Advocacy & Safety - Studies Tie Urban Sprawl to Health Risks

According to USA Today, if you live far from the city, you get fatter.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-28-sprawl-usat_x.htm


What also surprised me was the following statments.

"A second study by John Pucher at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., suggests that urban sprawl poses another health hazard: It's dangerous to walk or bike in areas where cars rule the road. He found that American cyclists and pedestrians were two to six times more likely to be killed on the road than their German or Dutch counterparts."

I always thought you were in greater danger riding in the cities with buses, taxies, trucks and cars. Turns out, your better off than going to areas where cars rule!

What can we expect? For thousands of years, people's genetic codes have programmed them for physical activity. Suddenly, in the last century, many of us get out of bed and sit at the kitchen table, then we walk a few steps and sit in the car, then we walk a few more steps to the elevator, then we walk to our desk...we might actually walk a whole mile in a day!

I agree that communities need to be planned to accomodate pedestrians and cyclists. But the "build more bike paths" is, in my opinion, way off. Urban bike paths are danger zones, in my experience. Also, they never take you where you need to go. They are not a viable transportation option for the cyclist.

Great post!

Originally posted by Pete Clark
communities need to be planned to accomodate pedestrians and cyclists. But the "build more bike paths" is, in my opinion, way off. Urban bike paths are danger zones, in my experience. Also, they never take you where you need to go. They are not a viable transportation option for the cyclist.


I totally agree w/ you, and we are not alone, and this is why there are plenty of people out there working to take back our streets and our communities from the tyranny of motor vehicles. Public streets are for people, not for cars. Until all of our public streets are safe for pedestrians and cyclists, there will be no rest. Based on other discussions on this forum, perhaps we should just sacrifice Florida to the motorists...with forced relocation for the recalcitrant...

We used to think we lived in a semi-rural area. After getting away from busy San Diego, for many years we enjoyed it. Less traffic. Roads were not busy and plenty of room for bikes. That was ten years ago. About years ago land speculation and development in our rural area mushroomed.
Today, I had to visit my doctor's office 13 miles away. In between the two cities is a rural area, but traffic congestion between the cities can cause traffic to back up 2-3 miles. This 13 mile commute at 3 pm took 50 minutes. What that is about 16 mph average- by car.
My bike could have completed the same trip in the same time.. Two points. People can not cope with that slow pace. Rudeness, crazy driving. No doubt it effects the mental/physical health of the motorist. Has to they act like A***ol*s. Hypertension . In cities you expect such difficult commuting. So here, 50 miles from the busy city,with smaller roads, I think road rage is worse than in the city.
Also, the critical aspect of building way out from the population centers. Now they are overcrowded. A condition we had hoped to escape without the amenties of the city.
There are cities that are exceptions. From what I can see the city of Irvine, Callif. bike trails are so numerous, they actually lead the cyclist to where they are going. Such examples are hard to find in urban America.

There is another article at CNN today:

link to the article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/29/outnumbered.by.cars.ap/index.html)

If you take the time to look - and I guarantee it won't take all the much time - you will find a "study" that proves just darn near anything.

In fact, I would wager that if you hired a group of "scientists" and "researchers" claming that riding a bike regularly made you fat and lazy, these "scientists" would find exactly what you wanted.

The current buzz in certain, "sophisticate" circles, is that Americans are all obese slobs. The agenda is to tax "fatty" foods. In reality, it has nothing to do with the well being of anyone. It has to do with getting more money for government and transferring more control over our lives to that same government.

What a absurd study. I think that diet and lack of exercise contributes more to ones body fat than your living location. I am not fat and I live in a rural environment. As a matter of fact there are less fat people here than in cities I have lived in.

Originally posted by Hunter
What a absurd study. I think that diet and lack of exercise contributes more to ones body fat than your living location. I am not fat and I live in a rural environment. As a matter of fact there are less fat people here than in cities I have lived in.

You're missing the point: the type of community you live in contributes to fitness exactly because some communities are designed to encourage cycling and walking while others do not. This study suggests that many suburbs are not laid out to encourage people to walk/bike while getting from one location to another and instead encourage driving, which obviously would result in fatter people.

I think that this study is correct.

Indeed there are obese individuals in the USA in surprising numbers. One notices it.

I've been in the USA last year.

Something is wrong. People, who would look nice otherwise, are mutilated by the lard.

I could explain it by 2 factors. It is either genetically modified food, or the excessive usage of car. The latter is more probable, because I from time to time eat the food at our local MacDonalds, but I do not get that big.

Besides, I saw very sporty looking men and women in the USA too. But the obesity rate is abnormal.

How about those who live in the "former" suburbs?

In the past twenty years, I have lived in two former suburbs.

The first was built about fifty years ago nearly 2.5 miles away from downtown. At that time, it was thought to be new development in an inconveniently distant location.

Today, I live in what used to be considered the new suburbs in the 1980's. It is about six miles from city center. Of course, city center was torn down to make a mall in the 1970's, was a boom in the 1980's, and has been ghost-town property since the 1990's. Ooops! City planners forgot that you can plant a mall in any cornfield.

In fact, the old mall downtown is dead. The newer commercial areas moved out to the suburbs. What was once considered "way the hell out in the middle of nowhere" is now considered a central location in the city. The neighborhoods are rich with parks, residential neighborhoods, and commercial conveniences.

As many BF.C readers know, I bicycle commute nearly every day. What's more, I am doing it from the 'suburbs'!

That is what academics do, collect and interpert data. Maybe a little paranoia here. Certain government agencies need monitor the results of how additives in our food, water effect our health.
THis is the whole principal of epidemiology. Are we to do without a science that elevated communicable diseases from the epidemics of just 70 years ago. They make sense out of the confusion of statistics. Statistics in the end is reality of large populations.
My major reaction to urbanization in outlying areas, once urbanized there is no going back. The absurdity of huge commutes to the work place is insane. Daily the freeways can't handle the traffic volume. Daily commuters expect accidents backing up traffic 5-15 miles. This is not healty mentally and with a 3-5 hour commute on top of 8-10 hour work day, there is no time for exercise.
The mental frustration of a 4 hour commute for what shoud be 2 hour drive, causes behavior that is not healthy long term let alone during that commute. Plus is such areas there are few facilities that could be used for parks, sports facilities.
Example, right now, I need a pool for rehab. of my right arm following shoulder surgery. In my small town there are no such facilities. Have to go about 25 miles to find such and even with the damn HMO's I have to travel 15 miles to find a physical therapist.
I recall cycling in Europe, particularly Germany- there were covered sports parks, with pools, indoor tennis courts, etc. often in even small towns. No such facilities here.

Originally posted by TrekRider
If you take the time to look - and I guarantee it won't take all the much time - you will find a "study" that proves just darn near anything.

In fact, I would wager that if you hired a group of "scientists" and "researchers" claming that riding a bike regularly made you fat and lazy, these "scientists" would find exactly what you wanted.

The current buzz in certain, "sophisticate" circles, is that Americans are all obese slobs. The agenda is to tax "fatty" foods. In reality, it has nothing to do with the well being of anyone. It has to do with getting more money for government and transferring more control over our lives to that same government.

Reactionary alert.

Either you tax the cause of the problem or we will all pay for it with increased health insurance costs.

Problem with goverment trying to curtain bad behaviour? Boo-Hoo. Cry me a river.
Increased tobacco tax. Right on.

Also on the agenda,
Smart Growth.

Increase gasoline tax to pay for effective mass transit (rail).

Scarry, where'd you get that wonderful brain? Like how you think, sir/ma'am!

Originally posted by jatkins679
You're missing the point: the type of community you live in contributes to fitness exactly because some communities are designed to encourage cycling and walking while others do not. This study suggests that many suburbs are not laid out to encourage people to walk/bike while getting from one location to another and instead encourage driving, which obviously would result in fatter people.

No I do not think I missed any point. I understood it just fine ans still find it to be absurd. I never saw or heard of this researcher or any other one in my area did you? As a matter of fact I have never seen or heard any researcher in any area I have ever been in. I do notice the outlandish figures they give, and still have never seen any of these people, and as a matter of fact those who I have questioned on these and other absurd "studies" have never seen or heard of these people either.

I still think you're missing the point. Not because you don't hear about something that it doesn't happen. I've always wonderered where they get those polls with many details until I got called and accepted to spent 30 minutes with a poller (won't do that again!).

They talk about suburban area, not rural area. I think it makes perfect sense. In suburbs, area for shopping and entairtainment are usually concentrated in large complex too far from houses to get there by walking so people use their cars. In the city, large shopping center don't exist as much and people tend to shop at different places for their different needs and these places are closer to houses so it's more convienient to walk than drive.

This article isn't a big surprise. It's not JUST the suburbs and their location, it's the sprawl. Everything is so far away from everything else, nothing is in walking distance, there's nothing to do and nowhere to go. There's nowhere to walk that gets you anywhere- all there is are houses, houses and more houses. Kids have to get their own cars so they can drive to school because the school isn't within walking distance! They start at 16 being car-junkies. And since there's nothing to do, you have to get in your car and drive to the city or wherever. That's why you see tubby suburbanites. Then look at NYers. They walk everywhere, they walk to work even if it's blocks and blocks.

Of course, living in a suburb doesn't mean you have to sit in front of the tv, stuffing your face, it doesn't mean you have to get NO exercise at all and become obese. A lot of it is lifestyle choices.

Originally posted by Erick L
I still think you're missing the point.

Is there a reason why people who don't agree with you have to be "missing the point"? Can't people "get the point" and still disagree? Or are the only people who "get the point" those who agree with you? It is a small mind indeed that cannot understand that others can understand, yet still disagree.

By the way, I live in the middle of cotton/wheat/sorghum, rural central and there is so much obesity here it makes my jaw drop. Air conditioning, meat/bbq, and beer are the most common forms of self-medication here. When I lived in San Diego, urban central, the people were generally fit, with many vegetarian restauants/stores, etc....

I live in the middle of suburbia and I see no more or less obesity than I do in the city. I think it's a lifestyle thing. Around here, there's a bigger general emphasis in a healthier outdoor lifestyle than in most other places I've lived. I disagree that urban sprawl has to be bad for healthy living. Around here, there are plenty of walking/hiking trails, plenty of bike paths. Most of the communities here try and sell the aspect of outdoor trails and activities because it's so important to the people looking for places to live here. I can walk/bike to the grocery store despite it being three miles away. I have mountain bike trails behind my house even though this is a developed community. There are plenty of quiet roads I can get to for road biking and I see cyclists out all the time. The schools are planned and located for the most part within walking distance with adequate walking paths and low-traffic routes leading to them. A lot of it has to do with lifestyle and culture. Some areas tend to promote a lifestyle that leads to obesity regardless of whether they're urban, suburban or rural and for other areas, the opposite is true.

Originally posted by wabbit
Of course, living in a suburb doesn't mean you have to sit in front of the tv, stuffing your face, it doesn't mean you have to get NO exercise at all and become obese. A lot of it is lifestyle choices.

Live in the suburbs drive to the gym ride on a stationary bicycle.

I'm sorry Don, I don't like expressions like that either but used it for "continuity". Hunter has every right to disagree but his argument is that people in his rural environment are not as fat as people in the city he lived in. The study doesn't even mention rural environment so he disagree with something the study doesn't even talk about, thus "missing the point".

I also agree that study results can be bent on either sides sometimes but that's "besides the point" too. ;) I happen to think this one makes sense.

We might think polling methods absurd and want to discard them. But, then reality reins in like why is Cancer an epidemic. Look at the obituaries. Young people all too often.. Something is causing this.
I have been subjected to family deaths of relatives/friends too young to die of cancer. Believe what you want.
I hope those fact collectors and researchers are doing their jobs. Probably too late for most of us, before they find a cure for cancer. Personally, I do not trust our food. Those that do are living in a fools paradise.

Erik L,
I will itterate to you again in a more simpler term. NO I DID NOT MISS ANY POINT!! The article plainly states "those that live far from cities." Well where I am far from cities is rural. The are no "burbs" here there is city then there is rural. Go to Dallas, San Antonio, Houston yes but not here in this part of Tx. Thus my statement as originally stated. If you cannot understand this then I no longer have anything to say to you on this topic.
I disagree with the article and with you plain and simple. Also I can say the same about you that you missed my point but I will not.

The study points to the simple fact, that the infrastructure of the suburbs is built assuming the mass car usage, and neglecting walking and cycling.

It is indisputable. Many areas do not have any sidewalk.

Last year I cycled from Washington to Pittsburgh and back. I cycled through many small towns and urban sprawl.

After Europe one does not fail to notice that the sidewalks are either too narrow or nonexistent.

We take it for granted that 1 - 2 km to the shop is to be done by walking, but when we walked to the shop in the suburb of Williamsport along the road (no sidewalk there), people were looking at us as if we were commiting something indecent or peculiar. Every driver and passenger of the passing cars was turning the head to look at us in surprise. We could not get first what was wrong with us; looked carefully at our clothing, but then we noticed that we were the only ones who walked along this road. Every other soul was driving.

This is my impression from the visit to the USA - that suburb and rural infrastructure is built exclusively around the car usage. But in the cosmopolitan cities like Washington D.C. it is different, - a lot of trails for cyclists and joggers. However even in the cities the pedestrians are treaed like the under-class. To cross the street in Washington, I had to press the button, then wait about 3 minutes, before I get the green light, and then I have literally to run across the stret as the green light lasts for the pedestrian about 20 - 30 seconds. And the sidewalks are also narrow, at least it was my impression.

Originally posted by Hunter
The article plainly states "those that live far from cities."

The article never states that, Dahon.Steve did.

Nothing can substitute the regular commuting by walking or cycling. Nothing.

Gym, jogging, and recreational cycling are the superb exercises, but they all have one disadvantage - occasionality.

Besides commuting improves the ecology of the area.

It is all about individual choice and individual responsibility. I love living in the suburbs with a decent-sized house and yard. I buy 4-cylinder cars and walk, bike, or ride transit whenever it is practical to do so. I actively petition my local government for bicycle-friendly street design.

By the way, there are very few sidewalks along the 25mph/40kph streets of my immediate neighborhood, and this does not seem to discourage anyone from dog-walking, jogging, stroller-pushing, etc. The city did just add a needed pedestrian path parallel to a heavily traveled, narrow 35mph/60kph street; unfortunately, they also obliterated a useful road shoulder with a curb to keep cars from parking on the pedestrian path. Good concept; lousy execution! (I'm still working with the city council on this issue. )

Besides, many suburbs in many cities were designed as outposts of mass transit systems like Southern California's Pacific Electric Railway before it was bled and butchered by GM and Firestone. Rails broke trail for later freeway building in a number of areas.

Actually, the interstate system was built, primarily for military mobility. Although the interstate system devastated inner city neighborhoods and created surburban sprawl, these were consequences, not the intended purpose of the interstate system. The lack of wallkability and bikeability is characteristic of these 'post-automobile' urban areas.

The older neighborhoods that used to be served by street car lines (which were abandoned in the post WWII era with the construction of the interstate system and the rise of the iconic personal automoble) actually maintain a lot of their pre-automobile connectivity and scale, which continue to make these neighborhoods walkable, bikeable and desireable.

The metro commuter rail lines did not break ground for later freeway building; they were surplanted by freeway building, which occurred later along entirely different ROWs.

I wish the article had said more about the details of the study itself.

I'm willing to believe that Americans in general are overweight. There's little question they get too little exercise. And, it's hardly suprising that the distribution of extra pounds is non-random with respect to _some_ varialble. But the USA Today report doesn't make clear exactly what variable it was. The extent to which one's neighborhood was "sprawling" was important, according to the news story, but what does that mean, exactly?

Supposing "sprawling" is something like distance from home to urban centers, or average distance from shopping or schools, or average distance from work, or some combination, or something similar, there's still more to say. If we assume "sprawling" is one of the options I suggested, ethnic backgrounds are not equalized in urban and "sprawling" areas. Income is not equalized. Perhaps most relevantly, the percentage of residents who do blue collar as opposed to white collar labor is not equalized. Etc.

So, I don't know what to say about whether "sprawl" itself is a plausible explanation for weight differences, or whether "sprawl" is just a concomitant of something that is explanatory, from this second-hand article.

Whatever the truth about the studies mentioned, though, I believe that Americans in general just don't want to exercise enough. They should be willing to walk more, ride a bicycle more, or just exericse in a gym more often.

Anyone who cycles a lot, as most people on this board do, realizes that people greatly overestimate the difficulty of bicycling. You don't have to be a daredevil to ride on public roads, as many people assume. Bicycling doesn't add much time to errands, as many people thinkg. (Indeed, bicycling can often save time.) So many people pass up the opportunity to ride a bike without good reason-- and thereby pass up an opportunity to improve their health.

I live in a rural area, and I'm the only person I know willing to ride as far as the nearest WalMart (~13 miles). Many people are amazed that someone could ride a bike that far-- it's as if you said you were running a marathon. Still, there are plenty of trips less ambitious people could make that they just won't do. They would enjoy themselves, more, too. But still they won't do it. It's too bad.

Most people are basically lazy. As long as motorized transportation is cheap (due to subsidized oil, subsidized roads and subsidized manufacturing) and the risks and benefits of our motorized transportation systems are not properly accounted for (air and water pollution from extracting, refining, transporting and burning fossil fuels; medical costs and lost time and talent due to road fatalities, injuries and congestion delays; loss of natural resources and natural areas, and lost opportunities for land development due to sprawl and the need to set aside excessive land area for the storage and movement of large personal motorized vehicles); etc., etc., people will follow the path of least resistance and continue their unhealthy sedentary lifestyles. Of course, the treatment of illnesses caused by their sedentary lifestyles is, unfortunately, also subsidized.

I don't think the study is aimed at proving that urban sprawl is solely to blame for obesity, it's just a contributing factor. THe way many suburbs are designed is friendly to cars, and the car culture .Imagine people looking at you like you're weird because you are WALKING?

HOwever, a lot of obesity is caused by simple overindulgence. I remember when I was growing up, there were a FEW fat kids. Or there would be a girl who put on weight because of unhappiness because her father died or something. There would be the big fat kid in the class who never exercised. Now, that's normal, because NO one exercises. But it's also that people are grossly overfed and do absolutely nothing, nothing at all to change their lives. I remember seeing a story on CNN about " the cost of obesity." It was about one middle aged man who, because of his weight, is now on dozens of medications for diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure- all of which costs a fortune. BUt of course, he won't exercise or change his diet or life before GETTING to that point. Think of spending all that money on a bike and riding it! But no, it's somehow seen as EASIER to take 10 different medications a day and maybe live to be 55. I realized, watching this, that I can't even feel sorry for someone like this. T People are like this because of a lifestyle of gross overindulgence and laziness. You don't just get this way by having a few snacks, you get this way by overstuffing yourself to the point of gluttony, and not making a single bit of effort to help yourself. In fact, it's disgusting- not because of how it looks, simply the thought of that gluttonous overindulgence. It's like ancient rome where people stuffed themselves until they barfed. I'm not talking, mind you, about people who have a weight problem, who struggle with it and who try to keep their weight down. Not everyone is a size six. I'm talking about people having total disregard for their health becuase it's easier to be a glutton. The suburbs aren't solely responsible for that, except that there are more fast food restaurants in the burbs. People choose to stuff their faces like that.

Originally posted by wabbit
I don't think the study is aimed at proving that urban sprawl is solely to blame for obesity, it's just a contributing factor. THe way many suburbs are designed is friendly to cars, and the car culture .Imagine people looking at you like you're weird because you are WALKING?

I think it's a self-fullfilling prophecy bourne not as much by some kind of generic attitude homogenously applied to all suburbs but rather to those containing a majority of people with a certain lifestyle. This can vary from place to place. In the suburb I live in, people don't look at you weird if you're walking or cycling. Oftentimes it's actually the opposite and rather annoyingly, people in cars are stopped in the middle of the road blocking traffic to talk to people they know on the sidewalks. OTOH, I have also lived in areas where I got strange looks if I wasn't behind the wheel and beyond the edge of the driveway.

Originally posted by wabbit
It's like ancient rome where people stuffed themselves until they barfed.

Well, why don't we just start building vomitoriums in restaurants and homes just for this purpose, like the Romans did? To take this analogy further, we, like the Romans, are now: (1) overextended militarily far beyond our borders, (2) poisoning ourselves with what we put into our bodies, (3) consuming natural resources in an unsustainable way (4) have a national government that is oblivious to all of these problems, and turns a deaf ear on meaningful attempts to solve them. One can hardly help but to make the comparison between modern America and the decadent end days of the Roman Empire....

Well, why don't we just start building vomitoriums in restaurants and homes just for this purpose, like the Romans did? To take this analogy further, we, like the Romans, are now: (1) overextended militarily far beyond our borders, (2) poisoning ourselves with what we put into our bodies, (3) consuming natural resources in an unsustainable way (4) have a national government that is oblivious to all of these problems, and turns a deaf ear on meaningful attempts to solve them. One can hardly help but to make the comparison between modern America and the decadent end days of the Roman Empire....

I don't think they are that closely related.
For one I think the vomitoriums were only for the upper crust.]
I don't think the ancient Romann were as obese as our population., I tried to find some data on it, couldn't.
What have we run out of that you consider irreplaceable?
We have a longer lifespan than ever did. We are the only superpower left, the strongest country in the world.
A knee jerk person would say you could compare the loose sexual morales in this country with that of decadent Rome, do you agree?
Govt criticism, blah blah, is any Govt perfect? which one?
One thing to point out in this whole discussion is the emphasis put on almost unusually skinny young models in TV and advertizing as the ideals at the same time the population is getting fatter too.

FXjohn

When I am not peddling I am an urban planner. I am also a political conservative on most issues. I too was very skeptical of the connection between community design and mortaility/obeseity numbers early in my career. However, after much reading, travel, and personal experience I have come to believe that we are designing needless mortality into our communities. There are a million little decision that add up to the built environment we live within. Money talks and the developers have more of it than the Bike/Ped interests. This America after all, where you buy legislatures and presidents.

I think in part we do owe our robust economy (compared to the rest of the world) to the flexibility of our urban environments and our decisions not to build things of permanence. You’d have to have spent time in Europe to really know what I mean. However some people pay a real cost in lost quality of life because we build non-connected suburban islands that force a car upon people to survive.

But I’m not here to convert people to any cause. I’ll rest assured you all can make up your own minds on this issue. But, know this. We do design our communities (national average – maybe not your town) with pedestrian and bicycle transportation as an afterthought if at all. My community considers you a looser if you are on foot or peddling.

Some resources on this subject.
The Planner’s Portal; Cyburbia http://www.cyburbia.org <- Great discussions and my other favorite forums board.

The Smart Growth Flagship website http://www.smartgrowth.org
A great film on the subject. http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/save.html
Congress for New Urbanism http://www.cnu.org/
American Planning Association http://www.planning.org
Local Government Commission http://www.lgc.org/center/
New Urbanism http://www.newurbanism.org/

James Kunstler’s Geography of Nowhere is a must read on this subject: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671888250/qid=1062471856/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/103-1983265-6363043?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Home from Nowhere - by the same author is also recommended. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684837374/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/103-1983265-6363043?v=glance&s=books&st=*

These sites are skewed towards the new ubanist approach for the most part. This was not an attempt to provide a balanced list. If anyone wants some anti-smart growth sites let me know.


:)

hey Joe. nice post. and also very refreshing to hear from a "conservative" about New Urbanism and Smart Growth. and yes, from this liberal's perspective James Kunstler's books are also very good - i own both of those plus about 6 others on New Urbanism/Smart Growth... (urban and regional planning is also an interest of mine - i began my PhD in geography but am on an extended break and may never finish, for reasons good and bad)

and i would agree with most of your generalizations about Europe and the economy::: in short that the US ECONOMY has in the past incurred advantages from having a hyper-flexible workforce with massive auto commuting, but that the Quality of Life of many Americans has as a result suffered. i would add that in the future these "benefits" will be much smaller as auto mobility is no longer what it was with traffic problems and many European cities like London or Munich or Zurich or Paris or Praque have as much mobillity AND are not completely auto-dependent... i.e. if gas were largely unavailable the US economy would crater. Europe would be damaged but still be able to half-function. (yes, i know the whole world economy is connected so it would be a world event)

but i have also noticed that many otherwise very conservative planners seem to be embracing many of these ideas. to me this is a great sign as it means not just the free-thinking "do-gooder intellectual" liberals like myself see this as a problem and something that can be improved... and if others Americans knew what you know through your work, many of the consevratives touting the benefits and glory of the "free American road" might change to help solve some of these problems.

Note: I currently live in Europe and while there are some disadvantges (like high home prices, especially for really large homes) experiencing the advantges first-hand of "community" is a great thing - walking and biking for my everday life AND still being considered normal and doing it with friends/neighbors. i think many older Americans at one time understood this with the traditonal small town or old-style urban center, but most Americans today live in neither, rather suburbs (like north Dallas where i grew up) with street after street of look-alike auto-centric housing (i.e. no porch, 2 or 3-car connected garage so you can go from the living room to the car without having to interface with the neighbors or the external world)) and viturally nothing to do without a car...

Originally posted by FXjohn

We have a longer lifespan than ever did.

Wrong.

The current life span is defined mostly by the generation born in the first half of the last century, when the ecology was close to perfect.

We do not know what the life span of the generations, which grew up during the damaged environment, will be.

Because, the pollution affects mainly children. We will have to wait some decades to judge what life span the current ecological collapse produces.

Originally posted by JoeTown244GL

I think in part we do owe our robust economy (compared to the rest of the world) to the flexibility of our urban environments and our decisions not to build things of permanence. You’d have to have spent time in Europe to really know what I mean.

I spent some time in several countries of Western Europe, but I do not know what you mean.

I have the impression that the quallity of the European goods in general exceeds the quality of the US products. Or at least is the same. The European currency is about the same strong as dollar.

If you mean the Eastern Europe, then, certailny, the economy there is weaker than in the US so far. But what is the strong eonomy? Is it measured by the number of passing cars per minute on the street? Then certainly the US beats the rest of the world hands down. With the exception of Kathmandu perhaps. There the number of cars on the streets is even bigger, due to one-seater convertibles.

I meant they build with MORE permanence in Europe than we do in the US. :)

Originally posted by FXjohn
We are the only superpower left, the strongest country in the world.


Your country is supposed to be the ally of my country.

The soldiers from my country are in Iraq helping out to restore order.

In this respect, I would like to remind the words of Genghis Khan, which he liked to repeat: "Do not say that you are strong, there is stronger, do not say you are clever, there is cleverer."

Originally posted by FXjohn
What have we run out of that you consider irreplaceable?

One thing to point out in this whole discussion is the emphasis put on almost unusually skinny young models in TV and advertizing as the ideals at the same time the population is getting fatter too.FXjohn

On the first point, for starters there is 90% of the North American (and the world's) native forests, with the remainder disappearing fast...plus, probably about the same percentage of North America's estuaries and wetlands, and wild ocean fish...I could go on, but it's really rather depressing...

On the second point, I agree; but on the other hand, anorexia and bulemia are just as dysfunctional as the opposite, obesity. Plus the rise in diagnosed incidences of depression, in the world's wealthiest economy, all seem to be signs that something is out of balance and not quite right...perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on the superficial aspects of beauty, wealth and materialism, and too little emphasis on nurturing the spritiual or inner being?

On the first point, for starters there is 90% of the North American (and the world's) native forests, with the remainder disappearing fast...plus, probably about the same percentage of North America's estuaries and wetlands, and wild ocean fish...I could go on, but it's really rather depressing...

On the second point, I agree; but on the other hand, anorexia and bulemia are just as dysfunctional as the opposite, obesity. Plus the rise in diagnosed incidences of depression, in the world's wealthiest economy, all seem to be signs that something is out of balance and not quite right...perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on the superficial aspects of beauty, wealth and materialism, and too little emphasis on nurturing the spritiual or inner being?

I live in a county of 100 lakes and they are VERY strict about not letting wetlands disappear. Lumber still seems fairly cheap.
Hopefully a lot of trees are getting replanted. I know they are not the exact same kind of trees but that would be unrealistic.
I think the problems complained about alot in this forum, using too much gas, too many cars, disappearing resources are all tied back to overpopulation! What can we do about that??
I can only hope it will level off as poorer countries become less so.

On the depression side: Most people work too many hours. Too much stress, because their consumption has painted them into a corner financially. One paycheck away from disaster. They don't know what its like to pedal for a couple hours and come back feeling recharged. Their seems to be a lot of doom and gloom, and chicken little aspects to some of these posts. Theres still a great world out there to cycle in, enjoy it!!

FXjohn