XPost: alt.planning.urban   
   From: one-if-by-land@concord.com   
      
   "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   news:13rm9p5nmsc0q8b@corp.supernews.com...   
   > Warm Worm  wrote in news:fpd7er$1ns$1@aioe.org:   
   >   
   >> Don wrote:   
   > [SNIP}   
   >>> ... We're about 75% vegetarian here and   
   >>> I'm seriously considering building a greenhouse this spring so that I   
   >>> can better control the quality and price of the food we consume.   
   >>   
   >> Ok, well that's commendable, but you're just one of many others.   
   >   
   > See, that's what pisses people - you say "tou this", and "you that", and   
   > whne someone says, "Hey, *I* don't do any of that...", you just blow them   
   > off like they're just zeroes.  You condemn *all* cars and *everyone* who   
   > drives, but I think it's exceedingly unlikely that you yourself ahve   
   > never, or will never, drive a car.  Even in what you would consider a   
   > utopia, there woulkd at least still be a need for ambulances and fire   
   > trucks and other vehicles.   
   >   
   > You cannot simply eliminate ALL cars and still maintain the sort fo   
   > civilization you enjoy.  Your precious city corner market doesn't grow   
   > all of ti;s own fruits and veggies and beef and whatnot.  ALl fo that   
   > stuff comes from somewhere, and even if it's shipped by train from major   
   > collection points to cities, the fact remains taht it still has to be   
   > transported to those major collection points.   
   >   
   > As for commuters, the problem isn't cars, ti is, as I noted in a separate   
   > post, the fact that ther is too great an insistance,. by business, that   
   > peole all go to one office building to do jobs that could easily be done   
   > via telecommuting.  THat's not the fault of the car, it's the fault of an   
   > idiotic psychology that insists the Lord MUST have his Serfs within arm's   
   > reach so to speak.  WIth the internet, an dintranets, I'd imagine that   
   > most jobs coudl be done from home.   
   >   
   > Of course, you have the otehr fact that most (IIRC, about 85%) poeple are   
   > extroverts who *have* to be surrounded by other people all or most fo the   
   > time, i.e. *cannot* work independently.   
   >   
   > SO how are you going to fix that?   
   >   
   > You go ona nd on about public transport as tho' it's some sort of miracle   
   > cure-all, but it simply is not.  THere is much *much* more to it than a   
   > simplistic blaming of the "car culture".  There is not onyl culture,   
   > there are certain fundamentals of human psychology, and ther ealso is the   
   > issue of sheer population - thre are too many epople, whcih makes it   
   > impossible for all people to live withing a short walk of their home.   
   >   
   > People lvoe to go on and opn about Europe, but forget teh *facts* that   
   > (1) European geography and history si completely different from US   
   > history and geography, and (2) Europe is a hell of a lot more *crowded*.   
   >   
   > Now, you might wish that all Americans loved living close enough to their   
   > neighbors to smell their farts, but most don't - so how are you going to   
   > change that psychology en masse to create your utopia?  Or do you beelive   
   > in simply doing away wioth personal freedom and *forcing* people to live   
   > the way you think they "should"?  That, you see, is the big question.   
   > Yes, there is a problem, but how does it get solved?  TO what extent   
   > should people's rights and freedoms be curtailed?   
   >   
   > The other issue is that, re: pollution generation, the US is by no means   
   > the only problem.  In CHina, peopl ein many areas/cities have to wear   
   > filter masks because the air is so polluted that it looks likie London   
   > during the late 1800's (the infamous "London Fogs" weren't actually fog,   
   > but moisture condensed on an extreme density of particulates created by   
   > burning coal).   
   >   
   > So, to what extent do you propose "saving the countryside" by forcing ALL   
   > poeple to live in cramped quarters (which, in turn, nto only facilitates   
   > the spread of disease, btu also, the mutation of diseases into more   
   > virulent forms)?  DO what extent do you propose limiting their very   
   > freedom to *see* the countryside by forbidding the use of cars?   
   >   
   >   
   > It's all very well to blither about "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" and about   
   > utopias that simply reject human psychology (and even, in some cases,   
   > human physiology), but eventually, *someone* has to come up with   
   > something *practical*.   
      
   How much fuel is used, and how much CO2 is dispersed by the US gov't?   
   Aircraft carriers off the coast of Iran, B2 bombers over Afghanistan, C130   
   Cargomasters out of Rheinmein airbase, Airforce 1 all over the map, Hillary,   
   Obama and McCain jets crisscrossing the continent, and on and on and on.   
   If someone is REALLY concerned about *their* planet then they should direct   
   their ire to where it will do the most good.   
   My little truck and Pats 20k miles are REAL small potatoes in the overall   
   picture, in fact, if both of us gave up our rides today it wouldn't effect   
   anything at all other than how we ran our own lives.   
   Some of these folks complaining about this little stuff should zoom back,   
   way back, and pay attention.   
   Now, if you don't mind, I'm gonna go wash my hands and then, ironically and   
   hypocritically, go drive my truck........   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)