Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page > Philosophical discussion about busses and pollution
Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

Philosophical discussion about busses and pollution

Reply

Old 05-14-18, 07:25 PM
  #326  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,012

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
...

Someone has to tell him that working for less is not the same as feeding the poor or helping them get a coat. If someone feels they make too much spend it on helping others, that is kindness.
It sounds like an inner dialog passed off as something more than simple storytelling... not much to respond to as if we're actually talking about a meaningful philosophy of life. Some people work for nothing. It's called charity but, ride a bike so your employer doesn't have to pay you so much...? Not even a credible story.

Last edited by McBTC; 05-14-18 at 07:29 PM.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-18, 08:46 PM
  #327  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,507

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3077 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
By realizing the slums exist we have moved closer to a meeting of the minds. Because they exist and they are full of people suggestions that consumers in California consuming less and making less money or living more densely will have a positive effect in their lifetime is hard to swallow
Again, I'm not sure who has claimed that direct connection. Of course they are indirectly connected through a complex web of multiple threads. For example someone in California could choose between buying a Hummer and giving less to charity or buying a Fiesta and giving more to charity. The money the US government spent to bail out auto companies on a few occasions could have gone to foreign aid..Some of the poverty and corruption in African states might be partly due to Western and probably Chinese too, corporations bribing officials to get cheap access to resources, like the rare earth minerals used in modern electronics including in cars, etc. The officials get rich and get to stay in power and we get affordable cars and cell phones and some Kenyans get to live in Kibera. So in our small way each of us might contribute knowingly or unknowingly to poverty elsewhere.
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
One of the great things about the west is the people that are willing to work hard to earn enough to help people that have nothing.."
I'm sure some of those people work pretty hard just to survive.

PS Wikipedia says there is bus service, and the other popular choice is carjacking.

Last edited by cooker; 05-14-18 at 08:50 PM.
cooker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-18, 08:58 PM
  #328  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,012

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
...

someone in California could choose between buying a Hummer and giving less to charity or buying a Fiesta and giving more to charity. ...

.
So... that makes the manufacturer of Fiesta really good then, right? And, the manufacturer of a Hummer is... evil? So, Ford is better than Chevy. Good to know.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-18, 09:01 PM
  #329  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,012

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
There seems to be a complete ignorance of some about the concept of the velocity of money.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-18, 12:42 AM
  #330  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,489

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike,2011 CF Specialized Tarmac road bike. 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 955 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
Again, I'm not sure who has claimed that direct connection. Of course they are indirectly connected through a complex web of multiple threads. For example someone in California could choose between buying a Hummer and giving less to charity or buying a Fiesta and giving more to charity. The money the US government spent to bail out auto companies on a few occasions could have gone to foreign aid..Some of the poverty and corruption in African states might be partly due to Western and probably Chinese too, corporations bribing officials to get cheap access to resources, like the rare earth minerals used in modern electronics including in cars, etc. The officials get rich and get to stay in power and we get affordable cars and cell phones and some Kenyans get to live in Kibera. So in our small way each of us might contribute knowingly or unknowingly to poverty elsewhere.
I'm sure some of those people work pretty hard just to survive.

PS Wikipedia says there is bus service, and the other popular choice is carjacking.
I am glad they say they provide a bus but like I said there wasnít when I was there. I doubt they are free and the cost a lot more than a Matata or small van that someone buys to get a license to transport people. They pack the things like a mother opossum and charge about a few Kenyan shillings one way. Still I think you would need to see what they consider bus service. Brave people to car jack there. They have armed guards in booths along the roads. There are big speed bumps at the booth. The guards watch all the cars that go by. And if they shoot there is no warning shot. I do have to express doubt about car jacking in the slums. There is a road that leads around the whole slum but I donít remember there being any raids inside the slum. The buildings barely leave enough room to walk. There is raw sewage running between shacks. Maybe if they walked the distance into Nairobi they could jump someone in the street but outside of the city very few people have cars. The city is a different story.

By the way a lot of people that can afford a Hummer can afford to give to charity. Fiesta owners many times donít have as much to give.

I once sponsored a whole family for $175.00 for six months. I sent a money order twice before they got a note on the door telling them to move. I donít know where they are now.

I doubt they will spind money to send the kids to school. Every other place I visited the kids walked, even the youngest. About the only ones going to a government school are ones living too far from a Protestant or catholic school. Private schools are free and they feed the kids. But they are car free. One LCF poster would be pleased.

much like here they are not welcomed by most people living in Nairobi. Look up slums of Chicago.


Last edited by Mobile 155; 05-15-18 at 01:17 AM.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-18, 01:12 AM
  #331  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 8,788

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3868 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
It's gone both ways. When the exodus from the cities started it was the rich who left and the poor who stayed behind and now that cities are chic again it's reversed.
Nope. The rich stayed int he cities and bought multiple properties. They got out on the weekends because life in the city sucked. The middle class got out. The poor lived in terrible conditions but couldn't afford to move.

The poor people want to leave the cities ... because the cost of living is high in cities Without personal transport. But in cities there are usually social services and a concentration of dirty jobs, cleaning up the concentrated filth of the small factories and all those people.

The poor flocked to cities from rural areas because of the low-skill, low-wage jobs and the cheap but unpleasant housing. They sacrificed in hopes of finding steady work and opportunities for offspring. Then they got stuck in slums and ghettos, didn't receive the services they thought came with city life ,... and mostly had never gotten anywhere else anyway (things like police protection, code enforcement, and decent education.)

China is dealing with it now. As the population grows in the hinterland, jobs do not grow---farming is more mechanized, factories stay closer to the cities ... so poor people have nothing to lose by going to the cities. Being homeless in a city offers better survival opportunities than being homeless in farming districts.

The suburbs formed because semi-skilled, semi--educated workers could demand higher wages and afford what they thought were better lives---a little space, a little privacy, not having to listen to a thousand neighbors all day and night, a back yard where you could actually have friends over, play catch with the kids ... a place where kids could run around all day in a safe environment.

The "middle class" sort sort of couldn't wait to get out of the city and get some space to breathe. The cost of living was the same---housing was much cheaper, but the car cost some---but obviously people thought it was worth it, to get out of the dirty, hot, stinking, crowded city, with its higher crime, and no space. They saw a chance to give their children a better environment---you can't hardly have a pet in an apartment. You have to get on a bus to go to a park.

As soon as anyone except the wealthy could, they fled the cities. The wealthy could live in the upscale enclaves, where they had higher-quality buildings (better services, quieter neighbors,) where police presence kept crime low, and the wealthy had cars so they didn't have to put up with pubic transportation. The slightly less wealthy used taxis, which offer all the drawbacks of cars environmentally.

The wealthy didn't send their kids to public schools. many of which were underfunded because funding was tied to property taxes. The wealthy didn't send their kids to play in the street. The wealthier people in fact, insulated themselves from city life and high-density living as much as possible.

This is what I have learned from reading and watching TV. Ihave no clue if it is true, but it seems to be the story most people are tellign and have been for most of my life.

My life follows the same arc---raised in suburbia, moved to cities to find work (population pressure is often ahead of growth as suburbs grow into cities) and as soon as I could, got out of the city to live in a place where things are safer, cleaner, and less crazy. Pretty much everyone does if they have the chance ... except some people go really rural if they can afford it.

Cities are "chic" again among the educated young pre-family class who like the vibrancy found int he better parts of better cities. fact is, there is only ever going to be a certain fraction of people in the economic range. And there will always be a huge support base of lower-paid workers who live in the city for those crappy jobs, because they don;'t have the capital to get out. And as soon as they can, most of them do.

i suggest people who have a lot of theories try testing them. Try living for a while on a min-wage job in a city, see how 'chic" it is to have rats in your apartment, but not heat or reliable plumbing. See how you like having your morning commute take three times as long because the buses don't run early enough or don't connect when you need them. See how you feel about not having access to supermarkets.

You really have no clue how most people are forced to live in cities, i see.

And also ... what about food supply while we are on the topic? Do you favor high-intensity factory farming with a high-degree of automation and the concomitant overuse of fertilizers and pesticides, with food picked under-ripe so it can survive the trip to the cities?

If you are going to push cities as a big solution to man's woes, why aren't you talking about Improving life in cities, to make cities themselves more sustainable?

Youod realize, I hope, that it takes a huge amount of land and resources to keep a city running, and while the population is concentrated, if you look at how much land is needed to sustain that city to provide the food amd materials and power ... suddenly high population density isn't really happening.

Why don't you make cities more sustainable? There is a ton of good stuff out there .... sort of makes it seem you learned to play one not on the piano and keep playing it over and over and think you found the perfect song.

And while you are at it, why not promote sustainable lifestyles Everywhere? packing people into cities without addressing the toxic lifestyle we all now lead is worthless ... pollution production is not drastically reduces, nor is energy consumption, in cities. The toxic chemicals we use in every aspect of our lives from cleaning products to fertilizer and pesticides and paints and inks ... to energy production to waste treatment .... we still use all that whether we live in cities, suburbia, or in the farmland.

You r"move to teh cites" tune is a dirty band-aid. the body is on the verge of disastrous septic shock, and you are suggesting wearing cologne.

Higher-density population centers is your pet idea, or maybe because people criticized it, you decided you needed to defend it .... but even you admit it seems like some sort of major disruption is coming ... and moving to New York isn't going to stop it.

I Strongly suggest we close this thread and start over. This has reached a point where i cannot see much progress being made going back through several pages.

And yes, i realize, for you, tl;dr.

You know, if a person complains that eh cannot manage responding to long posts on an internet forum ... he's not likely a person i would turn to for advice in pretty much any matter.

I spent a day away from this bickering session to see if anything positive would arise without my caustic presence. i see more of the same.

oh .... @Mobile 155: The auto industry didn't exist in 1895 and it has been in transition ever since. yes, the bailout was probably necessary in the immediacy of the financial mismanagement because it would have had a serious negative impact on the nation's economy ... but that is not a reason to support the industry. if the auto industry shrank by a half, it wouldn't happen over night ... it would shed jobs and sell factories, and in time other businesses would grow and hire some of the workers.

I think we all know, that the crazy, consumption-driven society we live in is not sustainable no matter if we all live in cities or in rural regions or suburbs. Economists have taken over from realists, and the numbers matter more than the facts of life. The current paradigm of employment has gone beyond assuring survival to the point where doing pointless work is considered better than doing nothing .... sort of a farmer growing more food than he can sell ahead of spoilage, but looking to grow even more, just because ... bigger numbers. people think automation is bad because it kicks people out of the job pool---because it is considered better to have a person do mindless, robotic work even if it produces nothing of value.

Education has been twisted into "job training." the idea that learning itself is a good thing is lost .... only the very rich and frivolous can go to school to learn something because it interests them. The idea that knowing more gives one a broader perspective and makes one a more able person is lost.

When I hear peple coming here saying 'I have the solution" or "Only this will work" ... Yeah, cooker, you have an idea. or your heard an idea. it resonates with you.
but you are taking as limited a view as the economists who think natural disasters are great because they boos t GDP---dead people mean less unemployment and rebuilding from destruction stimulates business.

Packing people into cities won't help ... because the people will still be thinking and living the same way they are now, and it is not sustainable. Spreading people across the continent is not a solution either. harping on the supposed merits of a single "solution" is ridiculous .... in a way, tandempower sees it most clearly (but everything about his thought process is so unrealistic, it is wasted on him): People Need to Think Differently.

Thing is, we are running out of time. it would take a couple generations maybe ... or a huge and fundamental catastrophe, or some sort of global disruption ... to make people take a step back and look at how we look at things. And frankly, the current crop of humanity doesn't have what it takes.

I gave up environmental activism because i realized that no matter how hard i worked, it wasn't going to make a difference. The people who have a clue tend to have crazy ideas like filling the sky with chemicals to block sunlight (like that would never have unintended consequences) but market forces limit how much we are really willing to change---because the crisis hasn't happened yet, no need to slow down---we can just jam on the brakes and turn on a dime at the last second, right? Meanwhile, let's drive full-speed toward that canyon.

Very few people I have spoken with have a really god grasp of the whole picture--most find one small thing that sounds good and promote it pointlessly, or find one small area where they can make small improvements, which is like polishing the brightwork on the Titanic.

I switched from trying to "save" human life on this planet (or actually, i wanted to save all the rest of the life we are killing---humans pretty much suck) from self-destruction through the enormous stupidity of crapping in our own nest .... to trying to alleviate immediate suffering, because as far as I can see, Nothing is getting through to the people in general, and our path as a species isn't going to change. We are just too stupid. So what good Can I do?

I find it more noble to try to help actual suffering people or animals, or even to preserve a small patch of forest, or to create a rooftop garden and provide food for a few people or pretty much any tangible reduction of the bad crap going on in the world ... to endless internet bantering about ideas which are almost entirely abstract and so minor that they amount to being meaningless.

This is like a political forum where everybody talks ... and talks .... or a religious forum where half the people just promote their faiths and cannot bear to analyze them, and the other half have chosen the religions of science or atheism, and don't realize those are faith-based belief systems as well.

Lots of words, and in the end ... my life is shorter and no one 's life is better.

I strongly suggesting closing this thread and starting over ... with maybe a fresh and slightly tighter focus.
Maelochs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-18, 04:28 AM
  #332  
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,693

Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 877 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
The poor people want to leave the cities ... because the cost of living is high in cities Without personal transport.
OK if you say so.
The poor flocked to cities from rural areas because of the low-skill, low-wage jobs and the cheap but unpleasant housing.
Hmm...

They sacrificed in hopes of finding steady work and opportunities for offspring.
Very few decisions get made on the basis of finding "opportunities for offspring". People are just trying to get by day to day and in circumstances that they didn't so much design as fell into.

i suggest people who have a lot of theories try testing them. Try living for a while on a min-wage job in a city, see how 'chic" it is to have rats in your apartment, but not heat or reliable plumbing. See how you like having your morning commute take three times as long because the buses don't run early enough or don't connect when you need them. See how you feel about not having access to supermarkets.
I live in the city of Atlanta. There's plenty of supermarkets in the city and lots of smaller markets. The busses and trains run very well IMO and I use them heavily. The Marta app on my phone shows me a real time map that tracks the next bus and google maps routes me to places I'm not used to going by showing me where to stop and transfer etc.

You really have no clue how most people are forced to live in cities, i see.
I have lots of clues. Even though I don't have a minimum wage job I'm within a mile of many that do and I travel the streets and observe them and talk with them while waiting at bus stops etc. Where does your experience come from?

And also ... what about food supply while we are on the topic? Do you favor high-intensity factory farming with a high-degree of automation and the concomitant overuse of fertilizers and pesticides, with food picked under-ripe so it can survive the trip to the cities?
Ha! The people in the country are also buying almost all their food shipped from Florida or California etc. When you go to Kroger in rural America you're almost never (if at all) buying locally grown food. And in terms of travel time a couple hours on a truck is all it takes to get from the most rural areas to the city. What's all this "survive the trip to the cities"?

Youod realize, I hope, that it takes a huge amount of land and resources to keep a city running, and while the population is concentrated, if you look at how much land is needed to sustain that city to provide the food amd materials and power ... suddenly high population density isn't really happening.
What are you saying? I think it's pretty clear that the total amount of land required to support people that live spread-out is more. Go to the country and look at the many homesteads on five or ten acres of land that is quite often maintained as pasture and cut with a bushhog and gives back very little to the world while consuming lots of petrol/other resources and the land on which the food is grown is totally separate.

Why don't you make cities more sustainable?
I'm all for it. Cities are already intrinsically more sustainable than rural living as the population of the world scales up.
Walter S is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-18, 07:10 AM
  #333  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 8,788

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3868 Post(s)
I have lived in some cities ... but not all of them.

Read about what pro-city activists say about say, NYC or some other cities ... or don't.

Anyway ... everyone wants to fight. I will step aside and let you.
Maelochs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-18, 07:16 AM
  #334  
Maelochs
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 8,788

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3868 Post(s)
Oh ans by the way ... yeah, actually research how long it takes from field to truck to truck to store ... 3,000 miles from California where a lot of our produce is grown, takes about a week and stuff gets beat up, so it is picked unripe. Look up the stuff, don't just spray piss on everything you don't want to hear.

Read about urban food deserts, too ... learning can be fun.
Maelochs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-18, 07:19 AM
  #335  
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,693

Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 877 Post(s)
Oh didnít realize your posts should be consumed without comment. Ramble on my friend.
Walter S is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-18, 09:46 AM
  #336  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,489

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike,2011 CF Specialized Tarmac road bike. 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 955 Post(s)
I tend to agree we have reached an impasse on this thread.

This debate has been going on longer than most of us have been alive and the sides are always, or seem to be, drawn along the same lines.

Some of us believe outside political pressure will change society and one day one day it will wake up and change. Some of us believe only personal action by people for people does any good.

The point is it never changes. The planners plan and say if we don’t follow the plan today it will be too late. So move to a city, ride a bus or give up your car. Then the planners can go about their day thinking the job is being done.

Doers get in in the trenches and put hands on to help or try to help the people or cause that they can. Often the doers feel sooner or later others might do the same.

But the truth is planning for something that might be sustainable if started 75 years ago doesn’t mean it is still sustainable.

The very idea that even one billion people can give up cars, ride buses and live densely while seven or eight billion people start a new Industrial Age is just simply proof it is unsustainable. How do we know? Because from the political social planners not everyone has to live the sustainable life for the next 10-20-30 years till the developing people reach the same place the unsustainable people already live.

We will never get past this till disaster strikes. But I will give the planners this. They will never have experience watching someone die because they lived in the fringes while the plans are made and never started.

with that i too will withdraw.

Last edited by Mobile 155; 05-15-18 at 01:51 PM.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-18, 10:02 AM
  #337  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,507

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3077 Post(s)
Yes, too long, but did read.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
The poor flocked to cities from rural areas because of the low-skill, low-wage jobs and the cheap but unpleasant housing. They sacrificed in hopes of finding steady work and opportunities for offspring. Then they got stuck in slums and ghettos, didn't receive the services they thought came with city life ,... and mostly had never gotten anywhere else anyway (things like police protection, code enforcement, and decent education.)
They’re still doing it, because unemployed rural life is bad too. Cities offer them a bit of hope to do better.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
China is dealing with it now. As the population grows in the hinterland, jobs do not grow---farming is more mechanized, factories stay closer to the cities ... so poor people have nothing to lose by going to the cities. Being homeless in a city offers better survival opportunities than being homeless in farming districts.
Yes
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
The suburbs formed because semi-skilled, semi--educated workers could demand higher wages and afford what they thought were better lives---a little space, a little privacy, not having to listen to a thousand neighbors all day and night, a back yard where you could actually have friends over, play catch with the kids ... a place where kids could run around all day in a safe environment.

The "middle class" sort sort of couldn't wait to get out of the city and get some space to breathe. The cost of living was the same---housing was much cheaper, but the car cost some---but obviously people thought it was worth it, to get out of the dirty, hot, stinking, crowded city, with its higher crime, and no space. They saw a chance to give their children a better environment---you can't hardly have a pet in an apartment. You have to get on a bus to go to a park.
I sympathise. However, in so doing they inadvertently created a monster – suburban sprawl - which is far more costly to maintain, wasteful of land, and energy consuming than urban development. So they got short term gain for long term pain. Older inner city suburbs that retain a modicum of density, historic small towns, and aboriginal villages, which also represented people clustering together for mutual advantage, are much more sustainable than modern suburbs.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
As soon as anyone except the wealthy could, they fled the cities. The wealthy could live in the upscale enclaves, where they had higher-quality buildings (better services, quieter neighbors,) where police presence kept crime low, and the wealthy had cars so they didn't have to put up with pubic transportation. The slightly less wealthy used taxis, which offer all the drawbacks of cars environmentally.
Yes, the rich always look after themselves. Taxis are slightly less environmentally harmful than cars since more people effectively share them.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
The wealthy didn't send their kids to public schools. many of which were underfunded because funding was tied to property taxes. The wealthy didn't send their kids to play in the street. The wealthier people in fact, insulated themselves from city life and high-density living as much as possible.
Agreed,
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
This is what I have learned from reading and watching TV. Ihave no clue if it is true, but it seems to be the story most people are tellign and have been for most of my life.
I pretty much agree.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
My life follows the same arc---raised in suburbia, moved to cities to find work (population pressure is often ahead of growth as suburbs grow into cities) and as soon as I could, got out of the city to live in a place where things are safer, cleaner, and less crazy. Pretty much everyone does if they have the chance ... except some people go really rural if they can afford it.
You mean rural life can also be expensive?
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Cities are "chic" again among the educated young pre-family class who like the vibrancy found int he better parts of better cities. fact is, there is only ever going to be a certain fraction of people in the economic range. And there will always be a huge support base of lower-paid workers who live in the city for those crappy jobs, because they don;'t have the capital to get out. And as soon as they can, most of them do.
There is a bit of a contradiction here. They can’t afford to live in the city but they are too poor to get out. Hmmm.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
i suggest people who have a lot of theories try testing them. Try living for a while on a min-wage job in a city, see how 'chic" it is to have rats in your apartment, but not heat or reliable plumbing. See how you like having your morning commute take three times as long because the buses don't run early enough or don't connect when you need them. See how you feel about not having access to supermarkets.
Terrible, but as you say the people do it because the alternative (being poor in the country) is at least as bad.
But wait - are you saying supermarkets are where rural people shop? They don't all grow their own food locally?
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
You really have no clue how most people are forced to live in cities, i see.
I haven’t had first hand exposure to African slums, but, like you, I have read and watched stuff about it on TV.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
And also ... what about food supply while we are on the topic? Do you favor high-intensity factory farming with a high-degree of automation and the concomitant overuse of fertilizers and pesticides, with food picked under-ripe so it can survive the trip to the cities?
No. There’s a lot of opportunity for market gardens in the city and also most cities have farmers’ markets for local produce. If people in Maine want to eat bananas or oranges in winter it doesn’t matter if they live in the city or country, except it’s cheaper to deliver them to a concentrated group of stores in the city than to dispersed stores in the county and cheaper for people in the city to pick them up from the store since they don’t have to travel as far.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
If you are going to push cities as a big solution to man's woes, why aren't you talking about Improving life in cities, to make cities themselves more sustainable?
You mean by encouraging cycling walking and public transit? Who would have thought of that!
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Youod realize, I hope, that it takes a huge amount of land and resources to keep a city running, and while the population is concentrated, if you look at how much land is needed to sustain that city to provide the food amd materials and power ... suddenly high population density isn't really happening.
Yes. The land footprint of people includes the land they live, work and drive on, and the crop land that sustains them. By living, working and driving on less land, city people have a smaller footprint than people of similar economic circumstances in suburbs or rural estates.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Why don't you make cities more sustainable? There is a ton of good stuff out there .... sort of makes it seem you learned to play one not on the piano and keep playing it over and over and think you found the perfect song.
Good idea – never thought of that!
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
And while you are at it, why not promote sustainable lifestyles Everywhere? packing people into cities without addressing the toxic lifestyle we all now lead is worthless ... pollution production is not drastically reduces, nor is energy consumption, in cities. The toxic chemicals we use in every aspect of our lives from cleaning products to fertilizer and pesticides and paints and inks ... to energy production to waste treatment .... we still use all that whether we live in cities, suburbia, or in the farmland.
Yes, except packing them into cities means that per person they use less pesticide and fertilizer on their own property and less cleaning products in their own home than people of similar economic circumstances who live outside the central city.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
You r"move to teh cites" tune is a dirty band-aid. the body is on the verge of disastrous septic shock, and you are suggesting wearing cologne.
I hate cologne.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
And yes, i realize, for you, tl;dr.

You know, if a person complains that eh cannot manage responding to long posts on an internet forum ... he's not likely a person i would turn to for advice in pretty much any matter.

I spent a day away from this bickering session to see if anything positive would arise without my caustic presence. i see more of the same.
Ironic coming from the guy who complains I am all talk
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
oh .... @Mobile 155: The auto industry didn't exist in 1895 and it has been in transition ever since. yes, the bailout was probably necessary in the immediacy of the financial mismanagement because it would have had a serious negative impact on the nation's economy ... but that is not a reason to support the industry. if the auto industry shrank by a half, it wouldn't happen over night ... it would shed jobs and sell factories, and in time other businesses would grow and hire some of the workers.
Agree.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
I think we all know, that the crazy, consumption-driven society we live in is not sustainable no matter if we all live in cities or in rural regions or suburbs. Economists have taken over from realists, and the numbers matter more than the facts of life. The current paradigm of employment has gone beyond assuring survival to the point where doing pointless work is considered better than doing nothing .... sort of a farmer growing more food than he can sell ahead of spoilage, but looking to grow even more, just because ... bigger numbers. people think automation is bad because it kicks people out of the job pool---because it is considered better to have a person do mindless, robotic work even if it produces nothing of value.
There aren’t enough jobs that produce something of value to go around. We can feed and house the world’s population with a tiny percent of the workforce. The rest have to be unemployed or do something superfluous like sell mutual funds or lattes.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Education has been twisted into "job training." the idea that learning itself is a good thing is lost .... only the very rich and frivolous can go to school to learn something because it interests them. The idea that knowing more gives one a broader perspective and makes one a more able person is lost.
Yet you want them to work at meaningful jobs….
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
When I hear peple coming here saying 'I have the solution" or "Only this will work" ... Yeah, cooker, you have an idea. or your heard an idea. it resonates with you.
but you are taking as limited a view as the economists who think natural disasters are great because they boos t GDP---dead people mean less unemployment and rebuilding from destruction stimulates business.
No.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Packing people into cities won't help ... because the people will still be thinking and living the same way they are now, and it is not sustainable. Spreading people across the continent is not a solution either. harping on the supposed merits of a single "solution" is ridiculous .... in a way, tandempower sees it most clearly (but everything about his thought process is so unrealistic, it is wasted on him): People Need to Think Differently.
Yes tandempower is sometimes a Cassandra – doomed to tell the truth and not be understood.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Thing is, we are running out of time. it would take a couple generations maybe ... or a huge and fundamental catastrophe, or some sort of global disruption ... to make people take a step back and look at how we look at things. And frankly, the current crop of humanity doesn't have what it takes.

I gave up environmental activism because i realized that no matter how hard i worked, it wasn't going to make a difference. The people who have a clue tend to have crazy ideas like filling the sky with chemicals to block sunlight (like that would never have unintended consequences) but market forces limit how much we are really willing to change---because the crisis hasn't happened yet, no need to slow down---we can just jam on the brakes and turn on a dime at the last second, right? Meanwhile, let's drive full-speed toward that canyon.

Very few people I have spoken with have a really god grasp of the whole picture--most find one small thing that sounds good and promote it pointlessly, or find one small area where they can make small improvements, which is like polishing the brightwork on the Titanic.

I switched from trying to "save" human life on this planet (or actually, i wanted to save all the rest of the life we are killing---humans pretty much suck) from self-destruction through the enormous stupidity of crapping in our own nest .... to trying to alleviate immediate suffering, because as far as I can see, Nothing is getting through to the people in general, and our path as a species isn't going to change. We are just too stupid. So what good Can I do?
You can save more of those animals by getting people out of their habitat and building fewer highways.
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
I find it more noble to try to help actual suffering people or animals, or even to preserve a small patch of forest, or to create a rooftop garden and provide food for a few people or pretty much any tangible reduction of the bad crap going on in the world ... to endless internet bantering about ideas which are almost entirely abstract and so minor that they amount to being meaningless.

This is like a political forum where everybody talks ... and talks .... or a religious forum where half the people just promote their faiths and cannot bear to analyze them, and the other half have chosen the religions of science or atheism, and don't realize those are faith-based belief systems as well.

Lots of words, and in the end ... my life is shorter and no one 's life is better.

I strongly suggesting closing this thread and starting over ... with maybe a fresh and slightly tighter focus.
We can certainly get back to discussing buses. Getting the people of Kibera a good bus service is more sustainable than trying to help them get cars, for example.

Last edited by cooker; 05-15-18 at 11:07 AM.
cooker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-18, 10:36 AM
  #338  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,529
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7238 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
And he didn't answer my question.
I did answer it. It was in the first part of the post. I mentioned the early post-WWII period where suburbs were still close to downtown and only one or neither parent in a household drove. People were thrifty and worked hard to conserve resources, and as a result the costs of living were lower and there was more hope of prosperity at lower rates of GDP growth, i.e. because people did more with less.

As industrial efficiency has grown, it has become possible to produce and distribute more commodities with less energy-per-unit, but that has led to a throw-away culture that generates too much waste and doesn't have the vision or wearwithall to put personal effort into more conscientious choices. Living conscientiously was easy in earlier times because there was more natural scarcity, so the work you did to preserve and conserve what you had was worth more. Now, there is still a lot to gain with conscientious choices and behavior, but it is at a more abstract level because many people don't perceive the very spread of pavement and sprawl as waste and decline that can be reduced in the same way that landfill waste or wasted time/money can be reduced.

Maybe the biggest problem is that we've become so structured in so many ways in a mass society that we are programmed to just accept the way things are instead of thinking of ways to reduce systemic waste and translate that into personal gain. If everyone works to reduce land- and time- waste, for example, we should be able to translate that into gains at the individual level, i.e. more time spent walking/biking and more natural land to walk/bike through.

Last edited by tandempower; 05-15-18 at 10:43 AM.
tandempower is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-18, 10:40 AM
  #339  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,529
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7238 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
Yes tandempower is sometimes a Cassandra Ė doomed to tell the truth and not be understood.
Thank you. That was probably the most meaningful idea I took from the movie, Twelve Monkeys. It's a hard movie to watch because of all the strange time-travel and insane-asylum ideas; but I find it's actually helpful to deal with those because it accurately characterizes how modern culture manages to make simple conservation seem insane because it conflicts in some way with the modernist ethic of processing and converting all resources into artificial products to buy and sell.
tandempower is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-18, 11:17 PM
  #340  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,012

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Thank you. That was probably the most meaningful idea I took from the movie, Twelve Monkeys. It's a hard movie to watch because of all the strange time-travel and insane-asylum ideas; but I find it's actually helpful to deal with those because it accurately characterizes how modern culture manages to make simple conservation seem insane because it conflicts in some way with the modernist ethic of processing and converting all resources into artificial products to buy and sell.
Like any of us didn't grow up being told by our parents to turn off the lights. Of course, enviro-whack-jobs torching SUVs to save the Earth were insane but unlike modern-day greenies they weren't in it for the money.


Some activists simply couldnít make the transition from confrontation to consensus; it was as if they needed a common enemy. When a majority of people decide they agree with all your reasonable ideas the only way you can remain confrontational and antiestablishment is to adopt ever more extreme positions, eventually abandoning science and logic altogether in favor of zero-tolerance policies. ~Patrick Moore (Confessions of a Greenpeace DropoutÖ)
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-18, 01:42 AM
  #341  
Ritalalala
Junior Member
 
Ritalalala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
However, this is a more complicated issue. Having a bicycle is obviously more convenient than public transportation, but occasionally you need to consider the issue of time cost.
Of course, I am an environmentalist. I purchased a highly-configured ICAN full Carbon Bike. It will stay with me for a long time and I only need to guard against thieves.
Ritalalala is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-18, 06:16 AM
  #342  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,529
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7238 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
Like any of us didn't grow up being told by our parents to turn off the lights. Of course, enviro-whack-jobs torching SUVs to save the Earth were insane but unlike modern-day greenies they weren't in it for the money.
The funny thing is that I went through the same questioning and rejection of environmentalism, climate change, etc. In fact, I still reject the idea that humans can't live in harmony with nature and the environment - the only problem is whenever I discuss thoughts about how to make human cultural/economic behaviors more environmentally friendly and resource conservative, I get aggressive responses which lead me to believe that although humans are capable of harmony with environment and nature, they don't want to be. Your posts reinforce that observation in that you show an absolute unwillingness to acknowledge that environment and nature are negatively impacted by human activities. Instead, all your posts focus on attacking anyone who dares to question how good current human activities are for the environment/nature. At what point will you switch from attack to putting forth your own constructive views on what is actually good for the environment, and what responsibility you expect from others to secure a sustainable future for humans on Earth?
tandempower is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-18, 07:48 AM
  #343  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,507

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3077 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
Like any of us didn't grow up being told by our parents to turn off the lights. Of course, enviro-whack-jobs torching SUVs to save the Earth were insane but unlike modern-day greenies they weren't in it for the money.
Some activists simply couldn’t make the transition from confrontation to consensus; it was as if they needed a common enemy. When a majority of people decide they agree with all your reasonable ideas the only way you can remain confrontational and antiestablishment is to adopt ever more extreme positions, eventually abandoning science and logic altogether in favor of zero-tolerance policies. ~Patrick Moore (Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout…)
LOL

As if Patrick Moore, once an esteemed scientist and now a paid actor/spokesperson/shill for the chemical industry isn't in it for the money.


Nice job reading the script the PR department wrote, Patrick. You made it really believable.

Last edited by cooker; 05-16-18 at 10:35 AM.
cooker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-18, 09:43 AM
  #344  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,012

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
The funny thing is that I went through the same questioning and rejection of environmentalism, climate change, etc. In fact, I still reject the idea that humans can't live in harmony with nature and the environment - the only problem is whenever I discuss thoughts about how to make human cultural/economic behaviors more environmentally friendly and resource conservative, I get aggressive responses which lead me to believe that although humans are capable of harmony with environment and nature, they don't want to be. Your posts reinforce that observation in that you show an absolute unwillingness to acknowledge that environment and nature are negatively impacted by human activities. Instead, all your posts focus on attacking anyone who dares to question how good current human activities are for the environment/nature. At what point will you switch from attack to putting forth your own constructive views on what is actually good for the environment, and what responsibility you expect from others to secure a sustainable future for humans on Earth?
Not so fast... Third World and Developing countries pollute far more than we do in America. Cooking your dinner over a dung fire in a mud hut does not make for a great environment in which to raise a child.

It is a powerful convergence of interests among a very large number of elites, including politicians who want to make it seem as though theyíre saving the world, environmentalists who want to raise money and get control over very large issues like our entire energy policy, media, for sensationalism, Universities and professors for grantsÖ It is a kind of nasty combination of extreme political ideology and a religious cult all rolled into one, and itís taken over way too much of our thought process and way too much of our priorities. ~Patrick Moore
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-18, 04:45 PM
  #345  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,529
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7238 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
Not so fast... Third World and Developing countries pollute far more than we do in America. Cooking your dinner over a dung fire in a mud hut does not make for a great environment in which to raise a child.
Ok, so by that statement I gather your constructive approach is to focus on the worst forms of pollution by spreading modern technologies and not worry about the sustainability of modern tech. Got it, thanks.
tandempower is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-18, 06:24 PM
  #346  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,012

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Ok, so by that statement I gather your constructive approach is to focus on the worst forms of pollution by spreading modern technologies and not worry about the sustainability of modern tech. Got it, thanks.
Three decades ago, Patrick Moore helped found Greenpeace. Today he promotes nuclear energy and genetically modified foods – and swears he's still fighting to save the planet. Moore talks about those who call themselves environmentalists but who, "hijacked a considerable portion of the environmental movement back in the mid-'80s and who have become very clever at using green language to cloak campaigns that have more to do with anti-industrialism, antiglobalization, anticorporate, all of those things which are basically political campaigns."

https://www.wired.com/2004/03/moore/

Seems all too familiar when it comes to the anti-modernist meme you often see from those who represent the LCF movement as opposed to those who talk about commuting and who have a love of bikes and cycling without feeling obliged to trash people who drive an automobile to work to earn a living.

Last edited by McBTC; 05-16-18 at 06:28 PM.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-18, 07:53 PM
  #347  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,012

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Does anyone seriously doubt that as many electric lights in North Korea in 20 years as there is in South Korea today would be a good thing?


McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-18, 10:10 PM
  #348  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,507

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3077 Post(s)
^^ Obviously it depends on what they'll be using for power.
cooker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-18, 05:30 AM
  #349  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,529
Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7238 Post(s)
Originally Posted by McBTC View Post
Seems all too familiar when it comes to the anti-modernist meme you often see from those who represent the LCF movement as opposed to those who talk about commuting and who have a love of bikes and cycling without feeling obliged to trash people who drive an automobile to work to earn a living.
You are just too defensive about automotive culture critique. Why won't you acknowledge what it is I'm actually saying, which is that a motorized vehicle is handy in some situations, but that there are too many now, too much pavement, too much sprawl, and not enough opportunities for greening, LCF, and healthy recreation that is accessible without driving? This is not 'anti-car' but rather pro-LCF sentiment. I acknowledge the usefulness of driving, but as a much smaller proportion of total transportation/travel than is common today. Why do you have to talk about 'anti-modernism,' 'greenpeace politicians,' etc. instead of just acknowledging there are different POVs on this topic?
tandempower is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-18, 10:02 AM
  #350  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,012

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1122 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
You are just too defensive about automotive culture critique. Why won't you acknowledge what it is I'm actually saying, which is that a motorized vehicle is handy in some situations, but that there are too many now, too much pavement, too much sprawl, and not enough opportunities for greening, LCF, and healthy recreation that is accessible without driving? This is not 'anti-car' but rather pro-LCF sentiment. I acknowledge the usefulness of driving, but as a much smaller proportion of total transportation/travel than is common today. Why do you have to talk about 'anti-modernism,' 'greenpeace politicians,' etc. instead of just acknowledging there are different POVs on this topic?

It's really simple. We all live in the modern world. Even so, there has always been a tension between what's new and respect for traditions and what is being given up. And then, there's this other group-- they're not traditionalists because they'd never want to go back, sacrificing all of the conveniences of life, but refuse to buy into the system and instead, as Moore observed, cloak their campaign against modernity -- their "anti-industrialism, antiglobalization, anticorporate" ethos, to live instead in a Leftist-inspired, fantasy Utopian world. Carrying on under the umbrella of LCF is just because it's a lot easier that bending the ears of dropouts living in a homeless encampment who probably will agree with them.
McBTC is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Terms of Service