Old 05-16-19, 05:39 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8069 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
You might have a better point than you imagine. A space station or Biosphere is something they can and do have. And what is the catch to how sustainable those two examples are? The number of people in them. Increase the number by 25 percent and is a biosphere still sustainable? Notice it isnít a transportation issue that endangers sustainability? It is the number that live there. Why? Because it is a closed system. The earth is a closed system. Google maximum sustainable human population. See if building an HSR changes that?

Making a point for HSR against planes is one thing. Trying to add sustainability to the argument is not going to prove we need HSR. Once again my opinion based on population studies.
You're missing my point about the space station. If humans can live sustainably on a space station, then there is no limit to population growth on Earth. A space station is a self-contained system that doesn't affect anything outside of it.

What you don't like about population growth is density. You have a preference for less people to share more space, but it's not a natural limit to population growth and sustainability; just a subjective preference to have less people in an area instead of more.

You want to have less people because you want the freedom to drive.

So basically you're whole population limits argument comes down to you not wanting to give up driving.

That explains why you come on a car-free forum to argue with people who are for reducing driving, pavement, and sprawl and the unsustainability that comes with them.
tandempower is offline