Sustainable?

[Robert Cote]

What follows is one of the most tortured redefinitions of the word
"sustainable" ever put forth. The plan is to take money from roads to
subsidize transit because transit is more sustainable. Here are about
50 web definitions of "sustainable development:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&oi=defmore&q=
define:Sustainable+development

Development that ensures that the use of resources and the
environment today does not restrict their use by future generations.
www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/freshwater_europe/glos.php

Development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
www.ec.gc.ca/international/refs/gloss_e.htm

The concept of using resources in an ecologically sound manner so
that they will be sustainable over the long term. Put another way, by
the Executive Secretary of the UN Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific, it is "an approach to progress that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs."
www.lehigh.edu/~kaf3/books/reporting/glossary.html

The management and conservation of the natural resources base, and
the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a
manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human
needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development
(in agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors) conserves land, water,
plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally viable and
socially acceptable.
www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6896E/x6896e0e.htm

Development which meets the needs of the present without
sacrificing the ability to meet future needs.
www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/watres/water_guide/glossary.html

development that is based on sustainable principles; sustainable
development pays particular concern to environmental degradation and the
exploitation of natural resources
wellspring.isinj.com/sample/econ/macro/glosss.htm

Developing polices and programs that contribute to the
sustainability of a company.
www.genencor.com/wt/gcor/glossary

means development which meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
(definition by the World Commission on Environment and Development).
www.sturgeoncounty.ab.ca/heartland/may_4glos.html

Practices in agriculture, economic development, health and
education that lead to progress and meet the needs and desires of the
current generation without decreasing the ability of future generations
to meet their needs.
www.kzpg.com/Lib/Pages/Tools/glossary.html

Human activities that do not do permanent damage to the
environment or rob resources from future generations.
www.ecohealth101.org/glossary.html

"Improving the quality of human life while living within the
carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems" (Caring for the Earth,
IUCN/WWF/UNEP, 1991)
www.interenvironment.org/wd1intro/glossary.htm

balancing the need for development and growth against the need to
protect the natural and built environment whilst meeting the needs of
the present generation without compromising the needs and aspirations of
future generations.
www.iwight.com/living_here/environment/estuaries/estuary_management/gloss
ary.asp

A real increase in well-being and standard of life for the average
person that can be maintained over the long-term without degrading the
environment or compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_s-z.html

Economic development that is achieved without undermining the
incomes, resources, or environment of future generations.
www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/s.html

development that can be maintained in the long term, that is
without consuming or destroying finite resources.
www.wascot.org.uk/Glossary.htm

Changes in the way of life or means of production in a country or
region that improve the standard of living but are not dependent on
outside support and do not deplete resources. Sustainable development
projects often concentrate on education and the refinement of local
production techniques with a great deal of respect for local customs and
traditions.
www.icons.umd.edu/pls/reslib/display_glossary

Development where consideration is given to the quality of life of
future as well as current generations
www.bized.ac.uk/virtual/dc/resource/glos6.htm

The use of components of biological diversity in a way that does
not interfere with the natural functioning of ecological process and
life-support systems. For example, crops that are managed in an
ecologically sound way, including supporting and preserving genetic
diversity for the future.
www.thegreenguide.org/definitions.php

Within a country or region, gradual change characterized by
economic growth, increased social equity, constructive modification of
ecosystems, and maintenance of the natural resource base.
www.oas.org/usde/publications/Unit/oea03e/ch13.htm

preservation and protection of diverse ecosystems-the soil,
plants, animals, insects and fungi while maintaining the forest's
productivity.
www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/glossary/S.htm

Forms of development that do not deplete the land or its people.
Sustainable practices are ecologically sound, economically viable,
socially just and culturally appropriate.
www.web.net/rain/glossary.htm

The use of resources in such a way that the possible needs of
future generations are not seriously affected
www.rec.org/DanubePCU/glossary.html

Use of an area within its capacity to sustain its cultural or
natural significance, and ensure that the benefits of the use to present
generations do not diminish the potential to meet the needs and
aspirations of future generations. Means that the nation's heritage is
respected and appreciated by Australians and international visitors and
use of, and visits to, heritage places and objects contribute to the
social and economic well-being of the nation and its constituents
without detriment to the heritage resources; and the integrity of the
heritage resources is never jeopardised.
www.deh.gov.au/soe/2001/heritage/glossary.html

A philosophy of resource use and management intended to meet
society's present needs without compromising the resource for future
generations.
www.opb.org/programs/oregonstory/land_trusts/glossary/

Development that provides economic, social and environmental
benefits in the long term, having regard to the needs of living and
future generations' [Brundtland, 1987]. Introduces the concepts of
inter-generational equity and that the Earth can no longer act as an
infinite resource or infinite sink. Sustainable development tends to be
applied through government and supra-governmental policy to nations and
industrial sectors. Industrial Sustainability must fit within such broad
policy frameworks.
www.pe-consulting-group.com/glossary.html

Before the widespread use of the term sustainable industries, the
terms sustainable economy and sustainable development were prevalent.
Their popularization started with the United Nations Conference for
Environment and Development (the Earth Summit) in 1992. The conference
was prompted by the report Our Common Future (1987, World Commission on
Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission),
which called for strategies to strengthen efforts to promote sustainable
and envir
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development
----

Does anyone see anywhere in there anything about transit being
sustainable or auto oriented development being unsustainable?

http://tinyurl.com/au2jr

Jun.2, 2005. 06:44AM

Cities need fewer cars, minister says
Public transit to get $800 million
TTC will use share for maintenance

BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

It was billed as an announcement on transit funding. It turned into an
impassioned plea for smarter city planning and living.

John Godfrey, the federal minister of infrastructure and communities,
used a speech to a group of transit planners to warn that Canadian
cities can't afford to grow like they have in the past.

"We know that they cannot grow indefinitely forever ... we cannot
continue to build urban societies based on automobiles and suburbs,"
Godfrey told a meeting of the Canadian Urban Transit Association here
yesterday morning.

"The only way that we can think coherently about our communities of the
future is to think long-term," he said.

Godfrey got a standing ovation from the audience as much for the ideas
he espoused as the $800 million in new transit funding he promised to
deliver. He touted the environmental benefits of transit in getting cars
off the road and reducing greenhouse gases.

And he added another argument not often heard to promote good transit
the need to serve those who have no other way to get around, such as the
elderly, the handicapped, the poor and young people.

"As you actually look at who needs transit, the people who have no
alternatives in this world, you realize sometimes it's the most
vulnerable," said Godfrey, who represents the Toronto riding of Don
Valley West.

Public transit, he said, is key to making cities "clean, attractive,
liveable and competitive."

But his comments reinforce Ottawa's firm intent to use its billions of
dollars in urban investments promised through the gas tax funding to
subtly influence how cities grow. That means ensuring that new funding
favours transit over new roads, for example.

Transit officials welcomed Godfrey's pledge of $800 million in new
federal funding and in the face of parliamentary wrangling that could
scuttle the new cash, they're appealing to MPs to get the money flowing.

"We're concerned about that," said Michael Roschlau, president of the
Canadian Urban Transit Association.

"All members of Parliament need to recognize how important this is to
their communities, to the environment, to mobility, to their economies,"
he said.

Under yesterday's announcement, Ontario transit systems will collect
$310 million over the next two years, including an estimated $200
million for Toronto.

While the cash breakdowns for individuals systems have yet to be
decided, GO Transit officials welcomed the funding as "fantastic" news.

"Every time we put a train on it fills up so we'll have no problem
putting the money to good use," said Bill Jenkins, GO's director of
customer service.

The TTC plans to use the money for maintenance, but the funds aren't
enough to expand the system, says the chief general manager.

"The big wave is here," said Rick Ducharme. "It's all catch-up for buses
and subway cars we haven't been purchasing. For the next four or five
years, I need this money badly."

His budget for repair and maintenance rises from $385 million this year
to $634 million next year, $705 million in 2007 and $606 million in 2008
before slipping back to $516 million in 2009.

In recent years, the TTC opted to rebuild its buses rather than purchase
new ones, with the result that the system now has a large number of
vehicles that have gone past their useful lives.

The transit funding is part of the Liberal-NDP budget pact that narrowly
passed in the Commons and is now before the finance committee where it
faces stiff opposition from Conservative and Bloc Quebecois MPs.

Yesterday, Conservative MP Monte Solberg warned transit systems not to
spend the money yet as his party gears up to block approval of the NDP
budget amendments, including the transit funding.

[george conklin]

Post by Robert Cote
What follows is one of the most tortured redefinitions of the word
"sustainable" ever put forth. The plan is to take money from roads to
subsidize transit because transit is more sustainable. Here are about
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&oi=defmore&q=
define:Sustainable+development
Development that ensures that the use of resources and the
environment today does not restrict their use by future generations.
www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/freshwater_europe/glos.php

All the definitions are quite similar to the one above. It all has no
meaning since transit uses the same amount of fuel cars do and thus it is
all meaningless. Putting people back on small farms would cause 75-80% of
the world's population to starve to death, which is obviously the underlying
wish.

[Robert Cote]

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Cote
What follows is one of the most tortured redefinitions of the word
"sustainable" ever put forth. The plan is to take money from roads to
subsidize transit because transit is more sustainable. Here are about
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&oi=defmore&q=
define:Sustainable+development
Development that ensures that the use of resources and the
environment today does not restrict their use by future generations.
www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/freshwater_europe/glos.php

All the definitions are quite similar to the one above. It all has no
meaning since transit uses the same amount of fuel cars do and thus it is
all meaningless. Putting people back on small farms would cause 75-80% of
the world's population to starve to death, which is obviously the underlying
wish.

The real problem with transit is all the false measures used to evaluate
its performance. It is real simple to figure out how sustainable any
mode may be; HOW MUCH DOES IT COST? Transit costs four times as much
and therefor transit consumes four times as many valuable resources as
autos. Over time efficiencies AND inefficiences are internalized in
this cost structure. That's why transit costs are rising 4x the rate of
general inflation.

Here is -my- definition:

Most Sustainable == Cheapest Lifecycle Costs

The NURBs and transitistas refuse to use the universal measures of
performance because by those criteria their policies are bankrupt.

[george conklin]

Post by Robert Cote

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Cote
What follows is one of the most tortured redefinitions of the word
"sustainable" ever put forth. The plan is to take money from roads to
subsidize transit because transit is more sustainable. Here are about
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&oi=defmore&q=
define:Sustainable+development
Development that ensures that the use of resources and the
environment today does not restrict their use by future generations.
www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/freshwater_europe/glos.php

All the definitions are quite similar to the one above. It all has no
meaning since transit uses the same amount of fuel cars do and thus it is
all meaningless. Putting people back on small farms would cause 75-80% of
the world's population to starve to death, which is obviously the underlying
wish.

The real problem with transit is all the false measures used to evaluate
its performance. It is real simple to figure out how sustainable any
mode may be; HOW MUCH DOES IT COST? Transit costs four times as much
and therefor transit consumes four times as many valuable resources as
autos. Over time efficiencies AND inefficiences are internalized in
this cost structure. That's why transit costs are rising 4x the rate of
general inflation.
Most Sustainable == Cheapest Lifecycle Costs
The NURBs and transitistas refuse to use the universal measures of
performance because by those criteria their policies are bankrupt.

Environmentalists don't care about cost as measured by money. They talk
about cost as if high-prices are good if they make people consume less and
less and less of whatever they are talking about. Low standard of living is
sustainable....but not really, because small farmers would ruin the land and
starve the city. I wonder how so many urban planners talk about sustainable
agriculture when what they are taking about would starve cities right out.

[Bill Blomgren]

Post by Robert Cote
Most Sustainable == Cheapest Lifecycle Costs
The NURBs and transitistas refuse to use the universal measures of
performance because by those criteria their policies are bankrupt.

Having just sat through a 8 hour presentation for a new museum south of here
(I was the recordist to capture all the "thoughts" being presented...) - I
found that the standard "We MUST force people out of their cars to allow
SUSTAINABLE energy consumption" - etc all being presented as part of the
museum's message. Many other museums are doing the same thing.. One out on
the west coast evangelizes on not eating "unsustainable" fish.. including
those that are farm raised.

Others in the group were complaining that there was "Too Much" green in the
state now, compared to 100 years before. (Apparently the burning of fields
left a lot of the state black much of the year..)

"There isn't enough bio diversity in the forests now!" -- and so on. Why?
Well, they were pretty much all clear cut around the turn of the century, and
what got planted wasn't diverse.. but having forests in place isn't good
enough... They need "natural diversity"--- Of course, they also spent time
bemoaning the fate of the Carolina Parakeet and so on.

All -very- noble, and all so depressing. The only one that seemed to have a
valid point was the person complaining about the sheer number of bodies on the
planet... "We can't feed them all".. Of course. That will cause a lot of them
to die. Well, Duh.

The gloom and doom was almost too much to handle. One of the few conservative
types in the room finally spoke up asking what -positive- they could say. The
liberals were all "the sky is falling" types... wanting us to return to life
as it was in 1880, apparently.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Bill Blomgren
All -very- noble, and all so depressing. The only one that seemed to have a
valid point was the person complaining about the sheer number of bodies on the
planet... "We can't feed them all".. Of course. That will cause a lot of them
to die. Well, Duh.

The problem is that when the ecosystem collapses then it will only be able
to support a rather small fraction of even today's population. I guess it's
not a problem if you're one of the ones that dies.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Baxter

Post by Bill Blomgren
All -very- noble, and all so depressing. The only one that seemed
to have a valid point was the person complaining about the sheer
number of bodies on the planet... "We can't feed them all".. Of
course. That will cause a lot of them to die. Well, Duh.

The problem is that when the ecosystem collapses then it will only be able
to support a rather small fraction of even today's population. I guess it's
not a problem if you're one of the ones that dies.

Let's see who to bet on:

1. the rich asset holder who supports gun ownership and private property
rights living in a defensible space.

2. the liberal urbanist with tiny refrigerator in an apartment building
with 600 other hungry people living above the min-mart with 6 hours of
food in stock 80 miles from the nearest farm who wouldn't know how to
milk a bull even if he could get there by transit.

[Bill Blomgren]

Post by Baxter

Post by Bill Blomgren
to have a valid point was the person complaining about the sheer
number of bodies on the planet... "We can't feed them all".. Of
course. That will cause a lot of them to die. Well, Duh.

The problem is that when the ecosystem collapses then it will only be able
to support a rather small fraction of even today's population. I guess it's
not a problem if you're one of the ones that dies.

Look at where the population is exploding, where people are having 6-10 kids
because only 1 or 2 will survive. THAT's where the famine is occurring.
Where governments block the distribution of grain to intentionally starve
their people. (Typically happening in many areas of Africa...

Issue there is the government getting in the way of -current- shipments.

If the government there doesn't want its citizens to survive, there are those
that think we should just send more money.. in addition to grain. (Of course,
that will only be a bribe to the corrupt government...) The TV show
Millionaire would be proud... Hunt: they won't be looking for someone here to
help them spirit those proceeds out of the country... So ignore those
emails...

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Bill Blomgren
All -very- noble, and all so depressing. The only one that seemed
to have a valid point was the person complaining about the sheer
number of bodies on the planet... "We can't feed them all".. Of
course. That will cause a lot of them to die. Well, Duh.

The problem is that when the ecosystem collapses then it will only be able
to support a rather small fraction of even today's population. I guess it's
not a problem if you're one of the ones that dies.

1. the rich asset holder who supports gun ownership and private property
rights living in a defensible space.
2. the liberal urbanist with tiny refrigerator in an apartment building
with 600 other hungry people living above the min-mart with 6 hours of
food in stock 80 miles from the nearest farm who wouldn't know how to
milk a bull even if he could get there by transit.

No doubt the rich asset holder does know how to milk a bull: everyone
needs a hobby.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Bill Blomgren
All -very- noble, and all so depressing. The only one that seemed
to have a valid point was the person complaining about the sheer
number of bodies on the planet... "We can't feed them all".. Of
course. That will cause a lot of them to die. Well, Duh.

The problem is that when the ecosystem collapses then it will only be able
to support a rather small fraction of even today's population. I guess it's
not a problem if you're one of the ones that dies.

1. the rich asset holder who supports gun ownership and private property
rights living in a defensible space.
2. the liberal urbanist with tiny refrigerator in an apartment building
with 600 other hungry people living above the min-mart with 6 hours of
food in stock 80 miles from the nearest farm who wouldn't know how to
milk a bull even if he could get there by transit.

No doubt the rich asset holder does know how to milk a bull: everyone
needs a hobby.

Of course. When the starving urbanist shows up at the electric fence
get him to do it. Other rich asset holders with a strong sense of
social responsibility have other hobbies such as comforting the
afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. That's why the preceding
comments probably made so many transit urbanists uncomfortable.

The real discomfort comes from the Baxter comment. "Ecosystem collapse"
which suddenly reveals which lifestyles are truly unsustainable sets up
a paradox for the urbanist. The transit microcosm is a case in point.
Transit in the US has already collapsed to the point that even a few
days without life support would kill it outright but like the elderly
parent we selfishly keep it barely alive for emotional reasons.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Bill Blomgren
All -very- noble, and all so depressing. The only one that seemed
to have a valid point was the person complaining about the sheer
number of bodies on the planet... "We can't feed them all".. Of
course. That will cause a lot of them to die. Well, Duh.

The problem is that when the ecosystem collapses then it will only be able
to support a rather small fraction of even today's population. I guess it's
not a problem if you're one of the ones that dies.

1. the rich asset holder who supports gun ownership and private property
rights living in a defensible space.
2. the liberal urbanist with tiny refrigerator in an apartment building
with 600 other hungry people living above the min-mart with 6 hours of
food in stock 80 miles from the nearest farm who wouldn't know how to
milk a bull even if he could get there by transit.

Cote watches too many movies.

When the ecosystem collapses, everything goes.

That "rich asset holder" isn't going to do much defending with no
electricity and no ammunition - because these things are made in the city.
His money, too, is held in the city - and only has value for trading with
the city. That "rich asset holder" is going to die of food poisoning
(because he doesn't have refrigeration either) long before that 'starving
urbanist' gets there.

Your other scenario is that the local ecosystem collapses and the local
farmer dies while the city folk import their food from elsewhere.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Bill Blomgren
All -very- noble, and all so depressing. The only one that seemed
to have a valid point was the person complaining about the sheer
number of bodies on the planet... "We can't feed them all".. Of
course. That will cause a lot of them to die. Well, Duh.

The problem is that when the ecosystem collapses then it will only be

able

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
to support a rather small fraction of even today's population. I guess

it's

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
not a problem if you're one of the ones that dies.

1. the rich asset holder who supports gun ownership and private property
rights living in a defensible space.
2. the liberal urbanist with tiny refrigerator in an apartment building
with 600 other hungry people living above the min-mart with 6 hours of
food in stock 80 miles from the nearest farm who wouldn't know how to
milk a bull even if he could get there by transit.

Cote watches too many movies.

Blade Runner?

Post by Baxter
When the ecosystem collapses, everything goes.

Silly boy. When the -current- ecosystem collapses, everything
-changes-. The exact same thing happened to those dinosaurs known as
cities yet their brains were too small and they were too slow to change
like their successful replacements the suburbs.

Post by Baxter
That "rich asset holder" isn't going to do much defending with no
electricity and no ammunition - because these things are made in the city.

Got's me a 6k generator in da garage but you are just picking nits.

Post by Baxter
His money, too, is held in the city - and only has value for trading with
the city. That "rich asset holder" is going to die of food poisoning
(because he doesn't have refrigeration either) long before that 'starving
urbanist' gets there.

Assets are not dollars in the bank downtown silly boy.

Post by Baxter
Your other scenario is that the local ecosystem collapses and the local
farmer dies while the city folk import their food from elsewhere.

Snigger. Got any other is not/is too comments to make? Pathetic.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
That "rich asset holder" isn't going to do much defending with no
electricity and no ammunition - because these things are made in the city.

Got's me a 6k generator in da garage but you are just picking nits.

Requires gasoline and parts made in the city.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote
Got's me a 6k generator in da garage but you are just picking nits.

Requires gasoline and parts made in the city.

No doubt from that refinery on the block between City Hall and the
Courthouse.

[Robert Cote]

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
That "rich asset holder" isn't going to do much defending with no
electricity and no ammunition - because these things are made in the city.

Got's me a 6k generator in da garage but you are just picking nits.

Requires gasoline and parts made in the city.

Got's me lotsa gas and SUVs and murdercickle with which to obtain more.
You are obviously trying spagetti tactics to see what sticks and get as
many posts away from the original point as fast as possible. Pathetic.

You are just in full on city mode. Ammunition isn't made in cities, too
dangerous. Gasoline is made in refineries which are today in a lot of
cities because cities are stupid. Me, I can walk across the golf course
and pick avocados and citrus (I know the farmer).

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
That "rich asset holder" isn't going to do much defending with no
electricity and no ammunition - because these things are made in the city.

Got's me a 6k generator in da garage but you are just picking nits.

Requires gasoline and parts made in the city.

Got's me lotsa gas and SUVs and murdercickle with which to obtain more.
You are obviously trying spagetti tactics to see what sticks and get as
many posts away from the original point as fast as possible. Pathetic.

What's pathetic is your attempts to handwave away the urban contributions.
Without the cities, you (and everyone) would be scratching in the mud for
roots and trying to cover yourself with reeds.

Post by Robert Cote
You are just in full on city mode. Ammunition isn't made in cities, too
dangerous. Gasoline is made in refineries which are today in a lot of
cities because cities are stupid. Me, I can walk across the golf course
and pick avocados and citrus (I know the farmer).

And said farmer will be perfectly willing to shoot you like a dog if he
thought you might have something he wanted (like your gas), or if he thought
you were after something he felt was critical to his survival (like his
gas).

[Robert Cote]

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote

Post by Baxter
That "rich asset holder" isn't going to do much defending with no
electricity and no ammunition - because these things are made in the city.

Got's me a 6k generator in da garage but you are just picking nits.

Requires gasoline and parts made in the city.

Got's me lotsa gas and SUVs and murdercickle with which to obtain more.
You are obviously trying spagetti tactics to see what sticks and get as
many posts away from the original point as fast as possible. Pathetic.

What's pathetic is your attempts to handwave away the urban contributions.
Without the cities, you (and everyone) would be scratching in the mud for
roots and trying to cover yourself with reeds.

What you know and what you think combined doesn't amount to much.

Post by Baxter

Post by Robert Cote
You are just in full on city mode. Ammunition isn't made in cities, too
dangerous. Gasoline is made in refineries which are today in a lot of
cities because cities are stupid. Me, I can walk across the golf course
and pick avocados and citrus (I know the farmer).

And said farmer will be perfectly willing to shoot you like a dog if he
thought you might have something he wanted (like your gas), or if he thought
you were after something he felt was critical to his survival (like his
gas).

I said, "I know the farmer." That's a concept obviously foreign to some
city apologists. That means he and I trust and support each other.
Unlike the big city where it would be dog eat dog in days things are
different in exuburbia. It's a sustainability thing, a concept you
clearly don't want to deal with.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Robert Cote
I said, "I know the farmer." That's a concept obviously foreign to some
city apologists. That means he and I trust and support each other.
Unlike the big city where it would be dog eat dog in days things are
different in exuburbia. It's a sustainability thing, a concept you
clearly don't want to deal with.

I've lived on the farm. In fact, if you look on the right map, you'll find
my family name. I know for a fact that if you're not family, your life is
not worth a plugged nickel when the chips are down. Sometimes the case even
when you are family. You're just fooling yourself.

[d***@yahoo.com]

When the mega farms shut down because there is no oil to power them,
you will wish for small farms. You will PRAY for small farms.

[Robert Cote]

Post by d***@yahoo.com
When the mega farms shut down because there is no oil to power them,
you will wish for small farms. You will PRAY for small farms.

Kinda sorta. First, prices will rise and then deliveries will fail and
then things will adjust. No more year round seasonal items, more
genetic crops, higher yields per area and/or energy. Big deal.

[george conklin]

Post by Robert Cote

Post by d***@yahoo.com
When the mega farms shut down because there is no oil to power them,
you will wish for small farms. You will PRAY for small farms.

Kinda sorta. First, prices will rise and then deliveries will fail and
then things will adjust. No more year round seasonal items, more
genetic crops, higher yields per area and/or energy. Big deal.

What will happen is that farm yields will decline, marginal land must be
brought back into production, and if transporation is disrupted, cities
would have to empty out. North Korea is going through the small farm
miracle was we speak. Starvation is the result, not better life expectancy.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Cote

Post by d***@yahoo.com
When the mega farms shut down because there is no oil to power them,
you will wish for small farms. You will PRAY for small farms.

Kinda sorta. First, prices will rise and then deliveries will fail and
then things will adjust. No more year round seasonal items, more
genetic crops, higher yields per area and/or energy. Big deal.

What will happen is that farm yields will decline, marginal land must be
brought back into production, and if transporation is disrupted, cities
would have to empty out.

Bullshit. If transportation is disrupted, goods and foods would not flow
between farms. The more likely scenario is that long-distant transportation
would be disrupted, and local farms would begin providing food to nearby
cities. Those cities would provide the farms with needed goods such as
tools and repair parts, etc.

[george conklin]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin

Post by Robert Cote

Post by d***@yahoo.com
When the mega farms shut down because there is no oil to power them,
you will wish for small farms. You will PRAY for small farms.

Kinda sorta. First, prices will rise and then deliveries will fail and
then things will adjust. No more year round seasonal items, more
genetic crops, higher yields per area and/or energy. Big deal.

What will happen is that farm yields will decline, marginal land must

be

Post by george conklin
brought back into production, and if transporation is disrupted, cities
would have to empty out.

Bullshit. If transportation is disrupted, goods and foods would not flow
between farms. The more likely scenario is that long-distant
transportation
would be disrupted, and local farms would begin providing food to nearby
cities. Those cities would provide the farms with needed goods such as
tools and repair parts, etc.

Wrong again Baxter, as usual. You would be one of the first who would
starve. You would also have to eat only what is in season, and you would be
lucky to get meat at all. The best correlate of a long life was the end of
local food production. Rising death rates: another one of your goals.

[george conklin]

Post by d***@yahoo.com
When the mega farms shut down because there is no oil to power them,
you will wish for small farms. You will PRAY for small farms.

If we go back to small farms, about 75% of the world's population must
die.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin

Post by d***@yahoo.com
When the mega farms shut down because there is no oil to power them,
you will wish for small farms. You will PRAY for small farms.

If we go back to small farms, about 75% of the world's population must
die.

Especially in those areas where they've let homes be built on prime
farmland.

[george conklin]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin

Post by d***@yahoo.com
When the mega farms shut down because there is no oil to power them,
you will wish for small farms. You will PRAY for small farms.

If we go back to small farms, about 75% of the world's population must
die.

Especially in those areas where they've let homes be built on prime
farmland.

Of course, irrigation would have to cease, and with that, most of CA's
population would have to leave the state and spread back to North Dakota and
other places where they can burn cow dung for heat.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by george conklin

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin

Post by d***@yahoo.com
When the mega farms shut down because there is no oil to power them,
you will wish for small farms. You will PRAY for small farms.

If we go back to small farms, about 75% of the world's population must
die.

Especially in those areas where they've let homes be built on prime
farmland.

Of course, irrigation would have to cease, and with that, most of CA's
population would have to leave the state and spread back to North Dakota and
other places where they can burn cow dung for heat.

I read somewhere that North Dakota may become the first state to be
abandoned by Anglos.

[meammrmustard]

Post by george conklin

Post by d***@yahoo.com
When the mega farms shut down because there is no oil to power them,
you will wish for small farms. You will PRAY for small farms.

If we go back to small farms, about 75% of the world's population must
die.

George, you stole my thunder!

--meanmrmustard

[Martin Edwards]

Post by meammrmustard

Post by george conklin

Post by d***@yahoo.com
When the mega farms shut down because there is no oil to power them,
you will wish for small farms. You will PRAY for small farms.

If we go back to small farms, about 75% of the world's population
must die.

George, you stole my thunder!
--meanmrmustard

PC thirty-one says "We've caught a dirty one".

[meammrmustard]

Post by Baxter

Post by Bill Blomgren
All -very- noble, and all so depressing. The only one that seemed to have

a

Post by Bill Blomgren
valid point was the person complaining about the sheer number of bodies on

the

Post by Bill Blomgren
planet... "We can't feed them all".. Of course. That will cause a lot of

them

Post by Bill Blomgren
to die. Well, Duh.

The problem is that when the ecosystem collapses then it will only be able
to support a rather small fraction of even today's population. I guess it's
not a problem if you're one of the ones that dies.

Bravo! Well done old chap!

-meanmrmustard