Still John, you do always seem to go to bat for the auto industry. Conflict of interest? Playing devils advocate? Or just trolling? ;)

hahaha...maybe....

I'd hate for the Govt to tell me I couldn't own a motorized vehicle.
I don't like them telling me I can't have anything i guess
It wouldn't have to be much more than a motorized gokart with a heater and stereo as long as the roads are safe.

The USA has about 4% of the world's population and uses about 1/3 of the world's resources. There are more cars than people in the USA. We have used more fossil fuel in the past 30 years than in all of previous recorded history. There is about an equal amount of aquare miles in parking lots as there are protected forests.

Now, imagine China becoming like us. One billion+ cars and Asia ribboned with highways and parking lots. Think of the global catastrophe that would be. Make no mistake, though, the idea of a billion consumers is the auto industry's wet dream.

The reality is that the car culture is not sustainable or responsible. The excesses of our culture in this area is a disgrace and a slap in the face to every starving child on the planet. We don't need 3 ton SUVs or 180mph sportscars. How can anyone drive one of those things with a clear conscience? Children alive today will likely see and have to live with the devastation this life style is creating.China is already outconsuming us in many areas. Items like steel, gasoline and lumber have already shot up considerably.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4272577.stm

Quote directly from article:
China has overtaken the US in the consumption of basic agricultural and industrial goods, a survey has found.
With a booming economy and 1.3bn people, it is now the world's largest consumer of grain, meat, coal and steel, said the Earth Policy Institute.

But China's insatiable demands are putting ever more pressure on the country's natural resources.

Air and water pollution are already serious problems, and there is talk of a looming ecological crisis.

China is well ahead of the US in the consumption of goods such as television sets, refrigerators and mobile phones, according to the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute.

Please, don't anyone read my last post and put me in the anti-car movement. I'm not. I'm quite pro automobile/personal mobility. Personally, I don't think it is necessary or even desirable to have so many expensive luxury cars and SUVs driving around but it's not my call. Evidently somebody can afford them. I always buy and drive used and unexciting cars. I just can't see spending the $25,000 necessary to buy an "average" car much less the Jaguars, BMWs and other luxury liners. Call me thrifty.

According to the World Bank, in 2003 the USA also produced about 30% of the world's economic output (http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GDP.pdf).
Let's be fair here.Awsome! I'm afraid that won't last though. We're just not able to compete with the super low labor costs of Asia, mainly China. It took 30 years for the United States to become competitive in labor costs with Japan, however, I'm afraid with 1.3 billion people (approx. half of whom are considered peasant class) and an average hourly rate of 80 cents per hour China will have an almost inexhaustable labor pool. It could easily take until next century or longer before labor costs begin to level off. By then we won't have a middle class.

Awww now, you're ruining all the fun of hating the United States for everyone on the board, Dr....

China is already outconsuming us in many areas. Items like steel, gasoline and lumber have already shot up considerably.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4272577.stm

Quote directly from article:
China has overtaken the US in the consumption of basic agricultural and industrial goods, a survey has found.
With a booming economy and 1.3bn people, it is now the world's largest consumer of grain, meat, coal and steel, said the Earth Policy Institute.

But China's insatiable demands are putting ever more pressure on the country's natural resources.

Air and water pollution are already serious problems, and there is talk of a looming ecological crisis.

China is well ahead of the US in the consumption of goods such as television sets, refrigerators and mobile phones, according to the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute.

You missed one very important quote that's also in that article:

However, per capita consumption in China - the world's most populous country - remains far below that of the US.

I'm not saying China's not consuming tons of resources, but on a per capita basis, we're worse. They have 1.3 billion people; they'd better be consuming more as far as raw numbers go, but that's not really a fair assessment of who's consuming what.

You missed one very important quote that's also in that article:



I'm not saying China's not consuming tons of resources, but on a per capita basis, we're worse. They have 1.3 billion people; they'd better be consuming more as far as raw numbers go, but that's not really a fair assessment of who's consuming what.

That doesn't matter, what about their rate of growth?

It does matter. You can't say they're the biggest consumer without noting that they're also, by a large margin, the largest country in terms of population.

Growth is important, and I imagine China will one day be the worst offender as far as consuming resources. Just not today. For today, the US wears that distinction.

We can only change the world one individual at a time, and Chinese individuals consume less than American individuals.

We can only change the world one individual at a time, and Chinese individuals consume less than American individuals.


But...it' not because they are choosing not to...they would consume just as much as they could.

It sounds like you want everyone to have/consume nothing and dwell in poverty and backwardsness

But...it' not because they are choosing not to...they would consume just as much as they could...Exactly. Given the chance they would live their lives just as people in the United States, Europe and Japan do.

For example, take a look at Japan. Just a few decades ago they were a backward impoverished nation just as China is today. Did they continue being impoverished? Nope. They have cameras, walkmans, Hondas and all other sorts of consumable disposable items.

Given the choice nobody chooses poverty, except for the Tibetan Monks.

Exactly. Given the chance they would live their lives just as people in the United States, Europe and Japan do.

For example, take a look at Japan. Just a few decades ago they were a backward impoverished nation just as China is today. Did they continue being impoverished? Nope. They have cameras, walkmans, Hondas and all other sorts of consumable disposable items.

Given the choice nobody chooses poverty, except for the Tibetan Monks.

Your post makes it sound as if walkmans, hondas and other disposable consumer items are needed to not live in poverty.

Amish have none of that, most of them that I deal with are very well off financially.

Also when was Japan a backwards impoverished country?

Your post makes it sound as if walkmans, hondas and other disposable consumer items are needed to not live in poverty.

Do you always oversimplify things to the point of missing the actual point?

His point is that people living in poverty don't have those things, and to have those things you can't live in poverty.

You can live in a cardboard box and be a billionaire, but no one would know it. However, chances are if you're carrying a bag full of techie goods, you probably aren't living in poverty.

... when was Japan a backwards impoverished country?Prior to WW2 they were a very poor country with a substantial peasant population. Their military build up for WW2 helped to pull them out of those conditions and the Marshall Plan after WW2 helped them to get the ball rolling to become the economic powerhouse we currently know them for.

As cyclists the engines which power our transport ,may produce methane. Perhaps this thread should be moved to politics and religion as it seems to be getting quite contentious.

Quite contentious? Your post is the first since Monday. But thanks for bumping this thread back to the top. ;)

I work with ghetto kids who have value very highly technical gadgetry like video games and stereos. Poverty is a bizarre thing, a desparate form of idolotry often emerges. Just because a kid has a pair of $200 sneakers does not mean he has economic security, or is happy.

A person who is able to free themselves of our material idolotry, though, that is a free person.

Doctor, we do have choices, and we need to take responsibilty for them. I am ashamed of all that this country has done, and I am not proud to live here. I want the buffalo and trees back. American values suck, and it's time folks owned up to it.

Even those with money aren't all happy. Their poverty is of a different sort.

I don't see how non-materialistic people are backwards. Our culture is hardly sustainable- is that not more backwards than Amish folk who take care of their land? Or Australian Aboriginals who've managed for thousands of years without killing everything in sight?

I work with ghetto kids who have value very highly technical gadgetry like video games and stereos. Poverty is a bizarre thing, a desparate form of idolotry often emerges. Just because a kid has a pair of $200 sneakers does not mean he has economic security, or is happy.

A person who is able to free themselves of our material idolotry, though, that is a free person.

Doctor, we do have choices, and we need to take responsibilty for them. I am ashamed of all that this country has done, and I am not proud to live here. I want the buffalo and trees back. American values suck, and it's time folks owned up to it.

Even those with money aren't all happy. Their poverty is of a different sort.

I don't see how non-materialistic people are backwards. Our culture is hardly sustainable- is that not more backwards than Amish folk who take care of their land? Or Australian Aboriginals who've managed for thousands of years without killing everything in sight?

I totally agree with what your saying about our culture being unsustainable.

I wonder though, with past history showing that humans tend to move naturally towards societal and ecological collapse, how do we fix it? It's been shown numerous times that without a combination of bottom up and top down management that the changes simply aren't effective. Use for example the original australians (those who emigrated from austronesia and southeast asia 40,000 yeas ago), they were not good stewards of their environment. They caused a massive ecological collapse, they had no reason to sustain or leaders to enforce it. So with the present lack of effective environmental leadership and a very serious lack of understanding on the part of the general public, how do we fix it?

Hmmmm...The anti-Chicago Car Show "Bicycle Taliban" is recruiting~!

Yes...Tilting at windmils these Critical Mass anti-car leftists certainly are:

Apparently in recent years the militant lunatic left have taken up bicycling and are intentionally taking over national bicycle advocacy.

Much of their spiteful anti-car activism involves promoting rediculious traffic calming schemes such as road closures or reductions like unnessarry lane reductions on busy main arterials,installing speed bumps, bulb outs,neck downs, etc.,etc. .....dubious traffic calming "bicycle safety" schemes which typically SACRAFICE bicycle safety, and,incredably, significantly INCREASE auto tailpipe emissions!!

Looks like some of these anti-car activists are using Bike Forums to promote their "auto free" nonsence.

Cheers, Tea Time

Don't you just love newbies, 'specially the trolls??? :love:

Where'd you come from, the office of Homeland Security? :rolleyes:

I'll see you in the politics and religion section, A-Hole. :D

Gee...Such a nasty unpleasant reply from Mr Get Phat In Europe...!!
What a welcome... My true comments have annoyed you indeed~!

Hey, instead of attacking me Mr Get Phat (I thought this was a civil forum to discuss or debate bicycle issues) respond to what I said... instead of resorting to a (paranoid leftist rant~!) personal attack.

Surprized & disappointed,
Tea Time
(with over 300,000 cycling miles in my legs~!)

Amazing. This person has been waiting for someone to reply to the blatent troll the whole time. Hilarious.

Tilting at windmills again? Your misguided attempts to eliminate the automobile are about as effective as GW's search for WMD.

I don't want to have to agree-BUT I HAVE TO AGREE!

..."Bicycle Taliban"...

...Critical Mass anti-car leftists...

Apparently in recent years the militant lunatic left have taken up bicycling and are intentionally taking over national bicycle advocacy. "
Don't make me laugh! You're implying that national bike advocacy groups are being 'taken over' and further implying that 'the militant lunatic left' actually have control of policy-making in such advocacy groups at the national level, and real transportation decisions are being made by our government based on what these activists want, as far as tranportation policy is concerned. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most bicycle advocacy groups are still squarely mainstream, and the 'Motoring Taliban' are still firmly in control of national, state and local transportation policy and funding.


Much of their spiteful anti-car activism involves promoting rediculious traffic calming schemes such as road closures or reductions like unnessarry lane reductions on busy main arterials,installing speed bumps, bulb outs,neck downs, etc.,etc. .....dubious traffic calming "bicycle safety" schemes which typically SACRAFICE bicycle safety...
I don't disagree that in some instances these type of improvements do sacrifice bicycle safety; however, the types of improvements you are complaining about are actually those that are pushed by 'moderates' in the mainstream advocacy groups. Critical Mass is much more closely aligned with the vehicular cyclists - 'Whose streets? Our streets!' and 'We're not blocking traffic - We are traffic' - being prime examples of Critical Mass vehicular cycling slogans. Furthermore, speed bumps, bulb outs, neck downs, etc. are primarily pedestrian improvements and only secondarily function as bicycle improvements. Finally, I see nothing wrong with neigborhood traffic calming, I don't need or want yahoos racing down my 25mph residential street at 45mph. If it takes speed bumps to stop them, so be it.


Looks like some of these anti-car activists are using Bike Forums to promote their "auto free" nonsence.
Car free streets aren't nonsense. They work great in many European cities and towns, the London congestion pricing scheme is a success, and there are more examples. I'm not stupid enough to think that cars are going away anytime soon (at least until the oil runs out), but I do think that we as a society need to seriously examine and discuss the issues surrounding our reliance on, worship of, and slavery to the automobile. Busting in here and calling people names - in your first post here ever - like 'bicycle taliban', 'anti-car leftists' and 'militant lunatic leftists' certainly doesn't foster or promote any sort of civil dialog.

Busting in here and calling people names - in your first post here ever - like 'bicycle taliban', 'anti-car leftists' and 'militant lunatic leftists' certainly doesn't foster or promote any sort of civil dialog.

Something tells me that he wasn't trying to promote any dialog. He just found a broad brush and was dying to find a place to use it.

Does that consider the cost of paying a bus driver, wages, health benefits and retirement?
Almot forgot aboyut the wages of the maintenance crew also, and the dedicated fuel storage, etc etc.
There's more to it than gallons divided by people per mile.

nick burns original comment clearly states that it's energy-wise. It seems like FXjohn is trying to derail it into cost-wise. FXjohn, do you have a reliable data that contradicts nick burns information? Let's see it.

nick burns original comment clearly states that it's energy-wise. It seems like FXjohn is trying to derail it into cost-wise. FXjohn, do you have a reliable data that contradicts nick burns information? Let's see it.


Energy=money by definition and Vis-a-versa

wasted money and wasted energy are equally bad, because one equals the other.

Great.....so you intolerant and humorless' ban the car'zealots (hey..'Bicycle Taliban'certainly is apt~!) posting on this forum admit that obstructing & prohibiting cars in your real agenda...Your working to eventually make walking, bicycling, and compulsory public transportation the only legal mobility mode in your ideal carless world...right~!~?

And regardless that those traffic calming control and restriction devices, that you endlessly promote (Ironically in the name of "bicycle safety"~!), ARE known TRIP HAZARDS for bicycles, and they are also known to significantly INCREASE tail pipe emissions.~!~!~!~....but that's ok with you because they punish motorists (and cyclists~!) and supposedly improve pedestrian safety....
What incredible nonsense~!!!!

Needless to say your not making bicycle sense...

Based on how you described your radical Critical Mass car free goals that you've stated here.. clearly you are anti-car zealots and you certainly don't represent responsible bicycle advocacy.

Cheers

Warning

Don't Feed The Trolls!

Warning

Don't Feed The Trolls!
not even BSE beef?

Energy=money by definition and Vis-a-versa

wasted money and wasted energy are equally bad, because one equals the other.

"Energy=money by definition " I want to know what dictionary says this. Can you name it?


When you look at things and try to analyze it, you get as much as information you can get and not just what you want to see. nick burns information based on the fuel consumption divide by miles divide by head conts is certaily a simple useful way to look at it. It's certainly different from adding all the cost involves. Even when you decide to add all the cost, it'll be many different way based on the person's interpretation. For example, if you fly 1000miles by air, air fair is the most of the cost. When you travel by a car, you have to add the cost of meals, place to stay, which adds even more than nick burns information. What I asked you in my original question is to have you present the information, analysis, that you believe more adequate. Let's see your part of information and let the rest of us analyze it. It's not a good way to reject a information just because you don't like it or what it represents. You get the information from both side then make your own decision, that's what I would do.

Now I ask you two things. One I already asked, energy-wise comparison data among different transportation. Another is cost-wise which involves all the hidden costs.

Convince us.