U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-21-2007, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Burlington VT
1,405 posts, read 4,375,899 times
Reputation: 544

Advertisements

Great post, Harry!

Do you know what they did with the dirt when they created the world's largest underground city in Montreal?

The dome was actually going to be over Winooski, if my memory serves me, which is walking distance from Burlington. The proposal was to put some sort of gondola/monorail/elevated conveyance between the two cities.
Now finally, Winooski has undergone a gigantic urban renewal project, which I find a mixed blessing: I think the enormous traffic circle is terrific (if an eyesore) but I think a grave error was made by not having greater setbacks and more public access/storefront/sidewalk design at the front elevation of the buildings which were built. But I think the new riverwalk and the courtyard outside the mill are very promising.

You and I agree, essentially, about Williston. I try to avoid the place. But I can easily do so, living footsteps from downtown Burlington, which did opt for the very successful Church Street Marketplace idea.

I'll have to check out "Cities In Flight"!

Cheers,
David
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-21-2007, 10:04 AM
 
1,267 posts, read 3,032,877 times
Reputation: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
You'll pardon my rambling short here, and being less than erudite, but I just drove over 1800 miles in 3 days moving some of our stuff from Florida to north Alabama, which just flipped the on switch to Brown's Ferry nuke plant #1. I've no problem living near a nuke, and will enjoy the cheap power.

I agree that high density development in Vt makes sense (keeping the countryside clear). I recollect Montreal, which built underground in the 1960s and think how Burlington missed out on a concept that was floated in the 1970s of a bucky fuller type of dome over the Church Street area, starting the route to a different type of urban concept (ever read the sci-fi trilogy called "Cities-in-flight"?) I'm not saying that Burlington would blast off into space, but that with such an exciting feature, it would be a natural draw for all the creative folks in the U.S., be able to function in the -20 degree weather that sometimes happens, and make life more pleasant in cold seasonal drizzles.

As for power... wind power is interesting, but not any more of an answer than solar in Vt. What Vermont does have are lakes and mountains that experience extremes in temperature. I remember the natural refrigerator in the notch in Stowe, and the frozen fountain in the town that still had ice until July. At some point, those temperature differentials will be considered energy sources. Stored August and September heat may be contrasted against the cold of winter in a sterling-cycle system. Ice and snow may be stacked in some protected valleys for use in summer. I wouldn't expect miracles, but the hot-cold cycle can be leveraged, once the technology is in place.

The Williston mall area is an abomination. I used to live in Williston, and when I visited I was stunned how the land use there was nutso. It appears that Williston catered to every big box and medium box store and allowed them their own plots of land. Back in the 80s, I had anticipated that the development at Tafts Corner would be more along the lines of the big malls in Albany and other cities. Instead, I got to enjoy the thrill of driving 500 yards from store to store and freezing my a.. off. Sooth move, Williston (NOT!).

Bears. My first personal experience with a bear was with one in Yellowstone Park. My brother and I were doing a tour of the U.S. in an MGB, and he happened to leave some groceries in the car while we slept in a pup tent. The tonneau cover was ripped to shreds by the bear. My thought at the time was that I was sure glad the food wasn't in the tent. My thought after a number of years is that bears and people don't mix well, any more than norway rats and people. If I have a norway rat or roof rat, I don't think twice about trapping or killing it. Rats are very smart and can be adorable, as people who have them as pets will attest. Is a bear any more sacrosanct than a rat, or possum, or raccoon? If so, please state your reasoning, leaving out the "endangered species" argument, since they obviously are no longer so.
my point is not how "sacrosanct" a bear, or a possum, or a rat might be ( all the while if we were to extinguish all other lifeforms, i would suggest that we might have just done ourselves in). the point is that i am not aware of any bears, rats, or other creatures beyond homo sapiens wielding the means to extinguish any semblance of life or consciousness "as we ... or they ... know it" at the touch of a button. short of nuclear weapons, i would conject that the extent of human capacity even to reshape the environment in self-defeating ways is arguably unparalleled by other mammals - maybe other creatures period - at this point...and that with such capacity, we might want to consider how self-defeating some of our habits and growth may very well be. i can understand your very good point that extremism can be self-defeating and hypocritical, for example, but i just thought it might be interesting to hear your thoughts concerning where activism ends, extremism begins, or exactly how some of the ways and means of some "environmentalist" or "anti-growth" folks in VT might be wrong. what are the pros and cons of sprawl, of nuclear power, of "economic growth" in your view?

Last edited by hello-world; 05-21-2007 at 10:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2007, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
17,769 posts, read 53,934,698 times
Reputation: 30061
"my point is not how "sacrosanct" a bear, or a possum, or a rat might be ( all the while if we were to extinguish all other lifeforms, i would suggest that we might have just done ourselves in). the point is that i am not aware of any bears, rats, or other creatures beyond homo sapiens wielding the means to extinguish any semblance of life or consciousness "as we ... or they ... know it" at the touch of a button. short of nuclear weapons, i would conject that the extent of human capacity even to reshape the environment in self-defeating ways is arguably unparalleled by other mammals - maybe other creatures period - at this point...and that with such capacity, we might want to consider how self-defeating some of our habits and growth may very well be. i can understand your very good point that extremism can be self-defeating and hypocritical, for example, but i just thought it might be interesting to hear your thoughts concerning where activism ends, extremism begins, or exactly how some of the ways and means of some "environmentalist" or "anti-growth" folks in VT might be wrong. what are the pros and cons of sprawl, of nuclear power, of "economic growth" in your view?"

Jeeze. I gotta start out by saying that my views change over the years and I long ago concluded that every "right" answer has a hidden wrong answer hidden inside, and visa versa. Depending on your POV, homo sapiens was given the job of "sheparding" the resources and animals of the earth when it was granted dominion, or we, in a stilted scientific jargon, are on our way to understanding the secrets of the universe and will soon get to see it in its undergarments. I'll ramble on for a bit and let you pick out a thread of thought here and there.

To answer your questions, I have to expose a meta-view and hopefully put things in perspective for you. These relate more to humanity as a whole than Vermont. Try not to skim, try to examine each statement without bias, and note that I suggest most likely, but not absolute futures. The color of the answers at the end depend on how thoroughly you understand the statements leading up to them.

Science is a double-edged sword that we regularly use to severely cut ourselves in increasingly hiddeous ways. A thousand years ago, a single person couldn't do much to damage the earth because he didn't have access to energy or a means of controlling it. He could wield his literal sword, he could use a bow or build a ballista, he could build a crude watermill or windmill. As a group, an army could be raised, aqueducts and cities built, but not a heck of a lot more.

For a conversation stopper at your next visit to a car dealer, ask the saleman to consider that a man engaging in heavy manual labor for an entire day expends about 1/10th the energy contained in a single gallon of gasoline.
<http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ENERGY/ENERGY_POLICY/tables.html> Take some time to study the information there and ponder the deeper meaning of it in the context of our culture.

We are cheerfully oblivious to the leveraging of energy that we casually use in everyday life. When I drove my load of belongings to AL over the past three days, I used an amount of energy comparable to 1800 men laboring for a day. Yow! If they worked an 8 hour day, their individual pay would have been 3.5 cents per hour. Now consider how many cars were on the road with me on those three days. In that period, there was undoubtedly more energy used in Florida and Alabama alone than was used to create the entire Roman Empire!

There is nothing inherantly wrong in using energy, but as we consume more, the potential for our having huge effects increases, and will continue to increase.

If you multiply our increasing use of energy by the increasing population, it becomes apparent that there will come a time in the not too distant future when a small group of people - or even a single well placed person - could perform an act that would cascade into the destruction of civilization.

The alternatives to the scenarios are population control - either by intent or natural disease - and limiting the amount of energy available to people on a day to day basis. You cannot educate every individual to the level needed that each person can safely control the power of an H-bomb. (To put the fears about nuclear power and bombs in some perspective, do a web search on how much power a single hurricane or volcano explosion has. We are still pikers when compared to mother nature.)

The choice is ultimately to put smaller amounts of energy into the hands of a smaller and more educated population and hope to H... that you don't miss a creative sociopath in that group.

In these larger contexts, activism is complaining about the treatment of mice and ignoring the elephant in the living room. IMO, activism will have little lasting effect, and is largely a feel-good make-work activity that helps us avoid tackling the real issues that we desprately seek to avoid. More on this later.

What are the big issues?
1. Population control on a worldwide basis. We seem genetically incapable of voluntarily doing this. From the landowner in a third-world contry that wants more sons to help work the land, to the Pope, short-sighted people think that more people on the planet is a good thing.

The answer? They aren't happy answers. There will be wars and pestilence and starvation. Some of the population decimation could be by release of germ warfare (remember that the increase in energy use isn't the only way we have leveraged our influence over the world), some could be by natural viruses and other antibiotic resistant diseases which thive in overcrowded conditions, and some by nuclear war. All these are horrifying answers that we will reap by continuing to live in a fantasy world and not respecting natural boundries. (Another form of extremism, to harp on a theme.)

2. Excessive or extreme energy use. When people have too much power at too little cost, they don't use it wisely. The simple answer is to increase the cost of energy to the people. However, if implimented in the U.S., this will throw the economy into a tailspin, and result in more starving and deprivation worldwide. $4 / gallon gas is just a start, but I expect to see that price and more in the upcoming years. Metered power, like electricity, will be seen as a more secure and eco-friendly alternative to liquid fuels.

3. Insane acceptance of religious fruitcases who would rule the world according to a personal vision of "God", "Allah", "Buddha", or "Bart Simpson".
There is no easy answer, and may be no practical answer to this, as it literally would require the destruction of cultures and re-education. Read Charles Tart on the fallacies of perception and the culturation of perceptions that happen from birth. More than big issues number one and two, this one could defeat humanity.

4. Getting off the planet. The ONLY way to insure long term survival of the species is if we recreate the type of situation that existed before there was easy trade between europe and asia, and the discovery of the new world. Once the last undiscovered tribe has been discovered, we are on our way out. A single virulant disease can then reach all members of humanity. The end, amen, thanks for all the fish.

IF we can establish colonies that are effectively out of contact with each other, then a disaster in one does not presage a disaster in all others. We not only have to get to Mars, we have to get out of the solar system. Interestingly, the same energy leveraging that can destroy us could make this possible. Hollow out some asteroids, railgun shoot water and iron into space to make space arks, this is all the stuff of science fiction now, but it'll need to become science fact within the next 200 years or less if humanity is to survive the longterm.

5. Enhanced lifeforms. We have computers that follow Moore's law, we are beginning to have an understanding of the human genome. I see no reason (other than ego) to think that we are the ultimate intelligent beings. Will we tweak the genome? Will we invent cyborgs and androids that can self replicate? Will we simply say we've done enough and call it quits as a species? Most people don't think this far ahead. A few sci-fi books of the 40s and 50s proposed some frightening possibilities. "Lucifer's Hammers" proposed a super computer that used dragonfly-like drones to spy and destroy. We have all the parts in place for this to happen except for the intelligent computer. If an intelligence spontaniously erupts out of web-crawlers and computer science experiments, we might not have to worry about the future if that intelligence decides we have served our purpose.

So, back to your questions.
Sprawl. - see population control.
Nukes - not a pollution issue if a waste site is pushed through and used. Limit the power to each person by keeping the price high through taxes to fund education on population control.
Economic growth - To the extent that it serves the purpose of laying a groundwork for space colonization, great. If we decide that we are to only live on earth, then it needs to be reversed to give us more breathing room.

Then there are perspectives that only come with age. Watching that last blast off from the moon that ended space exploration put tears in my eyes. Learning that Waterbury once had a huge reform school building that was gone without a trace, and that Stowe had a summer hotel that took up one entire side of Main Street, also gone except for one small laundry building, gave me pause to think about permanance, even on a short time scale. How about you? How much do you know about your great-great grandparents? Are they lost to time as well? The story of the UVM professor killed in the Amazon, and his discoveries there, showed me that entire civilizations can suffer the same fate of disappearing without a trace. Make the time frame long enough, and you'll realize that the earth will eventually be an iceball, or blown apart when the sun goes nova.

In that larger scale, all the extreme environmentalism of today matters about as much as whether you tie your left shoelace first instead of your right.

An activist group within our culture saves a speckle-toed newt from extinction by stopping construction of a widget factory and sings praises of awareness and activism. In 50 years a mongolian hoard descends on the country that is short of widgets, and destoys not only the newt, but the activist group, and the culture. Gee, that was an exercise in futility, huh?

We need to understand the Gestalt of our existance to place the various aspects of it in perspective. We need to simultaniously consider short term, medium term, and long term effects of our actions. Only then can we even get a start on muddling through with any sense of real growth, and put the extreme dogmas in their place.

Or... you can take the easy way out and believe in the multiverse, where every possible scenario happens, we just get to see only a slice of one at any given point. It has its nicities, like explaining on a metaphysical basis why photographs fade and car keys get lost, AND you get to believe in everything (or nothing) (or both) (and not believe at all) (and so forth, ad infinitum).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2007, 04:31 PM
 
1,267 posts, read 3,032,877 times
Reputation: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
"my point is not how "sacrosanct" a bear, or a possum, or a rat might be ( all the while if we were to extinguish all other lifeforms, i would suggest that we might have just done ourselves in). the point is that i am not aware of any bears, rats, or other creatures beyond homo sapiens wielding the means to extinguish any semblance of life or consciousness "as we ... or they ... know it" at the touch of a button. short of nuclear weapons, i would conject that the extent of human capacity even to reshape the environment in self-defeating ways is arguably unparalleled by other mammals - maybe other creatures period - at this point...and that with such capacity, we might want to consider how self-defeating some of our habits and growth may very well be. i can understand your very good point that extremism can be self-defeating and hypocritical, for example, but i just thought it might be interesting to hear your thoughts concerning where activism ends, extremism begins, or exactly how some of the ways and means of some "environmentalist" or "anti-growth" folks in VT might be wrong. what are the pros and cons of sprawl, of nuclear power, of "economic growth" in your view?"

Jeeze. I gotta start out by saying that my views change over the years and I long ago concluded that every "right" answer has a hidden wrong answer hidden inside, and visa versa. Depending on your POV, homo sapiens was given the job of "sheparding" the resources and animals of the earth when it was granted dominion, or we, in a stilted scientific jargon, are on our way to understanding the secrets of the universe and will soon get to see it in its undergarments. I'll ramble on for a bit and let you pick out a thread of thought here and there.

To answer your questions, I have to expose a meta-view and hopefully put things in perspective for you. These relate more to humanity as a whole than Vermont. Try not to skim, try to examine each statement without bias, and note that I suggest most likely, but not absolute futures. The color of the answers at the end depend on how thoroughly you understand the statements leading up to them.

Science is a double-edged sword that we regularly use to severely cut ourselves in increasingly hiddeous ways. A thousand years ago, a single person couldn't do much to damage the earth because he didn't have access to energy or a means of controlling it. He could wield his literal sword, he could use a bow or build a ballista, he could build a crude watermill or windmill. As a group, an army could be raised, aqueducts and cities built, but not a heck of a lot more.

For a conversation stopper at your next visit to a car dealer, ask the saleman to consider that a man engaging in heavy manual labor for an entire day expends about 1/10th the energy contained in a single gallon of gasoline.
<http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ENERGY/ENERGY_POLICY/tables.html> Take some time to study the information there and ponder the deeper meaning of it in the context of our culture.

We are cheerfully oblivious to the leveraging of energy that we casually use in everyday life. When I drove my load of belongings to AL over the past three days, I used an amount of energy comparable to 1800 men laboring for a day. Yow! If they worked an 8 hour day, their individual pay would have been 3.5 cents per hour. Now consider how many cars were on the road with me on those three days. In that period, there was undoubtedly more energy used in Florida and Alabama alone than was used to create the entire Roman Empire!

There is nothing inherantly wrong in using energy, but as we consume more, the potential for our having huge effects increases, and will continue to increase.

If you multiply our increasing use of energy by the increasing population, it becomes apparent that there will come a time in the not too distant future when a small group of people - or even a single well placed person - could perform an act that would cascade into the destruction of civilization.

The alternatives to the scenarios are population control - either by intent or natural disease - and limiting the amount of energy available to people on a day to day basis. You cannot educate every individual to the level needed that each person can safely control the power of an H-bomb. (To put the fears about nuclear power and bombs in some perspective, do a web search on how much power a single hurricane or volcano explosion has. We are still pikers when compared to mother nature.)

The choice is ultimately to put smaller amounts of energy into the hands of a smaller and more educated population and hope to H... that you don't miss a creative sociopath in that group.

In these larger contexts, activism is complaining about the treatment of mice and ignoring the elephant in the living room. IMO, activism will have little lasting effect, and is largely a feel-good make-work activity that helps us avoid tackling the real issues that we desprately seek to avoid. More on this later.

What are the big issues?
1. Population control on a worldwide basis. We seem genetically incapable of voluntarily doing this. From the landowner in a third-world contry that wants more sons to help work the land, to the Pope, short-sighted people think that more people on the planet is a good thing.

The answer? They aren't happy answers. There will be wars and pestilence and starvation. Some of the population decimation could be by release of germ warfare (remember that the increase in energy use isn't the only way we have leveraged our influence over the world), some could be by natural viruses and other antibiotic resistant diseases which thive in overcrowded conditions, and some by nuclear war. All these are horrifying answers that we will reap by continuing to live in a fantasy world and not respecting natural boundries. (Another form of extremism, to harp on a theme.)

2. Excessive or extreme energy use. When people have too much power at too little cost, they don't use it wisely. The simple answer is to increase the cost of energy to the people. However, if implimented in the U.S., this will throw the economy into a tailspin, and result in more starving and deprivation worldwide. $4 / gallon gas is just a start, but I expect to see that price and more in the upcoming years. Metered power, like electricity, will be seen as a more secure and eco-friendly alternative to liquid fuels.

3. Insane acceptance of religious fruitcases who would rule the world according to a personal vision of "God", "Allah", "Buddha", or "Bart Simpson".
There is no easy answer, and may be no practical answer to this, as it literally would require the destruction of cultures and re-education. Read Charles Tart on the fallacies of perception and the culturation of perceptions that happen from birth. More than big issues number one and two, this one could defeat humanity.

4. Getting off the planet. The ONLY way to insure long term survival of the species is if we recreate the type of situation that existed before there was easy trade between europe and asia, and the discovery of the new world. Once the last undiscovered tribe has been discovered, we are on our way out. A single virulant disease can then reach all members of humanity. The end, amen, thanks for all the fish.

IF we can establish colonies that are effectively out of contact with each other, then a disaster in one does not presage a disaster in all others. We not only have to get to Mars, we have to get out of the solar system. Interestingly, the same energy leveraging that can destroy us could make this possible. Hollow out some asteroids, railgun shoot water and iron into space to make space arks, this is all the stuff of science fiction now, but it'll need to become science fact within the next 200 years or less if humanity is to survive the longterm.

5. Enhanced lifeforms. We have computers that follow Moore's law, we are beginning to have an understanding of the human genome. I see no reason (other than ego) to think that we are the ultimate intelligent beings. Will we tweak the genome? Will we invent cyborgs and androids that can self replicate? Will we simply say we've done enough and call it quits as a species? Most people don't think this far ahead. A few sci-fi books of the 40s and 50s proposed some frightening possibilities. "Lucifer's Hammers" proposed a super computer that used dragonfly-like drones to spy and destroy. We have all the parts in place for this to happen except for the intelligent computer. If an intelligence spontaniously erupts out of web-crawlers and computer science experiments, we might not have to worry about the future if that intelligence decides we have served our purpose.

So, back to your questions.
Sprawl. - see population control.
Nukes - not a pollution issue if a waste site is pushed through and used. Limit the power to each person by keeping the price high through taxes to fund education on population control.
Economic growth - To the extent that it serves the purpose of laying a groundwork for space colonization, great. If we decide that we are to only live on earth, then it needs to be reversed to give us more breathing room.

Then there are perspectives that only come with age. Watching that last blast off from the moon that ended space exploration put tears in my eyes. Learning that Waterbury once had a huge reform school building that was gone without a trace, and that Stowe had a summer hotel that took up one entire side of Main Street, also gone except for one small laundry building, gave me pause to think about permanance, even on a short time scale. How about you? How much do you know about your great-great grandparents? Are they lost to time as well? The story of the UVM professor killed in the Amazon, and his discoveries there, showed me that entire civilizations can suffer the same fate of disappearing without a trace. Make the time frame long enough, and you'll realize that the earth will eventually be an iceball, or blown apart when the sun goes nova.

In that larger scale, all the extreme environmentalism of today matters about as much as whether you tie your left shoelace first instead of your right.

An activist group within our culture saves a speckle-toed newt from extinction by stopping construction of a widget factory and sings praises of awareness and activism. In 50 years a mongolian hoard descends on the country that is short of widgets, and destoys not only the newt, but the activist group, and the culture. Gee, that was an exercise in futility, huh?

We need to understand the Gestalt of our existance to place the various aspects of it in perspective. We need to simultaniously consider short term, medium term, and long term effects of our actions. Only then can we even get a start on muddling through with any sense of real growth, and put the extreme dogmas in their place.

Or... you can take the easy way out and believe in the multiverse, where every possible scenario happens, we just get to see only a slice of one at any given point. It has its nicities, like explaining on a metaphysical basis why photographs fade and car keys get lost, AND you get to believe in everything (or nothing) (or both) (and not believe at all) (and so forth, ad infinitum).
multiverse, or multi-verse? i agree that there is some ill-conceived activism out there that can undermine it's own purposes (and resources). nuclear energy can have it's appeal, i'll agree, while nuclear weapons (even a single contemporary warhead) could have arguably far greater consequences than a hurricane by the nature of the dynamics of respective operations and consequences, if not by the nature of their particular energetic yields. with a bubble of plasma, poke a hole through much of the atmosphere and innoculate with minerals and things could get interesting. i agree that the collective influence of our individual efforts, mistakes, etc. - what a significant portion of each of our posts seems to me to be about - can result in similar and foreseeable "cascades" if you will. and perhaps there are some - even if not all, i'll grant - "activists" that understand this (assuming "this" is worth understanding - i suppose each of us has plenty to learn, too) while recognizing that the average person may not have the time or wherewithall to peck at much more than an issue or two at a time. it certainly seems that if you get a few human beings together, much more than a few issues may overwhelm, all the more so if those issues and their contexts are ill-considered. i agree that "it" can be a matter of belief systems and conditioned perceptions. and don't you believe that some of those "dragonflies" are already in effect, and otherwise poised if ill-considered? the nova seems to be a ways off. and i tend to think that a sense of the past and an awareness of now can prevent some trouble in the future. yeah, i can appreciate some of the roots we can sense in quirky old neighborhoods, a talk with our great grandparents. and i tend to wonder, sometimes, whether the glossy insta-hoods and marketing pipe via american idol could deplete our souls in the name of the dollar. but that's me - I guess in reading through some of these things, we can all weigh what makes sense to us as individuals.

anyhoo, thanks for sharing some specifics.

incidentally, by any chance do you read any gurdjieff? i imagine you might appreciate some of it at the least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2007, 05:33 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
17,769 posts, read 53,934,698 times
Reputation: 30061
"incidentally, by any chance do you read any gurdjieff? i imagine you might appreciate some of it at the least."

LOL. "Meetings With Remarkable Men?" Gurdjieff was on the path. The dances are most likely an anachronism though, meant for a specific time and group. You might enjoy the works of Idries Shah. I also found that Frank Herbert had a surprisingly cogent world view - I think the old Mother Earth News did an interview with him.

What we discuss is getting away from the intent of the forums here, and the thread.

The dirt from the Montreal subway made the island for Expo 67. Been both places, and I like the concept of a negative in one spot being a positive in another, metaphorically and physically. The subway up there is a great example of multi-time thinking. The stations are at high points, so that gravity assists the downward acceleration at the beginning of a journey, and then assists in braking at the end. Energy efficient and conceptually elegant. Now if they just made the tyres out of superballs...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2007, 05:54 PM
 
1,267 posts, read 3,032,877 times
Reputation: 191
i'm not so sure the discussion does get away from intent of the forum or the point of the thread, actually. maybe underlies it to some extent. or maybe it's all just turtles down from there? (Sagan's probably rolling in his grave.) regardless, weighing in on some of our undercurrents, some of the bigger picture, and the general fabirc of things doesn't seem too far removed from some possibilities of "growth" or "sprawl", does it?



i used to like this little guy. kinda scares me at this point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2007, 05:56 PM
 
1,267 posts, read 3,032,877 times
Reputation: 191
yeah. still weird.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2007, 08:46 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
17,769 posts, read 53,934,698 times
Reputation: 30061
"or maybe it's all just turtles down from there? (Sagan's probably rolling in his grave.) "

<groan>
"Is he rolling along with a few traditionalists who were thinking the earth existed on the back of a turtle," Atlas Shrugged?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2007, 07:10 AM
 
Location: Vermont
89 posts, read 289,821 times
Reputation: 35
Atlas isn't the only person shrugging.....lol.....great posts guys!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2007, 07:48 AM
 
1,267 posts, read 3,032,877 times
Reputation: 191
sorry if it seems too esoteric or off the tracks. from what i'm seeing, it seems to come down to:

- we have growth and sprawl in many places, though some resist it and some embrace it
- we're not sure whether it's good or bad, to what degrees it might be good or bad, and what "extreme" (in activism, in politics, in growth and sprawl for example) really is
- what might we be doing to ourselves, why might we be doing it (is there something in media involved, is there something in our beliefs and what shapes them involved, is there something in history involved, does it matter...), and what's good and bad about it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top