| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Consensus |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
Consensus. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. There are, in the world, medical doctors who would like for you to believe that cigarette smoking isn't conclusively linked to lung cancer. Most of these doctors work for tobacco companies. The consensus of doctors around the world is that putting the pollutants from the burning of tobacco into our lungs on purpose damages the DNA in the cells thereby causing cancer. Thus, tobacco is, by consensus, considered to be a carcinogen. By consensus the scientists of the world, particularly climatologists, meteorologists, and geologists, have determined that there is significant evidence that human activity contributes to global warming. NASA rocket scientists even have plans to terraform Mars using techniques that we've learned from global warming on Earth. Even though the Bush Administration's own Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Commerce admit and warn about global warming due to human activity -- there are some people who would like to believe otherwise, and so some scientists who disagree with the consensus of world scientists like to go around spouting junk theories so that talk radio show hosts will mention their names. The EPA's Uncertanties page has a good discussion: quote: |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
"By consensus the scientists of the world, particularly climatologists, meteorologists, and geologists, have determined that there is significant evidence that human activity contributes to global warming." And how many of the 6 billion, soon, (50 years), to be 9 billion, humans on the planet do they propose to kill? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
ah, the old 'let's be sardonic when we can't rebutt' trick |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Not at all, for that is the central problem: all those billions, soon to be billions more, 98.6 degree, have not/want now humans who are consuming without regard and have no interest in any plan your scientists or anyone else has to curb them. They are not in the “West” ,(whose native populations are in decline), but instead in regions that if not hostile are indifferent to your scientists’ concerns. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't see how men that lead a rural life belong in the blame of something that obviously comes from the kind of urban life that urban men today set over themselves and push over the surface of the earth. A moderate farmer, or small-village-dweller, cottage-dweller, forestdweller, and any other men that don't partake of the excesses of the city, to me don't belong in the blame for those excesses. Nor do they belong in the blame for partaking in things that border on being urban. For the wrong is not in urbanization. The wrong is in the excess of it. The man can lead a more natural life, with some technology on the side, is the man that should be praised, not blamed. But the man that puts urbanization and technology in the center, instead of nature, he is the one that should be blamed. Because it is his overdoing of his urbanization that makes byproducts and pollution that comes from that the the danger to this world, not the rustic folk that wishes to only complement and edify a more natural life with some technology, held in moderation by a more natural sense, or a more concious care to make sure he keeps it in moderation, in contrast to other life, especially of most cities, that he hears about. You simply can't say that this kind of problem, nor many others, comes more from the farming, more rural, more humble dwellings, that maintain a more natural living, than from the kind of urbanizations of the city-structures in the cities we have today that maintain a very unnatural living. If you do, you are avoiding an obvious truth; and I can't see how you may help solve such problem without acknowledging that truth. The difference between the past and the future, and some places and this one, in relation to this problem can only be this: the kind of urbanization we live in today. That is the problem; and that is what I believe needs the most change. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So Huan, what's the purpose of that question? Do you seriously think that any scientists, and if you look at the source material you'll see that I'm talking about a concensus of scientists from all over the globe, have proposed killing people as the solution to global warming? We see this kind of macabre rhetoric from you all the time. It may get you traction on some of the blogs you frequent -- but it isn't going to ever win you any points here. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Overpopulation is a serious problem. But I think it must be a very distinct from this issue. Animals go into overpopulations too, and they don't cause global warming. Therefore overpopulation must not be causing our global warming either. But it is obviously urbanization. We need to downsize our city-structures. We need to turn around: look back from where we came from, and go a few steps back that way again: choose away from this "hurry up" and "give me more" life, and to something which is more conductive to wisdom and health. We made better rights and freedoms in life, and excell the ages behind us with our great justice system, and the ages behind us speed us forth and support us. But they condemn us for our lack of balance between Nature and Structure in our human life. They cry forth: "did you come out of a Nature's savagery, only to go into a Structure's savagery, and take all other animals, your fellow earthlings, and all the world to ruin with you? Are you so dull and complex and overdone, that you can't go a few small steps back to be a few measures simplier and few measures less overdone and excessive, for that is all it shall take to solve a thousand problems. All you may do is move forward upon this chosen road "hurry up" and "give me more"? Do you know that civilization ceases to be a civilization where it ceases to have balance with Nature? Nature will shift and rush and roar, and all your carpet of civilization shall be smashed against itself, because you were to selfish to move a few steps back to a simpler and more natural life. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Essorant, Your good points are nothing to those burning down natural fields and forests, (Singapore is under a pall every year), to feed their ever growing families as well as make a little on the side. It is said you can from space tell when it's meal time in some parts of India by the smoke from all the cooking fires. How are you going to convince all those growing billions to live with what they have, even if you live with less to set an example? And animal overpopulations are overcome by Nature, through disease or starvation; something we’ve strived to free ourselves from. We are victims of our own success over diseases which routinely took one fifth to one third of an infected population. The massive increase in human numbers is traced to that and better practices which have dramatically reduced infant mortality. The people of China, India, all of Africa, etc. don't want to spend their lives behind a plow. China, a totalitarian regime, tried a one child policy; it didn't work. I have no answer, because though knowing the consequences of doing nothing yet the only effective solutions are too morally repugnant to contemplate. We, by law, allow an unwanted life to be taken before it is born, but once it emerges from the womb, however imperfect, we are bound to do everything to protect that life. We may then perish from our own goodness. If it must be, then let it be that way. ................................ P.S. There is a tone that reminded me of something in Jacob Bronowski’s “The Ascent of Man: “We dream the country was idyllic in the eighteenth century, a lost paradise like The Deserted Village that Oliver Goldsmith described in 1770. Sweet Auburn, loveliest village of the plain, Where health and plenty cheared the labouring swain. How blest is he who crowns in shades like these, A youth of labour with an age of ease. That is a fable, and George Crabbe, who was a country parson and knew the villager’s life at first hand, was so enraged by it that he wrote an acid, realistic poem in reply. Yes, thus the Muses sing of happy Swains, Because the Muses never knew their pains. O’ercome by labour and bow’d down by time, Feel you the barren flattery of a rhyme? The country was a place where men worked from dawn to dark, and the labourer lived not in the sun, but in poverty and darkness.” For most of the world outside the West, (outside tractors with air-conditioned cabs), country life remains much as it was then, and there’s little chance you’ll convince anyone with any chance of getting out to stay on the farm. [This message has been edited by Huan Yi (09-06-2005 02:48 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
It's too morally repugnant to invest in infrasturcures that utilize non-polluting energy sources? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
No, letting people die like deer or rabbits. As to non-polluting energy sources, from earthquake prone Japan to France nuclear energy, which has been around for decades and isn't concerned with a no wind or cloudy day, is being used. The United States doesn't care for it and would rather continue to rely on oil and coal. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
the former is not the subject of this thread the latter isn't either. any energy source that generates waste that is lethal for 14,000 years is hardly clean |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
I don't think we can go back to bicycles and candles. But wait. Candles produce CO2. Nope wouldn't work. Another one of the major producers or atmospheric methane is bovine flatulance. Does anyone have a proposal as to how we stop all those cows from eating grass and farting? Oh, and I forgot to mention all those unruly volcanoes! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
volcanoes are not the issue neither is bovine flatulence... Rush Limbaugh isn't either, real cute stuff. Why do people think backwards is the only direction to go? I, or any other engineer, can build a car for you that will run very cleanly, deliver more torque to the highway than you can use, and carry no onboard fuel -- that's right -- NO ONBOARD FUEL. You can generate your own electricity in your backyard -- and when you're making more than you can use you can re-supply the grid, and when you're using more than you're making -- you can pull it off the grid. We can do this by utilizing the power that is free to the planet from solar and wind sources. It requires a technology shift. But like all technology shifts -- like going from horses to horseless carriages -- it's always resisted. So, since you listen to Rush Limbaugh -- quit crying over the buggy whips -- there are better things coming. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
If you can do all that magic then why have youy not already done so and made billions for yourself? The University of Oklahoma solar powered car won some major national recognition in the last couple of years so, yes, it is possible. The money they spent to build it was nearly astronomical though. And it only carried one light-weight person. Hardly practical for thowe of us on a reasonable budget. Sure I can generate my own electricity and Oklahoma is a first class place to do it. The annual average wind in my backyard is 14.6 m.p.h. Again, I have the same problem though. The cost for the equipment and installation, even including the rebates from my electric utility, is more than I can affor or recover in my lifetime. So being smart enough to create such future stuff is not enough. It has to be done at a cost that is within reach. And I am sorry to inform you but volcanoes and cow farts are at least part of the issue. So while I listen to Rush Limbaugh (actually I don't) why don't you go ahead listening to Al Gore? BTW, you may see this as a "cute comment" but it no no more so than you wise-ass remark above. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If you're going to come into the thread mocking me -- don't be surprised when I hand it back to you Pete. In an afternoon you can mount a fan to a common automotive alternator, stick it on a pole and be generating enough watts to run the lightbulbs in six rooms of your house. The reason I, and all the other engineers in the world -- don't do this 'magic' is because an investment in infrastructure IS required -- but the payoff is immense -- what was all that stuff the President was saying about becoming energy independent and national security??? As I said though -- with no onboard fuel I can give you plenty of torque -- to pull whatever you need... more than an Indy car if you want it -- and without a bunch of solar panels on your vehicle -- and the technology to do it is only about 120 years old.. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The problem with cars is that they shouldn't be common/casual vehicles. The government should regulate them just as guns because they are just as dangerous. They are the means thro which thousand of accidents and deaths come a year. They end up as many junkyards and waste. And in overpopulated land, they intrude a thousand times worse upon people because those people have less space to move around or away from them, and every potential danger of these vehicles is closer and more dangerous to the people. People fancy cars like toys but cars make the result and the effect, as if they were weapons against us. People treat these as common things, and therefore their dangers become more and more common: the damage and death, clutter, the greed for them, and the pollution they send into our lungs, the earth and the heavens. Not only that but they put us in a foul and wicked haste. We always expect to be in that mode and motion, to get there so quickly. We are put into an impulsive rush, not much different than an addiction for a cigarrete or for an alcholic drink. It is an addiction for that excessive pace. And it is far from being only on the road. That pace leaks into life and people are in a disturbing haste all the time. It is not just the practice of driving cars so often that makes people like that, but it seriously contributes to this haste that let's no man delay for anything very careful and thorough. I don't see how people continue to enjoy such things. The progress of these things is no longer a progress, but it is reversed into a plague upon all mankind. If it were up to me I would seriously have some laws and changes made, not just to stop the pollution, but to stop a hundred other hazards we inherit from having these so excessivly in our lives. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Gentlemen... Get back to the "concensus" of the thread, please. Thank you. You all know how to argue and debate intelligently. In the meantime, I will add that it seems that "nature solar and wind power" are up against a giant - to keep it from being more financially probable - because who can gain ownership? Ownership will only come to those who wish to cross the lines, and pull down the red flags of ownership on what is below the ground. Now, please, back to the debate. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
That's a great idea Kari.. If you'll recall a story about a man named Tucker -- all he wanted to do was make cars safe! Think what happens to people who want to make them clean and eliminate the internal combustion engine? |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Exactly. How about we all look into the reality of changing how the wheels of the world will go round and round...? By God/Goddess/goodness...look at what a few here did to help our poets....and others. There is no diversity here...there is only putting down the argument, and putting up the barn. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
LR, I did not mock you. You made and still make what appears to be preposterous claims. As you, yourself hint, the potential financial gains are enormous. If that is true and if you actually have the ability you claim the, by all means, produce. Words are cheap and easy. Deads are not. I think most would agree that we are poluting our environment and that we would be better off if it were not so. Yes, those things you predict are likely, 20 or 50 years in the future. As of my lifetime, and probably yours, they are pipe dreams or, at best, future possibilities. True, the technology is available. But, the cost to produce such Star Trek wonders is well beyond our ability to pay. I believe there are many scientists working feverishly to make all this a reality but all experts still agree that it is still many years in the future. Until we can harness cold fusion or economically convert sea water into hydrogen fuel, we are simply stuck with fossil fuels as our most practical energy source. On a side note, how do we really know that harnessing the wind, lightning or sunlight, for that matter, may not be as detrimental to the environment as burning fossil fuels? What if catching the sind to turn turbines slows down the natural weather progression and actually makes huricanes even more devastating? What if capturing sunlight to generate electricity actually prevents some of the energy from reaching and warming the Earth? Could that possibly cause another ice age? I don't think you, or any scientist, has an absolute answer for that. Oh, BTW, I do know about how much current a modern automotive alternator is capable of. By the time you raise that to the 120 volts our light bulbs require, you can't do much with it. Even if you spent the thousands of dollars required to convert all you household lights to low voltage, you still would get no more light. Also, it would take one hell of a fan to run the alternator with that load on it. Yes, it can be done but it would take a very long time to recover the cost of the pole and that highly efficient fan in just eliminating the monthly utility bill for a couple of light bulbs. It gets hot here in OK. How about we find a way to run my a/c free. Honestly, Reb, I don't want to start a personal argument. I do feel like you should at least be practical in your claims and propositions. |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
 I still wanna know how to fart into my Toyota's gas tank after eating pinto beans or broccoli and bypass the neighborhood gas pump, cuz no matter what they charge, lately it's too much for my pocketbook!As long as some people are making a bundle on sucking dry the oil reserves, and they are also the one in charge of the flow of American economy? well, I guess things won't change much until all the oil is gone. as for nuclear power, it is scary. so what if it is efficeient? We still don't know how to bury all that sht safely. I visited a wind farm in northern California 18 years ago, and was very impressed with the possiblities, and the only real problem I saw when I visited that farm? a couple of cows got impelled by a propeller blade that cut loose when a bearing broke. The people there just had a big BBQ and went about their busyness. I wondered what they'd do if a person had gotten impaled, they laughed, and my friend, a meteorologist who worked there, reminded me the world was overpopulated so a few impaled people would be OK. I laughed so hard at that I had to run for their solar power-lit bathroom! OK, so this strays from the thread. So sue me...isn't that the American way? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: The average automotive alternator produces about 50-75 amps. At 12 volts that's 600 to 900 watts. Plenty to run 6 light bulbs Pete. 1 horsepower = 1000 watts. So, you're talking about .6 to .9 horsepower. Easily produced by an average man or woman on a bicycle -- you could run a belt to your exercise bike and light your house. An 88-inch turbine can produce 10 watts at less than 2mph wind. A 64 inch blade will produce close to 900 watts at 33mph. You can buy one already built for less than $500 -- if you don't want to spend the afternoon doing it yourself. quote: Is the technology available or are they Star Trek wonders? Beyond whose ability to pay? For what? When you were a kid I bet you used a magnifying lens to burn a hole in a piece of paper. I've seen an awful lot of satellite dishes in people's yards for the last 25 years -- they seemed to be able to afford them. If you track the sun with a reflective dish and pass water through the focal point you can boil it. You know what you can do with boiling water besides make tea? quote: Only if we don't demand it. quote: We don't need cold fusion. There is a huge, safe, fusion reactor up in the sky that gives us plenty of power. Petroleum is stored solar energy. That's what fuel is -- energy storage -- where did the energy come from to make dinosaurs? Hydrogen technology would similarly be an energy storage device. It's very simply produced through electrolyses. The same process that's been used to put all the chrome on the bumpers of all the cars that have ever been made. But we don't even need to make that much hydrogen because of one of those Star Trek miracles called 'induction'. quote: The sun emits 3.8 x 10^23 kilowatt-hours every hour. That's plenty. And I wouldn't want to pay the bill. quote: By all means. Enumerate them. Along with your proof of what makes them preposterous. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh. BTW -- at 3.8 x 10^23 kilowatt-hours every hour -- E=mc2... that's about 15 billion metric tons of matter lost every hour -- it's been doing it for four and a half billion years. It isn't going to run out any time soon. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
To me it shouldn't be based on potentiality right now. It must be based on actuality. If the boasted potentiality to meet a much greater standard is met then our judgement and the way we bear our life shall serve that actuality when that actuality comes. Right now though that potentiality is not met, nor is anything proven that it shall be met any time soon. The Government and people need three things: Laws to moderate the population of vehicles better, laws to minimize the present dangers better, and laws to command that carmakers make cars under the strictest standard for health and enviroment. On the parts of the public there needs to be exhoration and support for such directions and laws, and they need take better choices into their lives along similar lines: moderation, downsizing, and health-needs. The more the dangers threaten and smite the world, and the more people know we need to do something to ward off the danger, the less we shall have choices. We may do it while we have more latitude in our choices or when we have only narrowness of need in a far worse furture if we don't make such changes now. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Again, lest we forget, all those breathing and burning breeding billions who aren’t citizens to be ruled by any American laws and have no wish to be part of any plan that keeps them on the farm. I remember decades ago in the West the big scare was overpopulation and all the ills it would bring. At that time the pressure was internal as if the rest of the world somehow wasn’t part of the problem. And either because it listened, or lost faith, the West’s native populations are in decline. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has added billions and is adding more. And we still pretend as if they really don’t exist much less anything else. Here’s an idea, the West seals it’s borders, the borders within which it can with laws, coupled with technology, do all the wishful things regarding global warming; create an enclave of the environmentally sensitive. Will that work? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ess, here's where what you say is right. Until we have a new energy paradaigm at work we have to be conservative with the old system. People shoudn't waste energy. CAFE standards should be raised -- that's the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards that the government sets for the entire product offering of vehicles a manufacturer makes. There are other things that can be done too -- walking more to the grocery store... using something like a multi-use canvas tote bag instead of paper bags, which use trees that are carbon sinks and waste energy that puts carbon back into the air, or plastic bags which many are petroleum based and require carbon producing energy to make... there are 100 things people could do every day to cut down on usage. But that shouldn't stop us from starting the switch now. We need an entire infrastructure overhaul to pull this off. If we hadn't had TVA and WPA there would be no infrastructure to this day in some areas of the country for roads or electricity if we'd waited for the private sector to produce. Huan... You should learn the Serenity Prayer. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (09-07-2005 08:01 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I still can't see "better" cars as being a very substantial solution to the the general conditions that these machines put on people and the world. The gun has been adjusted and "bettered" for ages and ages and I think it basically has the same danger as it ever did as a weapon. But the frequency and spread of the danger coming on people is prevented where guns are restricted from being common things in the hands of people. Laws, restrictions, and closer control by authorities over the things that present a danger to civilization, truly offer salvation to people. I think just as the gun's dangers remain basically the same, the car's basic dangers do as well, whereever these are set into our life. Guns and cars shall always be destructive. There shall always be little adjustments, bigger, smaller, more powerful, less powerful, more dangerous, less dangerous, etc But in the end for me, both still send a destructive bullet into life. The only thing that shall make that danger less is by making its presence more restricted in society. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
There's a fundamental difference between the quality function deployments of cars and guns though Ess: In cars we want to: 1. Transport people from one place to another Maximize 2. Luxury/Comfort/Amenities/Appearance 3. Safety 4. Power/Speed/Capacity Minimize 5. Fuel requirements/ Pollution 6. Maintenance/Breakdowns 7. Accidents/Injury/Death With guns we want to: 1. Kill or harm people or animals Maximize 2. Stopping power 3. Accuracy 4. Round Capacity Minimize 5. Misfires/Jams 6. Re-loading time 7. Missing the target Vehicles today are much safer than they were 50, 40, 30, or even 20 years ago because we continue to improve them. The only reason we aren't improving fuel economy is because after the initial shortage in the 70s there was a move toward fuel-efficient vehicles and alternative energy sources. The oil cartels decided this wasn't good -- nobody was going to buy their oil... so they dropped the price -- and sure enough -- speed limits went back up, cars got bigger and used more gas. The harmful effects of automobiles are the things we don't intend them to do. The harmful effects of guns are their intended purpose. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The harmful effects What's the difference? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Thanks for the question Ess, The difference is that through continual improvement we can, and do, eliminate the harmful effects of automobiles. With catalytic converters we've significantly reduced the pollutants that have generated smog and contributed to global warming. We've changed the refrigirants in automotive (and other) air conditioners to one that is more ozone friendly. In time we'll eliminate carbon emissions too -- one way or another. With air-bags, front and side, we've significantly reduced the likelihood of traffic deaths from collisions. And, with anti-lock braking systems we've reduced the likelihood of some kinds of accidents. If we were to deploy a power distribution system like the one I haven't completely described here, we could also significantly eliminate other types of accidents too because turning cars into AGV's would be very simple too. (AGV's are automatic guided vehicles). Of course, we can turn car's into AGV's without my power distribution system too -- but it would be kind of silly to do since 90% of the labor to do it would still be involved and then we'd have the redundancy of on-board fuel, fuel cells, fueling stations to add on top. With guns -- you can never minimize the harmful effects because that's what they do. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I still think your approach misses addressing a very important point. The earliest and crudest cars, in the small number they were at first, were far more safer to people and the world in general than today's safer cars as they are spread and multiplied into the thickness they are in now. Perhaps they were less safe to the individuals driving them; but those aspects of danger were not extended and fixed as a general condition over other people and the city as a whole and the world. The individuals themselves enjoyed them, and whatever risk and danger was in using the car itself was mostly only upon themselves. It was not a condition that really overwhelmed whole cities, threatened people and their health, threatened the balance of nature and fulfilled those threats with much deterioration, damage and death. There are the immediate and more obvious harms, and there are also less obvious and more gradual harms that decrease quality in urban life, and decrease rural life. And it is not more the excess of populations, but the excess of their choice for and their method of moving, cars, that is to blame. It makes the effect of a form of "pollution" in themselves and their condition right here on our level, apart from the pollution it sends above or below, that hinders our ability to live socially, healthily and beautifully on the very surface of the world. But it also has symptoms of an addiction, because people keep on pursuing more and more, and seem unwilling to admit the problem, or consider freeing themselves from it. It seems people think more or less "we are locked into this condition, and there's no way out." I simply can't accept that. Therefore if you see that we need much better, you must bow to this truth too: we also need much less. [This message has been edited by Essorant (09-14-2005 03:13 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
