. It is my own
> opinion that we don't need that much.
>
> >> So then you have people entering where there are lights now, but without
> >> lights? If you'd ever seen how many people die when you do that, you
> >> might
> >> not be so happy to ask for it.
>
> > I don't think it will make too much of a difference in terms of
> > safety. Major roads will still require a light (although I'd change
> > many of these to rotaries).
>
> Do you mean roundabouts?

Nope. Nope. I grew up in New England. They are definitely rotaries.

And they are mostly horrible. Give me a traffic light any day.

>
> >> What were you getting around TO, and were you actually looking out for
> >> wasted distance you traveled due to poor design?
>
> > The only thing I noticed was more strip malls, less over congested
> > cities. It was quite pleasant.
>
> So no answer to either question.
>
> >> > People can choose to live in cities if they wish. Plenty of mass
> >> > transit
> >> > there.
>
> >> Again, you miss the point.
>
> > What point? If you truly like the European way, move into cities. When
> > developers see all these people move into cities, it will start a run
> > on that sort of development. Put your money where your mouth is and
> > move into a city.
>
> I lived in the city I described for a number of years. Its design has only
> gotten worse and worse over the past 15 years or so. The older parts are
> actually pretty ok, but the newer parts have been put together without any
> thought whatsoever.
>
> >> You live in an older area of the country, which was planned better when
> >> it
> >> was laid out. I am talking about the way that we currently build new
> >> construction.
>
> > That's the thing, this area grew up with NO planning whatsoever. Many
> > of the greatest cities in the world developed without planning.
>
> So you're telling me that no one decided where the streets would run, and
> people ran around with blindfolds deciding where to put homes and businesses
> like some great big game of pin the tail on the donkey? There is always
> SOME sort of planning, even if it is poor. Otherwise streets would not
> connect, etc.
>
> -Amy

[rotten]

On Aug 2, 5:46 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> > I read that. I didn't see anything supporting your assertion on how
> > much retail space is needed per person in the country.
>
> What was in there was the statistic on how much exists. It is my own
> opinion that we don't need that much.

Personally I'd say we need whatever individuals decide they need. If
they don't need retail, they can choose for themselves not to
patronize said retail.

> > I don't think it will make too much of a difference in terms of
> > safety. Major roads will still require a light (although I'd change
> > many of these to rotaries).
>
> Do you mean roundabouts?

Yes, they call them rotaries around here.

> >> What were you getting around TO, and were you actually looking out for
> >> wasted distance you traveled due to poor design?
>
> > The only thing I noticed was more strip malls, less over congested
> > cities. It was quite pleasant.
>
> So no answer to either question.

I was down for a week on vacation. I was looking for restaurants,
shopping, recreation etc.

>> That's the thing, this area grew up with NO planning whatsoever. Many
> > of the greatest cities in the world developed without planning.
>
> So you're telling me that no one decided where the streets would run, and
> people ran around with blindfolds deciding where to put homes and businesses
> like some great big game of pin the tail on the donkey? There is always
> SOME sort of planning, even if it is poor. Otherwise streets would not
> connect, etc.

Actually Boston streets were developed from cow paths way back when,
it's why it's so complicated. Anyway, I should have said that this
area developed with a mininum of what we would now consider government-
sanctioned urban planning. Zoning didn't even come about until the
1930's.

[Gordon Sande]

On 2007-08-03 13:53:11 -0300, rotten <***@gmail.com> said:

> On Aug 2, 5:46 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>>> I read that. I didn't see anything supporting your assertion on how
>>> much retail space is needed per person in the country.
>>
>> What was in there was the statistic on how much exists. It is my own
>> opinion that we don't need that much.
>
> Personally I'd say we need whatever individuals decide they need. If
> they don't need retail, they can choose for themselves not to
> patronize said retail.
>
>>> I don't think it will make too much of a difference in terms of
>>> safety. Major roads will still require a light (although I'd change
>>> many of these to rotaries).
>>
>> Do you mean roundabouts?
>
> Yes, they call them rotaries around here.

There are two possible rules for traffic circles, rotaries, roundabouts
or whatever. One is yield to traffic in the thingy and the other is to
alternate. The local customs may be that the rotary rules are to alternate
and the roundabout rules are to yield. It often requires several questions
to discover this distinction and figure out what name is used for which.
And then there is the yield to the right carried to extremes which requires
the traffic in the thingy to yield.

The differing rules makes sense in differing traffic density regimes. Mostly
it just confuses everyone if the rules are mixed and the signs are not clear
enough.

>>>> What were you getting around TO, and were you actually looking out for
>>>> wasted distance you traveled due to poor design?
>>
>>> The only thing I noticed was more strip malls, less over congested
>>> cities. It was quite pleasant.
>>
>> So no answer to either question.
>
> I was down for a week on vacation. I was looking for restaurants,
> shopping, recreation etc.
>
>>> That's the thing, this area grew up with NO planning whatsoever. Many
>>> of the greatest cities in the world developed without planning.
>>
>> So you're telling me that no one decided where the streets would run, and
>> people ran around with blindfolds deciding where to put homes and businesses
>> like some great big game of pin the tail on the donkey? There is always
>> SOME sort of planning, even if it is poor. Otherwise streets would not
>> connect, etc.
>
> Actually Boston streets were developed from cow paths way back when,
> it's why it's so complicated. Anyway, I should have said that this
> area developed with a mininum of what we would now consider government-
> sanctioned urban planning. Zoning didn't even come about until the
> 1930's.

[Amy Blankenship]

"rotten" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 2, 5:46 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> > I read that. I didn't see anything supporting your assertion on how
>> > much retail space is needed per person in the country.
>>
>> What was in there was the statistic on how much exists. It is my own
>> opinion that we don't need that much.
>
> Personally I'd say we need whatever individuals decide they need. If
> they don't need retail, they can choose for themselves not to
> patronize said retail.

Regardless, the proliferation of retail is not necessarily progress. It's
just the proliferation of retail.

>> > I don't think it will make too much of a difference in terms of
>> > safety. Major roads will still require a light (although I'd change
>> > many of these to rotaries).
>>
>> Do you mean roundabouts?
>
> Yes, they call them rotaries around here.
>
>> >> What were you getting around TO, and were you actually looking out for
>> >> wasted distance you traveled due to poor design?
>>
>> > The only thing I noticed was more strip malls, less over congested
>> > cities. It was quite pleasant.
>>
>> So no answer to either question.
>
> I was down for a week on vacation. I was looking for restaurants,
> shopping, recreation etc.

It's easy to be pretty low-key about things that waste your time when on
vacation.

>>> That's the thing, this area grew up with NO planning whatsoever. Many
>> > of the greatest cities in the world developed without planning.
>>
>> So you're telling me that no one decided where the streets would run, and
>> people ran around with blindfolds deciding where to put homes and
>> businesses
>> like some great big game of pin the tail on the donkey? There is always
>> SOME sort of planning, even if it is poor. Otherwise streets would not
>> connect, etc.
>
> Actually Boston streets were developed from cow paths way back when,
> it's why it's so complicated. Anyway, I should have said that this
> area developed with a mininum of what we would now consider government-
> sanctioned urban planning. Zoning didn't even come about until the
> 1930's.

So the plan was to use cow paths. It's still a plan ;-).

Just keep in mind that the position I am taking is:

1) The built environment contains some inefficiencies that cause us to
drive more than necessary, thus wasting gas
2) With some thought, we can reduce those inefficiencies as we build new
developments.
3) Given the current energy and environmental situation, we might well be
wise to apply that thought to reduce future dependency on fuel.

Exactly which of those premises causes you such an issue?

I

[rotten]

On Aug 3, 1:40 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> It's easy to be pretty low-key about things that waste your time when on
> vacation.

I guess, although I will tell you that I was looking for how lifestyle
was different down there. Much more relaxed, slower paced, and
pleasant.


> So the plan was to use cow paths. It's still a plan ;-).

The greatest cities in the world were mostly unplanned, at least in
terms of a long term perspective. Anyone can look at a street plan of
Boston or lower Manhattan and readily tell that it was unplanned
growth.

> Just keep in mind that the position I am taking is:
>
> 1) The built environment contains some inefficiencies that cause us to
> drive more than necessary, thus wasting gas
> 2) With some thought, we can reduce those inefficiencies as we build new
> developments.
> 3) Given the current energy and environmental situation, we might well be
> wise to apply that thought to reduce future dependency on fuel.
>
> Exactly which of those premises causes you such an issue?

None of course, as you state them. Now contrast them to the goals of
smart growth, urban planning as it is being carried out in places such
as Portland, and environmentalist goals. Those goals are far more
drastic.

[ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans]

"Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote
> 1) The built environment contains some inefficiencies that cause us to
> drive more than necessary, thus wasting gas

At least 80% of all labour in AmeriKKKa is inefficient, wasted effort.
It's the nature of "efficient" Capitalism.

[Amy Blankenship]

"george conklin" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> What point? If you truly like the European way, move into cities. When
>> developers see all these people move into cities, it will start a run
>> on that sort of development. Put your money where your mouth is and
>> move into a city.
>>
>
> Most people have to move to urban areas, but they prefer suburban areas
> which combine the best of both rural and urban, so states an ad from a
> railroad company in 1885 (or so).

Why, George, I thought you didn't like ideas from the past.

>>> You live in an older area of the country, which was planned better when
>>> it
>>> was laid out. I am talking about the way that we currently build new
>>> construction.
>>
>> That's the thing, this area grew up with NO planning whatsoever. Many
>> of the greatest cities in the world developed without planning.
>
> Now that is a radical thought -:)

Radical for its inaccuracy.

[rotten]

On Aug 2, 5:52 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> Radical for its inaccuracy.

How so? Did the oldest parts of cities really have planning? Look at
the street layouts for some world cities. While some areas appears to
have a rhyme or reason, the oldest and most interesting parts do not.

[Amy Blankenship]

"rotten" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 2, 5:52 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
>> Radical for its inaccuracy.
>
> How so? Did the oldest parts of cities really have planning? Look at
> the street layouts for some world cities. While some areas appears to
> have a rhyme or reason, the oldest and most interesting parts do not.

Because obviously they did not place homes and businesses using lawn
darts...

[rotten]

On Aug 3, 4:27 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> "rotten" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:***@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 2, 5:52 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> >> Radical for its inaccuracy.
>
> > How so? Did the oldest parts of cities really have planning? Look at
> > the street layouts for some world cities. While some areas appears to
> > have a rhyme or reason, the oldest and most interesting parts do not.
>
> Because obviously they did not place homes and businesses using lawn
> darts...

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arthistory/courses/parismaps/images/IMG0003.GIF

http://www.hot-maps.de/europe/italy/rome/homeen.html

Those don't look planned to me. I mean there is a street system, but
nobody is arguing that the government shouldn't design a street system.

[Amy Blankenship]

"rotten" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 3, 4:27 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> "rotten" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:***@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Aug 2, 5:52 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
>> >> Radical for its inaccuracy.
>>
>> > How so? Did the oldest parts of cities really have planning? Look at
>> > the street layouts for some world cities. While some areas appears to
>> > have a rhyme or reason, the oldest and most interesting parts do not.
>>
>> Because obviously they did not place homes and businesses using lawn
>> darts...
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arthistory/courses/parismaps/images/IMG0003.GIF
>
> http://www.hot-maps.de/europe/italy/rome/homeen.html
>
> Those don't look planned to me. I mean there is a street system, but
> nobody is arguing that the government shouldn't design a street system.

OK, let's say you're right, and that no one ever planned streets in older
cities, yet nevertheless they somehow are successful now.

Let's look at an example. Many old European cities have a very quaint and
interesting feature in the older parts of the city. If you look closely you
will see that the street is actually higher than many of the doorways. This
is because, once people realized that sewers were a good idea, the only
place to put them in a city that had not been planned to have them was under
the streets. Rather than dig up all the streets, they put in the sewers and
raised the streets. This was not the effect of poor planning, because no
one could have anticipated the need for sewers. Nevertheless, I would
imagine that putting in sewers after the fact would not have been a cheap
endeavor.

So, if you imagine for a mental exercise that you were a decision-maker at
the time the streets were originally laid down (not raised, but the original
paving or cobbling of the streets). If you had perfect foreknowledge that
one day sewers would need to be laid, would you build the streets in such a
way that the installation of the sewer would be easier or harder? Let's
assume that making the laying of the sewer easier costs 25% more than not
making it easier, but you know that laying the sewers later will cost
another 200%. You might go ahead and not make it easier to lay the sewers,
because you don't have the resources on hand (or you figure it will be the
problem of a later generation and you have to balance your accounts _now_.

However, today if you plan a city, you _do_ know that a sewer is necessary,
among other infrastructure necessities that they wouldn't have considered
necessary back then, such as trash pickup. Doesn't it make sense to
encourage a form that makes these ongoing expenses lower, rather than
refusing to plan because "some of the greatest cities in the world came to
exist without planning"?

Now let's look at what life was like for these people. Most of them worked
pretty much all day every day just to get what they needed to eat, plus a
little extra to pay for whatever goods and services they couldn't directly
provide for themselves. So, no one needed to persuade or force them to plan
things to eliminate extra energy use. They didn't have it to waste! If you
spent an unnecessary 10 minutes getting from A to B, that might have meant
you had to do 10 minutes of work in the dark, which meant you had to have a
candle that you either needed to spend time making or time earning. We, on
the other hand, are wealthy beyond what anyone in those days, even kings and
queens, could have imagined.

We are wasteful because for the moment we can afford it. To assume that we
will always be able to afford it is probably unwise. We don't have perfect
foreknowledge of what could happen to make our current level of waste
unsustainable, but we have some pretty good ideas. Why deliberately build
in a way that causes higher expenses now and will continue to do so for the
foreseeable future? If something were to happen where we could not drive
our cars, we probably would not be in a position to rebuild all this
infrastructure either to make it more efficient. I doubt future generations
will find it "quaint."

-Amy

[Pat]

On Aug 6, 11:33 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> "rotten" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:***@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 4:27 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> > <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> >> "rotten" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:***@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 2, 5:52 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> >> >> Radical for its inaccuracy.
>
> >> > How so? Did the oldest parts of cities really have planning? Look at
> >> > the street layouts for some world cities. While some areas appears to
> >> > have a rhyme or reason, the oldest and most interesting parts do not.
>
> >> Because obviously they did not place homes and businesses using lawn
> >> darts...
>
> >http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arthistory/courses/parismaps/images/IMG000...
>
> >http://www.hot-maps.de/europe/italy/rome/homeen.html
>
> > Those don't look planned to me. I mean there is a street system, but
> > nobody is arguing that the government shouldn't design a street system.
>
> OK, let's say you're right, and that no one ever planned streets in older
> cities, yet nevertheless they somehow are successful now.
>
> Let's look at an example. Many old European cities have a very quaint and
> interesting feature in the older parts of the city. If you look closely you
> will see that the street is actually higher than many of the doorways. This
> is because, once people realized that sewers were a good idea, the only
> place to put them in a city that had not been planned to have them was under
> the streets. Rather than dig up all the streets, they put in the sewers and
> raised the streets. This was not the effect of poor planning, because no
> one could have anticipated the need for sewers. Nevertheless, I would
> imagine that putting in sewers after the fact would not have been a cheap
> endeavor.
>
> So, if you imagine for a mental exercise that you were a decision-maker at
> the time the streets were originally laid down (not raised, but the original
> paving or cobbling of the streets). If you had perfect foreknowledge that
> one day sewers would need to be laid, would you build the streets in such a
> way that the installation of the sewer would be easier or harder? Let's
> assume that making the laying of the sewer easier costs 25% more than not
> making it easier, but you know that laying the sewers later will cost
> another 200%. You might go ahead and not make it easier to lay the sewers,
> because you don't have the resources on hand (or you figure it will be the
> problem of a later generation and you have to balance your accounts _now_.
>
> However, today if you plan a city, you _do_ know that a sewer is necessary,
> among other infrastructure necessities that they wouldn't have considered
> necessary back then, such as trash pickup. Doesn't it make sense to
> encourage a form that makes these ongoing expenses lower, rather than
> refusing to plan because "some of the greatest cities in the world came to
> exist without planning"?
>
> Now let's look at what life was like for these people. Most of them worked
> pretty much all day every day just to get what they needed to eat, plus a
> little extra to pay for whatever goods and services they couldn't directly
> provide for themselves. So, no one needed to persuade or force them to plan
> things to eliminate extra energy use. They didn't have it to waste! If you
> spent an unnecessary 10 minutes getting from A to B, that might have meant
> you had to do 10 minutes of work in the dark, which meant you had to have a
> candle that you either needed to spend time making or time earning. We, on
> the other hand, are wealthy beyond what anyone in those days, even kings and
> queens, could have imagined.
>
> We are wasteful because for the moment we can afford it. To assume that we
> will always be able to afford it is probably unwise. We don't have perfect
> foreknowledge of what could happen to make our current level of waste
> unsustainable, but we have some pretty good ideas. Why deliberately build
> in a way that causes higher expenses now and will continue to do so for the
> foreseeable future? If something were to happen where we could not drive
> our cars, we probably would not be in a position to rebuild all this
> infrastructure either to make it more efficient. I doubt future generations
> will find it "quaint."
>
> -Amy

First off, the streets aren't higher because of sewers. The sewers
are buried quite a few feet down, not right on top and covered up.
The streets are higher because the keep paving them and building up.

Second off, your scenario of "plan for all inevitabilities" only works
if you believe that planners are smarter than other people. What if
you plan for sewers and someone invents technology to compost and burn
the sludge, on site? Then you've wasted a lot of sewer lines (that's
just an example, don't take it too seriously).

It is not the planners who are the smart kids -- it is the
developers. They follow new and emerging technology, they know what
the market wants, and they can build a product in a cost effective
manner. It is the planners who are holding them back.

After setting *basic* health and safety guidelines, let the developers
know what they know best -- build a product that people want, in a way
the people want it. Micro-managing them leads to huge additional
expenses.

I was at my son's soccer game last year. His coach was the county
attorney. Within site of the soccer field was some new upper-end
condo's being built. I commented on them and he said they were nice,
but what was really needed was some affordable housing. I said it
wasn't possible in that community. He asked why. I said it was
because of people like him -- ie. gov't types. I said that they had
the approval process so limited -- and the available land so limited
-- that it cost so much to get approvals that one could then only
afford to do upscale stuff. The way to get more mid-market stuff was
to get more available land -- otherwise the high-end people would
always buy what was available. He stood there in disbelief and said
that he had never considered the consequences of land-use regulations
like that. Doh. All it does is put in more and more upscale stuff.

Give the market some credit. People know what they want.

[Bill Ward]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:21:43 -0700, Pat wrote:

> On Aug 6, 11:33 am, "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com>
> wrote:
>> "rotten" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:***@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 3, 4:27 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
>> > <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> >> "rotten" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:***@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Aug 2, 5:52 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
>> >> >> Radical for its inaccuracy.
>>
>> >> > How so? Did the oldest parts of cities really have planning? Look
>> >> > at the street layouts for some world cities. While some areas
>> >> > appears to have a rhyme or reason, the oldest and most interesting
>> >> > parts do not.
>>
>> >> Because obviously they did not place homes and businesses using lawn
>> >> darts...
>>
>> >http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arthistory/courses/parismaps/images/IMG000...
>>
>> >http://www.hot-maps.de/europe/italy/rome/homeen.html
>>
>> > Those don't look planned to me. I mean there is a street system, but
>> > nobody is arguing that the government shouldn't design a street
>> > system.
>>
>> OK, let's say you're right, and that no one ever planned streets in
>> older cities, yet nevertheless they somehow are successful now.
>>
>> Let's look at an example. Many old European cities have a very quaint
>> and interesting feature in the older parts of the city. If you look
>> closely you will see that the street is actually higher than many of the
>> doorways. This is because, once people realized that sewers were a good
>> idea, the only place to put them in a city that had not been planned to
>> have them was under the streets. Rather than dig up all the streets,
>> they put in the sewers and raised the streets. This was not the effect
>> of poor planning, because no one could have anticipated the need for
>> sewers. Nevertheless, I would imagine that putting in sewers after the
>> fact would not have been a cheap endeavor.
>>
>> So, if you imagine for a mental exercise that you were a decision-maker
>> at the time the streets were originally laid down (not raised, but the
>> original paving or cobbling of the streets). If you had perfect
>> foreknowledge that one day sewers would need to be laid, would you build
>> the streets in such a way that the installation of the sewer would be
>> easier or harder? Let's assume that making the laying of the sewer
>> easier costs 25% more than not making it easier, but you know that
>> laying the sewers later will cost another 200%. You might go ahead and
>> not make it easier to lay the sewers, because you don't have the
>> resources on hand (or you figure it will be the problem of a later
>> generation and you have to balance your accounts _now_.
>>
>> However, today if you plan a city, you _do_ know that a sewer is
>> necessary, among other infrastructure necessities that they wouldn't
>> have considered necessary back then, such as trash pickup. Doesn't it
>> make sense to encourage a form that makes these ongoing expenses lower,
>> rather than refusing to plan because "some of the greatest cities in the
>> world came to exist without planning"?
>>
>> Now let's look at what life was like for these people. Most of them
>> worked pretty much all day every day just to get what they needed to
>> eat, plus a little extra to pay for whatever goods and services they
>> couldn't directly provide for themselves. So, no one needed to persuade
>> or force them to plan things to eliminate extra energy use. They didn't
>> have it to waste! If you spent an unnecessary 10 minutes getting from A
>> to B, that might have meant you had to do 10 minutes of work in the
>> dark, which meant you had to have a candle that you either needed to
>> spend time making or time earning. We, on the other hand, are wealthy
>> beyond what anyone in those days, even kings and queens, could have
>> imagined.
>>
>> We are wasteful because for the moment we can afford it. To assume that
>> we will always be able to afford it is probably unwise. We don't have
>> perfect foreknowledge of what could happen to make our current level of
>> waste unsustainable, but we have some pretty good ideas. Why
>> deliberately build in a way that causes higher expenses now and will
>> continue to do so for the foreseeable future? If something were to
>> happen where we could not drive our cars, we probably would not be in a
>> position to rebuild all this infrastructure either to make it more
>> efficient. I doubt future generations will find it "quaint."
>>
>> -Amy
>
> First off, the streets aren't higher because of sewers. The sewers are
> buried quite a few feet down, not right on top and covered up. The streets
> are higher because the keep paving them and building up.
>
> Second off, your scenario of "plan for all inevitabilities" only works if
> you believe that planners are smarter than other people. What if you plan
> for sewers and someone invents technology to compost and burn the sludge,
> on site? Then you've wasted a lot of sewer lines (that's just an example,
> don't take it too seriously).
>
> It is not the planners who are the smart kids -- it is the developers.
> They follow new and emerging technology, they know what the market wants,
> and they can build a product in a cost effective manner. It is the
> planners who are holding them back.

There's a strong correlation between the amount of money people
personally have at risk and the quality of their decisions.

> After setting *basic* health and safety guidelines, let the developers
> know what they know best -- build a product that people want, in a way the
> people want it. Micro-managing them leads to huge additional expenses.
>
> I was at my son's soccer game last year. His coach was the county
> attorney. Within site of the soccer field was some new upper-end condo's
> being built. I commented on them and he said they were nice, but what was
> really needed was some affordable housing. I said it wasn't possible in
> that community. He asked why. I said it was because of people like him
> -- ie. gov't types. I said that they had the approval process so limited
> -- and the available land so limited -- that it cost so much to get
> approvals that one could then only afford to do upscale stuff. The way to
> get more mid-market stuff was to get more available land -- otherwise the
> high-end people would always buy what was available. He stood there in
> disbelief and said that he had never considered the consequences of
> land-use regulations like that. Doh. All it does is put in more and more
> upscale stuff.
>
> Give the market some credit. People know what they want.

Amen.

[Pat]

On Aug 6, 3:22 pm, Bill Ward <***@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:21:43 -0700, Pat wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 11:33 am, "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "rotten" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:***@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 3, 4:27 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> >> > <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> >> >> "rotten" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:***@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Aug 2, 5:52 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> >> >> >> Radical for its inaccuracy.
>
> >> >> > How so? Did the oldest parts of cities really have planning? Look
> >> >> > at the street layouts for some world cities. While some areas
> >> >> > appears to have a rhyme or reason, the oldest and most interesting
> >> >> > parts do not.
>
> >> >> Because obviously they did not place homes and businesses using lawn
> >> >> darts...
>
> >> >http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arthistory/courses/parismaps/images/IMG000...
>
> >> >http://www.hot-maps.de/europe/italy/rome/homeen.html
>
> >> > Those don't look planned to me. I mean there is a street system, but
> >> > nobody is arguing that the government shouldn't design a street
> >> > system.
>
> >> OK, let's say you're right, and that no one ever planned streets in
> >> older cities, yet nevertheless they somehow are successful now.
>
> >> Let's look at an example. Many old European cities have a very quaint
> >> and interesting feature in the older parts of the city. If you look
> >> closely you will see that the street is actually higher than many of the
> >> doorways. This is because, once people realized that sewers were a good
> >> idea, the only place to put them in a city that had not been planned to
> >> have them was under the streets. Rather than dig up all the streets,
> >> they put in the sewers and raised the streets. This was not the effect
> >> of poor planning, because no one could have anticipated the need for
> >> sewers. Nevertheless, I would imagine that putting in sewers after the
> >> fact would not have been a cheap endeavor.
>
> >> So, if you imagine for a mental exercise that you were a decision-maker
> >> at the time the streets were originally laid down (not raised, but the
> >> original paving or cobbling of the streets). If you had perfect
> >> foreknowledge that one day sewers would need to be laid, would you build
> >> the streets in such a way that the installation of the sewer would be
> >> easier or harder? Let's assume that making the laying of the sewer
> >> easier costs 25% more than not making it easier, but you know that
> >> laying the sewers later will cost another 200%. You might go ahead and
> >> not make it easier to lay the sewers, because you don't have the
> >> resources on hand (or you figure it will be the problem of a later
> >> generation and you have to balance your accounts _now_.
>
> >> However, today if you plan a city, you _do_ know that a sewer is
> >> necessary, among other infrastructure necessities that they wouldn't
> >> have considered necessary back then, such as trash pickup. Doesn't it
> >> make sense to encourage a form that makes these ongoing expenses lower,
> >> rather than refusing to plan because "some of the greatest cities in the
> >> world came to exist without planning"?
>
> >> Now let's look at what life was like for these people. Most of them
> >> worked pretty much all day every day just to get what they needed to
> >> eat, plus a little extra to pay for whatever goods and services they
> >> couldn't directly provide for themselves. So, no one needed to persuade
> >> or force them to plan things to eliminate extra energy use. They didn't
> >> have it to waste! If you spent an unnecessary 10 minutes getting from A
> >> to B, that might have meant you had to do 10 minutes of work in the
> >> dark, which meant you had to have a candle that you either needed to
> >> spend time making or time earning. We, on the other hand, are wealthy
> >> beyond what anyone in those days, even kings and queens, could have
> >> imagined.
>
> >> We are wasteful because for the moment we can afford it. To assume that
> >> we will always be able to afford it is probably unwise. We don't have
> >> perfect foreknowledge of what could happen to make our current level of
> >> waste unsustainable, but we have some pretty good ideas. Why
> >> deliberately build in a way that causes higher expenses now and will
> >> continue to do so for the foreseeable future? If something were to
> >> happen where we could not drive our cars, we probably would not be in a
> >> position to rebuild all this infrastructure either to make it more
> >> efficient. I doubt future generations will find it "quaint."
>
> >> -Amy
>
> > First off, the streets aren't higher because of sewers. The sewers are
> > buried quite a few feet down, not right on top and covered up. The streets
> > are higher because the keep paving them and building up.
>
> > Second off, your scenario of "plan for all inevitabilities" only works if
> > you believe that planners are smarter than other people. What if you plan
> > for sewers and someone invents technology to compost and burn the sludge,
> > on site? Then you've wasted a lot of sewer lines (that's just an example,
> > don't take it too seriously).
>
> > It is not the planners who are the smart kids -- it is the developers.
> > They follow new and emerging technology, they know what the market wants,
> > and they can build a product in a cost effective manner. It is the
> > planners who are holding them back.
>
> There's a strong correlation between the amount of money people
> personally have at risk and the quality of their decisions.

Ever notice there are very, very few self-made millionaires who are
stupid?

>
>
>
> > After setting *basic* health and safety guidelines, let the developers
> > know what they know best -- build a product that people want, in a way the
> > people want it. Micro-managing them leads to huge additional expenses.
>
> > I was at my son's soccer game last year. His coach was the county
> > attorney. Within site of the soccer field was some new upper-end condo's
> > being built. I commented on them and he said they were nice, but what was
> > really needed was some affordable housing. I said it wasn't possible in
> > that community. He asked why. I said it was because of people like him
> > -- ie. gov't types. I said that they had the approval process so limited
> > -- and the available land so limited -- that it cost so much to get
> > approvals that one could then only afford to do upscale stuff. The way to
> > get more mid-market stuff was to get more available land -- otherwise the
> > high-end people would always buy what was available. He stood there in
> > disbelief and said that he had never considered the consequences of
> > land-use regulations like that. Doh. All it does is put in more and more
> > upscale stuff.
>
> > Give the market some credit. People know what they want.
>
> Amen.

[(David P.)]

Bill Ward <***@net.com> wrote:
>
> There's a strong correlation between the amount of money people
> personally have at risk and the quality of their decisions.

Why not have weighted suffrage? The weight of
a person's vote is set by the amount of income tax
he pays.
.
.
--

[RJ]

rotten <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 2, 5:52 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> > Radical for its inaccuracy.
>
> How so? Did the oldest parts of cities really have planning? Look at
> the street layouts for some world cities. While some areas appears to
> have a rhyme or reason, the oldest and most interesting parts do not.

Just take a look at the city of Pittsburgh (google maps will show this).
As an exercise, follow the path of Bigelow Boulevard from downtown to
the University of Pittsburgh. See if your map shows the actual end
point.

While you are looking at Pittsburgh, check out Forbes, 5th and 6th
Avenues from downtown. They start out parallel, then 6th suddenly
curves and crosses both 5th and Forbes. Forbes and 5th remain parallel
(but not straight) for a long way east.

What a plan!

[(David P.)]

***@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote:
>
> While you are looking at Pittsburgh, check out Forbes, 5th and 6th
> Avenues from downtown. They start out parallel, then 6th suddenly
> curves and crosses both 5th and Forbes. Forbes and 5th remain
> parallel (but not straight) for a long way east.
>
> What a plan!

When I ask people what will happen when the population
is 9 or 10 billion, they say:
"They'll put 'em _somewhere_!"
"They'll think of _something_!"

What a plan!
.
.
--

[altheim]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lvedncU_Bs2dTjLbnZ2dnUVZ_t-***@comcast.com...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:0vIri.9072$***@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
>> news:***@comcast.com...
>>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
>>>> news:r4mdnSfw05nfbTDbnZ2dnUVZ_u-***@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> It's the way your environment conspires to force you to have to drive
>>>> when perhaps you could walk.
>>>
>>> That's the problem with these clustered businesses you tout, they are
>>> all mostly remote from population centers. And if they were not
>>> remote, you'd have heavy trucking through the residential sections,
>>> with all the particulate pollution and other issues.
>>
>> Yes, they are. Because no one thought about things when they were laid
>> out. The pollution is going to happen anyway, but less if there is not
>> such a long drive to get to things.
>
> How much fuel is wasted by having traffic lights every 2 feet? I'd like to
> get rid of about half of all the traffic lights here around Boston.

Heh he... I'm sure that was meant with tongue in cheek; surely
the traffic snarl-ups would generate more wasted fuel?

But while we are on the subject of lights - how about getting
rid of street and highway (UK Motorway) lights? Street lighting
in mainland Europe, especially wealthy Germany, is minimal,
the argument being that cars have their own built-in lights and
that way they can keep taxes lower. In Britain, government and
local authorities continually pester us to switch to energy saving
fluorescent lightbulbs to help reduce our individual carbon
footprints (CF) yet our streets and motorways are lit up like it's
carnival time.

>> You don't have to park when you walk, nor do you get stuck in traffic.
>> Come on, I know you're not as stupid as you preted.
>
> You're whining. Ride a bike, while most distances are beyond walking
> distances, they are NOT beyond biking distances.

No. Bikes I do not agree with. Individually a bike has a zero carbon
footprint, but their presense on the road increases the CF of all the
traffic around them, due to them having to slow down, manoever,
shift to pass them or wait in low gear for an opportunity to pass.

Bikes are nuisance; they just add to the traffic hazards.

--
altheim

[Joe the Aroma]

On Aug 1, 4:07 am, "altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote:

> > How much fuel is wasted by having traffic lights every 2 feet? I'd like to
> > get rid of about half of all the traffic lights here around Boston.
>
> Heh he... I'm sure that was meant with tongue in cheek; surely
> the traffic snarl-ups would generate more wasted fuel?

There are traffic lights for very minor roads which serve to do
nothing but slow the main roads down. Not all traffic lights can go,
but I'd wager about half of them could.

> But while we are on the subject of lights - how about getting
> rid of street and highway (UK Motorway) lights? Street lighting
> in mainland Europe, especially wealthy Germany, is minimal,
> the argument being that cars have their own built-in lights and
> that way they can keep taxes lower. In Britain, government and
> local authorities continually pester us to switch to energy saving
> fluorescent lightbulbs to help reduce our individual carbon
> footprints (CF) yet our streets and motorways are lit up like it's
> carnival time.

I thought anti-car types liked street lighting and the such? FWIW I
agree with you, the constant lights make living in the city very
annoying. You can't get true sleep when lights are constantly on. Many
streetlights should be turned off.

> > You're whining. Ride a bike, while most distances are beyond walking
> > distances, they are NOT beyond biking distances.
>
> No. Bikes I do not agree with. Individually a bike has a zero carbon
> footprint, but their presense on the road increases the CF of all the
> traffic around them, due to them having to slow down, manoever,
> shift to pass them or wait in low gear for an opportunity to pass.

Well I think that's the idea for bike lanes. Incidentally, this is why
if I'm for any sort of public transportation, I would only before
elevated rail/monorail. Busses and "light rail/trams" do nothing but
serve to slow cars down and create more pollution.

[Amy Blankenship]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 1, 4:07 am, "altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> > How much fuel is wasted by having traffic lights every 2 feet? I'd like
>> > to
>> > get rid of about half of all the traffic lights here around Boston.
>>
>> Heh he... I'm sure that was meant with tongue in cheek; surely
>> the traffic snarl-ups would generate more wasted fuel?
>
> There are traffic lights for very minor roads which serve to do
> nothing but slow the main roads down. Not all traffic lights can go,
> but I'd wager about half of them could.
>
>> But while we are on the subject of lights - how about getting
>> rid of street and highway (UK Motorway) lights? Street lighting
>> in mainland Europe, especially wealthy Germany, is minimal,
>> the argument being that cars have their own built-in lights and
>> that way they can keep taxes lower. In Britain, government and
>> local authorities continually pester us to switch to energy saving
>> fluorescent lightbulbs to help reduce our individual carbon
>> footprints (CF) yet our streets and motorways are lit up like it's
>> carnival time.
>
> I thought anti-car types liked street lighting and the such? FWIW I
> agree with you, the constant lights make living in the city very
> annoying. You can't get true sleep when lights are constantly on. Many
> streetlights should be turned off.
>
>> > You're whining. Ride a bike, while most distances are beyond walking
>> > distances, they are NOT beyond biking distances.
>>
>> No. Bikes I do not agree with. Individually a bike has a zero carbon
>> footprint, but their presense on the road increases the CF of all the
>> traffic around them, due to them having to slow down, manoever,
>> shift to pass them or wait in low gear for an opportunity to pass.
>
> Well I think that's the idea for bike lanes. Incidentally, this is why
> if I'm for any sort of public transportation, I would only before
> elevated rail/monorail. Busses and "light rail/trams" do nothing but
> serve to slow cars down and create more pollution.

If all the people on public transportation were instead in individual
vehicles, wouldn't that slow traffic down even more?

[rotten]

On Aug 2, 5:53 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> > Well I think that's the idea for bike lanes. Incidentally, this is why
> > if I'm for any sort of public transportation, I would only before
> > elevated rail/monorail. Busses and "light rail/trams" do nothing but
> > serve to slow cars down and create more pollution.
>
> If all the people on public transportation were instead in individual
> vehicles, wouldn't that slow traffic down even more?

True, but elevate rail/monorail truly takes people off the road.

[Rich]

Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message

[...]

>>> so, if you're using 1/18 of a gallon to go each mile when only 1/35 is
>>> necessary (or probably less), then you're using roughly double what is
>>> necessary, and thus wasting half of what you ise.
>> Assuming that those sardine cans on wheels in Europe would do the job.
>> They would not haul my family, so they would not fit my needs. My 1994
>> Honda Accord gets about 30 mpg fully loaded, which ain't too bad.
>
> Which is better than most US cars.

There's a wide variation in what Americans drive. Probably wider than
in Europe.

>> [...]
>>
>>>>>> And why is it that reasons don't count?
>>>>> Because they all boil down to we can't be bothered to even see the
>>>>> problem (as you exemplify), much less fix it.
>>>> How do you plan to shrink America to reduce driving and distances?
>>> It's not s shrinking thing. Let me give you an example. The bank I used
>>> to go to was about a block north of the grocery store that is closest to
>>> my house. Both are on a major north-south artery. So, if I want to go
>>> by the bank to get money to spend at the store, I need to leave the
>>> south-bound lane of the highway and cross the north-bound lane of the
>>> highway (average idle time in the median, five minutes). Then I get into
>>> the parking lot, get out of my car, go into the bank, get the money, go
>>> back out to the car, get in, cross the median again (5 more minutes at
>>> idle), drive a block South, and drive into the grocery store parking lot.
>>> There are large deep ditches between the two businesses, making walking
>>> impossible, even if the traffic and lack of sidewalks didn't make it
>>> impractical. If walking were possible, it would take less time than the
>>> time spent just crossing the median ONCE.
>> So do cars traveling south have this problem?
>
> Obviously. Cars leaving the South-bound lane and crossing the North-bound
> lane ARE travelling South. If you're asking about cars travelling North,
> they have the same problem + 1/2, if they want to visit the bank before the
> store. If they want to visit the store before the bank, then they "only"
> have to merge out into traffic after leaving the store, drive the one block
> which is impossible to walk, enter the bank parking lot, do their banking,
> get back into the car, leave the parking lot, cross the median, and head
> back South.

Is this a highway, freeway, or what?

CA road design is set up with the idea that you should have to do as many
U-turns as is physically possible, and to make it interesting they forbit
U-Turns on a semi-random basis and freeway entrances can be either on
the right or the left. I missed one a bit ago and had to drive over a mile
to find an intersection that allowed U-turns.

I think most road design is done after wild parties. That would explain
a lot. :-)

>>> This type of completely idiotic design is repeated over and over when you
>>> start to look around you.
>> Everything should be planned for your convenience I agree, not matter
>> how much anyone else is inconvenienced.
>
> Everyone is inconvenienced by that. Just ask the employees of the bank.

Then either the bank is poorly located, or the location changed after the
bank was there. Many businesses are poorly located BTW. I guess it's a
matter of cost on their side.

>> This particular example does not, in my eyes, make any point worth making.
>
> Of course not. If you don't want to see the problem, there is no way to
> induce you to see it.

Your illustration is not clear. I see what you wrote, not what you mean.

> You are completely unwilling to grasp how this flawed
> design results in additional gas consumption for everyone.

You are completely unwilling to make yourself clear.

And even so, you have one unclear example. It's hardly a condemnation of
everything American, although few need more.

>>> This is plain and simple waste built into how we construct our
>>> environment.
>> No matter how you place things, people traveling the other way are gonna
>> have to drive or travel extra distance.
>
> You apparently have missed the point that if you made it possible to walk or
> even connected the parking lots, it would *not* be necessary to drive the
> extra distance.

My point stands. That you can't see it is sad, but what can I do?

And why is it impossible to walk the distance?

And why is it necessary to shop at that store? In many cases optimizing
routes leads one to shop at someplace farther than one would normally
drive, but en-route for a combined trip.

>> But I have a solution for you, ATM or check. No trip to the bank
>> necessary.
>> Or were you looking for solutions?

No response. You are not looking for solutions.

[...]

>>>> When I drive to work, or to the store to get groceries, how am I
>>>> 'consuming, spending, or expending thoughtlessly or carelessly'?
>>> See above. It's not just your solitary action.
>> It's the sum of solitary actions, doing things necessary for survival.
>> You have not shown the waste, or are you one of those eugenicists who
>> thinks that survival is the problem and a few billion deaths desirable?
>
> Certainly I have.

You've implied a waste, but it's based upon broad generalizations and
your low opinion of Americans, not objective and checkable facts.

> It is not my fault that you're actually not too stupid to
> see the point,

Bravo, bravo.

> but that you see the point and then turn your head away.

I see your opinion, you've not substantiated anything as fact.

> Those solitary actions are made necessary because people have not spoken up
> to request another way of laying out the environment.

Spoken up to whom? Are you under the impression that the government listens
to the people?

> I'm not sure where
> your whole eugenics thing came from. I'm simply requesting a bit more
> thought in how things are laid out.

When things are built slowly over time, under many different conditions,
what you consider obvious today was never obvious or a factor 50 years
ago when that part of the road was build.

>>> It's the way your environment conspires to force you to have to drive
>>> when perhaps you could walk.
>> That's the problem with these clustered businesses you tout, they are
>> all mostly remote from population centers. And if they were not
>> remote, you'd have heavy trucking through the residential sections,
>> with all the particulate pollution and other issues.
>
> Yes, they are. Because no one thought about things when they were laid out.

You've not addressed my objection or presented any solutions here, all
you've got is vague complaints based, apparently, on your insurmountable
problems with the bank.

> The pollution is going to happen anyway, but less if there is not such a
> long drive to get to things.

What do you consider a long drive? Let's see, it may be 2 or 3 miles to
the nearest Raileys, but we go to the corner store when possible, they
are more expensive and the produce ain't so good, so this is not the
best option much of the time.

>>> It's also the fact that you may well be driving something that uses more
>>> fuel than you need to do it.
>> Or not. Your assumptions prove only that you are good at making
>> assumptions, or is that assertions?
>
> I said "may well." I didn't say "is".

Assumptions it is.

> You are arguing in favor of the "typical" American way of doing things,

I'm pointing out that there is little choice in the matter.

> so apparently you see that as an ok
> way of doing things, even if you do not in this instance engage in it
> yourself.

What would you force Americans to do?

>>>>>>> Because gas is cheap (compared with Europe)
>>>>>> You greenies are the most unlikely shills for big oil.
>>>>> The pre-tax price of gas in the UK, at least, is lower than here. I
>>>>> suspect similar is true for Europe as a whole.
>>>> American oil companies are making record windfall profits.
>>> So who are the shills, exactly?
>> You environmentalists who get all glassy-eyed at the thought of
>> $10/gal gas.
>
> That doesn't even make any sense.

That you don't understand it is not the same as it not making sense.
Many greens *want* $10/gal gas because it will reduce that ikky
driving. Al Gore's not gonna be inconvenienced, but will you?

>>>> And a large part of the price of every gallon bought in the US
>>>> is state and federal taxes.
>>> But not as large as in Europe.
>> You got any numbers?
>
> http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/internationalprices.htm

I'll check it later.

[...]

>>> It's all right, you're allowed to stay ignorant if you want.
>> This from the woman who can't figure out to use an ATM or write a check
>> to avoid that little extra trip to the bank? You ain't a genius Amy,
>> you're more like a parrot.
>
> For one thing, it was an example. You may or may not be familiar with the
> concept. Obviously (to me at least) when I was using that bank I also had
> other things I needed to do like make deposits.

Every day? Every time you went grocery shopping?

> For another thing, if I
> want to go to the bank to get money before shopping, I should be able to do
> that without such a torturous route.

It would be preferable yes, but you have other payment options and you
refuse to even address that issue.

> Both the bank and the store have been
> in those locations for at least 10 years, before every grocery store had an
> atm at the checkout.

So you don't have a *need* to go to the bank first? FYI, there's also
direct deposit that will reduce your need to go to the bank to cash checks.

>>>>>> And again, where is the waste?
>>>>> If you are forced to get into the car and drive a block to accomplish
>>>>> something you could do by walking that block, the waste of time and gas
>>>>> is colossal (hint: you still do the same amount of walking to and from
>>>>> parking lots, but you have to drive in between).
>>>> Colossal?
>>> Yes, when you have to repeat it over and over daily it is colossal.
>> If you have to do anything over and over again on a daily basis, you can't
>> plan your way outta a paper bag. This is another idiotic argument.
>
> But you apparently can't see that I am not talking about that one place.

That's all you've talked about so far Amy. I refuse to believe that every
establishment where you live is situated the same as your bank and grocery
store. That would be physically impossible.

> I am talking about every place, because most places are equally poorly
> designed.

Can you show that this is more than just your opinion?

> And I am not talking about just me, but about the bank employees,
> who may want to shop after work, and everyone else who has to contend with
> these small madnesses everywhere.

I imagine that you have similar issues no matter where you live.

>>> We budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit 4-5
>>> parking lots to accmplish what needs to get done.
>> Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.
>
> The mall is another 15 miles away, idiot. Plus there is no grocery store at
> the mall.

So there's exactly one grocery store where you live? Must be a crowded
place to shop.

>>>> And WRT time, it takes more time to walk.
>>> In a typical American environment, you are quite right.
>> In any environment. You walk much much slower than you drive.
>
> You don't have to park when you walk,

Typically you need to park after getting where you walk, like at your
bank (theoretically).

> nor do you get stuck in traffic.

You never shopped at Costco.

> Come on, I know you're not as stupid as you preted.

Awwww.

[...]

>>>>>> But you've failed again to show any waste.
>>>>> Nearly all of the population has built in transportation equipment
>>>>> called feet. To have to use gas when feet could accomplish the goal in
>>>>> the same or less time is wasteful. How is this not obvious?
>>>>> ...
>>>> But you've already pointed out that feet are rarely adequate due to the
>>>> distance between things in America. Where I used to live I could walk
>>>> to the local grocery store and often did, depending on what I needed.
>>>> When stocks were low and I needed lots, I would drive. It's all a
>>>> matter of circumstance.
>>> No, due to the design and layout of things here in America. The two are
>>> quite different, as you apparently know, since you have lived where it
>>> was sometimes easier for you to walk to the grocery store.
>> I lived close to the store at that point. I don't now. It was a matter of
>> my location, not the stores.
>
> And that was your choice, and it had consequences.

Sometimes you have choices like these, sometimes you do not. A few years
back housing was impossible to find in the bay area, if you found anything,
you took it.

>>>> When it's necessary to drive, and you drive, it ain't a waste. That
>>>> things could be better planned (WRT transportation) is nether here nor
>>>> there as things are not better planned WRT transportation.
>>> Sure. Just accept that crap planning is inevitable and live your life
>>> fat, dumb, and happy.
>> Says Amy, who can't plan her way around the simple obstacles life plants
>> in everyone's path.
>
> That's the point. Life does not plant them in everyone's path. The built
> environment does not just "come to be."

I disagree, such environments are built slowly by different people with
different ideas over decades of time, or longer, sometimes much longer
(they still use the Roman roads).

> Someone had to make decisions that affect the layout.

There was nothing *to* layout when they built, they just bought the
land and built the store.

> Good decisions can be made as easily as poor ones,

I don't think so, short of having a working crystal ball.

> but we are not in the habit of making good decisions.

Speak for yourself Kimosabe.

>>>> Europe is
>>>> small and everything is close(r) together. Also most of the town
>>>> layouts are from when the area was agrarian years ago. This is a matter
>>>> of history, not planning.
>>> Sure, no one ever planned any city in Europe :-).
>> They did have the opportunity to do so in many cases after WW2. So which
>> American cities do you want to bomb into rubble?
>
> The idea is that as we build new construction to plan _that_ better.

Given the way things are spread out now, I question what can be done.

But I agree in principle.

>>> And the fact that what we do without planning here has such dire
>>> consequences in terms of fuel and time efficiency shouldn't induce us to
>>> ever want anything different.
>> Texas is as large as most of Europe all by itself. You can't make things
>> closer together like they are in Europe.
>>
>>> God has obviously spoken, and sprawl is our manifest destiny.
>> I guess you should know.
>
> I do know sarcasm when I use it.

Emotions are not transmitted in text, that's why god created emoticons. :-)

> Apparently it was too subtle for you.

Cheers,

Rich

[Amy Blankenship]

"Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
news:s-***@comcast.com...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
>>>> so, if you're using 1/18 of a gallon to go each mile when only 1/35 is
>>>> necessary (or probably less), then you're using roughly double what is
>>>> necessary, and thus wasting half of what you ise.
>>> Assuming that those sardine cans on wheels in Europe would do the job.
>>> They would not haul my family, so they would not fit my needs. My 1994
>>> Honda Accord gets about 30 mpg fully loaded, which ain't too bad.
>>
>> Which is better than most US cars.
>
> There's a wide variation in what Americans drive. Probably wider than
> in Europe.

That's true. I've never seen a Hummer in Europe, and few trucks and SUV's
:-)

>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> And why is it that reasons don't count?
>>>>>> Because they all boil down to we can't be bothered to even see the
>>>>>> problem (as you exemplify), much less fix it.
>>>>> How do you plan to shrink America to reduce driving and distances?
>>>> It's not s shrinking thing. Let me give you an example. The bank I
>>>> used to go to was about a block north of the grocery store that is
>>>> closest to my house. Both are on a major north-south artery. So, if I
>>>> want to go by the bank to get money to spend at the store, I need to
>>>> leave the south-bound lane of the highway and cross the north-bound
>>>> lane of the highway (average idle time in the median, five minutes).
>>>> Then I get into the parking lot, get out of my car, go into the bank,
>>>> get the money, go back out to the car, get in, cross the median again
>>>> (5 more minutes at idle), drive a block South, and drive into the
>>>> grocery store parking lot. There are large deep ditches between the two
>>>> businesses, making walking impossible, even if the traffic and lack of
>>>> sidewalks didn't make it impractical. If walking were possible, it
>>>> would take less time than the time spent just crossing the median ONCE.
>>> So do cars traveling south have this problem?
>>
>> Obviously. Cars leaving the South-bound lane and crossing the
>> North-bound lane ARE travelling South. If you're asking about cars
>> travelling North, they have the same problem + 1/2, if they want to visit
>> the bank before the store. If they want to visit the store before the
>> bank, then they "only" have to merge out into traffic after leaving the
>> store, drive the one block which is impossible to walk, enter the bank
>> parking lot, do their banking, get back into the car, leave the parking
>> lot, cross the median, and head back South.
>
> Is this a highway, freeway, or what?

It is a US Highway.

> CA road design is set up with the idea that you should have to do as many
> U-turns as is physically possible, and to make it interesting they forbit
> U-Turns on a semi-random basis and freeway entrances can be either on
> the right or the left. I missed one a bit ago and had to drive over a mile
> to find an intersection that allowed U-turns.
>
> I think most road design is done after wild parties. That would explain
> a lot. :-)

So you _do_ see a problem here, and one that wastes gas...

>>>> This type of completely idiotic design is repeated over and over when
>>>> you start to look around you.
>>> Everything should be planned for your convenience I agree, not matter
>>> how much anyone else is inconvenienced.
>>
>> Everyone is inconvenienced by that. Just ask the employees of the bank.
>
> Then either the bank is poorly located, or the location changed after the
> bank was there. Many businesses are poorly located BTW. I guess it's a
> matter of cost on their side.

Actually, both the bank and the store are in good locations. The problem is
that at some point I think one of the businesses in between decided that too
much use was being made of their parking lot for through traffic, and there
is no back street running behind. If the bank, the store, and other
businesses who would benefit from it thought to pay a small maintenance fee
to that business to open the way back up, that would help a lot. I have no
idea if that has been tried, but it seems like it might work to me.

>>> This particular example does not, in my eyes, make any point worth
>>> making.
>>
>> Of course not. If you don't want to see the problem, there is no way to
>> induce you to see it.
>
> Your illustration is not clear. I see what you wrote, not what you mean.

The point is that you have to cross highway traffic twice in your car to
travel a block because the way things are laid out makes it impossible to go
in your car directly between the two businesses and the traffic situation
and physical design make walking impractical. It is possible for the truly
suicidal, but if you wind up in the hospital you don't save any time. So
you are spending extra time and gas because of poor layout.

>> You are completely unwilling to grasp how this flawed design results in
>> additional gas consumption for everyone.
>
> You are completely unwilling to make yourself clear.
>
> And even so, you have one unclear example. It's hardly a condemnation of
> everything American, although few need more.

It's everywhere, as you yourself pointed out. You have to go a mile out of
your way, sometimes, to even get your car headed in the right direction to
reach your destination.

>>>> This is plain and simple waste built into how we construct our
>>>> environment.
>>> No matter how you place things, people traveling the other way are gonna
>>> have to drive or travel extra distance.
>>
>> You apparently have missed the point that if you made it possible to walk
>> or even connected the parking lots, it would *not* be necessary to drive
>> the extra distance.
>
> My point stands. That you can't see it is sad, but what can I do?

Apparently nothing, because you _do_ see my point.

> And why is it impossible to walk the distance?
>
> And why is it necessary to shop at that store? In many cases optimizing
> routes leads one to shop at someplace farther than one would normally
> drive, but en-route for a combined trip.

I live in the country outside of town. The further into town I get, the
worse the congestion is. So, if I can shop closer to home I do. In the
end, I changed banks.

>>> But I have a solution for you, ATM or check. No trip to the bank
>>> necessary.
>>> Or were you looking for solutions?
>
> No response. You are not looking for solutions.

The solution was not relevant to the example, since the poor design would
still exist, regardless of using a different means to get money.

> [...]
>
>>>>> When I drive to work, or to the store to get groceries, how am I
>>>>> 'consuming, spending, or expending thoughtlessly or carelessly'?
>>>> See above. It's not just your solitary action.
>>> It's the sum of solitary actions, doing things necessary for survival.
>>> You have not shown the waste, or are you one of those eugenicists who
>>> thinks that survival is the problem and a few billion deaths desirable?
>>
>> Certainly I have.
>
> You've implied a waste, but it's based upon broad generalizations and
> your low opinion of Americans, not objective and checkable facts.
>
>> It is not my fault that you're actually not too stupid to see the point,
>
> Bravo, bravo.
>
>> but that you see the point and then turn your head away.
>
> I see your opinion, you've not substantiated anything as fact.

Except that you share the opinion, just on a different facet of the problem.

>> Those solitary actions are made necessary because people have not spoken
>> up to request another way of laying out the environment.
>
> Spoken up to whom? Are you under the impression that the government
> listens
> to the people?

Certainly one body you can speak to is government, and sometimes they do
listen, if they can get brownie points for doing so. You can also speak to
developers and speak up on forums like this. Every person who believes that
bad environments are not inevitable turns the tide a little more.

>> I'm not sure where your whole eugenics thing came from. I'm simply
>> requesting a bit more thought in how things are laid out.
>
> When things are built slowly over time, under many different conditions,
> what you consider obvious today was never obvious or a factor 50 years
> ago when that part of the road was build.

OK, but things are being built now, today. Why repeat the mistakes? When
things are maintained, why not put in small fixes that make things easier
and nicer?

>>>> It's the way your environment conspires to force you to have to drive
>>>> when perhaps you could walk.
>>> That's the problem with these clustered businesses you tout, they are
>>> all mostly remote from population centers. And if they were not
>>> remote, you'd have heavy trucking through the residential sections,
>>> with all the particulate pollution and other issues.
>>
>> Yes, they are. Because no one thought about things when they were laid
>> out.
>
> You've not addressed my objection or presented any solutions here, all
> you've got is vague complaints based, apparently, on your insurmountable
> problems with the bank.

The OP was not asking for solutions, since for him/her our status quo in the
US is an aberration. We can cooperate with each other when things are
built. How many times have you seen two businesses right up next to each
other whose parking lots would be contiguous but for a narrow strip of grass
with a curb around it? Better still, we can build in clusters so that the
car gets you to (many) shops, but you walk among them. In the Bay area, you
have this already, but the rest of us are not so lucky.

>> The pollution is going to happen anyway, but less if there is not such a
>> long drive to get to things.
>
> What do you consider a long drive? Let's see, it may be 2 or 3 miles to
> the nearest Raileys, but we go to the corner store when possible, they
> are more expensive and the produce ain't so good, so this is not the
> best option much of the time.

You tell me. You're the one who didn't want to put businesses close to
residential. How close is close?

>>>> It's also the fact that you may well be driving something that uses
>>>> more fuel than you need to do it.
>>> Or not. Your assumptions prove only that you are good at making
>>> assumptions, or is that assertions?
>>
>> I said "may well." I didn't say "is".
>
> Assumptions it is.
>
>> You are arguing in favor of the "typical" American way of doing things,
>
> I'm pointing out that there is little choice in the matter.

You're pointing out that we all believe there is little choice in the
matter. Of course there is choice.

>> so apparently you see that as an ok way of doing things, even if you do
>> not in this instance engage in it yourself.
>
> What would you force Americans to do?

Why is it always about force? What about education, advocacy, cooperation?
Why do you have such a low opinion of your fellow citizens that you think
that they cannot do better without force?

>>>>>>>> Because gas is cheap (compared with Europe)
>>>>>>> You greenies are the most unlikely shills for big oil.
>>>>>> The pre-tax price of gas in the UK, at least, is lower than here. I
>>>>>> suspect similar is true for Europe as a whole.
>>>>> American oil companies are making record windfall profits.
>>>> So who are the shills, exactly?
>>> You environmentalists who get all glassy-eyed at the thought of
>>> $10/gal gas.
>>
>> That doesn't even make any sense.
>
> That you don't understand it is not the same as it not making sense.
> Many greens *want* $10/gal gas because it will reduce that ikky
> driving. Al Gore's not gonna be inconvenienced, but will you?

I don't believe this. As it stands now, the vast majority of Americans have
no choice but to drive. If you took all cars away tomorrow, a significant
portion of the population would starve. That being said, high gas prices
might force people (a la your comment above) to rethink design of their
environment so that as new things are developed, less driving would be a
viable option. I certainly think that designing with the possibility in
mind that people could drive less is wise, given that it would be cost
prohibitive to rip down all the inefficient stuff that exists now when gas
prices do rise like that. Therefore, if we do not want to stick future
people (ourselves, our childre, or their children) with excessively high
cost to be able to do the things that are necessary (like buying food), we
would do well to at least make the attempt to build more efficient
developments now.

>>>>> And a large part of the price of every gallon bought in the US
>>>>> is state and federal taxes.
>>>> But not as large as in Europe.
>>> You got any numbers?
>>
>> http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/internationalprices.htm
>
> I'll check it later.
>
> [...]
>
>>>> It's all right, you're allowed to stay ignorant if you want.
>>> This from the woman who can't figure out to use an ATM or write a check
>>> to avoid that little extra trip to the bank? You ain't a genius Amy,
>>> you're more like a parrot.
>>
>> For one thing, it was an example. You may or may not be familiar with
>> the concept. Obviously (to me at least) when I was using that bank I
>> also had other things I needed to do like make deposits.
>
> Every day? Every time you went grocery shopping?

Once in a while was plenty excruciating.

>> For another thing, if I want to go to the bank to get money before
>> shopping, I should be able to do that without such a torturous route.
>
> It would be preferable yes, but you have other payment options and you
> refuse to even address that issue.

Because it is not relevant to the example. The example concerns the
physical design, just like when you missed a U-turn and had to go a mile to
the next one. It could be argued that you should never have missed that
U-Turn, but once it had happened DID it have to be so torturous to fix your
error?

>> Both the bank and the store have been in those locations for at least 10
>> years, before every grocery store had an atm at the checkout.
>
> So you don't have a *need* to go to the bank first? FYI, there's also
> direct deposit that will reduce your need to go to the bank to cash
> checks.

I don't bank there anymore. But I also don't like reconciling innumerable
atm receipts fron different stores, so I *prefer* to get cash before
shopping. And I am self-employed, so direct deposit is not an option for
me. Not that ANY of this is at all relevant to the example.

>>>>>>> And again, where is the waste?
>>>>>> If you are forced to get into the car and drive a block to accomplish
>>>>>> something you could do by walking that block, the waste of time and
>>>>>> gas is colossal (hint: you still do the same amount of walking to and
>>>>>> from parking lots, but you have to drive in between).
>>>>> Colossal?
>>>> Yes, when you have to repeat it over and over daily it is colossal.
>>> If you have to do anything over and over again on a daily basis, you
>>> can't
>>> plan your way outta a paper bag. This is another idiotic argument.
>>
>> But you apparently can't see that I am not talking about that one place.
>
> That's all you've talked about so far Amy. I refuse to believe that every
> establishment where you live is situated the same as your bank and grocery
> store. That would be physically impossible.

Let me give you another example. We have a brand new strip mall like you'd
see anywhere in the country (Bed, Bath, and Beyond, Petsmart, Barnes &
Nobles, etc.). It has three widely spaced "strips" that are so positioned
that you can walk along each one, but to get from one to another you have to
drive. In this case, it is not physically impossible to walk, but the
spacing and placement are such that you'd waste a lot of time doing it
because your car would be at one side or the other, and you'd have to walk
literally an extra mile or more if you did so. So even though those
businesses are all sort of clustered, you STILL have to drive out of one
parking lot into another to visit multiple businesses. This is made worse
by the fact that there are restaurants and a cinema scattered randomly
around the edges of the development and none of them are in easy walking
distance of anything else there.

Simply by placing the strips differently they could have easily made it
possible to walk from one to another and had the same amount of retail space
and parking.

>> I am talking about every place, because most places are equally poorly
>> designed.
>
> Can you show that this is more than just your opinion?

Come to my town and look around. You're lucky that you're in an area that
is fairly well laid out, but I am not. If you were anywhere else I'd say
just open your eyes and look aorund.

>> And I am not talking about just me, but about the bank employees, who may
>> want to shop after work, and everyone else who has to contend with these
>> small madnesses everywhere.
>
> I imagine that you have similar issues no matter where you live.

I don't see the same issues when I go other places, no. Copenhagen is very
efficient. Edinburgh as well. San Jose is very well done (at least in the
part I visited, near the Adobe building).

>>>> We budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit 4-5
>>>> parking lots to accmplish what needs to get done.
>>> Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.
>>
>> The mall is another 15 miles away, idiot. Plus there is no grocery store
>> at the mall.
>
> So there's exactly one grocery store where you live? Must be a crowded
> place to shop.

I am not sure what in my statement led you to that conclusion.

>>>>> And WRT time, it takes more time to walk.
>>>> In a typical American environment, you are quite right.
>>> In any environment. You walk much much slower than you drive.
>>
>> You don't have to park when you walk,
>
> Typically you need to park after getting where you walk, like at your
> bank (theoretically).

And you wouldn't have to do that if you'd driven there?

>> nor do you get stuck in traffic.
>
> You never shopped at Costco.

Again, this is the same no matter how you arrived.

>> Come on, I know you're not as stupid as you preted.
>
> Awwww.
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>>> But you've failed again to show any waste.
>>>>>> Nearly all of the population has built in transportation equipment
>>>>>> called feet. To have to use gas when feet could accomplish the goal
>>>>>> in the same or less time is wasteful. How is this not obvious?
>>>>>> ...
>>>>> But you've already pointed out that feet are rarely adequate due to
>>>>> the
>>>>> distance between things in America. Where I used to live I could walk
>>>>> to the local grocery store and often did, depending on what I needed.
>>>>> When stocks were low and I needed lots, I would drive. It's all a
>>>>> matter of circumstance.
>>>> No, due to the design and layout of things here in America. The two
>>>> are quite different, as you apparently know, since you have lived where
>>>> it was sometimes easier for you to walk to the grocery store.
>>> I lived close to the store at that point. I don't now. It was a matter
>>> of
>>> my location, not the stores.
>>
>> And that was your choice, and it had consequences.
>
> Sometimes you have choices like these, sometimes you do not. A few years
> back housing was impossible to find in the bay area, if you found
> anything,
> you took it.

There is a reason I don't live there :-)

>>>>> When it's necessary to drive, and you drive, it ain't a waste. That
>>>>> things could be better planned (WRT transportation) is nether here nor
>>>>> there as things are not better planned WRT transportation.
>>>> Sure. Just accept that crap planning is inevitable and live your life
>>>> fat, dumb, and happy.
>>> Says Amy, who can't plan her way around the simple obstacles life plants
>>> in everyone's path.
>>
>> That's the point. Life does not plant them in everyone's path. The
>> built environment does not just "come to be."
>
> I disagree, such environments are built slowly by different people with
> different ideas over decades of time, or longer, sometimes much longer
> (they still use the Roman roads).

So we don't need to bother to ask them to exert any thought, even though
their decisions will affect us.

>> Someone had to make decisions that affect the layout.
>
> There was nothing *to* layout when they built, they just bought the
> land and built the store.

So they did this totally without blueprints or even an idea of what the
finished building should look like, just started nailing stuff together?

>> Good decisions can be made as easily as poor ones,
>
> I don't think so, short of having a working crystal ball.

At least we should try.

>> but we are not in the habit of making good decisions.
>
> Speak for yourself Kimosabe.
>
>>>>> Europe is
>>>>> small and everything is close(r) together. Also most of the town
>>>>> layouts are from when the area was agrarian years ago. This is a
>>>>> matter
>>>>> of history, not planning.
>>>> Sure, no one ever planned any city in Europe :-).
>>> They did have the opportunity to do so in many cases after WW2. So which
>>> American cities do you want to bomb into rubble?
>>
>> The idea is that as we build new construction to plan _that_ better.
>
> Given the way things are spread out now, I question what can be done.
>
> But I agree in principle.

Given where you are, you may be right. But vast swaths of the country are
not as built up as San Francisco.

>>>> And the fact that what we do without planning here has such dire
>>>> consequences in terms of fuel and time efficiency shouldn't induce us
>>>> to ever want anything different.
>>> Texas is as large as most of Europe all by itself. You can't make things
>>> closer together like they are in Europe.
>>>
>>>> God has obviously spoken, and sprawl is our manifest destiny.
>>> I guess you should know.
>>
>> I do know sarcasm when I use it.
>
> Emotions are not transmitted in text, that's why god created emoticons.
> :-)

It was deadpan ;-). I just get so sick of people saying we can't do
anything to change this, that whatever developers choose to throw up is OK
even though it will be here for generations, like they really do feel that
to try to change things is somehow going against some divine force that's
just steamrollering right over us.

-Amy

[Joe the Aroma]

"altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:5S_qi.5291$***@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>
>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>
> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.

Fine, I think he's a self righteous asshole.

>>> In America, the attitude is NO limits to "human potential" and
>>> whatever physical aspects of consumption go with it. A sense of
>>> endless entitlement to natural resources is gluttony by any other
>>> name. People had more restraint in the old days before oil created the
>>> illusion of infinite wealth. Don't tell a modern individual that their
>>> quest for no boundaries is excess, not progress. They'll invoke the
>>> Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" or any distraction from physical
>>> reality.
>>
>> What "physical reality"? It's called economics, the rational division of
>> resources. The public demands low gas prices, and politicians give them
>> what they want. When oil companies try raising the price, Congress hauls
>> them in to testify. What do you want? It's a democracy.
>
> Of course it is "economics". But what you describe, eg giving in to
> demands for cheap oil, is the antithesis of economy. It is wasteful,
> it sets a bad example to developing capitalist markets, like China,
> and it is likely to alienate friends, like Europe.

Well, that's your opinion and who cares if it alienates Europe? People have
the right to resources if they can afford them, they also have the right to
conserve resources.

>>> Growth-addicts don't respect limits to economic growth (aka population
>>> growth), urban sprawl boundaries, speed limits, limits to the taking
>>> of water, limits on the amount of trees that can be cut, limits on the
>>> number of fish being caught, limits on potential income, and so on.
>>> "Everyone can be a millionaire," they tell us. But who would grow the
>>> food and haul the trash?
>>
>> It't called economics.
>
> You clearly haven't read one word of Enough's paragraph above
> else you would realise that he is talking about economics. It is
> also undeniably true that there are physical limits on how far
> economies can grow. Do you have any counter argument, or
> are you just going to keep on parroting "economics"?

What do you mean on how far economies can grow? I mean physically, we can
get a lot of our resources from space and continue to grow there. Is there
any limit to efficiency and technology? Maybe asymptotically speaking, but
not practically. Meaning that we'll probably never reach our true limit for
innovation or efficiency.

>>> Nearly two decades ago, steady-state economist Herman Daly wrote an
>>> article, "Boundless Bull," which nails the difference between the real
>>> world and a psychological construct of no limits.
>>>
>>> http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew910508
>>>
>>> [quote] "To grow" means to increase in size by the accretion or
>>> assimilation of material. "Growth" therefore means a quantitative
>>> increase in the scale of the physical dimensions of the economy. "To
>>> develop" means to expand or realize the potentialities of; to bring
>>> gradually to a fuller, greater or better state. "Development"
>>> therefore means the qualitative improvement in the structure, design
>>> and composition of the physical stocks of wealth that results from
>>> greater knowledge, both of technique and of purpose. A growing economy
>>> is getting bigger; a developing economy is getting better. [end quote]
>>>
>>>
>>> American is still stuck in frontier mode, having vanquished most of
>>> them. Old Europe, which has realized limits to growth, is taking a
>>> much wiser approach these days. Must America become as crowded as
>>> Europe before the brakes are applied? Who really thinks that growth-as-
>>> usual with NO limits is compatible with protecting the environment or
>>> halting global warming? It doesn't appear that sustainability is the
>>> goal of most Americans. It's more like get while the getting's good
>>> and to hell with the rest.
>>
>> You have to balance planning for the future with living for the moment.
>> There's a chance you may not even see the future. Americans have chosen
>> their lifestyle and Europe has chosen there's.
>
> You think lifestyles cannot be altered? Are you unable to adapt,
> or just unwilling?

My lifestyle is very "eco friendly". I live in perhaps the densist city in
the US. But I also believe in the freedom to choose for yourself the way you
want to live. But I'm against forcing anyone to adopt to a lifestyle they do
not wish to live.

>> ... Incidentally, judging by import export/patterns, it appears that "Old
>> Europe" is perfectly willing to give it's resources away to us for the
>> cheap.
>
> Oh! this is interesting; do tell us why.


Well they certainly export a lot to us, including natural resources.

[altheim]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> "altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>
>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>
>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>
> Fine, I think he's a self righteous asshole.
>
>>>> In America, the attitude is NO limits to "human potential" and
>>>> whatever physical aspects of consumption go with it. A sense of
>>>> endless entitlement to natural resources is gluttony by any other
>>>> name. People had more restraint in the old days before oil created the
>>>> illusion of infinite wealth. Don't tell a modern individual that their
>>>> quest for no boundaries is excess, not progress. They'll invoke the
>>>> Constitution's "pursuit of happiness" or any distraction from physical
>>>> reality.
>>>
>>> What "physical reality"? It's called economics, the rational division of
>>> resources. The public demands low gas prices, and politicians give them
>>> what they want. When oil companies try raising the price, Congress hauls
>>> them in to testify. What do you want? It's a democracy.
>>
>> Of course it is "economics". But what you describe, eg giving in to
>> demands for cheap oil, is the antithesis of economy. It is wasteful,
>> it sets a bad example to developing capitalist markets, like China,
>> and it is likely to alienate friends, like Europe.
>
> Well, that's your opinion and who cares if it alienates Europe?

Sure it is my opinion, and it is quickly becoming the opinion
of many Europeans. You should care about alienating Europe.

> ... People have the right to resources if they can afford them, they also
> have the right to conserve resources.

You do not have an automatic right to waste them if such
waste impacts on the rest of the world.

>>>> Growth-addicts don't respect limits to economic growth (aka population
>>>> growth), urban sprawl boundaries, speed limits, limits to the taking
>>>> of water, limits on the amount of trees that can be cut, limits on the
>>>> number of fish being caught, limits on potential income, and so on.
>>>> "Everyone can be a millionaire," they tell us. But who would grow the
>>>> food and haul the trash?
>>>
>>> It't called economics.
>>
>> You clearly haven't read one word of Enough's paragraph above
>> else you would realise that he is talking about economics. It is
>> also undeniably true that there are physical limits on how far
>> economies can grow. Do you have any counter argument, or
>> are you just going to keep on parroting "economics"?
>
> What do you mean on how far economies can grow? I mean physically, we can
> get a lot of our resources from space and continue to grow there. Is there
> any limit to efficiency and technology? Maybe asymptotically speaking, but
> not practically. Meaning that we'll probably never reach our true limit
> for innovation or efficiency.

There's a book by Australian author Damien Broderick
called "The Spike" which describes possible outcomes
of several technologies and where we might be in say
20 or 30 years time. According to him, there has to be
a limit (the spike) beyond which humanity can no longer
exist. You need to read it to get the point (if you'll excuse
the pun) but it seems to me that it's very point is relevant
to everything, including economies.

>>>> Nearly two decades ago, steady-state economist Herman Daly wrote an
>>>> article, "Boundless Bull," which nails the difference between the real
>>>> world and a psychological construct of no limits.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/eco-watch/ew910508
>>>>
>>>> [quote] "To grow" means to increase in size by the accretion or
>>>> assimilation of material. "Growth" therefore means a quantitative
>>>> increase in the scale of the physical dimensions of the economy. "To
>>>> develop" means to expand or realize the potentialities of; to bring
>>>> gradually to a fuller, greater or better state. "Development"
>>>> therefore means the qualitative improvement in the structure, design
>>>> and composition of the physical stocks of wealth that results from
>>>> greater knowledge, both of technique and of purpose. A growing economy
>>>> is getting bigger; a developing economy is getting better. [end quote]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> American is still stuck in frontier mode, having vanquished most of
>>>> them. Old Europe, which has realized limits to growth, is taking a
>>>> much wiser approach these days. Must America become as crowded as
>>>> Europe before the brakes are applied? Who really thinks that growth-as-
>>>> usual with NO limits is compatible with protecting the environment or
>>>> halting global warming? It doesn't appear that sustainability is the
>>>> goal of most Americans. It's more like get while the getting's good
>>>> and to hell with the rest.
>>>
>>> You have to balance planning for the future with living for the moment.
>>> There's a chance you may not even see the future. Americans have chosen
>>> their lifestyle and Europe has chosen there's.
>>
>> You think lifestyles cannot be altered? Are you unable to adapt,
>> or just unwilling?
>
> My lifestyle is very "eco friendly". I live in perhaps the densist city in
> the US. But I also believe in the freedom to choose for yourself the way
> you want to live. But I'm against forcing anyone to adopt to a lifestyle
> they do not wish to live.

Freedoms are not an automatic right when they affect others.

>>> ... Incidentally, judging by import export/patterns, it appears that
>>> "Old Europe" is perfectly willing to give it's resources away to us for
>>> the cheap.
>>
>> Oh! this is interesting; do tell us why.
>
>
> Well they certainly export a lot to us, including natural resources.

It's surely a two way trade? Anyway I doubt that we
"give stuff away".

--
altheim

[Joe the Aroma]

"altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:lb4ri.1384$***@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

> Sure it is my opinion, and it is quickly becoming the opinion
> of many Europeans. You should care about alienating Europe.

Why?

>> ... People have the right to resources if they can afford them, they also
>> have the right to conserve resources.
>
> You do not have an automatic right to waste them if such
> waste impacts on the rest of the world.

We do not waste them, they are used to extend our freedom and mobility.


> There's a book by Australian author Damien Broderick
> called "The Spike" which describes possible outcomes
> of several technologies and where we might be in say
> 20 or 30 years time. According to him, there has to be
> a limit (the spike) beyond which humanity can no longer
> exist. You need to read it to get the point (if you'll excuse
> the pun) but it seems to me that it's very point is relevant
> to everything, including economies.

There is a temporal time and place limit, in other words, there's a limit to
humanity at that time and place, within that technology. I'm sure there is
an absolute limit, but the universe is vast and never ending and reaching
that absolute limit is so absurd it's not even mentioned.


>> My lifestyle is very "eco friendly". I live in perhaps the densist city
>> in the US. But I also believe in the freedom to choose for yourself the
>> way you want to live. But I'm against forcing anyone to adopt to a
>> lifestyle they do not wish to live.
>
> Freedoms are not an automatic right when they affect others.

Nearly (and possibly all) freedoms affect others.

>>>> ... Incidentally, judging by import export/patterns, it appears that
>>>> "Old Europe" is perfectly willing to give it's resources away to us for
>>>> the cheap.
>>>
>>> Oh! this is interesting; do tell us why.
>>
>>
>> Well they certainly export a lot to us, including natural resources.
>
> It's surely a two way trade? Anyway I doubt that we
> "give stuff away".

Actually, we have a trade deficit with Europe, meaning it really isn't a two
way trade. Europe has no problem providing us with cars (for example) or
planes (Airbus) even though it will increase our (and yours to a less
extent) consumption of oil. It kind of makes you look like hypocrits.

I understand your concerns with the US's impact on the environment. I'm
agnostic when it comes to Global Warming but I will say that the US should

1) Stop subsidizing all forms of transportation and energy

2) Give tax breaks to companies and individuals who develop alternative
energy sources

3) Tax consumption instead of income

4) encourage nuclear power


Those 4 things should drastically lower the amount of pollution emitted in
the US without cutting back on the sprawling, automobile centric lifestyle
that so many here enjoy.

[George Conklin]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
>
> "altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:lb4ri.1384$***@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> > Sure it is my opinion, and it is quickly becoming the opinion
> > of many Europeans. You should care about alienating Europe.
>
> Why?
>
> >> ... People have the right to resources if they can afford them, they
also
> >> have the right to conserve resources.
> >
> > You do not have an automatic right to waste them if such
> > waste impacts on the rest of the world.
>
> We do not waste them, they are used to extend our freedom and mobility.


Please remember that freedom and mobility are what most urban planners hate.
They think we use our freedom to travel, which is wrong.

[(David P.)]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1) Stop subsidizing
> 2) Give tax breaks
> 3) Tax consumption
> 4) encourage nuclear

5) Death control -- stop suppressing influenza.
.
.
--

[Amy Blankenship]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
>
> "altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:5S_qi.5291$***@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>
>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>
>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>
> Fine, I think he's a self righteous asshole.

Someone says "prick" and you immediately make the word association
"asshole." Something you want to tell us? ;-)

[Joe the Aroma]

"Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:bw5ri.14012$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@comcast.com...
>>
>> "altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote in message
>> news:5S_qi.5291$***@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
>>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
>>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>>>
>>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>>
>>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>>
>> Fine, I think he's a self righteous asshole.
>
> Someone says "prick" and you immediately make the word association
> "asshole." Something you want to tell us? ;-)

Actually, you made that association didn't you?

[George Conklin]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <***@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:bw5ri.14012$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> "altheim" <***@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> >> news:5S_qi.5291$***@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> >>>
> >>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
> >>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
> >>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at
odds
> >>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
> >>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call
themselves
> >>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
> >>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
> >>>
> >>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
> >>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
> >>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
> >>
> >> Fine, I think he's a self righteous asshole.
> >
> > Someone says "prick" and you immediately make the word association
> > "asshole." Something you want to tell us? ;-)
>
> Actually, you made that association didn't you?
>
>

Those terms are associated with a vibrant downtown.

[Al Bedo]

altheim wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>
> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.

Ridiculous.

I guess the computer you're using is not a waste of the "earth's resources".

Developed economies around the world have quite similar rates of consumption.

As far as energy use, size and climate to change some patterns.

Size tends to increase transportation use and
continental climate tends to increase heating and cooling use.
Thus Australia, India, China, Russia, Canada and the US are
expectedly high energy users.

[altheim]

"Al Bedo" <***@dark.side.of.the.moon> wrote:
> altheim wrote:
>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>
>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> I guess the computer you're using is not a waste of the "earth's
> resources".
>
> Developed economies around the world have quite similar rates of
> consumption.

But the reasonable ones, and that is most of them,
recognise that there are limits to what they can go
on consuming and, most importantly, how much they
need to cut back in order to reduce their carbon
footprint.

> As far as energy use, size and climate to change some patterns.
>
> Size tends to increase transportation use and
> continental climate tends to increase heating and cooling use.
> Thus Australia, India, China, Russia, Canada and the US are
> expectedly high energy users.

--
altheim

[Amy Blankenship]

"Al Bedo" <***@dark.side.of.the.moon> wrote in message
news:46acad43$0$496$***@news.qwest.net...
> altheim wrote:
>> "Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Enough Already" <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
>>>> the way people actually live. Increasing talk of environmentally-
>>>> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
>>>> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
>>>> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
>>>> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
>>>> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.
>>> You're a smug, self righteous prick.
>>
>> Not at all, I think he is quite right. I have encountered exactly the
>> same indignant attitudes to my own claims that Americans selfishly
>> refuse to act on their waste earth's resources.
>
> Ridiculous.
>
> I guess the computer you're using is not a waste of the "earth's
> resources".
>
> Developed economies around the world have quite similar rates of
> consumption.
>
> As far as energy use, size and climate to change some patterns.
>
> Size tends to increase transportation use and
> continental climate tends to increase heating and cooling use.
> Thus Australia, India, China, Russia, Canada and the US are
> expectedly high energy users.

Size has so far increased those things. At one time, it was normal for
people to live in caves. At some point, people said "we could probably do
something different." The way things have always been does not mean that we
are capable of nothing else.

[(David P.)]

"Joe the Aroma" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's called economics, the rational division of resources.
> The public demands low gas prices, and politicians give
> them what they want. When oil companies try raising the
> price, Congress hauls them in to testify. What do you want?
> It's a democracy.

But future generations can't vote or speak up for
themselves, so it's easy to walk all over 'em!


> You have to balance planning for the future with
> living for the moment.

Here's the plan for the future:
"They'll put 'em _somewhere_!"
"They'll think of _something_!"
.
.
--

[mrbawana2u]

On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:

> There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
> the way people actually live.

Tell it to Algore, moron.


> Increasing talk of environmentally-
> friendly products, treading lightly and lifestyle-restraint is at odds
> with reality (average thinking reality, that is). Many people are
> offended by the idea of cutting back on anything. They call themselves
> "conservatives," meaning they want to conserve something but it sure
> isn't resources. They are conserving the right to stay ignorant.

As judged by you...a left-wing-tard death-cultist?


[anti-human turds snipped]

[George Conklin]

"mrbawana2u" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Enough Already <***@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > There's a big disconnect between numerous conservation messages and
> > the way people actually live.
>
> Tell it to Algore, moron.
>

Al Gore's house uses 10 times the average amount of electricity. YOU are
supposed to use less so Al Gore can use MORE. That is how you can get to be
carbon neutral.