Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
Aug 22nd 2006, 1:14 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
I've been comparing the landscape in satellite photos of the U.S and
Europe with Google Maps, etc.. It's clear that Man is either farming or
occupying most flat or moderate land that has a stable water supply. I
find the U.S. increasingly overcrowded, but the extent of Europe's
development is staggering.
Germany, for instance, is a green and gray carpet from the air, with
most green revealing itself as farmland when you zoom in. The gray is
towns and cities. Sparse patches of woods are the only remnants of
nature, except for some bigger mountain ranges. It looks like at least
90% human occupation. Those who claim Man is only living on 2% or 3% of
the land are deluded. Do they think farming isn't man-made? The darker
green areas are treed but they are scattered like small islands. Roads
and paths break them up even further. It seems hard to get lost in
Europe's woods, except maybe for the Alps.
Over to the east, Japan's development resembles the boundaries of
large, gray lakes with "shorelines" at the mountains' edges. It's
obvious why they import so much food. They cannot be physically
self-sufficient at that population density.
It's always assumed that mountains and wilderness just "go together,"
but how many people really consider why that is? Aside from the odd
flood plain or swamp, population growth is mostly held back by steep
terrain, lack of water and harsh weather.
I fear the U.S. is headed toward the same land saturation as old world
nations. Even our deserts don't seem safe with talk of desalination
instead of more birth control and rational thought. Sure, bring on
another Las Vegas just to prove it can be done. Then what? Here's a
better idea: stop this damned growth before we lose the whole concept
of open space.
R. Lander
Europe with Google Maps, etc.. It's clear that Man is either farming or
occupying most flat or moderate land that has a stable water supply. I
find the U.S. increasingly overcrowded, but the extent of Europe's
development is staggering.
Germany, for instance, is a green and gray carpet from the air, with
most green revealing itself as farmland when you zoom in. The gray is
towns and cities. Sparse patches of woods are the only remnants of
nature, except for some bigger mountain ranges. It looks like at least
90% human occupation. Those who claim Man is only living on 2% or 3% of
the land are deluded. Do they think farming isn't man-made? The darker
green areas are treed but they are scattered like small islands. Roads
and paths break them up even further. It seems hard to get lost in
Europe's woods, except maybe for the Alps.
Over to the east, Japan's development resembles the boundaries of
large, gray lakes with "shorelines" at the mountains' edges. It's
obvious why they import so much food. They cannot be physically
self-sufficient at that population density.
It's always assumed that mountains and wilderness just "go together,"
but how many people really consider why that is? Aside from the odd
flood plain or swamp, population growth is mostly held back by steep
terrain, lack of water and harsh weather.
I fear the U.S. is headed toward the same land saturation as old world
nations. Even our deserts don't seem safe with talk of desalination
instead of more birth control and rational thought. Sure, bring on
another Las Vegas just to prove it can be done. Then what? Here's a
better idea: stop this damned growth before we lose the whole concept
of open space.
R. Lander
Aug 22nd 2006, 4:01 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
R. Lander wrote:
[blah blah, Europe is crowded, blah blah, so is Japan, blah]
> I fear the U.S. is headed toward the same land saturation as old world
> nations.
Actually, nearly every western industrialized nation has a low birth
rate.
If it were not for immigration, the US would be losing population. So
would many European nations. I have not checked the demographics
on Japan, but their birth rate is not huge.
Undeveloped countries have huge birth rates. This has many factors.
Here are just a few.
- People want as many children as possible so some will live to
adulthood.
- People see children as sources of cheap labour.
- People have little or no access to cheap, effective birth control.
- People have not been educated about b/c.
- People are not educated much at all about anything.
- Various religious and cultural factors mean that women are
expected to produce lots of babies and not do much else.
When countries become industrialized, these factors are reduced.
And in nearly every case, birth rates fall. So too does child
mortality.
But the net is that population pressure eases.
Rich, well fed, well educated people are much more likely to see
themselves as their source of wealth. They find other ways to
fill their days besides having another baby. And they are well
educated about, and can afford, birth control.
Further, you get urbanization. People spontaneously crowd into
large cities, using less land. 1000 people living in a single
apartment building take up a lot less land that those same
1000 people living in any kind of individual homes.
You mentioned all the land used for agriculture. Go check what
the amount of agricultural land has done in the last 100 years.
Go check what the required acres to feed a person has done
over the last 100 years. Compare this in an industrialized nation
to a third world nation. The industrialized nation can feed
many more people per sq km. Thus to preserve wilderness
we first have to feed everybody, and the way to do that is
industrialization.
Overall, the only way to save wilderness is to industrialize.
To lift people out of the grinding poverty and abysall ignorance
that is so common on this planet. A hungry, poor, uneducated
family is going to take any opportunity that shows up. If that
means they go into the local forest and set snares for the
local wildlife because it's the only way they can eat, well,
that probably means some more species go extinct. If it
means that they (very inefficiently) harvest wood from local
forests because it's the only way they can get fuel, well,
that probably means some more wilderness disappears.
And in move some more people and set up farms, probably
very inefficient farms, on what was once forest.
But people will continue to do all of that as long as they are
hungry, poor, and uneducated. And the only way to ever
change that is industrialization. Third world countries must
be changed into first world countries, or the woods are doomed.
At the same time we need to deal with political situations.
For example, most of the famines in the world are created
by local strongmen using hunger as a terror weapon. They
herd the locals they don't like into the worst areas. Then
they hijack the aid shipments, and sell them on the black
market to buy guns and stuff to stay in power. Stomp on
those situations and places like Africa would be much better
off rather quickly.
Socks
[blah blah, Europe is crowded, blah blah, so is Japan, blah]
> I fear the U.S. is headed toward the same land saturation as old world
> nations.
Actually, nearly every western industrialized nation has a low birth
rate.
If it were not for immigration, the US would be losing population. So
would many European nations. I have not checked the demographics
on Japan, but their birth rate is not huge.
Undeveloped countries have huge birth rates. This has many factors.
Here are just a few.
- People want as many children as possible so some will live to
adulthood.
- People see children as sources of cheap labour.
- People have little or no access to cheap, effective birth control.
- People have not been educated about b/c.
- People are not educated much at all about anything.
- Various religious and cultural factors mean that women are
expected to produce lots of babies and not do much else.
When countries become industrialized, these factors are reduced.
And in nearly every case, birth rates fall. So too does child
mortality.
But the net is that population pressure eases.
Rich, well fed, well educated people are much more likely to see
themselves as their source of wealth. They find other ways to
fill their days besides having another baby. And they are well
educated about, and can afford, birth control.
Further, you get urbanization. People spontaneously crowd into
large cities, using less land. 1000 people living in a single
apartment building take up a lot less land that those same
1000 people living in any kind of individual homes.
You mentioned all the land used for agriculture. Go check what
the amount of agricultural land has done in the last 100 years.
Go check what the required acres to feed a person has done
over the last 100 years. Compare this in an industrialized nation
to a third world nation. The industrialized nation can feed
many more people per sq km. Thus to preserve wilderness
we first have to feed everybody, and the way to do that is
industrialization.
Overall, the only way to save wilderness is to industrialize.
To lift people out of the grinding poverty and abysall ignorance
that is so common on this planet. A hungry, poor, uneducated
family is going to take any opportunity that shows up. If that
means they go into the local forest and set snares for the
local wildlife because it's the only way they can eat, well,
that probably means some more species go extinct. If it
means that they (very inefficiently) harvest wood from local
forests because it's the only way they can get fuel, well,
that probably means some more wilderness disappears.
And in move some more people and set up farms, probably
very inefficient farms, on what was once forest.
But people will continue to do all of that as long as they are
hungry, poor, and uneducated. And the only way to ever
change that is industrialization. Third world countries must
be changed into first world countries, or the woods are doomed.
At the same time we need to deal with political situations.
For example, most of the famines in the world are created
by local strongmen using hunger as a terror weapon. They
herd the locals they don't like into the worst areas. Then
they hijack the aid shipments, and sell them on the black
market to buy guns and stuff to stay in power. Stomp on
those situations and places like Africa would be much better
off rather quickly.
Socks
Aug 22nd 2006, 7:17 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
"Puppet_Sock" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected] oups.com:
> Rich, well fed, well educated people are much more likely to see
> themselves as their source of wealth. They find other ways to
> fill their days besides having another baby. And they are well
> educated about, and can afford, birth control.
>
> Further, you get urbanization. People spontaneously crowd into
> large cities, using less land. 1000 people living in a single
> apartment building take up a lot less land that those same
> 1000 people living in any kind of individual homes.
Except that it doesn't work this way in affluent societies. Ever hear
the term "McMansion"? How about "Starter Castle"? Rich, well fed, well
educated people are intellectual conservationists at best; in most cases
they're hyperconsumers of just about everything, including space.
> But people will continue to do all of that as long as they are
> hungry, poor, and uneducated. And the only way to ever
> change that is industrialization. Third world countries must
> be changed into first world countries, or the woods are doomed.
So, what exactly is going to change people in developed countries from
saturating themselves with luxuries and calling them necessities?
Consider the footprint.
> At the same time we need to deal with political situations.
> For example, most of the famines in the world are created
> by local strongmen using hunger as a terror weapon.
Most of the famines in the world are a lot more complicated than that.
news:[email protected] oups.com:
> Rich, well fed, well educated people are much more likely to see
> themselves as their source of wealth. They find other ways to
> fill their days besides having another baby. And they are well
> educated about, and can afford, birth control.
>
> Further, you get urbanization. People spontaneously crowd into
> large cities, using less land. 1000 people living in a single
> apartment building take up a lot less land that those same
> 1000 people living in any kind of individual homes.
Except that it doesn't work this way in affluent societies. Ever hear
the term "McMansion"? How about "Starter Castle"? Rich, well fed, well
educated people are intellectual conservationists at best; in most cases
they're hyperconsumers of just about everything, including space.
> But people will continue to do all of that as long as they are
> hungry, poor, and uneducated. And the only way to ever
> change that is industrialization. Third world countries must
> be changed into first world countries, or the woods are doomed.
So, what exactly is going to change people in developed countries from
saturating themselves with luxuries and calling them necessities?
Consider the footprint.
> At the same time we need to deal with political situations.
> For example, most of the famines in the world are created
> by local strongmen using hunger as a terror weapon.
Most of the famines in the world are a lot more complicated than that.
Aug 22nd 2006, 8:08 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
In article <[email protected] .com>,
"R. Lander" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been comparing the landscape in satellite photos of the U.S and
> Europe with Google Maps, etc.. It's clear that Man is either farming or
> occupying most flat or moderate land that has a stable water supply. I
> find the U.S. increasingly overcrowded, but the extent of Europe's
> development is staggering.
>
> Germany, for instance, is a green and gray carpet from the air, with
> most green revealing itself as farmland when you zoom in. The gray is
> towns and cities. Sparse patches of woods are the only remnants of
> nature, except for some bigger mountain ranges. It looks like at least
> 90% human occupation. Those who claim Man is only living on 2% or 3% of
> the land are deluded. Do they think farming isn't man-made? The darker
> green areas are treed but they are scattered like small islands. Roads
> and paths break them up even further. It seems hard to get lost in
> Europe's woods, except maybe for the Alps.
>
> Over to the east, Japan's development resembles the boundaries of
> large, gray lakes with "shorelines" at the mountains' edges. It's
> obvious why they import so much food. They cannot be physically
> self-sufficient at that population density.
>
> It's always assumed that mountains and wilderness just "go together,"
> but how many people really consider why that is? Aside from the odd
> flood plain or swamp, population growth is mostly held back by steep
> terrain, lack of water and harsh weather.
>
> I fear the U.S. is headed toward the same land saturation as old world
> nations. Even our deserts don't seem safe with talk of desalination
> instead of more birth control and rational thought. Sure, bring on
> another Las Vegas just to prove it can be done. Then what? Here's a
> better idea: stop this damned growth before we lose the whole concept
> of open space.
>
> R. Lander
>
In alaska, where else..........
"R. Lander" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been comparing the landscape in satellite photos of the U.S and
> Europe with Google Maps, etc.. It's clear that Man is either farming or
> occupying most flat or moderate land that has a stable water supply. I
> find the U.S. increasingly overcrowded, but the extent of Europe's
> development is staggering.
>
> Germany, for instance, is a green and gray carpet from the air, with
> most green revealing itself as farmland when you zoom in. The gray is
> towns and cities. Sparse patches of woods are the only remnants of
> nature, except for some bigger mountain ranges. It looks like at least
> 90% human occupation. Those who claim Man is only living on 2% or 3% of
> the land are deluded. Do they think farming isn't man-made? The darker
> green areas are treed but they are scattered like small islands. Roads
> and paths break them up even further. It seems hard to get lost in
> Europe's woods, except maybe for the Alps.
>
> Over to the east, Japan's development resembles the boundaries of
> large, gray lakes with "shorelines" at the mountains' edges. It's
> obvious why they import so much food. They cannot be physically
> self-sufficient at that population density.
>
> It's always assumed that mountains and wilderness just "go together,"
> but how many people really consider why that is? Aside from the odd
> flood plain or swamp, population growth is mostly held back by steep
> terrain, lack of water and harsh weather.
>
> I fear the U.S. is headed toward the same land saturation as old world
> nations. Even our deserts don't seem safe with talk of desalination
> instead of more birth control and rational thought. Sure, bring on
> another Las Vegas just to prove it can be done. Then what? Here's a
> better idea: stop this damned growth before we lose the whole concept
> of open space.
>
> R. Lander
>
In alaska, where else..........
Aug 22nd 2006, 8:58 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
Mary Malmros wrote:
[snip]
> Except that it doesn't work this way in affluent societies. Ever hear
> the term "McMansion"? How about "Starter Castle"? Rich, well fed, well
> educated people are intellectual conservationists at best; in most cases
> they're hyperconsumers of just about everything, including space.
You are mistaken. You are also, quite transparently, driven by
envy rather than rationality. This is not an attractive shade of green.
Consider the 1.5 million people who live in Manhattan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan
These people crowd together, in rather expensive neighbourhoods,
with the result that significant portions of upstate New York State
have wilderness hiking trail.
http://nysparks.state.ny.us/regions/
If those people tried to live in a non-
industrial situation, the result would resemble the typical third
world nation. Which is to say, a shithole.
Seriously, do you think there would be a problem with farmers
complaining about re-introduced coyotes in the US
North East if people had to live in third-world type conditions?
They'd eat the food the coyotes now find. Then the coyotes.
http://www.esf.edu/PUBPROG/brochure/coyote/coyote.htm
And what do you grab to worry about? A few people with big houses.
Gonna call you the Mopey Green Giant.
> So, what exactly is going to change people in developed countries from
> saturating themselves with luxuries and calling them necessities?
> Consider the footprint.
Let them. The footprint is actually much smaller.
In affluent countries we can have the luxury of maintaining a
wilderness
because we like it. In poor countries a forest is *only* a source of
potential survival material. If burning a 1000 sq km of forest can
produce
farmland that keeps them going for another year, they will. And they
do and they have and they are. This is why huge swaths of Central
American rain forest are disappearing. Poor people are desperately
trying to find some way to survive, so they attempt to make farms
out of rain forest.
Your envy is showing again. This is why "green" political parties
have chosen the colour green. It has nothing to do with chlorophyl.
> > At the same time we need to deal with political situations.
> > For example, most of the famines in the world are created
> > by local strongmen using hunger as a terror weapon.
> Most of the famines in the world are a lot more complicated than that.
Nope.
Socks
[snip]
> Except that it doesn't work this way in affluent societies. Ever hear
> the term "McMansion"? How about "Starter Castle"? Rich, well fed, well
> educated people are intellectual conservationists at best; in most cases
> they're hyperconsumers of just about everything, including space.
You are mistaken. You are also, quite transparently, driven by
envy rather than rationality. This is not an attractive shade of green.
Consider the 1.5 million people who live in Manhattan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan
These people crowd together, in rather expensive neighbourhoods,
with the result that significant portions of upstate New York State
have wilderness hiking trail.
http://nysparks.state.ny.us/regions/
If those people tried to live in a non-
industrial situation, the result would resemble the typical third
world nation. Which is to say, a shithole.
Seriously, do you think there would be a problem with farmers
complaining about re-introduced coyotes in the US
North East if people had to live in third-world type conditions?
They'd eat the food the coyotes now find. Then the coyotes.
http://www.esf.edu/PUBPROG/brochure/coyote/coyote.htm
And what do you grab to worry about? A few people with big houses.
Gonna call you the Mopey Green Giant.
> So, what exactly is going to change people in developed countries from
> saturating themselves with luxuries and calling them necessities?
> Consider the footprint.
Let them. The footprint is actually much smaller.
In affluent countries we can have the luxury of maintaining a
wilderness
because we like it. In poor countries a forest is *only* a source of
potential survival material. If burning a 1000 sq km of forest can
produce
farmland that keeps them going for another year, they will. And they
do and they have and they are. This is why huge swaths of Central
American rain forest are disappearing. Poor people are desperately
trying to find some way to survive, so they attempt to make farms
out of rain forest.
Your envy is showing again. This is why "green" political parties
have chosen the colour green. It has nothing to do with chlorophyl.
> > At the same time we need to deal with political situations.
> > For example, most of the famines in the world are created
> > by local strongmen using hunger as a terror weapon.
> Most of the famines in the world are a lot more complicated than that.
Nope.
Socks
Aug 23rd 2006, 1:23 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
Puppet_Sock wrote:
> R. Lander wrote:
> [blah blah, Europe is crowded, blah blah, so is Japan, blah]
It's a fact. Take a look at Google Maps, which covers much of the world
now. I don't want anything near that density in the USA, but it's a
creeping reality.
> > I fear the U.S. is headed toward the same land saturation as old world
> > nations.
> Actually, nearly every western industrialized nation has a low birth
> rate.
> If it were not for immigration, the US would be losing population. So
> would many European nations. I have not checked the demographics
> on Japan, but their birth rate is not huge.
Despite that theoretical concept, the U.S. population is growing by
over 3 million each year, and only about half of that is due to
immigration. I see the effects of this growth everywhere in the West.
You have to see it from the air to really appreciate it, and the Web
allows that now.
> When countries become industrialized, these factors are reduced.
> And in nearly every case, birth rates fall. So too does child
> mortality. But the net is that population pressure eases.
That's not happening in the United States if you care to notice. And
you must have heard about the double edged sword created by affluence.
It takes fewer people to have the same environmental impact. They
travel farther in their leisure time and crowd remote places.
> Rich, well fed, well educated people are much more likely to see
> themselves as their source of wealth. They find other ways to
> fill their days besides having another baby. And they are well
> educated about, and can afford, birth control.
I agree with that. However, we are being "fed" by petroleum for the
most part. I wouldn't get too comfortable with the present situation
since much of it's an illusion. Much of the richness you describe is
shallow, paper-pusher wealth.
> Further, you get urbanization. People spontaneously crowd into
> large cities, using less land. 1000 people living in a single
> apartment building take up a lot less land that those same
> 1000 people living in any kind of individual homes.
I've seen that argument a lot, but where do those people go on weekends
and vacations? They fill up wilderness spots. Ex-wilderness, I should
say.
> You mentioned all the land used for agriculture. Go check what
> the amount of agricultural land has done in the last 100 years.
> Go check what the required acres to feed a person has done
> over the last 100 years. Compare this in an industrialized nation
> to a third world nation. The industrialized nation can feed
> many more people per sq km. Thus to preserve wilderness
> we first have to feed everybody, and the way to do that is
> industrialization.
I can't technically argue with that but I'd never use it as an excuse
for population growth. I'd rather see a combination of zero growth and
efficient farming. Don't forget that most high intensity crops are made
possible by fossil fuels. The dream of benign industrialization could
get ugly after oil peaks.
> But people will continue to do all of that as long as they are
> hungry, poor, and uneducated. And the only way to ever
> change that is industrialization. Third world countries must
> be changed into first world countries, or the woods are doomed.
That's where it's hard to be optimistic. Most poor nations are full of
people who lack the cooperative and abstract thinking abilities to
become and remain "modern" without constant babysitting. It certainly
can't hurt to encourage birth control no matter what.
R. Lander
> R. Lander wrote:
> [blah blah, Europe is crowded, blah blah, so is Japan, blah]
It's a fact. Take a look at Google Maps, which covers much of the world
now. I don't want anything near that density in the USA, but it's a
creeping reality.
> > I fear the U.S. is headed toward the same land saturation as old world
> > nations.
> Actually, nearly every western industrialized nation has a low birth
> rate.
> If it were not for immigration, the US would be losing population. So
> would many European nations. I have not checked the demographics
> on Japan, but their birth rate is not huge.
Despite that theoretical concept, the U.S. population is growing by
over 3 million each year, and only about half of that is due to
immigration. I see the effects of this growth everywhere in the West.
You have to see it from the air to really appreciate it, and the Web
allows that now.
> When countries become industrialized, these factors are reduced.
> And in nearly every case, birth rates fall. So too does child
> mortality. But the net is that population pressure eases.
That's not happening in the United States if you care to notice. And
you must have heard about the double edged sword created by affluence.
It takes fewer people to have the same environmental impact. They
travel farther in their leisure time and crowd remote places.
> Rich, well fed, well educated people are much more likely to see
> themselves as their source of wealth. They find other ways to
> fill their days besides having another baby. And they are well
> educated about, and can afford, birth control.
I agree with that. However, we are being "fed" by petroleum for the
most part. I wouldn't get too comfortable with the present situation
since much of it's an illusion. Much of the richness you describe is
shallow, paper-pusher wealth.
> Further, you get urbanization. People spontaneously crowd into
> large cities, using less land. 1000 people living in a single
> apartment building take up a lot less land that those same
> 1000 people living in any kind of individual homes.
I've seen that argument a lot, but where do those people go on weekends
and vacations? They fill up wilderness spots. Ex-wilderness, I should
say.
> You mentioned all the land used for agriculture. Go check what
> the amount of agricultural land has done in the last 100 years.
> Go check what the required acres to feed a person has done
> over the last 100 years. Compare this in an industrialized nation
> to a third world nation. The industrialized nation can feed
> many more people per sq km. Thus to preserve wilderness
> we first have to feed everybody, and the way to do that is
> industrialization.
I can't technically argue with that but I'd never use it as an excuse
for population growth. I'd rather see a combination of zero growth and
efficient farming. Don't forget that most high intensity crops are made
possible by fossil fuels. The dream of benign industrialization could
get ugly after oil peaks.
> But people will continue to do all of that as long as they are
> hungry, poor, and uneducated. And the only way to ever
> change that is industrialization. Third world countries must
> be changed into first world countries, or the woods are doomed.
That's where it's hard to be optimistic. Most poor nations are full of
people who lack the cooperative and abstract thinking abilities to
become and remain "modern" without constant babysitting. It certainly
can't hurt to encourage birth control no matter what.
R. Lander
Aug 23rd 2006, 1:26 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
"You" wrote:
> In alaska, where else..........
With so many Republicans in control, the last frontier is under siege
more than ever. The magnitude of the place is the only thing that's
kept it wild so far. There will come a day when we realized how much we
took it for granted.
R. Lander
> In alaska, where else..........
With so many Republicans in control, the last frontier is under siege
more than ever. The magnitude of the place is the only thing that's
kept it wild so far. There will come a day when we realized how much we
took it for granted.
R. Lander
Aug 23rd 2006, 1:29 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
"Puppet_Sock" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected] ups.com:
> Mary Malmros wrote:
> [snip]
>> Except that it doesn't work this way in affluent societies. Ever
>> hear the term "McMansion"? How about "Starter Castle"? Rich, well
>> fed, well educated people are intellectual conservationists at best;
>> in most cases they're hyperconsumers of just about everything,
>> including space.
>
> You are mistaken. You are also, quite transparently, driven by
> envy rather than rationality. This is not an attractive shade of
> green.
You are mistaken. You are also, quite transparently, driven by a need
to manufacture pop-psychology lies in order to dismiss anyone who
doesn't agree with you. This is not an attractive shade of vein-popping
red.
(That wasn't very nice, was it? Would you like to continue this in a
more civil vein? Fine. Golden rule, got it?)
> Consider the 1.5 million people who live in Manhattan.
Yes, son, I've lived in cities too. The island of Manhattan has not
changed its dimensions in 200 years. Suburban sprawl, however, and the
growth of McMansions...that's change, oh yes indeed.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan
>
> These people crowd together, in rather expensive neighbourhoods,
> with the result that significant portions of upstate New York State
> have wilderness hiking trail.
That's NOT why "significant portions of upstate New York State have
wilderness hiking trail[sic]". Know the phrase "Forever Wild"?
> http://nysparks.state.ny.us/regions/
>
> If those people tried to live in a non-
> industrial situation, the result would resemble the typical third
> world nation. Which is to say, a shithole.
False dichotomy, sock. Go back and see where you can find me arguing
for people living in "typical third world[sic]" conditions.
>> So, what exactly is going to change people in developed countries
>> from saturating themselves with luxuries and calling them
>> necessities?
>> Consider the footprint.
>
> Let them. The footprint is actually much smaller.
You're too literal-minded. Your footprint is more than just the space
you occupy.
> In affluent countries we can have the luxury of maintaining a
> wilderness
> because we like it. In poor countries a forest is *only* a source of
> potential survival material.
Son, I've been in poor countries; I know the story. Again, false
dichotomy.
> Your envy is showing again. This is why "green" political parties
> have chosen the colour green. It has nothing to do with chlorophyl.
And your rudeness, narrowmindedness, black-and-white extreme thinking,
and general all-around simplistic mindset is showing. Again. Ugly,
ugly, UGLY shade of red.
>> > At the same time we need to deal with political situations.
>> > For example, most of the famines in the world are created
>> > by local strongmen using hunger as a terror weapon.
>> Most of the famines in the world are a lot more complicated than
>> that.
>
> Nope.
Well, not when viewed from the sun room of the Starter Castle, that's
for sure.
news:[email protected] ups.com:
> Mary Malmros wrote:
> [snip]
>> Except that it doesn't work this way in affluent societies. Ever
>> hear the term "McMansion"? How about "Starter Castle"? Rich, well
>> fed, well educated people are intellectual conservationists at best;
>> in most cases they're hyperconsumers of just about everything,
>> including space.
>
> You are mistaken. You are also, quite transparently, driven by
> envy rather than rationality. This is not an attractive shade of
> green.
You are mistaken. You are also, quite transparently, driven by a need
to manufacture pop-psychology lies in order to dismiss anyone who
doesn't agree with you. This is not an attractive shade of vein-popping
red.
(That wasn't very nice, was it? Would you like to continue this in a
more civil vein? Fine. Golden rule, got it?)
> Consider the 1.5 million people who live in Manhattan.
Yes, son, I've lived in cities too. The island of Manhattan has not
changed its dimensions in 200 years. Suburban sprawl, however, and the
growth of McMansions...that's change, oh yes indeed.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan
>
> These people crowd together, in rather expensive neighbourhoods,
> with the result that significant portions of upstate New York State
> have wilderness hiking trail.
That's NOT why "significant portions of upstate New York State have
wilderness hiking trail[sic]". Know the phrase "Forever Wild"?
> http://nysparks.state.ny.us/regions/
>
> If those people tried to live in a non-
> industrial situation, the result would resemble the typical third
> world nation. Which is to say, a shithole.
False dichotomy, sock. Go back and see where you can find me arguing
for people living in "typical third world[sic]" conditions.
>> So, what exactly is going to change people in developed countries
>> from saturating themselves with luxuries and calling them
>> necessities?
>> Consider the footprint.
>
> Let them. The footprint is actually much smaller.
You're too literal-minded. Your footprint is more than just the space
you occupy.
> In affluent countries we can have the luxury of maintaining a
> wilderness
> because we like it. In poor countries a forest is *only* a source of
> potential survival material.
Son, I've been in poor countries; I know the story. Again, false
dichotomy.
> Your envy is showing again. This is why "green" political parties
> have chosen the colour green. It has nothing to do with chlorophyl.
And your rudeness, narrowmindedness, black-and-white extreme thinking,
and general all-around simplistic mindset is showing. Again. Ugly,
ugly, UGLY shade of red.
>> > At the same time we need to deal with political situations.
>> > For example, most of the famines in the world are created
>> > by local strongmen using hunger as a terror weapon.
>> Most of the famines in the world are a lot more complicated than
>> that.
>
> Nope.
Well, not when viewed from the sun room of the Starter Castle, that's
for sure.
Aug 23rd 2006, 1:32 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
Puppet_Sock wrote:
> Consider the 1.5 million people who live in Manhattan.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan
> These people crowd together, in rather expensive neighbourhoods,
> with the result that significant portions of upstate New York State
> have wilderness hiking trail.
> http://nysparks.state.ny.us/regions/
But those places get mobbed on prime days. It takes more critical
timing to find solitude in the Adirondacks. Yosemite, CA has become a
notorious mob zone. Dense populations create a greater need for
escapism and the wilderness around them isn't getting any bigger. We
need a combination of efficient living and fewer new babies.
R. Lander
> Consider the 1.5 million people who live in Manhattan.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan
> These people crowd together, in rather expensive neighbourhoods,
> with the result that significant portions of upstate New York State
> have wilderness hiking trail.
> http://nysparks.state.ny.us/regions/
But those places get mobbed on prime days. It takes more critical
timing to find solitude in the Adirondacks. Yosemite, CA has become a
notorious mob zone. Dense populations create a greater need for
escapism and the wilderness around them isn't getting any bigger. We
need a combination of efficient living and fewer new babies.
R. Lander
Aug 23rd 2006, 1:38 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
"You" wrote:
> In alaska, where else..........
With so many Republicans in control, the last frontier is under siege
more than ever. The magnitude of the place is the only thing that's
kept it wild so far. There will come a day when we realize how much we
took it for granted.
BTW, Alaskans live in the flattest coastal areas for the most part. My
post started as a reflection on why mountains and wilderness coincide.
It's not self-evident to a lot of pro-growthers.
R. Lander
> In alaska, where else..........
With so many Republicans in control, the last frontier is under siege
more than ever. The magnitude of the place is the only thing that's
kept it wild so far. There will come a day when we realize how much we
took it for granted.
BTW, Alaskans live in the flattest coastal areas for the most part. My
post started as a reflection on why mountains and wilderness coincide.
It's not self-evident to a lot of pro-growthers.
R. Lander
Aug 23rd 2006, 2:07 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Without mountains & deserts, where would wilderness be?
Mary Malmros wrote:
> >> Most of the famines in the world are a lot more complicated than
> >> that.
> >
> > Nope.
> Well, not when viewed from the sun room of the Starter Castle, that's
> for sure.
I'll cheer the day when housing starts aren't considered good for the
economy. Nobody really needs a home much bigger than 2,500 sq. ft.
unless they're having too many kids and buying too much junk. I'd put
my money into preserving land elsewhere.
R. Lander
> >> Most of the famines in the world are a lot more complicated than
> >> that.
> >
> > Nope.
> Well, not when viewed from the sun room of the Starter Castle, that's
> for sure.
I'll cheer the day when housing starts aren't considered good for the
economy. Nobody really needs a home much bigger than 2,500 sq. ft.
unless they're having too many kids and buying too much junk. I'd put
my money into preserving land elsewhere.
R. Lander
