Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (11441)	11/11/2006 9:50:02 PM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217835

80 percent urban? In India it is only 28 percent urban. It must be comparable in China. >100 years ago, cities sustained only 2% of the world's population [give or take a bit = maybe it was 5%]. Now it's more like 80% [give or take a bit].>

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (11441)	11/12/2006 12:35:27 PM
From: gg cox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217835

<<In BP and the corporate world, there was always a miasma of jargon swirling around the corridors of power. I could write whole paragraphs without repeating a word and with it sounding as though it made sense though really just being a melange of meaningless words.>> As a free thinker, and honest person, why would you fall for such BS? <<The word sustainable is one such trigger-word. To answer the question, yes, living in the suburbs is sustainable. Cities have been going for 1000s of years which is sustainable enough for the purposes of most people. You will be able to see if suburbs are not sustainable as people will leave to live somewhere else. Not only are they sustainable, but judging by actions rather than words, people continue to crowd into suburbs, therefore suburbs are more sustainable than cities or countryside.>> These talking heads..micheal c ruppert matthew simmons julian daly steve andrews howard kunstler are suggesting that as oil peaks,and becomes more expensive, suburbia, because of dependance on oil for commuting and heating and cooling Mc mansions will suffer and suburbia will morf to the negative. <<100 years ago, cities sustained only 2% of the world's population [give or take a bit = maybe it was 5%]. Now it's more like 80% [give or take a bit]. And more of them want more room around them, though in NZ, we are packing in more tightly as we have traditionally had quarter acre sections, which were good when we had vegetable gardens and lots of children to fill them and land was cheaper and gardening was a major hobby. Now we have just enough green to fire up a barbeque.>> OK, from 2 % to 80%...what has been the land area footprint percentage increase from 100 years ago to present?Google earth will give you an idea..google earth Toronto.. or any city on the east or west coast of America ..exactly what the documentary is talking about and how this sprawl is related to energy... and so.. <<When I see catchwords, slogans, and jargon, I get queasy. Wetlands, sustainability, peak oil, EROEI, global warming, diversity, burp... my favourite slogan = Don't let a slogan do your thinking for you.>> your catchwords, ""I get queasy."" when i think of ""sustainability"" especially when you think of the Chinese march to the cities..will they ride back and forth to the burbs as North America is doing? <<Big ploughs, combine harvesters, trucks to do the food miles, supermarkets to distribute supplies, cars to drive to the supermarket, are modern inventions and they do an excellent job of freeing us from tilling the dirt with a cow and a one-bladed plough, or hoeing it by hand, to do more useful things like play computer adventure and war games, and golf, which are also sustainable.>> Agree,but would 15 dollar a gallon gas change this??And so the documentary is worth a look. <<PS: Greenland - one would think Greenie's would want it green, not white and buried in snow. One would think Greenies would want CO2 back in circulation to feed the natural world. The principle which explains the oddity is that if humans are doing it, it's bad. I wonder if they have done an EROEI on their bicycles and world tours to Greenland conferences. How many Green Miles do they do? One would think they would walk rather than use a bicycle. An SUV is just like a bicycle, but bigger and more comfortable in the rain and cold. It can travel further too [unless stuck in traffic].>> LOL, you are hot on the greenies, and you make good points.We should not have to wake up in the morning and feel we have to apologize for being here..my thought is selfish here...enjoy yourself..but make personal footprint as small as possible...because it PAYS