Global Warning/Climate Change

[ohio jones]

Here are 30 people getting coffee in two different built environments. I know which one I prefer, which one is more civilized, and frankly more reminiscent of Biblical times. And also which one has less of an impact on the environment

I do suppose The Two Maggots is more Biblical, but I still would not prefer it. Not to mention the civilized crime in Paris; it's the only place I've ever been pickpocketed. And yes, it was in the Metro.

So here’s the Message to the prophets from God-of-the-Angel-Armies: “I’ll cook them a supper of maggoty meat with after-dinner drinks of strychnine."

Nor would I wait in a long line for Starbucks; I don't need their inferior coffee that badly.

[Ken]

I live in a bikeable city that has a very low crime rate. A lot of it is about infrastructure and having safe secure places to bike and park. A lot of it is about the environment that we choose to build for ourselves. Here are 30 people getting coffee in two different built environments. I know which one I prefer, which one is more civilized, and frankly more reminiscent of Biblical times. And also which one has less of an impact on the environment

A low crime rate is due to punishing criminals with punishments so harsh that they don't want to commit crimes there, and either don't do it all or go do it elsewhere.

"Safe secure places to bike and park" is dependent on actually punishing criminals who steal bikes. Places like NYC and SF don't do this, so you can't really do anything with a bicycle there unless you plan to drag it inside with you.

Of course it is nice to be in a city that has a "very low crime rate". I live in a place with a very low crime rate myself. But that is a prerequisite for the things you think should be universal like more bicycling, being less car dependent, and so on.

Many people don't have the luxury of living in a wealthy area like you do, so they need to have cars to keep themselves and their families safe. They may have to live in a poorer area and commute to a job that means going through dangerous areas. Without a car, they would get robbed and assaulted.

This is getting off the track from climate change but I'll try to lead things back.

The punishment first approach you are advocating above doesn't solve crime, it just pushes it around to other places. We've been locking people up at higher rates than any other civilized country on the planet for decades. And at higher rates than many uncivilized countries to little effect.

About 80% of all male inmates are HS dropouts and around 75% are illiterate at a 4th grade level, depending on which statistics you use and which year they are from. Those are people who are largely not equipped to function in civil modern society regardless of whether they are locked up or not. The effort should be focused on not making so many new criminals so we don't have to spend so much time an effort punishing them. Schools are vastly cheaper than prisons. That doesn't mean you don't punish crime. But it means you also work to build a society that produces less criminals in the first place. Which is both a cheaper and better option.

A few months ago on the school violence thread that you started you argued that poverty was not linked to violence. Here you are making the opposite argument, that poor areas have more crime and violence. Which is it? The fact of the matter is that countries with lower rates of poverty and inequity have both lower crime rates and lower prison populations. So like every other difficult problem the answers are complex not simplistic.

What does all this have to do with climate change? It relates to climate change because the world you are advocating where everyone goes about every life activity sealed away in cars and flees to rural areas is simply not sustainable. It isn't environmentally sustainable in a country of over 330 million. And it isn't economically sustainable without massive energy subsidies to support all that driving and highway building and sprawling inefficient single family housing.

If we want to build a more sustainable life like that practiced by the Amish in a nation of 330 million it is going to mean learning to live in closer proximity to each other and getting out of our cars. There is no other way to do it.

[MaxPC]

Subways and metro bus lines in cities are dangerous for individuals who commute alone.
Those who are impoverished and cannot afford a car; who are forced to work night shifts; are particularly vulnerable to becoming a victim. Public transport is only effective if it is secure and safe for individuals.

The Metro in L.A. has become overrun as basically a place for junkies to shoot up drugs, and the police aren't allowed to stop people from smoking in them.

So much for all the anti-smoking bans that California enacted.

Yes, my colleagues who retired and now live in TN, NC, and GA share that they are seeing quite a few Californians move into their states. The new residents share they left CA due to high crime, high taxes, and over regulation from the state itself.

[Robert]

This is getting off the track from climate change but I'll try to lead things back.

Thanks for the effort.

[RZehr]

About 80% of all male inmates are HS dropouts and around 75% are illiterate at a 4th grade level, depending on which statistics you use and which year they are from. Those are people who are largely not equipped to function in civil modern society regardless of whether they are locked up or not. The effort should be focused on not making so many new criminals so we don't have to spend so much time an effort punishing them. Schools are vastly cheaper than prisons. That doesn't mean you don't punish crime. But it means you also work to build a society that produces less criminals in the first place. Which is both a cheaper and better option.

As Art Buchwald said, “It has been known for years that prisons have been filled with a very low-class type of inmate, some of without any education, others who are unstable, and some who are just plain antisocial.

No effort has been made to attract a better grade of prisoner, who would not only improve the caliber of our rehabilitation programs, but would also make society treat prisoners with the respect they deserve. For too long now we’ve been taking our prisoners for granted, and the standard for convicted felons has declined to a point where almost anyone can get into prison without his qualifications being questioned.

This trend must reverse if we ever hope to rehabilitate our prisoners. The first thing to do would be to set up recruiting drives in high schools and colleges to get a better class of inmate. This would have to be coupled with higher pay for prisoners, so being behind bars would become worthwhile.

Intelligence tests have to be set up at prisons to weed out those unfit to be imprisoned. Then personal interviews would be given to prospective convicts to see if they’ve got what it takes to be rehabilitated. If they can’t cut the mustard, then the prison should have the right to reject them.

After making the application, taking his tests, submitting to a personal interview, and writing a composition telling why he believes he would make a good prisoner, the candidate would be sent home, and told that he would be notified by the FBI about whether he made it or not. If he failed to get in, the candidate could reapply again - after he robbed another bank.

Many people say that by being selective, we would be making too many demands on our prisoners; but the taxpayers are paying for them, and we should have the right have the best convicts that money can buy. It isn’t the courts, nor is it the physical facilities holding us back, but the fact that we have not concentrated on improving the quality of the people we take in.

For years we have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for inmates, and it’s no wonder they don’t live up to our expectations.“

[Josh]

Ken,

Unchecked crime creates poverty - and also means people need to be sealed up in cars for their own safety.

People who decide they can rob and murder others simply can’t be part of a functional society and need to be either executed or securely locked away. (Placing them in work camps would also be a good idea; farms could be set up where they could work to grow their own food. If they don’t work, then they don’t need to eat.)

[temporal1]

As Art Buchwald said, “It has been known for years that prisons have been filled with a very low-class type of inmate, some of without any education, others who are unstable, and some who are just plain antisocial.

No effort has been made to attract a better grade of prisoner, who would not only improve the caliber of our rehabilitation programs, but would also make society treat prisoners with the respect they deserve. For too long now we’ve been taking our prisoners for granted, and the standard for convicted felons has declined to a point where almost anyone can get into prison without his qualifications being questioned.

This trend must reverse if we ever hope to rehabilitate our prisoners. The first thing to do would be to set up recruiting drives in high schools and colleges to get a better class of inmate. This would have to be coupled with higher pay for prisoners, so being behind bars would become worthwhile.

Intelligence tests have to be set up at prisons to weed out those unfit to be imprisoned. Then personal interviews would be given to prospective convicts to see if they’ve got what it takes to be rehabilitated. If they can’t cut the mustard, then the prison should have the right to reject them.

After making the application, taking his tests, submitting to a personal interview, and writing a composition telling why he believes he would make a good prisoner, the candidate would be sent home, and told that he would be notified by the FBI about whether he made it or not. If he failed to get in, the candidate could reapply again - after he robbed another bank.

Many people say that by being selective, we would be making too many demands on our prisoners; but the taxpayers are paying for them, and we should have the right have the best convicts that money can buy. It isn’t the courts, nor is it the physical facilities holding us back, but the fact that we have not concentrated on improving the quality of the people we take in.

For years we have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for inmates, and it’s no wonder they don’t live up to our expectations.“

ditto for Congress and the White House.

[Josh]

A look back:

[Soloist]

Assuming for a moment that it was correct, you are being intentionally difficult. They were not saying that the end would be in 5 years. They are worried about a run away change.

[Sudsy]

If we want to build a more sustainable life like that practiced by the Amish in a nation of 330 million it is going to mean learning to live in closer proximity to each other and getting out of our cars. There is no other way to do it.

I heard somewhere where the life changing Gospel of Jesus Christ was the answer to all these things. I guess it has moved way down the list for a possible solution to most problems.