Here's a provocative article about why bicycling might, in the long run, be harmful to the environment. Here are the author's main conclusions: Human-powered transportation can substitute for trips by single-occupant automobiles. This substitution has a direct and immediate benefit of reducing energy consumption, even accounting for the latent energy content of…
Like so many other complex issues, Americans don’t seem to understand global warming. In a Gallup poll conducted in March, respondents ranked their level of concern regarding several environmental issues. When asked to rank their level of concern over global warming, 36% of Americans claimed that it worried them “a…
Earlier, I wrote about the tendency of suburbanites to feel they have limited options, and how such a life can seem unfulfilling or failed. At the time, I inspected the personal shortcomings that have a hand in this, as well as the human predisposition to discontentment. But it appears that yet another factor contributes to the often portrayed suburban dread: the structure of the suburbs themselves.
Prior to the Second World War, most suburbs had what architects and city planners call a “traditional” or “mixed-use” structure. Towns of this type have closely arranged, small city blocks intermittent with other amenities such as shops, restaurants, churches, and public buildings such as schools and post offices. To get a better idea of a town of this type, picture the typical conception of a small New England village or city. This traditional structure made pedestrian activity both easy and inviting, claims Andres Duany, one of the authors of Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream.
In the 1950’s and beyond, building codes began to prevent such a seamless blend of commerce, public activity, and personal residence from organizing. Most American towns now have much more rigid building codes the divide all the realms of society into isolated sections: a housing district, a shopping center-like area, and government buildings shoved somewhere else. Duany describes the trend this way:
…“It’s an architectural version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Our neighborhoods are being replaced by soulless
Would we harm our selves in ways that we would never let others harm us? Yes, actually. We do this all the time. This common occurrence has long intrigued me.
About fifteen years ago, I was trying to lose weight. A diet book I was reading presented a hypothetical, which I have embellished:
…Imagine that a gang of strangers repeatedly broke into your house. Each time they broke in, they brought a large basket of food with them. Each time they broke in, they tracked you down and forced you to eat food that you didn’t need or want. “Stop that!” You would yell. “I’m not hungry. Go away!” Nonetheless, the strangers forced you to eat food that you didn’t want. They returned every few hours and repeated his attack on you. Every time you tried to exercise, the strangers appeared and made you sit on the couch to watch television instead.
Over the course of months, the excess food the strangers forced you to eat caused your body to bloat larger and larger. Your clothing stopped fitting. It became difficult to get in and out of your car. Most of your acquaintances gossiped about how you had become “fat.”
And it got even worse. You became diabetic. You got depressed. You constantly cursed those strangers for making you obese and unhealthy. You bought special burglar-proof doors and windows (but they didn’t work). Because this gang repeatedly violated your rights, you even considered buying a gun to defend yourself from
Let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine there is a salad bowl sitting (upright) on your kitchen table. Imagine, also, there is a marble resting in the bottom of the salad bowl. If you slightly disturb the marble with your finger, the marble will roll around the bottom of the bowl. If you disturb the marble a bit more, the marble will roll up the side of the bowl and then roll back down to the bottom. In this situation, the marble is said to be in a “stable equilibrium,” because the marble remains inside the bowl (equilibrium) despite reasonable-sized disturbances.
Now, imagine removing the marble from the bowl, turning the bowl upside-down, and resting the marble on the flat base of the bowl. Although the marble will remain within the boundary of the flat base (equilibrium), even a relatively small disturbance will roll the marble off the base, down the side of the bowl, across the kitchen table and onto the floor. In this situation, the marble is said to be in “unstable equilibrium,” because of the tendency of the marble to roll (far) out of position with even a small disturbance. Once on the floor, the marble is again in equilibrium: it will stay on the floor unless some force lifts it back to the tabletop.
Now, let us consider global warming. For tens of thousands of years (and perhaps much longer), our planet has maintained roughly the same average temperature. Yes, there were a few ice ages, but …