XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: john@jfeldredge.com   
      
   On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 16:00:22 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:   
      
   > In article ,   
   > droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...   
   >>   
   >> In article ,   
   >>  "John F. Eldredge"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:42:51 -0800, David Friedman wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> > > On 1/30/14, 1:30 PM, Leszek Karlik wrote:   
   >> > >>   
   >> > >> Rapid rail is pretty nice in densely populated countries, which I   
   >> > >> guess is why China is so keen on it.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > China as a whole isn't that densely populated, although parts of it   
   >> > > may be--it has a large population but also a large area. Its   
   >> > > population density is about 2/3 that of Germany, a little over half   
   >> > > that of the U.K.   
   >> >   
   >> > However, the eastern part, particularly the southeast, is VERY   
   >> > densely populated, and therefore well suited to rail traffic.  The   
   >> > northwest, by contrast, is mostly scantily-settled desert.   
   >>   
   >> People need to stop confusing cause and effect.  Trains don't only   
   >> start making sense *after* a population has exploded, but they were   
   >> often the *reason* the masses could get to far off lands in the first   
   >> place!  Any country that still has an interest in mobility that scales   
   >> is *not* going to go car-centric, self-driving or not.   
   >   
   > Please provide an example of "far off lands" that were settled _because_   
   > of trains.   
      
   Well, parts of the western USA would qualify, but in large part because   
   trains were the only mechanized overland transportation available at the   
   time.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)