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.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,020,628 times
Reputation: 36027
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicket
I am unsure which is more destructive to the environment (cars or trains), but it still should be at LEAST a factor in decided how to procede. If you just quote Limbaugh and dismiss "wackos" without hearing their points, you may find yourself without any "progress" at all. It is very expensive to clean up environmental damage, and it may cost you more for water, etc. Even if you only care about your wallet - at least LISTEN before you judge.
I don't listen to Limbaugh. I'm speaking as someone who relies on public transportation to get from A to B. I spent an average of 5+ hours commuting because Southern California has not properly invested in high speed rail that would ease my and the commute of many others. Our freeway systems are so jammed packed that it's difficult to get anywhere but what choice do drivers have with no other viable alternatives? People have to work to support themselves and don't always have the luxury of living within walking distance from their job (or jobs in my case).
[1] Opinion, unsupported by facts, is not persuasive.
[2] Why would it matter if land was or was not developed around tracks? Environmental preservation is suicidal.
[3] Mankind's ability to boost food production is a historical fact. Even the Amazon Indians engineered soil. See: Terra Preta
[4] There are many options to support more and more humans. Human ingenuity has been applied, all over the world, in many wondrous ways. Examples: terraced mountain sides becoming cropland, aquaculture, verticulture, hydroponics, aeroponics, and who knows what else will be developed.
[5] Perhaps you would quote the law of Physics that says you cannot increase the surface area of a planet. I haven't found it.
To illustrate habitat multiplication, consider a simple thought experiment:
Take an area measured at ten acres, and you have ten acres of life supporting surface area. Now, build a 100 story building on that site. Instead of ten acres of surface area, you have 1000 acres of surface area (not counting the vertical surfaces - which may be used).
I stipulate that current architects and customers restrict that surface area to human habitat, but there is no reason why it must be so restricted. Let our intrepid "Green" Architects reserve 20% of the surface area for wildlife habitat. Thus we have the wildlife habitat surface area approaching 200 acres, where once only 10 acres were available.
How?
Make open terraces that ring the building, accessible by helical ramps. In essence, it's a man made mountain. A city composed of such "Green-scrapers" might annoy those who love glass and concrete, but I think you'll admit that engineering can produce solutions that are better than static preservation of habitat.
It takes very little imagination to extend that multiplication to all lifeforms and habitats. Imagine building recommendations ( not authoritarian codes) that encourage builders to designate large portions of surface area for wildlife habitat or agricultural uses. Imagine every flat topped skyscraper with garden greenery. Imagine building exteriors composed of trellises, vine supports, balconies and alcoves, supporting tons of soil and providing access to wildlife. It's reasonable and proper to plan habitat for humans, but let's incorporate nonhumans into the mix.
To illustrate the potential, imagine a nation that "improves" 1% of its land, by multistory multiplication, to house its total population. It has just enabled the preservation of 99% of the remainder. And if that multistory multiplication includes wildlife habitat, not only has man preserved, but has increased the life bearing surface for all life.
That is profound.
Mother nature can't take 100 acres and transform it into 10,000 acres (or more) of life bearing surface. Only men, by harnessing science, technology, intellect, and our collective cooperation can do it.
This generation and those to come, have to welcome the billions and billions of descendants, and prepare a place for them.
We have to stop teaching "environmental status quo" and begin imagining environmental multiplication via engineering. The planet's surface is NOT the limiting factor.
All the contradictory laws, rules and regulations must be scrapped, tossed away, and replaced with the sound doctrine that we have to think for the benefit of the seventh generation to come, and each succeeding generation to do likewise.
Every discipline, science and art should be focused on "thickening" the life bearing surface of our homeworld. Visionaries must help paint the pictures for those who lack the imagination.
How big would a city be, to house 100 million people?
How much surface area to support their transport?
Their food production?
If we assume a megalopolis of 50 people per acre (each person is allotted 30 ft x 30 ft), then we need 2000000 acres. If we require the same for agriculture, that's another 2 million acres. Four million acres translates to 6250 square miles, or roughly 79 miles by 79 miles. Or if you like a circular city, 89 miles in diameter.
Now, let us engineer a 50 story volume to hold the same surface area.
Four million acres / 50 = 80,000 acres (125 square miles)
That's only an area, 11 x 11 miles!
How about 100 stories?
Four million acres / 100 = 40,000 acres (62.5 square miles)
Roughly 8 miles x 8 miles could provide the surface area for 100
million people.
Change whatever parameters you wish. Give more surface area to agriculture, to wildlife habitat, to replica landscapes, to whatever pursuits you deem necessary for your pursuit of happiness. Run the numbers. Each time you will see that the only sane solution is for mankind to deliberately change the environment to support more and more and more lifeforms. Environmental protection of the status quo is suicide. Multiplication of environment is the solution.
Once you envision that magnificent possibility, you will no longer mourn the past nor fear the future.
You are so egregiously wrong that it's difficult to know where to start. When a person lacks an ecological education, conversation becomes impossible--because most of the time needs to be devoted to refuting comments/beliefs such as "environmental preservation is suicide." Sorry, I don't have the time or energy for that.
I tell you what. Here are a couple of books for you to read. When you're done, we'll talk.
You are so egregiously wrong that it's difficult to know where to start. When a person lacks an ecological education, conversation becomes impossible--because most of the time needs to be devoted to refuting comments/beliefs such as "environmental preservation is suicide."
Your use of egregious* is as poor as your objections. (*Exceptional, conspicuous, outstanding, most usually in a negative fashion; Outrageously bad)
Thickening the life bearing volume of the Earth is a viable solution.
It is not "bad". It just doesn't fit in with the orthodox "preservation" lunatics of the "green" movement.
I call them lunatics, because they don't really comprehend the consequences of their foolishness. If Environmentalists prevail, humanity will not. Environmental Preservation is suicidal, and should not be encouraged.
Mankind has engineered the environment ever since we began agriculture, and cut down forests to make way for domesticated plants. In the strict "preservation" model, we would have to forgo such niceties and go back to hunter - gatherer mode.
Let's put it into perspective -
World Population of 2060 is estimated to be as many as 13 billions.
What environmental preservation / protection will allow them to live better than the 6.77 billion of today?
What wildlife preservation (or expansion) will grant them survival?
Or do you prefer to cut the world's population to 3 billions?
If so, will you volunteer to die?
Will you condemn your grandchildren to non-existence?
Or are your plans to make someone else die, so you and your descendants may live?
My solution accepts that no one wishes to die, nor kill off their descendants. Therefore, we have to make plans to support those billions to come.
Based on the population doubling every 40 - 50 years, we must plan to support them - or else plan to die off.
1900: 1.6 B
1960: 3 B
2000: 6 B
2009: 6.77 B
2049: 13 B
2089: 26 B (!)
If you can show me how we can support those billions and billions by "Environmental Preservation", I am open to the idea.
But to the best of my understanding of science, technology, and current options, we must transform our planet's surface to support more humans. And that requires environmental amplification, not static preservation.
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama called Thursday for the country to move swiftly to a system of high-speed rail travel, saying it will relieve congestion, help clean the air and save on energy.
Appearing with Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Obama said the country cannot afford not to invest in a major upgrade to rail travel. He said he understands it necessarily will be "a long-term project" but said the time to start is now.
The president allocated $8 billion in the enormous $787 billion economic stimulus spending package for a start on establishing high-speed rail corridors nationwide.
So I guess were buying a new and improved AMTRAK. Anyone else see a problem with starting a new rail system that promises to to be way more expensive than the first one when the original money pit was supposed to be profitable?
I figure the human population will expand and over fill the environmental carrying capacity until some man made and/or natural global catastrophe thins the herd to nearly zero and the human race gets to start over again but with the advantage of a substantial built infrastructure such as all the high speed rail trains with very few people to ride or run them. The overpopulation phase could be avoided, as it was in the US until we allowed unlimited immigration, by families deciding that one or two kids is enough and having the birth control to back up the decision to limit their fecundity.
OT
I still think a Federal investment in high speed passenger rail is a proper use of Federal funds. Ideally this system will be on parallel but separate right of way to prevent conflict with the slower freight trains. Shifting subsidies from the airline industry would be a good source of seed money for High Speed Rail.
The more relevant question is how much will our children be forced to pay in the future for the votes Democrats are buying today?
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Because of all the environmental impact studies and other studies that need to be completed, it'll be at least 15 years before a shovel is turned. This fiasco will be derailed (haha) long before then.
I don't listen to Limbaugh. I'm speaking as someone who relies on public transportation to get from A to B. I spent an average of 5+ hours commuting because Southern California has not properly invested in high speed rail that would ease my and the commute of many others. Our freeway systems are so jammed packed that it's difficult to get anywhere but what choice do drivers have with no other viable alternatives? People have to work to support themselves and don't always have the luxury of living within walking distance from their job (or jobs in my case).
Sounds like we are on the same side then, no? Trying to find an environmentally responsible solution to this problem that we can afford. My only objection is when people dismiss "environmental wackos" without hearing the points they are trying to make. Environment AND costs have to be considered or we are digging ourselves a bigger (and more expensive) hole.
[1] I figure the human population will expand and over fill the environmental carrying capacity until some man made and/or natural global catastrophe thins the herd to nearly zero and the human race gets to start over again but with the advantage of a substantial built infrastructure such as all the high speed rail trains with very few people to ride or run them. [2] The overpopulation phase could be avoided, as it was in the US until we allowed unlimited immigration, by families deciding that one or two kids is enough and having the birth control to back up the decision to limit their fecundity.
OT
[3] I still think a Federal investment in high speed passenger rail is a proper use of Federal funds. [4] Ideally this system will be on parallel but separate right of way to prevent conflict with the slower freight trains. Shifting subsidies from the airline industry would be a good source of seed money for High Speed Rail.
[1] A population collapse will take out high tech, because the requisite number of skilled operators and supply chains will be gone. A good reference point on civilization collapse is Western Europe, after the 6th century. When Rome fell, the "Dark Ages" befell Europe for almost 1000 years. (Recent rediscoveries of Roman Tech - pozzolanic cements, hydraulics, mechanics).
[2] You can't defeat other nation's biowarfare (overpopulation) by taming your own. See: America in the 15th century, and the impact of "illegal immigration" on natives.
[3] Expropriation of private funds, via general taxation, should be strictly limited to securing rights, not "funding" anything and everything. Proponents can always find a reason to rob the public treasury.
[4] Instead of public funding, with inherent political baggage, let's grant rail companies a zero tax. No tax subsidy and no tax liability. I suspect that investment money will pour in. And if the laborers are also granted zero tax liability, there will be a massive expansion of rail transportation, in all forms.
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.
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.
