🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 19:16:12 -0700, {STP} <stp@nospam.now> wrote:

>In article <a20f7b76.0406231804.4356f671@posting.google.com>,
> enough_already@lycos.com (Enough Already) wrote:
>
>> 
>> It doesn't sound like you know what you really stand for. I don't
live
>> in L.A. but I've seen enough of it and the Bay Area to know that
>> building more and more roads has not worked and never will. 
>
>Really?
>
>Does that mean removing existing roads will work, or have we just 
>magically settled on exactly the right amount of roads right now?

You'll notice I never mentioned "removing existing roads," though that
would be nice in some areas if the population ever decreases. People
who use your brand of argument almost never talk about overpopulation
itself because they lack an environmental aesthetic. Unless I read you
wrong, you are stuck on the idea that growth must be accommodated at
any cost.

I want people to question the entire concept of endless economic
growth and stop acting like "job creation" and so-called "wealth
generation" are sacred mandates (see
http://enough_already.tripod.com/money.htm). There were millions fewer
jobs when there were millions fewer people to fill them. Most net job
creation is nothing more than population absorption.

Population growth is feeding off itself with no ultimate gain in our
quality of life, but people have come to see it as a necessity because
they've known nothing else for centuries. I am asking that we rise
above that shallow level and look at what growth is really doing to
the land. Here's a good place to start:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/Human_Dimensions/Population/

E.A.

http://enough_already.tripod.com/
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.