R
R. Lander
Guest
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.
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.
> 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."
> 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. 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
> 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.
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.
> 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."
> 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. 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
aul@Hovnanian.com
