Overpopulation? You heard it here first, folks!

Honestly! It's beyond me how anyone can go along with that BS. It's not overpopulation, it's mis-management of the space we are currently using. Look how much of the world is still empty. We need to just start making better use of our space, and train ourselves to conserve our resources better, not limit our baby-making.

Wow, where's your research for that statement? Where are these empty places your talking about? Antarctica?

It's not overpopulation, it's mis-management of the space we are currently using. Look how much of the world is still empty. We need to just start making better use of our space, and train ourselves to conserve our resources better, not limit our baby-making.

That's got to be one of the most short-sighted statements I've heard in a while.

Wow, where's your research for that statement? Where are these empty places your talking about? Antarctica?

The US. Ever driven across, or flown across? Most of the country is sparsely populated.
Examine the population county by county if you don't believe me.

Back on the subject of trains- it would be really helpful if there were more passenger trains, especially commuter trains, and if the trains had more room for bikes.

Back on the subject of trains- it would be really helpful if there were more passenger trains, especially commuter trains, and if the trains had more room for bikes.

That's what I thought too LOL, BTW thanks for your posts on frieght hauling and trains.

Heah, FX...I do take some exception to saying Detroit is not a real city...Detroit represents most American large cities...Chicago is the exception...Our urban policy...Use, abuse , abandon..
Detroit, St. Louis, Los Angeles...( at least much of LA)...Why dump on Detroit.....Detroit...Belle Isle, Joe Lewis arena...Corktown, Tiger Stadium...Much I feel melancoly about the history of Detroit...Look at some really abandoned towns like some of New York's bouroughs..Much of Detroit looks pretty good.
Sorry for the diversion..Could not help myself.
As to ruination of cities..the automobile is a good part of the abandon syndrome..yes, trains are a civilizing factor in the commuter craze..I enjoy the train even when they move along at 50 mph..You still have your lab top out, and maybe even drinking a Merlot..And 50mph is perhaps 3 times the speed being traveled on the expressways.......Had trains not been foresaken, I say the urban landscapes might even been healthier..

The US. Ever driven across, or flown across? Most of the country is sparsely populated.
Examine the population county by county if you don't believe me.

Check this map out:

http://www.ciesin.org/datasets/gpw/gppycpd-12in.gif

If you want to find empty places you can go to a desert, a rain forest, or frozen tundra. Even this map is mis-leading. The plains of the US might seem empty on that map, but anyone who has ever been there can tell you that people are there, using the land for what they can. Not very many people, but they are there.

Also notice that I said empty and you said "sparsely populated."

If you want to get back to trains, can some-one please explain why anybody would need to get from Detroit to Chicago at 200mph. What reason would justify the enormous cost of such a thing?

That's got to be one of the most short-sighted statements I've heard in a while.

Its not short sighted at all. We could easily make urban areas more densely populated AND MORE LIVEABLE at the same time if we had more multifamily housing/low rise interlocking apartment complexes much akin to what you see in older American and many European cities. That would reduce urban sprawl and all its inefficiencies. Eliminating the favorable tax treatment which you get for mortgage debt would do more to change our urban landscape than a hundred other ideas I have heard.

As for 'what about the space'...look at any map of the world. Humans are concentrated in four major areas...the European Plain, The Ganges river, the east coast of Asia, and the east coast of the USA. The rest of the world...and this includes many arable, watered, reasonably fertile and liveable areas---is rural country bumpkins by most people standards. Vast stretches of south america are wide open. The idea that the world is 'overpopulated' or 'cannot support current resource use' has died so many deaths in the last 200 years it is ridiculous, and I put no-growthers on the same mental scale as slugs and other primitive life forms.

Don't forget...if you feel there are too many people on earth, you can always set an example for others to follow, and kill yourself. Until you do, please don't deny others there place at the table.

roughstuff

Check this map out:

http://www.ciesin.org/datasets/gpw/gppycpd-12in.gif

If you want to find empty places you can go to a desert, a rain forest, or frozen tundra. Even this map is mis-leading. The plains of the US might seem empty on that map, but anyone who has ever been there can tell you that people are there, using the land for what they can. Not very many people, but they are there.

Also notice that I said empty and you said "sparsely populated."


I guess we agree then? The west looks pretty empty, so does Alaska and Canada.
As far as "empty" that might be a little more rural than I want to be.

Would you rather finance a war, or build up our infrastructure?

If you want to get back to trains, can some-one please explain why anybody would need to get from Detroit to Chicago at 200mph. What reason would justify the enormous cost of such a thing?

Well, time is money. Thats the argument most people forget. They say..." a bus from NY to Boston costs $60. A plane from NY to Boston is $150." What is the point in flying?

For the short hop between cities, the faster the trains go, the more people they can carry in any time span. Since operating trains involves so much fixed costs, the more people ya can carry in a day, the cheaper the transportation would be.

Plus for many people speed is an end in itself!

roughstuff

If you want to get back to trains, can some-one please explain why anybody would need to get from Detroit to Chicago at 200mph. What reason would justify the enormous cost of such a thing?
Uh, business? Are you honestly this clueless or is this just another troll?

Its not short sighted at all. We could easily make urban areas more densely populated AND MORE LIVEABLE at the same time if we had more multifamily housing/low rise interlocking apartment complexes much akin to what you see in older American and many European cities. That would reduce urban sprawl and all its inefficiencies. Eliminating the favorable tax treatment which you get for mortgage debt would do more to change our urban landscape than a hundred other ideas I have heard.

As for 'what about the space'...look at any map of the world. Humans are concentrated in four major areas...the European Plain, The Ganges river, the east coast of Asia, and the east coast of the USA. The rest of the world...and this includes many arable, watered, reasonably fertile and liveable areas---is rural country bumpkins by most people standards. Vast stretches of south america are wide open. The idea that the world is 'overpopulated' or 'cannot support current resource use' has died so many deaths in the last 200 years it is ridiculous, and I put no-growthers on the same mental scale as slugs and other primitive life forms.

Don't forget...if you feel there are too many people on earth, you can always set an example for others to follow, and kill yourself. Until you do, please don't deny others there place at the table.

roughstuff

Yuck, you seem to think the world is underpopulated until the planet looks like the one depicted in 'Soylent Green". What about quality of life? Living in a crowded city stinks in more ways than one. First we complain about urban sprawl, then we say there are vast unsettled regions in South America we could turn into cities. OF course eating meat wastes a lot of land, lets do away with that and live on soybeans, we pack more people on the planet that way. Do away with mortgage incentives so no one owns their own home, that's pretty preposterous. Much easier to study chicken farming and apply the principle to people packing. We have billions of people on the planet, this puts an enourmous strain on resources and quality oflife, just my opinion. The more people we have, the more we consume, naturally.
Only so much of it will be renewed.

Its not short sighted at all. We could easily make urban areas more densely populated AND MORE LIVEABLE at the same time if we had more multifamily housing/low rise interlocking apartment complexes much akin to what you see in older American and many European cities. That would reduce urban sprawl and all its inefficiencies. Eliminating the favorable tax treatment which you get for mortgage debt would do more to change our urban landscape than a hundred other ideas I have heard.

As for 'what about the space'...look at any map of the world. Humans are concentrated in four major areas...the European Plain, The Ganges river, the east coast of Asia, and the east coast of the USA. The rest of the world...and this includes many arable, watered, reasonably fertile and liveable areas---is rural country bumpkins by most people standards. Vast stretches of south america are wide open. The idea that the world is 'overpopulated' or 'cannot support current resource use' has died so many deaths in the last 200 years it is ridiculous, and I put no-growthers on the same mental scale as slugs and other primitive life forms.

Don't forget...if you feel there are too many people on earth, you can always set an example for others to follow, and kill yourself. Until you do, please don't deny others there place at the table.

roughstuff


I disagree. At the current rate of growth of human population, it will not be too far in the future where there will physically not be enough space on this planet for humans to live, produce food and at the same time maintain sufficient space for the other organisms that are necessary to maintain the ecosystems that are crucial to our survival. The delicate balances of various organisms are extremely complex and are not well understood, yet humans are driving many to extinction at alarming rates. Monocultures of humans and the plants & animals that they desire to eat (or keep as pets) appears to be the ultimate outcome.
I am not telling anyone what to do, have children or not, I don't really care to be honest. I won't be around to see the results, and I don't plan to have children.

Would you rather finance a war, or build up our infrastructure?

definitely build up infrastructure. trains make more sense than super-highways for super-cars driven by super-drivers. we also need to maintain our existing infrastructure like sewers. in general these expenditures will be more cost-effective if they serve denser populations (that is, why build a sewer/water supply/light rail line to connect each ranch in south dakota?). i'm not saying people should be coerced into living in urban areas, just that those are the places where the investments are probably a bigger priority.

Uh, business? Are you honestly this clueless or is this just another troll?

What? What business activity requires a person to spend enormous resources to travel that fast?

It isn't the person or employee that needs to get from point A to point B quickly. It is the information that needs to get there quickly. I'm sure that there are instances where an individual needs to get hands on, or a certain piece of equipment has to get there quickly, but those are the exception. Think about all the times you drove somewhere for a meeting and if you needed to go or if a video conference or phone call would have worked.

What? What business activity requires a person to spend enormous resources to travel that fast?

It isn't the person or employee that needs to get from point A to point B quickly. It is the information that needs to get there quickly. I'm sure that there are instances where an individual needs to get hands on, or a certain piece of equipment has to get there quickly, but those are the exception. Think about all the times you drove somewhere for a meeting and if you needed to go or if a video conference or phone call would have worked.

Are you at the hardware store right now?

What? What business activity requires a person to spend enormous resources to travel that fast?

It isn't the person or employee that needs to get from point A to point B quickly. It is the information that needs to get there quickly. I'm sure that there are instances where an individual needs to get hands on, or a certain piece of equipment has to get there quickly, but those are the exception. Think about all the times you drove somewhere for a meeting and if you needed to go or if a video conference or phone call would have worked.
I don't drive, I bicycle and use mass transit, that's what works for me. However, I can fathom someone with different transportation needs, those needs being dictated by occupation. I think a lot of those guys in business suits you see, waiting on late or snowbound flights at the Chicago or Detroit airports would LOVE such a train. As a matter of fact, high speed rail travel is not merely speculative, it exists! Also, it wouldn't be so enormously expensive, as a matter of fact, it wouldn't even be as expensive as a flight.
I'm all for fighting urban sprawl and Wal-Martians, and having a community oriented approach to a better future, but telling people they must hate their family because they commute, and saying that there is NEVER any cause for business travel is weird and doesn't really make people want to jump on board. Dig?

I don't drive, I bicycle and use mass transit, that's what works for me. However, I can fathom someone with different transportation needs, those needs being dictated by occupation. I think a lot of those guys in business suits you see, waiting on late or snowbound flights at the Chicago or Detroit airports would LOVE such a train. As a matter of fact, high speed rail travel is not merely speculative, it exists! Also, it wouldn't be so enormously expensive, as a matter of fact, it wouldn't even be as expensive as a flight.
I'm all for fighting urban sprawl and Wal-Martians, and having a community oriented approach to a better future, but telling people they must hate their family because they commute, and saying that there is NEVER any cause for business travel is weird and doesn't really make people want to jump on board. Dig?

You have completely twisted what I said. I did not say there is never a cause for travel. I said that people travel when there is not a need. If we could come up with a way to hold businesses and individuals responsible for what they do, everybody would see huge gains in their standard of living.

Are you saying that because someone is doing something the wrong way, or the hard way, that everybody else should be forced to prop up and bail them out using tax dollars? If so where do you draw the line? Should we have bailed out the Enron employees that lost pensions? Should we continue to bail out companies that feel the need to send employees all over the place for no reason? I know of lots of mom-pop stores having problems right now, should we bail them out?

How do you come up with high speed rail travel being cheaper than flight? Not that I don't believe you, I just want to see the statistics.

Would you rather finance a war, or build up our infrastructure?

I am NOT in favor of either. I am in favor of improving infrastructure. More infrastructure isn't what we need. We need to improve and make better what we have. just because more cars use the highway doesn't meen we need more highway. It means we need to find better ways to get done what people are trying to do. All those people on the hwy aren't trying to drive down the road, they are trying to get somewhere. After they get to wear they are going they are trying to get something done. If we can cut out the trying to get somewhere and just go to the getting stuff done step everything becomes much more efficient.

I am NOT in favor of either. I am in favor of improving infrastructure. More infrastructure isn't what we need. We need to improve and make better what we have. just because more cars use the highway doesn't meen we need more highway. It means we need to find better ways to get done what people are trying to do. All those people on the hwy aren't trying to drive down the road, they are trying to get somewhere. After they get to wear they are going they are trying to get something done. If we can cut out the trying to get somewhere and just go to the getting stuff done step everything becomes much more efficient.

I have an idea, why don't we all nail our front doors shut.

Yuck, you seem to think the world is underpopulated until the planet looks like the one depicted in 'Soylent Green". What about quality of life? Living in a crowded city stinks in more ways than one. First we complain about urban sprawl, then we say there are vast unsettled regions in South America we could turn into cities. OF course eating meat wastes a lot of land, lets do away with that and live on soybeans, we pack more people on the planet that way. Do away with mortgage incentives so no one owns their own home, that's pretty preposterous. Much easier to study chicken farming and apply the principle to people packing. We have billions of people on the planet, this puts an enourmous strain on resources and quality oflife, just my opinion. The more people we have, the more we consume, naturally.
Only so much of it will be renewed.

FX, what you are doing is running off at the bit and setting up all kinds of straw men, and then making yourself look intelligent by knocking them all down. Who said turn south america into cities? I said there were vast areas that could be settled; exactly how dense the overall population would be is not so clear. Where I live in the interior east coast, there is gorgeous town after gorgeous town for hundreds of miles.They have village greens, parks, plazas, theatres and sports facilities, libraries and colleges/universities. Yes, we have ****hole cities like NY, Newark, Los Angeles etc. But my point is that not all developed areas are unattractive. Nor should you assume all cities are ****holes. I agree that many AMERICAN cities are this way, especially out west where they were designed around the automobile. But not all cities are this way. I'd return to London in a heartbeat: no car. I lived right by the Thames river which, while I wouldn't drink it if i were you, provided a nice bikeway and regular sculling for my enjoyment.

As far as getting rid of mortgage subsidies it is long, long long overdue. Mortgage interest deductibility is a sop for the rich, who borrow money to finance huge houses in the suburbs, and a drag on the poor, who cannot afford any mortgage no matter what the incentives and must live in rental housing.



roughstuff

As far as getting rid of mortgage subsidies it is long, long long overdue. Mortgage interest deductibility is a sop for the rich, who borrow money to finance huge houses in the suburbs, and a drag on the poor, who cannot afford any mortgage no matter what the incentives and must live in rental housing.



roughstuff

hmm, "If I can't have it, you can't either". Just about anyone could have afforded some kind of house with the way interest rates have been lately. If you don't think owning your own home is a good thing, I don't know where you're coming from.

They have village greens, parks, plazas, theatres and sports facilities, libraries and colleges/universities. Yes, we have ****hole cities like NY, Newark, Los Angeles etc. But my point is that not all developed areas are unattractive. Nor should you assume all cities are ****holes. I agree that many AMERICAN cities are this way, especially out west where they were designed around the automobile. But not all cities are this way. I'd return to London in a heartbeat: no car.

London is amazing.

Don't forget when your talking about these beautiful cities that they are allowed to exist by the willingness of people to live in more rural areas to produce food.

We will always have a mix of urban and rural areas. They can co-exist, but not in the same place. If you want to work in the city, live there too. If you want to live in the country, work there. If some one takes what they see as the best of both worlds, everybody suffers for it.

I wrote a response to our earlier interaction and couldn't post it, and now it is outdated. But in rereading this thread, you FXjohn, seem to have put up a crap article that does not back up what it seemed to center on, trains and why America does not have them, and now the thread has descended into you bickering every point and showing that even though you live in an area that is fragile and unique, you taunt others for not doing the same, but if everyone lived the way you do, then your blessed environment would cease to exist. Do you see a dilemma?

hmm, "If I can't have it, you can't either". Just about anyone could have afforded some kind of house with the way interest rates have been lately. If you don't think owning your own home is a good thing, I don't know where you're coming from.


Well...you do put your finger on the right button. The argument I have always heard for the deduction is exactly the argument you have made: owning your own home is a great investment, and contributes to all other kinds of neat things like better land use and family stability yadda yadda. Thus it is in society's best interest to make mortgage interest deductible from ordinary income. My only point was that this encourages overbuilding and sprawl, and thus might not be as wonderful for society as we think.


Just not my cup o' tea! My most valuable tangible asset is my used car (maybe $5000) and my bicycle (maybe $500). Once I move back overseas next fall (not 100% sure I will :( )my bike will be about 90% of my tangible net worth! :)

Poverty by choice is liberating!

roughstuff

I wrote a response to our earlier interaction and couldn't post it, and now it is outdated. But in rereading this thread, you FXjohn, seem to have put up a crap article that does not back up what it seemed to center on, trains and why America does not have them, and now the thread has descended into you bickering every point and showing that even though you live in an area that is fragile and unique, you taunt others for not doing the same, but if everyone lived the way you do, then your blessed environment would cease to exist. Do you see a dilemma?

hmm, welll, someone had to raze manhattan in order for you guys to live on top of each other in high rises did they not? As long as we live and consume, we are doing irreversible harm to the planet and it's resources. If there is not room for everyone to have some elbow room and some environment to enjoy, then we have too many people. There is a real world outside your cement city with plants, animals and wildlife. Food does not grow atthe supermarket. You're right, though, I get to ride my bike for hours with seeing only a few cars, and the occaisional house. Stay where you are and be happy.

Check this map out:

http://www.ciesin.org/datasets/gpw/gppycpd-12in.gif

If you want to find empty places you can go to a desert, a rain forest, or frozen tundra. Even this map is mis-leading. The plains of the US might seem empty on that map, but anyone who has ever been there can tell you that people are there, using the land for what they can. Not very many people, but they are there.

Also notice that I said empty and you said "sparsely populated."

If you want to get back to trains, can some-one please explain why anybody would need to get from Detroit to Chicago at 200mph. What reason would justify the enormous cost of such a thing?The monumental stupidity behind most high-speed rail concepts is that the trains go at speeds of 120-200 mph for a few minutes, traversing dozens of miles, only to enter suburbs and other bottlenecks,where the trains slow to speeds as low as 20 mph, as is the case on the Northeast Corridor when Acela goes through New Rochelle. IT would be a lot cheaper to improve that stretch to 50 mph than to upgrade the high speed portion to 200 mph, and it would save more time on the trip. The money would be much better spent reducing transit time than maximizing top speed.

The monumental stupidity.... The money would be much better spent reducing transit time than maximizing top speed.

Both good and bad points here. Additional funds for improved trackage would allow express trains to zip through at high speed while some other trains slipped onto the local tracks and slowed down to suburban speeds. This is the case in France, for example, with its TGV trains which rip through hamlets and many suburban stations before they finally get to their major destinations.

Nonetheless thanks for making a point I hadn't thought of. We seem as hung up on maximum speeds for trains as we do for cars! :)

Over 30 years ago Barry Commoner pointed out that since trains drop ya in the center of a city, unlike airplanes which land 30 miles from many city centers, trains can be very competitive on intercity distances less than 500 miles.

roughstuff

So i am done with this thread, your pathetic superior attitude, an your inability to constructively debate. I said I grew up in the country. Could not see any other houses from mine. 27 kids in my grade, in the only school in town. I don't want to live in a building with 15 floors and 60 units, yet I do. I would rather live in the city than in a developed hell. I have certainly not said everyone must or should live in a city. But while we are dwelling on the obvious, I would like to point out there is place where every language in the world is spoken by people that don't look like you, and nearly every food and custom can be found, and it isn't in rural Indiana. I would rather live in the woods, on the marsh where I grew up. But to do so would mean a commute, by car or by train that (again) your article and original post did nothing to support. Talking about it and suggesting another completely different and useless transportation solution is not support of mass transit. (unless you are this President) If I lived out of the city, could work in a job out of my house or in the remote town. But I have tried to point out that in between the urban and the country is the consumerist Sub-urban environment that is not the real world. A false sense of community and unreal living habitat. If everything is paved, or designed and there is no manufacturing or farms then to me there is something not quite real about it. That may be coming it a bit high, hopefully not offensive, but that is how I see this country. So FXJohn, until you come to Manhattan where I can show you how to draft off a cab at 30 mph the length of Broadway, I'll consider this ultimate Troll thread.

So i am done with this thread, your pathetic superior attitude, an your inability to constructively debate. I said I grew up in the country. Could not see any other houses from mine. 27 kids in my grade, in the only school in town. I don't want to live in a building with 15 floors and 60 units, yet I do. I would rather live in the city than in a developed hell. I have certainly not said everyone must or should live in a city. But while we are dwelling on the obvious, I would like to point out there is place where every language in the world is spoken by people that don't look like you, and nearly every food and custom can be found, and it isn't in rural Indiana. I would rather live in the woods, on the marsh where I grew up. But to do so would mean a commute, by car or by train that (again) your article and original post did nothing to support. Talking about it and suggesting another completely different and useless transportation solution is not support of mass transit. (unless you are this President) If I lived out of the city, could work in a job out of my house or in the remote town. But I have tried to point out that in between the urban and the country is the consumerist Sub-urban environment that is not the real world. A false sense of community and unreal living habitat. If everything is paved, or designed and there is no manufacturing or farms then to me there is something not quite real about it. That may be coming it a bit high, hopefully not offensive, but that is how I see this country. So FXJohn, until you come to Manhattan where I can show you how to draft off a cab at 30 mph the length of Broadway, I'll consider this ultimate Troll thread.

I've been to Manhattan, it is a fine place to visit, but not to spend your life or to grow old.
I don't plan my life around food, that's another non-reason to live in a crowded city.
What is the point of having foreign languages around you, if you can't understand them?
Living in a city is also not a good place to be able to save a substantial part of yoru income.
Sure, you pointed out the Suburban community, I hate to see that development also, it means people are encroaching nearer to me. I can tell by your post (you said) you'd be much happier living out in the country like you used to. What is it you are working towards, living in the city? What do you do that you can only do in Manhattan?
I'd rather watch the deer than some dirty taxicab. Another thing, you can't see the stars at night in the city very well.

ditto that... well said.

So i am done with this thread, your pathetic superior attitude, an your inability to constructively debate. I said I grew up in the country. Could not see any other houses from mine. 27 kids in my grade, in the only school in town. I don't want to live in a building with 15 floors and 60 units, yet I do. I would rather live in the city than in a developed hell. I have certainly not said everyone must or should live in a city. But while we are dwelling on the obvious, I would like to point out there is place where every language in the world is spoken by people that don't look like you, and nearly every food and custom can be found, and it isn't in rural Indiana. I would rather live in the woods, on the marsh where I grew up. But to do so would mean a commute, by car or by train that (again) your article and original post did nothing to support. Talking about it and suggesting another completely different and useless transportation solution is not support of mass transit. (unless you are this President) If I lived out of the city, could work in a job out of my house or in the remote town. But I have tried to point out that in between the urban and the country is the consumerist Sub-urban environment that is not the real world. A false sense of community and unreal living habitat. If everything is paved, or designed and there is no manufacturing or farms then to me there is something not quite real about it. That may be coming it a bit high, hopefully not offensive, but that is how I see this country. So FXJohn, until you come to Manhattan where I can show you how to draft off a cab at 30 mph the length of Broadway, I'll consider this ultimate Troll thread.

ditto that... well said.


you wished you lived in the country like he does too?

not right now, but eventually. It's pretty much a widely accepted fact that there are more jobs, all of which are usually paid at a higher rate than in rural areas. I moved to Chicago from a wealthy, waspy, rich, affluent suburb and am now making more money and my cost of living has actually gone down. I sold my car and don't take many cabs.. i'm saving tons of money by taking the buses, trains, and biking everywhere. It's much less stressful for me. I enjoy living in the city. Sure, I pay more in rent, but the difference is made up elsewhere. I don't need to live in a 2000 foot loft to be happy.
As much as I like the country I realize that i'll be starting a family soon and I rather be able to present my children with all the oppurtunities of a large metro area (i love chicago - it's one of the greatest cities on earth. Clean, affordable, close to rural areas if you ride for a couple hours... but I digress.) I wound't feel good about my kids being limited to a small community of people, or only being able to work at the grocery store or restaurant.

When it's time for me to wind down, you'll be able to find me with my feet up, cold beer in hand, barbeque on my shirt, on a couple of hundred acres of land in central texas. but for now, the city is the place for me.

let's try to be civil about it. different people have different priorities. I'll be in Chicago for a while but when I retire, i'm going rural. And if you ask me, a bunch of apartments stacked on top of eachother is a MUCH better use of land than a house with a big yard. We're in no immediate danger of overcrowding the world, and with all the advancements in farming technology, growing food now costs less, yeilds more, with a more minimal impact. People aren't going to "stop having children" to control the world's population. it's not going to happen.

You've made a few good points, but if you wouldnt' be so hostile, i'm sure more people whould hear you out.

cheers.

But I have tried to point out that in between the urban and the country is the consumerist Sub-urban environment that is not the real world. A false sense of community and unreal living habitat.

Well said. Let's stop supporting the idea that "I can afford to use so I should use it".

what we need more of is URBAN sprawl, and less SUBURBAN sprawl. Bring the cities to the suburbs... Stop bringing the suburbs to the country.

build UP, not OUT.

not right now, but eventually. It's pretty much a widely accepted fact that there are more jobs, all of which are usually paid at a higher rate than in rural areas. I moved to Chicago from a wealthy, waspy, rich, affluend suburb and am now making more money and my cost of living has gone down. I sold my car and don't take many cabs.. i'm saving tons of money by taking the buses, trains, and biking everywhere. It's much less stressful for me. I enjoy living in the city. As much as I like the country I realize that i'll be starting a family soon and I rather be able to present my children with all the oppurtunities of a large metro area (i love chicago - it's one of the greatest cities on earth. Clean, affordable, close to rural areas if you ride for a couple hours... but I digress.) I wound't feel good about my kids being limited to a small community of people, or only being able to work at the grocery store or restaurant.

When it's time for me to wind down, you'll be able to find me with my feet up, cold beer in hand, barbeque on my shirt, on a couple of hundred acres of land in central texas. but for now, the city is the place for me.

let's try to be civil about it. different people have different priorities. I'll be in Chicago for a while but when I retire, i'm going rural. And if you ask me, a bunch of apartments stacked on top of eachother is a MUCH better use of land than a house with a big yard. We're in no immediate danger of overcrowding the world, and with all the advancements in farming technology, growing food now costs less, yeilds more, with a more minimal impact. People aren't going to "stop having children" to control the world's population. it's not going to happen.

You've made a few good points, but if you wouldnt' be so hostile, i'm sure more people whould hear you out.

cheers.

I guess I got lucky then. I am making as much money as i did living in Detroit. It's not working at a grocery store or restaurant :roflmao: It's in a specialized technical field. You forgot to mention the higher cost of living in the city as compared to the country. You're wrong about people "stopping having children" It's a known fact that as people become more affluent, they have less children, hence the shrinking birth rate of the middle class, which is why we need immigrants who make less, who have more children. If there is so much land to use, why are you so concerned if a person choses to live on a few acres instead of in a rabbit hutch with noise pollution on all sides? Having land is a great investment for the future, think of it as part of your portfolio. I am glad i didn't grow up in a crowded city, don't be so sure you are doing your kids a favor raising them with locked doors, strangers and concrete. You can go to college anywhere in the country, that is the education that will end up mattering, not elementary school or high school. I'm not being hostile, I'm just presenting an opinion you disagree with.

i didn't mean everyone work in stores, i was just talking about kids. I realize that there are many specialized companies in smaller towns. many towns are build around them. I know many people who grew up in rural areas and many people who grew up in Chicago. I would say most of the people I know who grew up in rural areas were bored much of the time, and would have liked the city life. On the flip side, most of the people i know who grew up in the city loved it. They were able to spend weekends in the woods when they needed some fresh air, but at other times appreciated all that the city has to offer.

I do realize that the cost of living is higher in the city. thing is, generally you make more working in a city, than rural areas. They pay you more to account for the increased cost of living. Like I said... I make more, and am spending less, buy a good amount.

The reason wealthy people have fewer kids is generally beacuse they aren't home as much, are more engrossed in their jobs, etc.

By the way, my rabbit hutch is fairly spacious, and there is very little noise pollution. Chicago is a totally different place than much of New York. I don't like NY, but I adore Chicago. I only mentioned the space issue as a way to demonstrate large metro areas aren't as destructive was implied in earlier posts.


I guess I got lucky then. I am making as much money as i did living in Detroit. It's not working at a grocery store or restaurant :roflmao: It's in a specialized technical field. You forgot to mention the higher cost of living in the city as compared to the country. You're wrong about people "stopping having children" It's a known fact that as people become more affluent, they have less children, hence the shrinking birth rate of the middle class, which is why we need immigrants who make less, who have more children. If there is so much land to use, why are you so concerned if a person choses to live on a few acres instead of in a rabbit hutch with noise pollution on all sides? Having land is a great investment for the future, think of it as part of your portfolio. I am glad i didn't grow up in a crowded city, don't be so sure you are doing your kids a favor raising them with locked doors, strangers and concrete. You can go to college anywhere in the country, that is the education that will end up mattering, not elementary school or high school. I'm not being hostile, I'm just presenting an opinion you disagree with.

i didn't mean everyone work in stores, i was just talking about kids. I realize that there are many specialized companies in smaller towns. many towns are build around them. I know many people who grew up in rural areas and many people who grew up in Chicago. I would say most of the people I know who grew up in rural areas were bored much of the time, and would have liked the city life. On the flip side, most of the people i know who grew up in the city loved it. They were able to spend weekends in the woods when they needed some fresh air, but at other times appreciated all that the city has to offer.

I do realize that the cost of living is higher in the city. thing is, generally you make more working in a city, than rural areas. They pay you more to account for the increased cost of living. Like I said... I make more, and am spending less, buy a good amount.

The reason wealthy people have fewer kids is generally beacuse they aren't home as much, are more engrossed in their jobs, etc.

By the way, my rabbit hutch is fairly spacious, and there is very little noise pollution. Chicago is a totally different place than much of New York. I don't like NY, but I adore Chicago. I only mentioned the space issue as a way to demonstrate large metro areas aren't as destructive was implied in earlier posts.

I live about equally as far from Chicago as i do from Detroit now,
I would like to check out Chicago sometime.
maybe I'll do the opposite, visit the city once in awhile to "get away from it all" LOL

You really should… It’s an amazing city. Big enough to have anything you want, but still pretty Midwestern. People are generally friendly, there’s a huge working-class population and a huge business-class population. Great universities, amazing food, and lots of diversity (depending on what part you are in). And the lake is simply amazing. The city is clean, easy to get around, and relatively safe. I’ve never had any troubles here, and in most parts of town have no problem walking around (or riding) by myself at night. Ride your bike for a couple hours and you’re in one of the biggest farm lands in the USA…corn, soybeans, long country roads. Chicago is totally different from NY, it has a much different feel. It’s much more user friendly, and the residents are (on average) less pretentious.

Come visit, let me know when you do. We’ll slug back a cold one.
I live about equally as far from Chicago as i do from Detroit now,
I would like to check out Chicago sometime.
maybe I'll do the opposite, visit the city once in awhile to "get away from it all" LOL

Chicago is an awesome city. I love New York, but I can't handle the pee smell and the black boogers for too long. The great thing about Chicago is that it's, (as previously stated,) possible to be working class and live in the city. My sister has lived there most of her life, so it gives me a good excuse to visit! I end up wanting a fixie every time I go.I used to drive an 18-wheeler, and I really don't have anything good to say about the drivers there, but it is incredible, otherwise.

Get from Detroit to Chicage...Detroit has like 6 million people and Chicago has like 9 Mil...Lots of commerce..If similiar trains existed they would be packed, I assure you..On a snowy day, I 94 at 7 am...Sorta busy.. It is a major industrial corridor..
Unlike LA to San Francisco where 200 mph is need, Detroit to Chicago , maybe only 100 mph is necessary..
Realize had trains like they have in Europe you could go LA to Chicago in like 10 hours..I would tear up my 'frequent mile' flyers card, for sure...
as to the map showing population..Once heard a critic of birth control say the whole population of the world could fit into Texas..With little white picket fences..guess all the steers and sagebrush would be carted off to Oklahoma...
I would not choose to be in Texas under those conditions...Some people 's logic is just nutz to me...Since no one could be offered mobility, guess Texas would not need fast transit trains..?

So i am done with this thread, your pathetic superior attitude, an your inability to constructively debate. I said I grew up in the country. Could not see any other houses from mine. 27 kids in my grade, in the only school in town. I don't want to live in a building with 15 floors and 60 units, yet I do. I would rather live in the city than in a developed hell. I have certainly not said everyone must or should live in a city. But while we are dwelling on the obvious, I would like to point out there is place where every language in the world is spoken by people that don't look like you, and nearly every food and custom can be found, and it isn't in rural Indiana. I would rather live in the woods, on the marsh where I grew up. But to do so would mean a commute, by car or by train that (again) your article and original post did nothing to support. Talking about it and suggesting another completely different and useless transportation solution is not support of mass transit. (unless you are this President) If I lived out of the city, could work in a job out of my house or in the remote town. But I have tried to point out that in between the urban and the country is the consumerist Sub-urban environment that is not the real world. A false sense of community and unreal living habitat. If everything is paved, or designed and there is no manufacturing or farms then to me there is something not quite real about it. That may be coming it a bit high, hopefully not offensive, but that is how I see this country. So FXJohn, until you come to Manhattan where I can show you how to draft off a cab at 30 mph the length of Broadway, I'll consider this ultimate Troll thread.
Good riddance. FX hasn't "set up straw men" or been on the attack half as much as he's recieved. You guys are just used to having your little hipster Critical Mass dance parties, and can't handle having a dialogue with someone who sees the world a little differently. Politically, I'm probably closer to you and r8ingbull than FXjohn, but this insistence on smug superiority in your cool subculture will never bring about the utopia you claim to desire. C-ya!