Population vs Mismanagement continued...

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Yorick: I disagree with this on Canadas existence alone. Canada is larger and with only 30 million people next to the USA's 250? million plus.

This quote was not intended to explain a difference in population, merely an explanation of why we have so much sprawl, which you will also notice in Canada!

------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Yorick: More areas of land left for food and restoration to original habitat. (I can't wait for us to run out of oil, and have to rely on solar and wind energy.) With a greater even distribution of wealth, there is less need for a large family to "work the farm" or "take care of the aged". [/B]

Boy I couldn't disagree with this statement more! Go back in time and think about why farmers always had such big families. Back then there were no gas/disel tractors. A farmer needed a large family to help him work the land.
They didn't have big families, just to have big families. There was a need that had to be filled and that was the only way to do it. After the gas/disel tractor was introduced, large families weren't needed anymore. Farm work became more efficient. Where, before a farmer needed several sons and mules to plow the lower south forty (acres) in a day; now he could do it by himself, with a tractor, in the same amount of time.

Now suppose we do away with fossil fuels. How do we farm efficiently? There is only one way. Have big families again. Here in the US large families are out of style now. One or two children is now the norm, where as fifty years ago, 3 or more was probably the norm. My father was raised on a farm and he had 2 brothers and 4 sisters. His father didn't buy his first tractor until all the boys had left home. BTW, I'm an only child and I have two children.

I also disagree with your assumption that everyone always wants to live on the most expensive land and that land is found in downtowns. I think most people in the US do NOT want to live in the cities. Most people I know wouldn't move to New York City over East Tennessee. I live in the city for one reason only. My daughter goes to a really good public school. My son will go there too. If that school wasn't there, I'd move out into the country in a heart beat (Or if I could find a school as good out in the country!). I think most people work in the big cities because economic reasons.

In Knoxville, hardly anyone lives downtown. There are some, but it is the least populated sector in the city. Downtown is alive during the daytime, but dies at night. Most people live in surrounding communities and commute into work. They perfer that.

Heck, even our baseball team moved out of Knoxville to one of the bedroom communities, thanks to our Mayor. They wanted a new staduim, but the city didn't want to build it. They would rather build a convention center instead. So the Knoxville Smokies up and moved to Sevierville (which built them a new staduim). They have more fans show up for their games there, than when they were in Knoxville.

I think, at least for the smaller cities downtowns are a wasteland anymore.

------------------
Sir Taliesin



If they take my gun can I still use my Axe?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: I wasn't blaming this on overpopulation perse, I was responding to a comment that humans often forget that they are not the only species that is important on the planet, and that nature is not just there for their convenience. Although I would disagree that this is knee-jerk political decision-making, you'll find that many people believed that killing the dingoes was the best thing to do, and in fact the government did not kill them all as was demanded by many. It is indicative of the mentality that humans are superior and nature is their resource to be exploited, even in their holiday destinations.

Aelia, why do you use "they" and "their" when talking about humans. I trust you are one as well?



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Yorick: Aelia, why do you use "they" and "their" when talking about humans. I trust you are one as well?

Sometimes I wish I wasn't, my kitten seems to have a better life then me

I only use they and their when I'm talking about humans who believe in human dominion over nature. I am not one of these people so I do not say we. You'll notice when I discuss what should be done by humans to recify what's gone wrong I always use we or us.

[Yorick]

Sir Taliesin, you merged two points of mine. That is my fault, I should have seperated them. The distribution of wealth = smaller families has nothing to do with "working the farm."

However, why should no oil = no tractors? We won't go backward hopefully, only forwards, replacing fossil fuels with replenishable ecofriendly sources.

Secondly while I have no hesitation believing you about your desire to not live in the city, and have no doubt that there are many who share your ideal, the effect of the capitalist law of supply and demand means that more humans demand living area in the largest cities of the western world. This is a fact proven by the price of real estate in them. I wish it weren't so. I don't necessarily share that desire, but it is a reality. The most expensive place to live per square foot in the USA is Manhattan Island - the heart of the largest city in America. The most expensive in Australia is in Sydney, in the heart of a it's biggest city. The most expensive in England is London, and in Ireland Dublin.

Anyone from a regional city can shout about how this suburb is more expensive than their downtown, but compared to the economic capitals of the world they are still in lesser demand.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Kaz]

Originally posted by Yorick: However, why should no oil = no tractors? We won't go backward hopefully, only forwards, replacing fossil fuels with replenishable ecofriendly sources.

See this site http://sln.fi.edu/inquirer/hydrocar.html for more information on alternate sources. Unfortunately, the idea has drawbacks. It will take time to realize.

------------------


I am the great Kazara

[Fljotsdale]

True, Yorick. But I really DON'T understand anyone actually WANTING to in in central city areas. Mainly, they do so because it is handy for their jobs, I suspect. I personally cannot imagine a worse place to live!

------------------

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: True, Yorick. But I really DON'T understand anyone actually WANTING to in in central city areas. Mainly, they do so because it is handy for their jobs, I suspect. I personally cannot imagine a worse place to live!

Actually I can't imagine a more exhilirating place to live Living downtown provides me with so many more opportunities that I would not have in the suburbs. I am within walking distance of dozens of resteraunts, pubs, clubs, theatres, art galleries and museums. The diversity is so vast...the local coffee shops brim with people from artists to stockbrokers, students to musicians. The city is alive with culture, ever changing. When I go to the suburbs I get a severe case of depression. Things are so drab...all the houses are the same, the same resteraunts, the same shopping centers...minivans and children...no diversity, no culture.




------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!

Errr I would like to state that PEOPLE are the single most important species on earth. If you remove the only sentient species from the planet then the planet becomes a useless ball of rock good only to be fried when the sun expands into its red giant phase. Yes the other bugs, birds, animals and fish are important...but it is TO US that they are important. Without US they are important to no one.

Please dont go on about primates being sentient or dolphins. When either species manages to make a decent walkman or even come up with a passable treatment for the common cold then I'll believe it.

SHould we wipe them out, or at least to the point of extinction? probably not...however if you are going to count every living creature as being of equal importance, then I say lets reintroduce the smallpox virus since it is a living thing and should be afforded the right to life too....Where do you draw the line?


Umm a 10 point prize to anyone who knows why I bother to make this kind of post and no it isnt just to gain numbers toward rank...I don't even know what the rankings are.
------------------
Disintigration is easy, If you really want to impress me, ReIntegrate it.

[This message has been edited by MagiK (edited 09-07-2001).]

Just in case anyone was unsure that previous post was just my way of saying
that when given the choice between saving a human child or a whole herd of hephalumps and woozels, I pick the human child every time.

------------------
Disintigration is easy, If you really want to impress me, ReIntegrate it.