I'm disturbed, I put out that I believed that the issue in the US related more to the problem of population density and the costs involved in sustaining an urban affluence in such a low density. So what's up? Do you agree or disagree?
I live in a city where my costs for transportation are low and I take cabs. I don't own a car and I work in my home. My food is from some of the best restaurants who deliver the meals and they are not that much more expensive than my doing it at home except I would lose the time at work doing all of that preparation. I have a cleaning lady while my wife and I earn more by being able to work while she cleans. The museums are the finest you could imagine, the Opera is great and the symphony is first rate. Three of the greatest halls in the world and every culture you could desire to visit not more than a couple of miles from me. No one in the regions could touch what I have here on five times the salary. I also have one child who has gotten a world class education in high school. We don't use a lot of energy and we don't have gas guzzlers as required by living in cities on the plains or in the suburbs. We also have several million people within a ten mile radius. I would put the efficiency of the NY Subway system next to any in the world and you could put most of the world's cities in the NYCity Subway system and still have a seat. I don't think the problem is over-population but poor planning and issues freedom of movement that people are unwilling to give up. I don't go out of town much and I often don't get out of the apartment unless for fun. It isn't required. Would you live that way? What about it? Ray Evans Harrell ----- Original Message ----- From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; FUTUREWORK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 6:41 PM Subject: Re: pop. density (was Re: The Future of Work) > Steve Kurtz wrote: > > [snip] > > When surveyed about why they had zero or > > 1 child, Italian women replied that it was so they could enjoy the finer > > things in life (both material & non) > [snip] > > It is good to hear that at least some persons are > finding that there are higher values or at least > more rewarding activities in *this life* than bringing > into this world more warm squirming bodies -- even > if "they can afford them" (even if money has no > limit, life time does, so that even the very rich, if > they do not outsource and offload the whole enterprise, have to > pay a price in terms of other > life values, for having lots of children). > > Perhaps Garrett Hardin was not *entirely* correct in > believing that the will and the right to *unlimited procreation* > is the one right that "people" are not willing to > give up even if it means giving up all other > potential rights. > > "Just say no." > (--Nancy Reagan) > > \brad mccormick > > -- > Let your light so shine before men, > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
