jon c. 

But that's not happening.

As I said, human population distribution in a functioning society works itself out pretty well. The countryside doesn't need an influx of city folks and Philly and Chicago would not be improved by greater density.

cooker

that's why it's a thought experiment, and I'm sorry you missed the point of it.

jon c. 

or I find it pointless

cooker

The point was that rural areas are "green", not because of the people who live there, but because of the people who don't live there.

jon c. 

A developer is a guy who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is a guy who already owns one.

cooker

Which are you ?

Roody

Most of the rural population already did move to the cities. The U.S. population is 83% urban. The world as a whole is well over one-half urban, and growing rapidly.

I'm not saying that rural is better than urban or vice-versa. Just the plain and simple fact that most people choose city living over the country.

Urban population (% of total) | Data

Roody

By definition, sustainability is less harmful to individuals and communities. Another plain and simple fact!

kickstart

Are you being intentionally obtuse just to be snide to someone because they don't march exactly in lockstep with your point of view, or do you honestly not understand that sustainability isn't the sole, or primary measure of whats detrimental, or beneficial to individuals, and communities?

It disappointing that the LCF loyal can be just as, if not more intolerant than the LCF detractors.

cooker

For myself, I don't expect people to march in lockstep with my views - I enjoy arguing too much . I was feeling a bit frustrated with you as your responses seemed somewhat evasive or non-committal. You think solutions should be brought to people but you don't say what problems or solutions we are even discussing.

"Sustainability", in the broadest sense is ultimately the largest challenge facing humankind, and everything else is secondary to it - war, politics, population, pollution, economics, space exploration, and so on. Apropos of this thread, It's the main reason Oslo is doing what it's doing. We don't have to talk about it, but you did raise it earlier as something you thought was important for rural and urban communities alike, but then shied away from fleshing that out.

The only reason the discussion even became about rural vs urban is because some posters, especially McBTC, wanted to make the thread about how rural areas are better than urban. You also contributed a bit to the rural vs urban dialectic starting with posts 80 and 85, where you also introduced "sustainability" as an issue. I got into that debate too, in response to his and your posts, but I would have been just as happy to stick to discussing Oslo.

kickstart

Well I guess that's it right there.

Foolishly I sometimes come here thinking it's possible to share ones point of view about, or suggest alternatives to the goals we have in common, forgetting that it's a with us, or against us environment where our differences are the only thing that matters.

Next time you get frustrated by the LCF detractors, keep in mind the LCF ideologues are just as intolerant and frustrating.

cooker

I wasn't concerned about LCF detracting - and anyway I don't think you were doing it. You brought up sustainability and then avoided discussing it

kickstart

I didn't avoid discussing it, as I mentioned every individual and community is unique making it too big, and subjective for me to address specifically, and it wasn't my intention to do so, or the point I was trying to make.

That point is, work to improve what people want and have, rather than trying to change what people want and have, because it's more productive to work with people than against them.

McBTC

True, true and being up front. It makes no sense to dedicate a sub-forum to --e.g., 'sustainability' but that happens here because LCF is 'Commuting' with an attitude that has nothing to do with bikes and the love of cycling. First and foremost the LCF movement is anti-car and not pro-bike to any greater degree than it is pro-walking. LCF as we see it playing out here on Bike Forums is nothing more than an enviro-whacko urban fetish.

cooker

The thread is about car free trends and infrastructure in Oslo. You proposed Cayucos as some kind of counter-example, but haven't explained how it is relevant to car free living. Do you have anything to contribute on the topic of car-free living or infrastructure? You've been one of our most dedicated contributors recently, so it would be great if you could provide some relevant content. Or maybe start a thread on how you have reduced car use in your own life.

kickstart

LCF doesn't have to be us against them regardless of who you identify with.

Just because LCF isn't viable or desirable for everyone, It doesn't mean it's invalid or unworthy of accommodation. On the same token, those who need or choose to drive aren't a problem that needs to be solved in of it's self.

If both sides would quit passing judgment on, and fretting that the other is somehow taking advantage, maybe something positive could happen.
Its ridiculous to suggest the only answer is to choose between doing nothing to improve how we live, or resorting to harebrained utopian schemes.

Empathy, and respect.

McBTC

Sounds reasonable and anyone on Bike Forums outside of the LCF politicos love bikes and the sport of cycling so ostensibly most everyone shares something in common and can be expected to get along. However, underlying the LCF movement is the dogmatic belief that individual ownership of a car is destroying the globe. It's all pretty hypocritical because a New Yorker who takes a cab gets a pass-- makes no sense. If you like the open spaces, LEF (Living Elevator Free) makes more sense than LCF.

kickstart

You went and did it, you ruffled my feathers.

I hate it when people refer to cycling as a "sport". To some it is, but to many like myself cycling is transportation, recreation, and a hobby, not a "sport".

wolfchild

Driving cars and eating meat doesn't contribute to climate change....And it isn't necessary for a person to give up cars, give up eating meat, give up beer, quit working and contributing to economy, give up all their possessions and join the "cult of global warming alarmism".... in order to live a sustainable lifestyle...

McBTC

Not as the Olympic committee sees it:

McBTC

Al Gore believes you can live in a mansion with an electric bill the size of a small African nation, fly in private jets and still save the globe if you are a lifetime Leftist government bureaucrat, blame American car companies and big oil for the world's problems and plant a couple of trees. Aren't all US senators chauffeured to work?

cooker

Still nothing to say about Oslo, or your own car-free or car-light interests?

350htrr

Well now, there IS a bit of a difference in taking a Taxi, even taking a Taxi every day, where 100'S of people can use the same vehicle for that day... Instead of hundreds of people driving their own cars every day...

350htrr

You needs to read more informed news... Maybe look out the window and see that things ARE changing, would they have changed anyways... Certainly, but maybe it would have taken more like a 100,000 years instead of 100...?

cooker

Give up beer? God no. I only commented on sustainability in response to someone else bringing it up. I'd be happy to discuss Oslo.