things you're secretly kinda libertariany about

red state lobbyists snuck that question mark in my post

iatee, should we make most of the country a national park? would we allow visitors to this park? how would they travel to it?

"Fuck everybody who doesn't already live in New York" is kind of the least useful political ideology ever.

my political ideology is 'I want everyone to be able to afford to live in new york' and iirc you are someone who has mentioned he would enjoy living in new york but cannot

so your scheme to making it affordable to live in New York is to... make it more expensive to live everywhere else?

yeah thats kind of how it works!

Not New York, San Francisco. If I'm going to live in a shoebox and survive on ramen, I at least want weather I enjoy.

Not sure how Queens is getting its veggies when gas costs $23 a gallon.

also: fuck the Yankees, Mets, Giants, Jets, Knicks and Nets, at least in SF I'd have rooting interests to listen to on the radio while I build my hobo fire

Not sure how Queens is getting its veggies when gas costs $23 a gallon.

― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:19 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

queens will basically be the only place getting veggies when gas costs $23 a gallon!

at least in SF I'd have rooting interests

I only read this part of the sentence at first and it's more entertaining if I use the non-american version of "rooting"

xp Staten Island sol

in europe gas costs multiple times as much as it does here in and yet, they manage to eat vegetables, somehow

I live in a state that's larger than France. I can't imagine that has anything at all to do with differences in transportation.

queens is much smaller than both your state and france

And has no arable farm land.

are you a farmer, milo?

its true. how will queens get vegetables? if only there were farms in new york, connecticut, or new jersey.

See, I like the idea that the crazy growth of the 20th century was on the back of exploitation of the natural resources of the americas and the access to cheap energy, but it seems too reductive to think that the system's ills sprout from that as well.

fwiw I think a medium-sized country is going to end up following in the wake of China, not the US, and the patterns of use and models we'll end up with will reflect that

Whether western industry and the scientific innovation of the US/China has a part in it, that's a good question.

I have a vegetable garden.

All of this is to say that your forcing everyone into urban gulags idea is wicked-awesome Stalinism, but aside from being completely unrealistic: NYC is pretty much the definition of not-self sustaining. You can feel good about riding the bus and subway and living blocks from work, but your food and material goods are getting trucked in just like everyone else's.

Farms in NY, Connecticut and NJ = industrial ag producing and trucking food into the glorious metropolis

i dont get what your alternative is here

what rankles isn't concern for the environment, it's the blindingly smug sense of superiority that you know something all the yokels in the rest of the country don't and the unwillingness to entertain the idea that adapting the rest of America (which is lolhuge if you haven't noticed) to a more sustainable model rather than trying to make Blade Runner happen.

trucking in food is expensive, will continue to be expensive. population density offsets that expense.

NYC is pretty much the definition of not-self sustaining. You can feel good about riding the bus and subway and living blocks from work, but your food and material goods are getting trucked in just like everyone else's.

not only do I agree w/ that, I think attempts to pretend like big cities can be self-sustaining are misguided. but most americans do not work as farmers, in fact very few do. most people have service sector jobs that are not particularly related to the ag economy.

I don't think farmers should move to brooklyn, but I do think a lot of people need to realize they're not farmers.

I think most people realize that they aren't farmers

fwiw i am not literally proposing the forced relocation of the entirety of the united states to new hampshire

j/k i totally am

in europe gas costs multiple times as much as it does here in and yet, they manage to eat vegetables, somehow

― iatee

i dunno where you get your info but vegetables are an unheard-of luxury here

They could have dolphin farms in the East River

I think most people realize that they aren't farmers

― (thinks and smiles) (DJP), Tuesday, February 21, 2012 1:33 PM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i though you were into WoW

There is no real alternative right now, that's why even good politicians have to balance concern with the future with concern for the present. But ideas that venture anywhere near making Utah and Iowa and George more sustainable are infinitely more useful than iatee's schtick.

I think most people realize that they aren't farmers

yeah you would think, but we operate w/ a policy model that sorta assumes they are

hahaha goole

take my hovercycle over to the east rivers famous dolphin-meat shack before another shift at the content mine

what are these ideas that venture near making utah and iowa and george more sustainable that don't involve people giving things up?

iirc in 2025 we get microwave power and in 2050 fusion power

I think most people realize that they aren't farmers

― (thinks and smiles) (DJP), Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:33 PM (57 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Frances Farmer didn't, and look what happened to her. ;_;

Where are your ideas "involving people giving things up"? 'We need to make gas and mail prohibitively' expensive isn't sustainably giving things up, it's destroying the livelihood and social fabric of most Americans. Including urbanites.

I know it's a typo but I love the idea of a big dude named George just greedily consuming vast amounts of resources while US policy makers look on in horror going "George, dude... you have to become more sustainable."

I think you don't understand the word 'sustainability', it doesn't mean 'we get to sustain the lifestyles we have now forever'

I think you don't understand the word 'sustainability', it doesn't mean 'we get to sustain the lifestyles we have now forever'

― iatee

the only type of sustainability that ppl are going to vote for does, is the problem

on the one hand i'm not opposed to certain things in the commons being subsidized.

on the other hand i don't think getting filled envelopes of paper put in your door every day is all that crucial to the social fabric

Right, instead it means sackcloth and ashes for all.

We could be really sustainable and just cull the herd.

I don't understand how long-term sustainability includes making it more difficult for people to travel to other areas for work or making it prohibitively expensive for businesses to transfer tangible goods to other locations.

It makes a lot more sense to say "we should break the United States up into smaller countries responsible for their own people/infrastructures" than it does to say "we should make everything prohibitively expensive so people can't afford to live anywhere".

I don't understand how long-term sustainability includes making it more difficult for people to travel to other areas for work or making it prohibitively expensive for businesses to transfer tangible goods to other locations.

because...those things...are often not sustainable?

Old people are not sustainable.
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTMwOTY3NTE5NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDYxNDcyMg@@._V1._SY317_.jpg

is iatee vegetarian y/n?

I don't understand how long-term sustainability includes making it more difficult for people to travel to other areas for work

just more expensive, tbh, and not just for work

or making it prohibitively expensive for businesses to transfer tangible goods to other locations.

not necessarily 'prohibitively', then, throw out a figure that isn't prohibitive or at which prohibitive is approached and i suppose it's a place to start