🚀 go-pugleaf

"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1104983948.043483.62450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> In his January 5th State of the State address, Arnold Schwarzenegger
> happily called for the building of more homes, roads and power plants,
> and claimed that these things are compatible with preserving
> California's environment. But he's gravely mistaken. Human population
> growth has put nature under siege for centuries and the pressure keeps
> rising despite the best technology. Arnold did admit that conservation
> alone won't solve our resource shortages, but he made no mention of
> WHY.
>
> The "why" of the matter is the same reason we're in an endless race to
> create more jobs, many of them menial. There are too many people and
> too much redundant labor. Perpetual growth economies must constantly
> strive to create jobs and raise output (GNP) but few people question
> the ultimate purpose of it. For example, construction jobs created to
> coddle growth are just one of the bigger pyramid schemes embedded in a
> growth-addicted economy. This is not real wealth creation; it's
> overpopulation feeding off itself.
>
> Housing keeps getting more expensive because demand keeps rising and
> there's less (aesthetically acceptable) land to build on each day.
> Opening up more land for construction - the typical Republican mandate
> - only impacts the environment more.
>
> The legacy of Arnold's political party, exemplified by Takers like
> Richard Pombo, clashes with Arnold's apparent interest in protecting
> nature. Population growth aka economic growth must stop and stabilize
> as soon as possible. It can't be "managed" at infinitely higher levels.
> The cost of living is rising in no small part because resources are
> getting physically scarcer and harder to procure. Various economic
> theories attempt to mask this reality but it's simple mathematics.
>
> California is projected to have 50 million people by 2025 and parts of
> the state are already crowded slums in the eyes of many. With so many
> people, it's harder and harder to get away from it all because
> everyone's following you there! Even if we somehow manage to maintain a
> "clean" environment with many more people, overcrowding will continue
> to spoil aesthetic aspects of nature. Wilderness parks are looking more
> and more like amusement parks or even urban settings.
>
> Arnold is a gutsy politician who likes serious reforms, but he'll never
> take a stand on the ultimate reform needed by the human race;
> significantly more birth control (to balance lower death rates) and the
> admission that Man must live within finite means. We can't keep
> pretending a more crowded world is a better world.
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
> If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
>

The fact of the matter is, California is _expected_ to undergo significant
population growth in the next 20 years. The communities where this growth is
projected to go have already made plans to accomodate the expected influx.
The _problem_ these communities face is that they are near enough to the job
centers that people can make the daily trip back and forth to work, but the
road that goes from the housing centers to the job centers are by and large
rural two-lane farm roads that have been in place for decades. These roads
will see more cars in an hour than they were designed to see in a day, once
the homes are built.

You can bury your head in the sand and scream about the environment while
the impact on the environment becomes progressively greater as cars standing
in long lines traverse sorely over used farming roads and people die as a
result of horrendeous wrecks, or you can help preserve what is left of the
environment by calling for environmentally sensitive roads that not only
cross the new communities, but also connect those communities to the job
centers. An environmentally sensitive road will have undercrossings so
animals can migrate back and forth, it will not have exits where there are
never going to be homes. We can build new homes in one area, and refuse to
build them in others, but still have a road cut across the area where there
are no homes, but that road has no exits in the middle, only at the ends.
For example, I live in a community that is 20 miles from a job center, but
the roads that go there take over 60 miles and two hours due to traffic. The
short route is through a national forest and/or a wilderness area. If a road
was built that had no exits except at each end, and could accomodate the
wildlife in the area by having underpasses or overpasses if that would be
better, then the wilderness could be preserved, and humanity's needs of
getting from one place to another could be met. The compromise is that the
wilderness would not be impacted any more than is absolutely necessary.

Plan B, which seems to be the environmentalist's plan of choice, is to build
no roads, no homes, nothing. Ever. Period. That approach is simply
unreasonable. Of course, the plan that calls for building everything we can
everywhere we can withoug regard for anything is equally unreasonable, but
at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. The actual course of action is
a plan somewhere between these two.

Jeff Strickland wrote:

> The fact of the matter is, California is _expected_ to undergo
significant
> population growth in the next 20 years. The communities where this
growth is
> projected to go have already made plans to accomodate the expected
influx.
> The _problem_ these communities face is that they are near enough to
the job
> centers that people can make the daily trip back and forth to work,
but the
> road that goes from the housing centers to the job centers are by and
large
> rural two-lane farm roads that have been in place for decades. These
roads
> will see more cars in an hour than they were designed to see in a
day, once
> the homes are built.

Sorry for the delayed reply but you're missing the bigger point. I am
not so much protesting the roads themselves, as the population growth
that people keep accepting as inevitable or desirable. Roads and houses
unfortunately will be built because people are the center of the
universe <sarcasm>. But I'm tired of people who think the human
population "must" keep growing indefinitely because the economy "must"
also grow indefinitely. This mentality takes much of its origin from
the Bible.

See: http://enough_already.tripod.com/genesis.htm

Apparently, Arnold wants to have it both ways. He thinks we can
accommodate more and more people (living the standard sprawl lifestyle)
while protecting nature from their very impact. It just doesn't work
that way. Anyone who tries to spend time in real wilderness in
California knows this well. You have to go farther and father into the
country to find it because the "country" keeps becoming the city. Who
is crazy enough to think the environment can be kept in its current
state when we have 50 million Californians by 2025?

> You can bury your head in the sand and scream about the environment
while
> the impact on the environment becomes progressively greater as cars
standing
> in long lines traverse sorely over used farming roads and people die
as a
> result of horrendeous wrecks, or you can help preserve what is left
of the
> environment by calling for environmentally sensitive roads that not
only
> cross the new communities, but also connect those communities to the
job
> centers.

People dying in wrecks on overcrowded roads is not an environmental
issue in my context. I'm talking about the loss of wilderness and
animal habitat to human overpopulation. But you rather treat it as
inevitable and therein lies the problem.

> An environmentally sensitive road will have undercrossings so
> animals can migrate back and forth, it will not have exits where
there are
> never going to be homes. We can build new homes in one area, and
refuse to
> build them in others, but still have a road cut across the area where
there
> are no homes, but that road has no exits in the middle, only at the
ends.
> For example, I live in a community that is 20 miles from a job
center, but
> the roads that go there take over 60 miles and two hours due to
traffic. The
> short route is through a national forest and/or a wilderness area. If
a road
> was built that had no exits except at each end, and could accomodate
the
> wildlife in the area by having underpasses or overpasses if that
would be
> better, then the wilderness could be preserved, and humanity's needs
of
> getting from one place to another could be met. The compromise is
that the
> wilderness would not be impacted any more than is absolutely
necessary.

With ever-shrinking land acreage to build "environmentally sensitive"
roads on, that concept is largely a joke. I'd rather see people stop
breeding (worldwide) so we don't have to keep expanding infrastructure
in the first place. We are running out of new, green valleys just over
the hill.

Also, roads and houses are just one part of the problem. More people
means more crowding in wilderness areas as they try to escape
population centers on weekends and holidays. There is really no such
thing as "localized" growth impact because people don't stay rooted in
one place. And food, timber and water must be taken from distant areas
to feed the growth.

> Plan B, which seems to be the environmentalist's plan of choice, is
to build
> no roads, no homes, nothing. Ever. Period. That approach is simply
> unreasonable. Of course, the plan that calls for building everything
we can
> everywhere we can withoug regard for anything is equally
unreasonable, but
> at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. The actual course of
action is
> a plan somewhere between these two.

My course of action is to get to the root of the matter and ask that
people live and breed in true balance with nature instead of
infiltrating it with endless growth. If you want to see the
effectiveness of the "more roads solution," just drive in L.A. for a
day. Finite land cannot be infinitely parceled. California is heading
toward a future of megapolis suburbs that cover the very farmland we
need to feed ourselves. Routes to the mountains and beaches will only
become more crowded as 500,000+ people are jammed into the state each
year. We no longer live in a frontier. It's a sick situation from an
ecological view.

Again, this is about far more than just roads and houses. It takes a
lot of extraneous land to support human needs. There are just too many
of us.

E.A.

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

"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1106525950.033784.172560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> > The fact of the matter is, California is _expected_ to undergo
> significant
> > population growth in the next 20 years. The communities where this
> growth is
> > projected to go have already made plans to accomodate the expected
> influx.
> > The _problem_ these communities face is that they are near enough to
> the job
> > centers that people can make the daily trip back and forth to work,
> but the
> > road that goes from the housing centers to the job centers are by and
> large
> > rural two-lane farm roads that have been in place for decades. These
> roads
> > will see more cars in an hour than they were designed to see in a
> day, once
> > the homes are built.
>
> Sorry for the delayed reply but you're missing the bigger point. I am
> not so much protesting the roads themselves, as the population growth
> that people keep accepting as inevitable or desirable. Roads and houses
> unfortunately will be built because people are the center of the
> universe <sarcasm>. But I'm tired of people who think the human
> population "must" keep growing indefinitely because the economy "must"
> also grow indefinitely. This mentality takes much of its origin from
> the Bible.
>

All sarcasism asside, people ARE the center of the universe. Populations
will continue to grow because that is what populations do.

Animal populations will grow until they can not be naturally sustained, then
they stop growing until they can sustain themselves once again. This happens
time and time again. The difference with people is that we have the ability
to manipulate our (the) environment to gain the greatest use. We can build a
home. We can manipulate the food supply. We can do any number of things that
animals can not do, therefore our population growth is limited only by what
we can, or are willing to, manipulate.

Certainly, we manipulate the environment to the detriment to the animals
that are dependent upon natural habitat, and this is a reasonable problem to
resolve.

There is no "requirement" that the human population continue to grow, that
is, nobody says it "must grow indefinitely." Where there is a requirement is
that one accepts that the human population will continue to grow, then find
a compromise that will meet the human need while accomodating the natural
need of the animals.




> See: http://enough_already.tripod.com/genesis.htm
>
> Apparently, Arnold wants to have it both ways. He thinks we can
> accommodate more and more people (living the standard sprawl lifestyle)
> while protecting nature from their very impact. It just doesn't work
> that way. Anyone who tries to spend time in real wilderness in
> California knows this well. You have to go farther and father into the
> country to find it because the "country" keeps becoming the city. Who
> is crazy enough to think the environment can be kept in its current
> state when we have 50 million Californians by 2025?
>

That has ALWAYS been a problem. It isn't a new problem.

Nobody in his right mind expects that we can remain in our current state and
have 50 million in population in 20 years. But, IF we are going to have 50
million in 20 years - a growth of about 15 million, by the way - then we had
better start finding ways to accomodate both humans and the environment.

One thing would be to map out the wilderness areas that are worth
protecting, and the places where humanity is determined to spread into, then
create legislation that preserves the wilderness and pass funding measures
to create the infrastructure. The infrastructure can and should accomodate
the environment to the extent that the particular infrastructure project can
accomodate the environment. An example would be a roadway that if needed to
traverse a wilderness area, would be required to accomodate the wildlife by
having plenty of undercrossings so the animals could cross under, or be
built inside of tunnels that amimals could thrive without even knowing there
was a highway cutting through.



> > You can bury your head in the sand and scream about the environment
> while
> > the impact on the environment becomes progressively greater as cars
> standing
> > in long lines traverse sorely over used farming roads and people die
> as a
> > result of horrendeous wrecks, or you can help preserve what is left
> of the
> > environment by calling for environmentally sensitive roads that not
> only
> > cross the new communities, but also connect those communities to the
> job
> > centers.
>
> People dying in wrecks on overcrowded roads is not an environmental
> issue in my context. I'm talking about the loss of wilderness and
> animal habitat to human overpopulation. But you rather treat it as
> inevitable and therein lies the problem.
>

Well, people standing in long lines of stationary cars for hours spewing
smog IS an environmental issue.

It is interesting to note that YOU just said that you are concerned about
saving the life of a rat, moth, toad, etc., but don't care about saving the
life of a human being. I think this puts the entire issue into perspective.




> > An environmentally sensitive road will have undercrossings so
> > animals can migrate back and forth, it will not have exits where
> there are
> > never going to be homes. We can build new homes in one area, and
> refuse to
> > build them in others, but still have a road cut across the area where
> there
> > are no homes, but that road has no exits in the middle, only at the
> ends.
> > For example, I live in a community that is 20 miles from a job
> center, but
> > the roads that go there take over 60 miles and two hours due to
> traffic. The
> > short route is through a national forest and/or a wilderness area. If
> a road
> > was built that had no exits except at each end, and could accomodate
> the
> > wildlife in the area by having underpasses or overpasses if that
> would be
> > better, then the wilderness could be preserved, and humanity's needs
> of
> > getting from one place to another could be met. The compromise is
> that the
> > wilderness would not be impacted any more than is absolutely
> necessary.
>
> With ever-shrinking land acreage to build "environmentally sensitive"
> roads on, that concept is largely a joke. I'd rather see people stop
> breeding (worldwide) so we don't have to keep expanding infrastructure
> in the first place. We are running out of new, green valleys just over
> the hill.
>
> Also, roads and houses are just one part of the problem. More people
> means more crowding in wilderness areas as they try to escape
> population centers on weekends and holidays. There is really no such
> thing as "localized" growth impact because people don't stay rooted in
> one place. And food, timber and water must be taken from distant areas
> to feed the growth.
>
> > Plan B, which seems to be the environmentalist's plan of choice, is
> to build
> > no roads, no homes, nothing. Ever. Period. That approach is simply
> > unreasonable. Of course, the plan that calls for building everything
> we can
> > everywhere we can withoug regard for anything is equally
> unreasonable, but
> > at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. The actual course of
> action is
> > a plan somewhere between these two.
>
> My course of action is to get to the root of the matter and ask that
> people live and breed in true balance with nature instead of
> infiltrating it with endless growth. If you want to see the
> effectiveness of the "more roads solution," just drive in L.A. for a
> day. Finite land cannot be infinitely parceled. California is heading
> toward a future of megapolis suburbs that cover the very farmland we
> need to feed ourselves. Routes to the mountains and beaches will only
> become more crowded as 500,000+ people are jammed into the state each
> year. We no longer live in a frontier. It's a sick situation from an
> ecological view.
>
> Again, this is about far more than just roads and houses. It takes a
> lot of extraneous land to support human needs. There are just too many
> of us.
>


If people could not manipulate the environment, your idea would have already
happened, but people can and do manipulate the environment, and this is what
puts humans above the rest of the animal kingdom.

It then becomes incumbent upon humanity to understand the impact it has, and
then take steps to mitigate that impact.

=v= You people should get Arnold to deport all those pesky
immigrants from such faraway places as Austria.  That would
be a fine use of your time and (*cough!*) talents.
    <_Jym_>