Trail(er) trash
#511
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps
"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>
>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless
>> without the
>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>
> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>
> That map is useful if you want it to be. It easily debunks the
> claim
> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green
> areas are
> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green
> areas are
> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is
> always
> under more pressure.
===========================
No, it's a bogus map. Just like he said, the colors reflect
nothing without a legend.
Just waht does 'green' mean, what does 'black' mean? At a
glance you'd think black meant it must be pure landfill,
completly paved and overrun with people everywhere. Then, you
see the entire inland passage up the coast totally black.
No explanation given, no reason, no rhyme. Again, it's a bogus
map.
snip rest of crap...
#512
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps
"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>
>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>
> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>
> That map is useful if you want it to be.
That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want it
to be. I call it misleading.
It easily debunks the claim
> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
> under more pressure.
>
> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
> endless bounty.
I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only one
that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it sounds
close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a "wilderness"
area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is still wilderness.
I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to forget the maps and
the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside so that you can see for
yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
>
>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map is
>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
>
> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little to
no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most were
labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I know
they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really need to
get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to a
>> world atlas can't you?
>
> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
>
>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is right
>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a fair
>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
>> free of significant numbers of them.
>
> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
>
> This is what's really happening in India:
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
>
> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
> causing serious air pollution problems."
>
>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
>> square mile.
>
> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> right in with your general myopia.
>
>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of the
>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not counting
>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
>
> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
>
>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to be
>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor mother
>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
>
> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
> genocide.
So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
>
>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate in
>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
>> land, is pretty negligible.
>
> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
>
>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there is
>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the radar
>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
>
> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
> you can excuse almost anything.
>
> R. Lander
>
#513
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps
"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>
>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>
> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>
> That map is useful if you want it to be.
That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want it
to be. I call it misleading.
It easily debunks the claim
> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
> under more pressure.
>
> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
> endless bounty.
I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only one
that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it sounds
close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a "wilderness"
area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is still wilderness.
I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to forget the maps and
the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside so that you can see for
yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
>
>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map is
>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
>
> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little to
no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most were
labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I know
they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really need to
get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to a
>> world atlas can't you?
>
> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
>
>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is right
>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a fair
>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
>> free of significant numbers of them.
>
> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
>
> This is what's really happening in India:
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
>
> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
> causing serious air pollution problems."
>
>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
>> square mile.
>
> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> right in with your general myopia.
>
>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of the
>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not counting
>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
>
> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
>
>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to be
>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor mother
>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
>
> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
> genocide.
So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
>
>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate in
>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
>> land, is pretty negligible.
>
> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
>
>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there is
>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the radar
>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
>
> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
> you can excuse almost anything.
>
> R. Lander
>
#514
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps
"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>
>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>
> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>
> That map is useful if you want it to be.
That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want it
to be. I call it misleading.
It easily debunks the claim
> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
> under more pressure.
>
> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
> endless bounty.
I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only one
that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it sounds
close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a "wilderness"
area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is still wilderness.
I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to forget the maps and
the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside so that you can see for
yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
>
>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map is
>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
>
> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little to
no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most were
labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I know
they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really need to
get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to a
>> world atlas can't you?
>
> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
>
>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is right
>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a fair
>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
>> free of significant numbers of them.
>
> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
>
> This is what's really happening in India:
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
>
> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
> causing serious air pollution problems."
>
>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
>> square mile.
>
> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> right in with your general myopia.
>
>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of the
>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not counting
>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
>
> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
>
>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to be
>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor mother
>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
>
> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
> genocide.
So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
>
>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate in
>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
>> land, is pretty negligible.
>
> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
>
>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there is
>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the radar
>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
>
> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
> you can excuse almost anything.
>
> R. Lander
>
#515
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps
Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?
If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
themselves with their own cash.
It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
being improved into industrial storage.
They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them can
afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
government buy it.
"Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>>
>>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
>>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>>
>> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>>
>> That map is useful if you want it to be.
>
> That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> it to be. I call it misleading.
>
>
> It easily debunks the claim
>> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
>> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
>> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
>> under more pressure.
>>
>> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
>> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
>> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
>> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
>> endless bounty.
>
>
> I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only one
> that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it sounds
> close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside so
> that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
>>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map is
>>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
>>
>> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
>> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
>> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
>> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
>> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
>> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
>
>
> Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little to
> no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
> I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most were
> labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I know
> they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really need
> to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
>
>
>
>>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to a
>>> world atlas can't you?
>>
>> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
>> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
>>
>>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
>>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
>>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is right
>>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
>>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a fair
>>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
>>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
>>> free of significant numbers of them.
>>
>> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
>> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
>> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
>> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
>> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
>> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
>>
>> This is what's really happening in India:
>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
>>
>> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
>> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
>> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
>> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
>> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
>> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
>> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
>> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
>> causing serious air pollution problems."
>>
>>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
>>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
>>> square mile.
>>
>> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
>> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
>> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
>> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
>> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
>> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
>> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
>> right in with your general myopia.
>>
>>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
>>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of the
>>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
>>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
>>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not counting
>>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
>>
>> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
>> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
>> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
>> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
>>
>>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
>>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to be
>>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor mother
>>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
>> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
>> genocide.
>
>
> So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
>
>
>
> You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
>> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
>>
>>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
>>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate in
>>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
>>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
>>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
>>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
>>> land, is pretty negligible.
>>
>> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
>> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
>> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
>> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
>> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
>>
>>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there is
>>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
>>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
>>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the radar
>>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
>>
>> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
>> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
>> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
>> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
>> you can excuse almost anything.
>>
>> R. Lander
>>
>
>
If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
themselves with their own cash.
It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
being improved into industrial storage.
They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them can
afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
government buy it.
"Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>>
>>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
>>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>>
>> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>>
>> That map is useful if you want it to be.
>
> That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> it to be. I call it misleading.
>
>
> It easily debunks the claim
>> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
>> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
>> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
>> under more pressure.
>>
>> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
>> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
>> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
>> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
>> endless bounty.
>
>
> I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only one
> that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it sounds
> close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside so
> that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
>>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map is
>>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
>>
>> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
>> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
>> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
>> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
>> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
>> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
>
>
> Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little to
> no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
> I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most were
> labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I know
> they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really need
> to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
>
>
>
>>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to a
>>> world atlas can't you?
>>
>> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
>> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
>>
>>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
>>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
>>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is right
>>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
>>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a fair
>>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
>>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
>>> free of significant numbers of them.
>>
>> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
>> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
>> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
>> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
>> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
>> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
>>
>> This is what's really happening in India:
>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
>>
>> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
>> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
>> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
>> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
>> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
>> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
>> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
>> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
>> causing serious air pollution problems."
>>
>>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
>>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
>>> square mile.
>>
>> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
>> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
>> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
>> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
>> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
>> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
>> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
>> right in with your general myopia.
>>
>>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
>>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of the
>>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
>>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
>>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not counting
>>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
>>
>> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
>> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
>> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
>> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
>>
>>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
>>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to be
>>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor mother
>>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
>> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
>> genocide.
>
>
> So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
>
>
>
> You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
>> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
>>
>>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
>>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate in
>>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
>>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
>>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
>>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
>>> land, is pretty negligible.
>>
>> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
>> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
>> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
>> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
>> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
>>
>>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there is
>>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
>>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
>>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the radar
>>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
>>
>> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
>> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
>> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
>> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
>> you can excuse almost anything.
>>
>> R. Lander
>>
>
>
#516
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps
Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?
If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
themselves with their own cash.
It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
being improved into industrial storage.
They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them can
afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
government buy it.
"Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>>
>>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
>>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>>
>> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>>
>> That map is useful if you want it to be.
>
> That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> it to be. I call it misleading.
>
>
> It easily debunks the claim
>> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
>> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
>> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
>> under more pressure.
>>
>> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
>> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
>> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
>> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
>> endless bounty.
>
>
> I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only one
> that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it sounds
> close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside so
> that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
>>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map is
>>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
>>
>> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
>> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
>> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
>> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
>> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
>> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
>
>
> Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little to
> no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
> I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most were
> labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I know
> they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really need
> to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
>
>
>
>>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to a
>>> world atlas can't you?
>>
>> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
>> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
>>
>>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
>>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
>>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is right
>>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
>>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a fair
>>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
>>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
>>> free of significant numbers of them.
>>
>> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
>> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
>> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
>> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
>> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
>> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
>>
>> This is what's really happening in India:
>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
>>
>> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
>> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
>> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
>> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
>> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
>> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
>> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
>> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
>> causing serious air pollution problems."
>>
>>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
>>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
>>> square mile.
>>
>> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
>> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
>> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
>> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
>> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
>> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
>> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
>> right in with your general myopia.
>>
>>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
>>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of the
>>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
>>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
>>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not counting
>>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
>>
>> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
>> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
>> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
>> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
>>
>>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
>>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to be
>>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor mother
>>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
>> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
>> genocide.
>
>
> So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
>
>
>
> You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
>> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
>>
>>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
>>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate in
>>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
>>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
>>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
>>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
>>> land, is pretty negligible.
>>
>> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
>> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
>> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
>> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
>> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
>>
>>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there is
>>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
>>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
>>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the radar
>>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
>>
>> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
>> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
>> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
>> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
>> you can excuse almost anything.
>>
>> R. Lander
>>
>
>
If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
themselves with their own cash.
It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
being improved into industrial storage.
They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them can
afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
government buy it.
"Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>>
>>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
>>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>>
>> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>>
>> That map is useful if you want it to be.
>
> That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> it to be. I call it misleading.
>
>
> It easily debunks the claim
>> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
>> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
>> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
>> under more pressure.
>>
>> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
>> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
>> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
>> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
>> endless bounty.
>
>
> I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only one
> that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it sounds
> close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside so
> that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
>>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map is
>>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
>>
>> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
>> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
>> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
>> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
>> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
>> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
>
>
> Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little to
> no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
> I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most were
> labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I know
> they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really need
> to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
>
>
>
>>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to a
>>> world atlas can't you?
>>
>> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
>> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
>>
>>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
>>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
>>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is right
>>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
>>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a fair
>>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
>>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
>>> free of significant numbers of them.
>>
>> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
>> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
>> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
>> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
>> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
>> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
>>
>> This is what's really happening in India:
>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
>>
>> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
>> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
>> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
>> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
>> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
>> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
>> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
>> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
>> causing serious air pollution problems."
>>
>>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
>>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
>>> square mile.
>>
>> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
>> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
>> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
>> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
>> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
>> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
>> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
>> right in with your general myopia.
>>
>>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
>>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of the
>>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
>>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
>>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not counting
>>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
>>
>> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
>> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
>> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
>> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
>>
>>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
>>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to be
>>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor mother
>>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
>> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
>> genocide.
>
>
> So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
>
>
>
> You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
>> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
>>
>>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
>>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate in
>>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
>>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
>>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
>>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
>>> land, is pretty negligible.
>>
>> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
>> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
>> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
>> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
>> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
>>
>>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there is
>>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
>>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
>>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the radar
>>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
>>
>> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
>> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
>> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
>> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
>> you can excuse almost anything.
>>
>> R. Lander
>>
>
>
#517
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps
Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?
If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
themselves with their own cash.
It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
being improved into industrial storage.
They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them can
afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
government buy it.
"Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>>
>>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
>>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>>
>> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>>
>> That map is useful if you want it to be.
>
> That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> it to be. I call it misleading.
>
>
> It easily debunks the claim
>> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
>> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
>> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
>> under more pressure.
>>
>> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
>> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
>> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
>> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
>> endless bounty.
>
>
> I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only one
> that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it sounds
> close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside so
> that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
>>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map is
>>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
>>
>> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
>> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
>> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
>> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
>> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
>> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
>
>
> Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little to
> no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
> I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most were
> labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I know
> they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really need
> to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
>
>
>
>>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to a
>>> world atlas can't you?
>>
>> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
>> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
>>
>>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
>>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
>>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is right
>>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
>>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a fair
>>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
>>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
>>> free of significant numbers of them.
>>
>> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
>> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
>> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
>> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
>> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
>> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
>>
>> This is what's really happening in India:
>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
>>
>> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
>> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
>> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
>> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
>> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
>> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
>> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
>> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
>> causing serious air pollution problems."
>>
>>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
>>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
>>> square mile.
>>
>> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
>> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
>> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
>> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
>> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
>> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
>> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
>> right in with your general myopia.
>>
>>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
>>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of the
>>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
>>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
>>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not counting
>>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
>>
>> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
>> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
>> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
>> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
>>
>>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
>>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to be
>>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor mother
>>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
>> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
>> genocide.
>
>
> So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
>
>
>
> You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
>> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
>>
>>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
>>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate in
>>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
>>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
>>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
>>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
>>> land, is pretty negligible.
>>
>> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
>> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
>> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
>> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
>> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
>>
>>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there is
>>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
>>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
>>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the radar
>>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
>>
>> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
>> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
>> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
>> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
>> you can excuse almost anything.
>>
>> R. Lander
>>
>
>
If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
themselves with their own cash.
It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
being improved into industrial storage.
They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them can
afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
government buy it.
"Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Tom "Greening" wrote:
>>
>>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
>>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
>>
>> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
>>
>> That map is useful if you want it to be.
>
> That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> it to be. I call it misleading.
>
>
> It easily debunks the claim
>> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
>> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
>> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
>> under more pressure.
>>
>> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
>> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
>> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
>> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
>> endless bounty.
>
>
> I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only one
> that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it sounds
> close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside so
> that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
>>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map is
>>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
>>
>> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
>> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
>> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
>> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
>> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
>> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
>
>
> Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little to
> no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the truth.
> I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most were
> labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I know
> they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really need
> to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
>
>
>
>>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to a
>>> world atlas can't you?
>>
>> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
>> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
>>
>>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
>>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
>>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is right
>>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
>>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a fair
>>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
>>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
>>> free of significant numbers of them.
>>
>> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
>> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
>> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
>> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
>> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
>> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
>>
>> This is what's really happening in India:
>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
>>
>> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
>> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
>> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
>> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
>> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
>> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
>> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
>> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
>> causing serious air pollution problems."
>>
>>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
>>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
>>> square mile.
>>
>> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
>> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
>> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
>> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
>> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
>> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
>> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
>> right in with your general myopia.
>>
>>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
>>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of the
>>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
>>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
>>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not counting
>>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
>>
>> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
>> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
>> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
>> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
>>
>>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
>>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to be
>>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor mother
>>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
>>
>> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
>> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
>> genocide.
>
>
> So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
>
>
>
> You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
>> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
>>
>>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
>>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate in
>>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
>>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
>>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
>>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
>>> land, is pretty negligible.
>>
>> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
>> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
>> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
>> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
>> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
>>
>>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there is
>>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
>>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
>>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the radar
>>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
>>
>> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
>> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
>> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
>> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
>> you can excuse almost anything.
>>
>> R. Lander
>>
>
>
#518
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps
This is why we have government in the first place. I cannot afford my own
police force, road crew, or annoying bureaucrats to pester my neighbors, so
I get together with everyone else, pay taxes, and together we can buy a host
of both good and bad things. There is, after all, a form of representative
government in most places, so what it buys is, after a fashion, "what
everyone wants".
The same argument, that you are using, could be applied to the city parks
that your children or grandchildren play in, the roads that you drive on or
the school where you learned to read. I imagine that your Hollywood
celebrities would like to see their tax dollars spent on something
worthwhile, as would we all.
Earle
"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:c9598$448adde8$48311525$29952@FUSE.NET...
> Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?
>
> If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
> themselves with their own cash.
>
> It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
> and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
> being improved into industrial storage.
>
> They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
> landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them
can
> afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
> government buy it.
>
>
>
>
> "Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
> >
> > "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> >> Tom "Greening" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
> >>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
> >>
> >> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
> >>
> >> That map is useful if you want it to be.
> >
> > That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> > it to be. I call it misleading.
> >
> >
> > It easily debunks the claim
> >> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> >> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
> >> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
> >> under more pressure.
> >>
> >> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> >> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
> >> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
> >> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
> >> endless bounty.
> >
> >
> > I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only
one
> > that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it
sounds
> > close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> > wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> > "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> > still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> > forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside
so
> > that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
> >>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map
is
> >>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
> >>
> >> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
> >> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> >> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> >> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
> >> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> >> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
> >
> >
> > Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little
to
> > no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the
truth.
> > I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most
were
> > labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I
know
> > they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really
need
> > to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to
a
> >>> world atlas can't you?
> >>
> >> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
> >> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
> >>
> >>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
> >>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
> >>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is
right
> >>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
> >>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a
fair
> >>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
> >>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
> >>> free of significant numbers of them.
> >>
> >> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
> >> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> >> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> >> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
> >> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
> >> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
> >>
> >> This is what's really happening in India:
> >> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
> >>
> >> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> >> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> >> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
> >> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> >> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> >> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> >> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> >> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
> >> causing serious air pollution problems."
> >>
> >>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
> >>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
> >>> square mile.
> >>
> >> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> >> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
> >> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> >> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> >> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> >> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> >> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> >> right in with your general myopia.
> >>
> >>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
> >>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of
the
> >>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
> >>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
> >>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not
counting
> >>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
> >>
> >> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
> >> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
> >> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> >> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
> >>
> >>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
> >>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to
be
> >>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor
mother
> >>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
> >>
> >> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
> >> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
> >> genocide.
> >
> >
> > So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> > control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> > allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> >> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
> >>
> >>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
> >>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate
in
> >>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
> >>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
> >>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
> >>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
> >>> land, is pretty negligible.
> >>
> >> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
> >> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
> >> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
> >> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> >> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
> >>
> >>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there
is
> >>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
> >>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
> >>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the
radar
> >>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
> >>
> >> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> >> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> >> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
> >> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
> >> you can excuse almost anything.
> >>
> >> R. Lander
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
police force, road crew, or annoying bureaucrats to pester my neighbors, so
I get together with everyone else, pay taxes, and together we can buy a host
of both good and bad things. There is, after all, a form of representative
government in most places, so what it buys is, after a fashion, "what
everyone wants".
The same argument, that you are using, could be applied to the city parks
that your children or grandchildren play in, the roads that you drive on or
the school where you learned to read. I imagine that your Hollywood
celebrities would like to see their tax dollars spent on something
worthwhile, as would we all.
Earle
"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:c9598$448adde8$48311525$29952@FUSE.NET...
> Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?
>
> If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
> themselves with their own cash.
>
> It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
> and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
> being improved into industrial storage.
>
> They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
> landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them
can
> afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
> government buy it.
>
>
>
>
> "Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
> >
> > "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> >> Tom "Greening" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
> >>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
> >>
> >> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
> >>
> >> That map is useful if you want it to be.
> >
> > That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> > it to be. I call it misleading.
> >
> >
> > It easily debunks the claim
> >> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> >> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
> >> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
> >> under more pressure.
> >>
> >> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> >> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
> >> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
> >> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
> >> endless bounty.
> >
> >
> > I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only
one
> > that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it
sounds
> > close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> > wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> > "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> > still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> > forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside
so
> > that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
> >>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map
is
> >>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
> >>
> >> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
> >> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> >> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> >> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
> >> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> >> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
> >
> >
> > Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little
to
> > no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the
truth.
> > I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most
were
> > labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I
know
> > they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really
need
> > to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to
a
> >>> world atlas can't you?
> >>
> >> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
> >> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
> >>
> >>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
> >>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
> >>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is
right
> >>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
> >>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a
fair
> >>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
> >>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
> >>> free of significant numbers of them.
> >>
> >> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
> >> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> >> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> >> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
> >> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
> >> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
> >>
> >> This is what's really happening in India:
> >> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
> >>
> >> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> >> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> >> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
> >> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> >> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> >> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> >> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> >> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
> >> causing serious air pollution problems."
> >>
> >>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
> >>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
> >>> square mile.
> >>
> >> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> >> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
> >> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> >> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> >> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> >> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> >> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> >> right in with your general myopia.
> >>
> >>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
> >>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of
the
> >>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
> >>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
> >>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not
counting
> >>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
> >>
> >> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
> >> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
> >> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> >> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
> >>
> >>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
> >>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to
be
> >>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor
mother
> >>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
> >>
> >> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
> >> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
> >> genocide.
> >
> >
> > So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> > control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> > allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> >> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
> >>
> >>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
> >>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate
in
> >>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
> >>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
> >>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
> >>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
> >>> land, is pretty negligible.
> >>
> >> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
> >> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
> >> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
> >> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> >> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
> >>
> >>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there
is
> >>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
> >>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
> >>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the
radar
> >>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
> >>
> >> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> >> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> >> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
> >> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
> >> you can excuse almost anything.
> >>
> >> R. Lander
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#519
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps
This is why we have government in the first place. I cannot afford my own
police force, road crew, or annoying bureaucrats to pester my neighbors, so
I get together with everyone else, pay taxes, and together we can buy a host
of both good and bad things. There is, after all, a form of representative
government in most places, so what it buys is, after a fashion, "what
everyone wants".
The same argument, that you are using, could be applied to the city parks
that your children or grandchildren play in, the roads that you drive on or
the school where you learned to read. I imagine that your Hollywood
celebrities would like to see their tax dollars spent on something
worthwhile, as would we all.
Earle
"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:c9598$448adde8$48311525$29952@FUSE.NET...
> Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?
>
> If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
> themselves with their own cash.
>
> It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
> and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
> being improved into industrial storage.
>
> They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
> landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them
can
> afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
> government buy it.
>
>
>
>
> "Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
> >
> > "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> >> Tom "Greening" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
> >>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
> >>
> >> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
> >>
> >> That map is useful if you want it to be.
> >
> > That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> > it to be. I call it misleading.
> >
> >
> > It easily debunks the claim
> >> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> >> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
> >> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
> >> under more pressure.
> >>
> >> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> >> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
> >> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
> >> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
> >> endless bounty.
> >
> >
> > I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only
one
> > that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it
sounds
> > close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> > wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> > "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> > still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> > forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside
so
> > that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
> >>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map
is
> >>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
> >>
> >> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
> >> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> >> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> >> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
> >> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> >> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
> >
> >
> > Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little
to
> > no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the
truth.
> > I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most
were
> > labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I
know
> > they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really
need
> > to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to
a
> >>> world atlas can't you?
> >>
> >> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
> >> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
> >>
> >>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
> >>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
> >>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is
right
> >>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
> >>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a
fair
> >>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
> >>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
> >>> free of significant numbers of them.
> >>
> >> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
> >> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> >> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> >> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
> >> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
> >> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
> >>
> >> This is what's really happening in India:
> >> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
> >>
> >> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> >> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> >> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
> >> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> >> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> >> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> >> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> >> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
> >> causing serious air pollution problems."
> >>
> >>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
> >>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
> >>> square mile.
> >>
> >> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> >> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
> >> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> >> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> >> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> >> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> >> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> >> right in with your general myopia.
> >>
> >>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
> >>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of
the
> >>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
> >>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
> >>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not
counting
> >>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
> >>
> >> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
> >> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
> >> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> >> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
> >>
> >>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
> >>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to
be
> >>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor
mother
> >>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
> >>
> >> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
> >> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
> >> genocide.
> >
> >
> > So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> > control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> > allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> >> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
> >>
> >>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
> >>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate
in
> >>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
> >>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
> >>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
> >>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
> >>> land, is pretty negligible.
> >>
> >> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
> >> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
> >> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
> >> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> >> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
> >>
> >>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there
is
> >>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
> >>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
> >>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the
radar
> >>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
> >>
> >> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> >> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> >> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
> >> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
> >> you can excuse almost anything.
> >>
> >> R. Lander
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
police force, road crew, or annoying bureaucrats to pester my neighbors, so
I get together with everyone else, pay taxes, and together we can buy a host
of both good and bad things. There is, after all, a form of representative
government in most places, so what it buys is, after a fashion, "what
everyone wants".
The same argument, that you are using, could be applied to the city parks
that your children or grandchildren play in, the roads that you drive on or
the school where you learned to read. I imagine that your Hollywood
celebrities would like to see their tax dollars spent on something
worthwhile, as would we all.
Earle
"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:c9598$448adde8$48311525$29952@FUSE.NET...
> Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?
>
> If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
> themselves with their own cash.
>
> It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
> and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
> being improved into industrial storage.
>
> They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
> landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them
can
> afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
> government buy it.
>
>
>
>
> "Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
> >
> > "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> >> Tom "Greening" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
> >>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
> >>
> >> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
> >>
> >> That map is useful if you want it to be.
> >
> > That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> > it to be. I call it misleading.
> >
> >
> > It easily debunks the claim
> >> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> >> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
> >> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
> >> under more pressure.
> >>
> >> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> >> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
> >> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
> >> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
> >> endless bounty.
> >
> >
> > I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only
one
> > that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it
sounds
> > close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> > wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> > "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> > still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> > forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside
so
> > that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
> >>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map
is
> >>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
> >>
> >> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
> >> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> >> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> >> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
> >> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> >> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
> >
> >
> > Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little
to
> > no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the
truth.
> > I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most
were
> > labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I
know
> > they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really
need
> > to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to
a
> >>> world atlas can't you?
> >>
> >> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
> >> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
> >>
> >>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
> >>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
> >>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is
right
> >>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
> >>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a
fair
> >>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
> >>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
> >>> free of significant numbers of them.
> >>
> >> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
> >> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> >> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> >> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
> >> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
> >> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
> >>
> >> This is what's really happening in India:
> >> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
> >>
> >> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> >> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> >> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
> >> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> >> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> >> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> >> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> >> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
> >> causing serious air pollution problems."
> >>
> >>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
> >>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
> >>> square mile.
> >>
> >> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> >> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
> >> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> >> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> >> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> >> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> >> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> >> right in with your general myopia.
> >>
> >>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
> >>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of
the
> >>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
> >>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
> >>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not
counting
> >>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
> >>
> >> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
> >> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
> >> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> >> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
> >>
> >>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
> >>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to
be
> >>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor
mother
> >>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
> >>
> >> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
> >> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
> >> genocide.
> >
> >
> > So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> > control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> > allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> >> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
> >>
> >>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
> >>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate
in
> >>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
> >>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
> >>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
> >>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
> >>> land, is pretty negligible.
> >>
> >> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
> >> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
> >> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
> >> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> >> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
> >>
> >>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there
is
> >>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
> >>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
> >>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the
radar
> >>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
> >>
> >> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> >> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> >> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
> >> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
> >> you can excuse almost anything.
> >>
> >> R. Lander
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
#520
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Human footprint maps
This is why we have government in the first place. I cannot afford my own
police force, road crew, or annoying bureaucrats to pester my neighbors, so
I get together with everyone else, pay taxes, and together we can buy a host
of both good and bad things. There is, after all, a form of representative
government in most places, so what it buys is, after a fashion, "what
everyone wants".
The same argument, that you are using, could be applied to the city parks
that your children or grandchildren play in, the roads that you drive on or
the school where you learned to read. I imagine that your Hollywood
celebrities would like to see their tax dollars spent on something
worthwhile, as would we all.
Earle
"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:c9598$448adde8$48311525$29952@FUSE.NET...
> Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?
>
> If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
> themselves with their own cash.
>
> It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
> and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
> being improved into industrial storage.
>
> They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
> landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them
can
> afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
> government buy it.
>
>
>
>
> "Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
> >
> > "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> >> Tom "Greening" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
> >>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
> >>
> >> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
> >>
> >> That map is useful if you want it to be.
> >
> > That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> > it to be. I call it misleading.
> >
> >
> > It easily debunks the claim
> >> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> >> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
> >> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
> >> under more pressure.
> >>
> >> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> >> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
> >> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
> >> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
> >> endless bounty.
> >
> >
> > I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only
one
> > that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it
sounds
> > close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> > wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> > "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> > still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> > forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside
so
> > that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
> >>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map
is
> >>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
> >>
> >> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
> >> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> >> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> >> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
> >> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> >> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
> >
> >
> > Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little
to
> > no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the
truth.
> > I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most
were
> > labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I
know
> > they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really
need
> > to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to
a
> >>> world atlas can't you?
> >>
> >> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
> >> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
> >>
> >>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
> >>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
> >>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is
right
> >>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
> >>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a
fair
> >>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
> >>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
> >>> free of significant numbers of them.
> >>
> >> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
> >> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> >> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> >> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
> >> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
> >> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
> >>
> >> This is what's really happening in India:
> >> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
> >>
> >> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> >> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> >> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
> >> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> >> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> >> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> >> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> >> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
> >> causing serious air pollution problems."
> >>
> >>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
> >>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
> >>> square mile.
> >>
> >> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> >> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
> >> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> >> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> >> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> >> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> >> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> >> right in with your general myopia.
> >>
> >>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
> >>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of
the
> >>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
> >>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
> >>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not
counting
> >>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
> >>
> >> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
> >> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
> >> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> >> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
> >>
> >>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
> >>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to
be
> >>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor
mother
> >>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
> >>
> >> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
> >> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
> >> genocide.
> >
> >
> > So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> > control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> > allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> >> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
> >>
> >>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
> >>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate
in
> >>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
> >>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
> >>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
> >>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
> >>> land, is pretty negligible.
> >>
> >> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
> >> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
> >> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
> >> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> >> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
> >>
> >>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there
is
> >>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
> >>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
> >>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the
radar
> >>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
> >>
> >> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> >> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> >> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
> >> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
> >> you can excuse almost anything.
> >>
> >> R. Lander
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
police force, road crew, or annoying bureaucrats to pester my neighbors, so
I get together with everyone else, pay taxes, and together we can buy a host
of both good and bad things. There is, after all, a form of representative
government in most places, so what it buys is, after a fashion, "what
everyone wants".
The same argument, that you are using, could be applied to the city parks
that your children or grandchildren play in, the roads that you drive on or
the school where you learned to read. I imagine that your Hollywood
celebrities would like to see their tax dollars spent on something
worthwhile, as would we all.
Earle
"billy ray" <billy_ray@SPAMfuse.net> wrote in message
news:c9598$448adde8$48311525$29952@FUSE.NET...
> Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas anyway?
>
> If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
> themselves with their own cash.
>
> It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie stars'
> and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot from
> being improved into industrial storage.
>
> They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
> landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of them
can
> afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand' the
> government buy it.
>
>
>
>
> "Mike" <mik@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:x5tig.3299$Oh1.791@news01.roc.ny...
> >
> > "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1149896690.284891.297530@y43g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
> >> Tom "Greening" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without the
> >>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
> >>
> >> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
> >>
> >> That map is useful if you want it to be.
> >
> > That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you want
> > it to be. I call it misleading.
> >
> >
> > It easily debunks the claim
> >> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas are
> >> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas are
> >> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is always
> >> under more pressure.
> >>
> >> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> >> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to Map-Maker,
> >> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is. Check
> >> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology of
> >> endless bounty.
> >
> >
> > I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only
one
> > that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it
sounds
> > close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> > wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> > "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it is
> > still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is to
> > forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go outside
so
> > that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that almost
> >>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world map
is
> >>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
> >>
> >> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is highly
> >> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> >> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> >> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to convince
> >> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> >> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
> >
> >
> > Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are little
to
> > no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the
truth.
> > I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most
were
> > labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I
know
> > they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really
need
> > to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting to
a
> >>> world atlas can't you?
> >>
> >> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million" (below)
> >> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about much.
> >>
> >>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
> >>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers might
> >>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is
right
> >>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
> >>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a
fair
> >>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
> >>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty much
> >>> free of significant numbers of them.
> >>
> >> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and much
> >> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> >> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> >> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that offers
> >> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually for
> >> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
> >>
> >> This is what's really happening in India:
> >> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
> >>
> >> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> >> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> >> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed significant
> >> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> >> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> >> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> >> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> >> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services and
> >> causing serious air pollution problems."
> >>
> >>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population of
> >>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people per
> >>> square mile.
> >>
> >> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> >> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually (census.gov).
> >> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> >> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> >> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> >> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> >> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> >> right in with your general myopia.
> >>
> >>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
> >>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density of
the
> >>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion of
> >>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
> >>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not
counting
> >>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
> >>
> >> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over 90%
> >> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture occupies
> >> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> >> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
> >>
> >>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
> >>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing to
be
> >>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor
mother
> >>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
> >>
> >> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is bought
> >> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control means
> >> genocide.
> >
> >
> > So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who would
> > control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one is
> > allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
> >
> >
> >
> > You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> >> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
> >>
> >>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake of
> >>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real estate
in
> >>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by side...well,
> >>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to a
> >>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about, ohhh,
> >>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on the
> >>> land, is pretty negligible.
> >>
> >> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the land
> >> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area is
> >> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them, either.
> >> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> >> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
> >>
> >>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think there
is
> >>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to this
> >>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
> >>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the
radar
> >>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
> >>
> >> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> >> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> >> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and a
> >> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable damage,
> >> you can excuse almost anything.
> >>
> >> R. Lander
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com