Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By the environment do you mean global warming by driving to work? Or by building out in the country and "destroying a habitat?" ... because just building more densly would be way worse for natural habitats, at least regular houses have yards and there are parks. And I don't know about you, but when I grew up in a suburban style home, we had plenty of bird feeders. I think our bird neighbors appreciated us. .
Both. Urban development often isn't sustainable, either -- I don't mean to just pick on the suburbs, it's just that's where our country's development has been overwhelmingly during the past half-century. However, today our cities, long past the period of the Industrial Revolution, are leading the green movement and are leaving much less of a carbon footprint than suburbanites (i.e., taking public transportation, building LEED-certified buildings, running on renewable energy, etc.) I'm not saying it's all the fault of consumers, either. After all, we can't build our own public transportation. However, we are not forced to drive gas-guzzling vehicles or live in excessively large homes in low-density communities. This increases our dependence on foreign oil, uses up farmable land, and increases greenhouse gases.
I know it's shocking, but caring about the environment isn't just for Hippies anymore.
I drive 4 1/2 miles a day (9 miles RT) to work, in a freakin' suburb! DH drives 6 miles (12 RT) to a different suburb. We are not driving any more than when we lived in Denver and worked at different jobs in the burbs! Many people live and work in the same town, and many live in the city and drive to the burbs! It's not a one way street here (no pun intended).
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-31-2008 at 08:51 PM..
Reason: remove quote
If not, then you shouldn't be driving on public roads, attending public schools, or simply taking advantage of any governmentally-provided service.
So long as you are a citizen of a country with other citizens, you do, in fact, have a responsibility to the rest of society, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. It's called the social contract -- something that you signed by receiving a social security number. If you'd like to give up that responsibility/accountability to the rest of society, then I advise you to create your own nation - population: 1.
The market created the Sprawlburbia problem, and it is now solving it.
Gas is at $3 and is never coming back down, land prices are rising, and many areas are running out of developable land at all. Las Vegas and Southern California are already running out, which is why people have to move in forest fire zones to find a half acre lot
I'm not overly familiar with California, but I don't think there are too many half acre lots there.
If not, then you shouldn't be driving on public roads, attending public schools, or simply taking advantage of any governmentally-provided service.
So long as you are a citizen of a country with other citizens, you do, in fact, have a responsibility to the rest of society, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
Not that same thing as your argument
A) I don't attend public schools
B) I don't have taxpayer paid for fire service
C) I don't have a paved road to my home
D) I don't have government provided water
E) I don't have government provided waste disposal of any kind including sewer or trash.
F) I drive about 40 miles each way to my office
The taxes I pay are for government run programs. I pay those.
As for owing society anything else - as I indicated before, I do not.
Both. Urban development often isn't sustainable, either -- I don't mean to just pick on the suburbs, it's just that's where our country's development has been overwhelmingly during the past half-century. However, today our cities, long past the period of the Industrial Revolution, are leading the green movement and are leaving much less of a carbon footprint than suburbanites (i.e., taking public transportation, building LEED-certified buildings, running on renewable energy, etc.) I'm not saying it's all the fault of consumers, either. After all, we can't build our own public transportation. However, we are not forced to drive gas-guzzling vehicles or live in excessively large homes in low-density communities. This increases our dependence on foreign oil, uses up farmable land, and increases greenhouse gases.
I know it's shocking, but caring about the environment isn't just for Hippies anymore.
Am I shocked? I didn't mean to imply that.. at all. I wasn't even around for these hippies you speak of so, I can't even relate.
You make very good points here, but still don't see how not caring for the environment points straight to people with suburban lifestyles... and, sorry, but the using up good farmland thing is not even arguable, it's just not true. Whether it be a downtown, small town, native american village, SUBURB, school, whatever, you are building on undeveloped land using up good farmland. (in most cases) How else do you expect human-kind to live?? Sleep amongst the crops and camp in the fields? never build towns?
I'm sorry but if everyone used that mindset, we wouldn't have one single town/city in America, because it would have been "using up the good land." haha!!!
E) I don't have government provided waste disposal of any kind including sewer or trash.
The taxes I pay are for government run programs. I pay those.
As for owing society anything else - as I indicated before, I do not.
You just proved my point.
Your paying into the system through taxes acknowledges that you have a responsibility to the system -- that is, a system of over 300 million other citizens. A roundabout way to prove my point, yes, but as a citizen, you are accountable to laws that are passed with a vested interest in the rest of broader society.
Point in case: So what, I WANT to walk around naked in public, after all it's my "right," isn't it?
No, it's against the law, because it's against the interest of everyone who thinks that is indecent.
Although a very graphic analogy, it gets the point across. So long as you live in a democracy, rights of the whole will always supersede individual rights. Your "right" to be environmentally wasteful is not exempt from this principle, but environmental law is so nascent to our country. Although you are legally entitled to your inefficient consuming habits now, thankfully it's only matter of time before we're legally accountable for it.
Your "right" to be environmentally wasteful is not exempt from this principle, but environmental law is so nascent to our country. Although you are legally entitled to your inefficient consuming habits now, thankfully it's only matter of time before we're legally accountable for it.
Who says I am being enviornmentally wasteful? You? When you have not seen our home? Or, how we built it? LOLOLOLOLOL Very presumptive of you.
Quite frankly - you could never survive in the West. We value freedom. You beltway people don't.
I'm sorry but if everyone used that mindset, we wouldn't have one single town/city in America, because it would have been "using up the good land." haha!!!
Yes, you're exactly right, and that hippie comment certainly wasn't directed at you.
Anyway, I didn't mean to say that we can't build on ANY farmable land, because you're correct - that's just impossible. However, there are ways to PRESERVE it as much as possible, and that simply isn't being practiced as much as it could be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.