The Green Thing

[Seer]

How many of you have seen this?
The Green Thing
In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation didn't care enough to save our environment."

He was right -- our generation didn't have "the green thing" in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But he was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.
In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.
When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

That's right: we didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service.
We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.


But isn't it sad that the current generation laments on how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?
Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart-mouthed young person.

 

[pfde4]

Very well put miss them days.

 

[onewaywood]

WOW that was fantastic, I already sent it to my wife and a fellow pen turner "who by the way was my mentor for Penturning."

 

[sbell111]

I hate chain emails. I hate them just as much when people post them to forums.

This one is a good example of why I hate them. It starts off with what is, if true, a very rare conversation. It then makes some huge imagined argument out of it as if every young wippersnapper on the planet is up in arms about how wasteful their forebears were eighty years ago. The writer then ignores all of the ways that that generation really did screw up the planet to minimize the things that the younger folks are doing right.

Whatever.

 

[76winger]

Great write-up. If this was on Facebook I'd have to "Like" it. :biggrin:

:cowboy:

 

[renowb]

But the content is true, IMHO.

I hate chain emails. I hate them just as much when people post them to forums.

This one is a good example of why I hate them. It starts off with what is, if true, a very rare conversation. It then makes some huge imagined argument out of it as if every young wippersnapper on the planet is up in arms about how wasteful their forebears were eighty years ago. The writer then ignores all of the ways that that generation really did screw up the planet to minimize the things that the younger folks are doing right.

Whatever.

 

[underdog]

I hate chain emails. I hate them just as much when people post them to forums.

Really? You hate the OP? Do you even know them? :frown:

It then makes some huge imagined argument out of it as if every young wippersnapper on the planet is up in arms about how wasteful their forebears were eighty years ago.

To be fair, young whippersnappers are really up in arms about the way we're screwing up the Planit, and the newspapers have been filled with accounts of their outrage. Jst Google "Global Warming" and look at all the flame wars started by young smart alecs, and some not so young smart alecs.

The writer then ignores all of the ways that that generation really did screw up the planet to minimize the things that the younger folks are doing right.

Ok. Yeah, the older generation did do some pretty dumb things out of ignorance. But then again, they didn't do so badly as this list of things points out so vividly. Some of the things that are blatantly epidemic today, such as obesity, overflowing landfills, and out of control spending, were NOT an issue back then... And then again, some of the things they 'screwed up' were really just some greenie getting their undergarments in a wad over nothing... I've read that DDT wasn't really the problem folks made it out to be... and remember the Alar scare?

Cut the man some slack. And don't be such a grinch.

 

[glycerine]

"We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull."

That's a GREAT selling point for fountain pens, refillable rollerballs and double edge razors!!

 

[Russianwolf]

We'll if memory serves the recycling of bottles was a corporate idea. It cost them less to buy the bottles back from the consumer and sterilize than to make new ones. So they charged you if you kept them, and gave you back some if you returned them. The recycling wasn't out of some sense of being green, it was a money factor. (some states still require the buy back of bottles (glass and plastic) to encourage the recycling, but the companies aren't as interested any more)

The post is right about the 300hp car. Very few engines back then were capable of reaching those power levels. But they also used as much or more fuel to get the power numbers they were achieving, so that one is kinda moot.

And ask yourself this. If you were parenting a grammer school aged child today, would you let them ride their bike or walk to school? A lot of this isn't from being lazy, its from being safe. Times have changed. I remember walking through neighborhoods as a child that I wouldn't walk through now as an adult.

So yes, both generations have done good and bad. but highlighting one side while ignoring the other isn't productive.

 

[moke]

Back Then-- there was no hip replacement or bypass surgery

How many people on this site have had heart surgery or stints? Are you ok with just dieing of heart failure?

The world evolves...no stopping that. The older generation has complained about the younger generation since the beginning of time.

And one TV or radio per house? Now that is downright offensive!!!!

 

[sbell111]

I hate chain emails. I hate them just as much when people post them to forums.

Really? You hate the OP? Do you even know them? :frown:

Where did I state that I hated anyone?

 

[JimB]

I think the OP proves the current generation right. How can that be? Well, let's compare the older generation to the 'even older generations'.

Street car or bus - well, no. Take the horse, horse and buggy or walk.
One outlet per room - electicity? What's that!. Light a candle.
Water fountain - No electricity. No indoor plumbing either. Go out to the well and bring up a bucket of water.
Replace a razor blade - I don't think so. Just sharpen your straight edge.

I'll stop there as I'm sure you get the idea. Comparing what one generation has to the previous generation and calling one 'green' and the other 'not green' is not a fair comparision.

 

[IPD_Mr]

, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull."

You just are not that old or you were privileged. Straight razor and a leather strop. Didn't waste a thing.

Steve - I understand what you are saying but lets put it into perspective. What we did as a nation in 1900 did not have near the effect that the same actions would today. The main reason is population growth. From 1900 to 2000 we went from 80 mill to 300 mill. Most families were not two car families until the 1970s. Disasters in the 1920s and 1930s were small to today's standards. Hindenburg was so tragic, but there were only 35 fatalities. Don't recall anything like Exxon Valdez or the BP spill in the Gulf occurring in the 1920s or 1930s.
Each generation has it's own faults, most are no greater than the others.

 

[sbell111]

It might be important to remember that, if that email were true, it wouldn't be a comparison of coming of age at the turn of the last century to today. It would be a comparison of coming of age in the sixties or seventies and today. Those people that can remember the birth of the double edge razor and the like can't, because they are long dead.

 

[IPD_Mr]

Steve - I think you missed the point. It doesn't matter if the story is true or not. The point was to show the wastefulness of the world today vs for many of us, our Grandparents era. My sole surviving grandmother was born in 1912 so I think more of her generation, which I believe they classify as the silent generation.

Now if the sender of the email ended this with a "send this to 10 people or bad luck will fall upon you", then I will personally join you in the lynch mob. :biggrin::biggrin:

 

[underdog]

Where did I state that I hated anyone?

Ok. Sorry. My Bad. :redface: Totally misread your statement to read that you hated chain emails almost as bad as you hated those that posted them...
Obviously that's not what you wrote, but that's what set off my rant.

If that's what you had said, it may have warranted even stronger sentiments than I expressed.

Sorry for popping off... I'll go back to my corner and put my dunce hat on...

 

[LandfillLumber]

I read good points and what I consider foolish points.For me it comes down to and effort or not,you either are trying to help the earth or not.Many of us do this at different levels depending on many factors(time,ease.etc.),I had a person tell me two years ago on this forum that I was not trying hard enough becuse I drove and old truck that was bad on gas and polluted the air,LOL.That was well I'll just say it stupid if I had the money to drive a better truck or to run a veggie vehicle I would a second.Every week I put out more recycling then I do trash,no one else on the street does but I don't judge.But if they never put out recycling then I think they are lazy and a waste of what little clean oxygen we have left.I'm different from many as I think these debates are very healthy and needed to figure these things out best we can.I have been flamed before on the IAP for starting such debates(some call them arguements,I don't),but its important to have many minds speaking about one issue.That's my two cents take for what its worth and if your not a fan of my opinion that is fine,Thank You,Victor

 

[bitshird]

The one thing that ticks me off is the plastic water bottles, we put a filter on our tap, and bought a couple of refillable, washable water bottles, we really do have too much plastic in our Brave New World, and some of us were environmentally conscious waaaayy back in the 60's Just cause some spike haired dufus dyes his spiked Mohawk hair do green, doesn't mean he's doing it for ecological reasons, some of us old farts cared way back when.
and am I glad we have developed new medicines and techniques like arterial bypass grafts You durn tootin buckaroo. Hip and joint replacements I'll let you know in a year or two when the pain meds don't work any more!!

 

[sbwertz]

And one TV or radio per house? Now that is downright offensive!!!!

I was in high school before we got our first tv. We did have two radios...I got one for my 12th birthday, and my folks had one. I was married and had two kids before we got our first tv after I was married. My kids were teenagers before we had our first color tv.

We still have only one tv, and it is a CRT, not an LED, and is about 15 years old. (It doesn't get used much. Every Sunday I turn it on and it is still on the NASCAR channel where it was turned off the previous Sunday.)

We have one radio...an XM radio in our stereo system.

Sorry that you find that offensive.

 

[Smitty37]

Shucks

And one TV or radio per house? Now that is downright offensive!!!!

I was in high school before we got our first tv. We did have two radios...I got one for my 12th birthday, and my folks had one. I was married and had two kids before we got our first tv after I was married. My kids were teenagers before we had our first color tv.

We still have only one tv, and it is a CRT, not an LED, and is about 15 years old. (It doesn't get used much. Every Sunday I turn it on and it is still on the NASCAR channel where it was turned off the previous Sunday.)

We have one radio...an XM radio in our stereo system.

Sorry that you find that offensive.

The real problem is that we have way too much stuff.

I was born in the 1930s and grew up in the 1940s and 1950s. Living standards were entirely different and at that time ( with a population about 50% of today's population) society did not create any thing like
50% of the trash created today.

Junk mail hadn't been invented yet. No fliers, no ads, no invitations to get credit cards. If it came in the mail it was first class letters or bills and there were darn few bills because almost everybody paid cash for nearly all their purchases.

Newspapers and magazines were recycled. Until just before I went in the Navy in the mid-1950s. Steel cans and almost all othe iron and steel went to scrap yards and from them it went to be reused.

Labor was cheap compared to "things" so eveything that broke was fixed. Now labor is expensive and to fix something often costs more than to replace it unless you fix it yourself.

Yes, coal was burned to heat houses and operate steelmills and factories and generate electricity.

Folks weren't "green" because we didn't have to be. We had more energy than we knew what to do with.

Cars weren't very fuel efficient because they didn't have to be - as late as 1967/68 I was paying about a quarter a gallon for gas and the USA was a net exporter of oil (that changed in 1969). Two car families were rare until the late 60s and early 70s so while there were half as many people there were less than half as many cars. Get rid of half the cars now and we'd have no worries about using too much foreign oil.

A typical house was wired for 60 amp service. If we could still do that we'd have far more than enough electricity with less power plants and using much less oil.

Yes our generation gave this country the means to have far, far more stuff than is needed. Can we get along without many of the "things" -- sure we can. We just don't want to. But, don't blame the ones who created the prosperity.

 

[EBorraga]

Pretty intersting comments so far. I guess I fall into the generation x category. I have 1 tv in the bedroom and 1 in the living room. A radio in the kitchen, living room, garage, and woodshop. I truly only watch speedvision and netflix. I listen to the radio constantly, mostly public radio and banjo music. As for vehicles I have 5. I do recycle everything. I also save all the tabs of my cans for my neighbor to help with cancer research. I don't consider myself to be green. There is a grocery store close by that requires people to bring their own bags to shop there. They also don't accept credit/debit cards. I refuse to shop there for those reasons. I save all my Kroger bags and use them for trash bags. I have a couple of HotRods as well. One that's over 450hp and it gets 30 mpg. I find it rather ammusing that people always assume that the younger people don't care. I'm sure when you all were young you heard the same crap.

 

[Smitty37]

One Very Big Factor

Think of this -- in 1957 Congress passed the National Defense Highway (later to become the interstate highway system). In one fell swoop, all of our lives were changed forever.

Consider how much less gasoline we would use wihout the interstate highway system?

Consider how many more of us would live "in town" rather than in the suburbs.

Most people living today can't remember when cities really were where people lived --- and worked. Factories were right down town, people walked to work or took a bus or subway. Scools didn't need a bus fleet to get the kids to school, they lived close enough to walk.

When we decided to build highways rather than rely on trains for intercity transportation it set the stage for virtually all of the major environmental problems we have today.

Beginning with the Model T Ford, the USA hitched our economy and our life style to the automobile and it has been pretty much that way ever since.

Cars meant prosperity. Cars meant travel for common man, not just the wealthy few and we built this country on the automobile. We became absurdly rich and made half the world rich right along with us....and make no mistake about this, without the USA the world over all would be a lot poorer than it is. We were, and still are to a large degree, what made the tide rise and that rising tide raised all the ships.

 

[sbell111]

... Two car families were rare until the late 60s and early 70s so while there were half as many people there were less than half as many cars. Get rid of half the cars now and we'd have no worries about using too much foreign oil. ...

Actually, that plan would likely increase the amount of gas used, not decrease it.

Between my wife and I, we have five cars. All five of those cars are not burning fuel at the same time. Many days, in fact, the only vehicle that is used is the one that I drive to work. If we only had one vehicle, however, we would double our driven miles on those days because my wife would drive me to work and pick me up.

Consider how much less gasoline we would use wihout the interstate highway system?

I suspect that our gas usage would increase considerably. After all, we would still have to drive from A to B, we just wouldn't be able to do so on the relatively efficient highways.

Consider how many more of us would live "in town" rather than in the suburbs.

As population increased over the years, people would still push out from the cities.

Most people living today can't remember when cities really were where people lived --- and worked. Factories were right down town, people walked to work or took a bus or subway. Scools didn't need a bus fleet to get the kids to school, they lived close enough to walk.

You are ignoring the fact that the population has greatly increased since you were a child in the 1930s.

 

[Smitty37]

... Two car families were rare until the late 60s and early 70s so while there were half as many people there were less than half as many cars. Get rid of half the cars now and we'd have no worries about using too much foreign oil. ...

Actually, that plan would likely increase the amount of gas used, not decrease it.

Between my wife and I, we have five cars. All five of those cars are not burning fuel at the same time. Many days, in fact, the only vehicle that is used is the one that I drive to work. If we only had one vehicle, however, we would double our driven miles on those days because my wife would drive me to work and pick me up.

Probably not. My wife and I had one car the first 5 years we were married - she drove me to work 2 or 3 times a month.

Consider how much less gasoline we would use wihout the interstate highway system?

I suspect that our gas usage would increase considerably.

After all, we would still have to drive from A to B, we just wouldn't be able to do so on the relatively efficient highways. Point A and point B would likely be much closer together for a lot of descretionary driving. Much more freight would be moved by train.

Consider how many more of us would live "in town" rather than in the suburbs.

As population increased over the years, people would still push out from the cities.

A thousand year world history of constant growth of the center cities denies that.

Most people living today can't remember when cities really were where people lived --- and worked. Factories were right down town, people walked to work or took a bus or subway. Scools didn't need a bus fleet to get the kids to school, they lived close enough to walk.

You are ignoring the fact that the population has greatly increased since you were a child in the 1930s.

Not at all the population has increased by a factor of about 150% since 1940. The number of cars on the road has increased by far more than that and the number of people living "down town" has actually decreased since then along with the rural population while the suburbs (which require much more driving) have exploded.

And actually, while I was born in the 1930s I grew up in the 1940s and 50s. I don't remember anything about the 30s.

 

[Russianwolf]

Granted I wasn't alive back then, but all the history stuff I've read and watched seems to imply that before the industrial revolution, the only major cities you tended to have were hub cities which tended to be ports, and even the hubs were no where near the size of the major cities these days. Otherwise the population was spread throughout the countryside. So I guess we should blame industry for making it where we can even support large populations on small areas.


Now if we use DC as an example, You have the business district, the different neighborhoods, and the shopping centers. Taking the Metro (subway) out of the equation since most cities don't have them, you would not want to walk between those areas. DC was originally 100 square miles (a square ten miles on each side), but let VA take Arlington back. So its not huge by today's standards. Driving a car in DC is a huge pain. Going from A to B which are 5 miles apart can take half an hour some days. That's probably 10 miles worth of gas in a 30mpg car if you didn't have to stop and go.

So I don't think the cities made things better necessarily. As cities grew, increases in disease and crime happened just a couple examples.

 

[sbell111]

... Two car families were rare until the late 60s and early 70s so while there were half as many people there were less than half as many cars. Get rid of half the cars now and we'd have no worries about using too much foreign oil. ...

Actually, that plan would likely increase the amount of gas used, not decrease it.

Between my wife and I, we have five cars. All five of those cars are not burning fuel at the same time. Many days, in fact, the only vehicle that is used is the one that I drive to work. If we only had one vehicle, however, we would double our driven miles on those days because my wife would drive me to work and pick me up.

Probably not. My wife and I had one car the first 5 years we were married - she drove me to work 2 or 3 times a month.

That may have worked fine for you, but my wife would need the vehicle to get her work done and in case there was a need to run an errand, take the kids somewhere, or help out her elderly parents.

Consider how much less gasoline we would use wihout the interstate highway system?

I suspect that our gas usage would increase considerably. After all, we would still have to drive from A to B, we just wouldn't be able to do so on the relatively efficient highways.

Point A and point B would likely be much closer together for a lot of descretionary driving. Much more freight would be moved by train.

With the population increase, it is very unlikely that all people would continue to live in cities as you surmise.

Consider how many more of us would live "in town" rather than in the suburbs.

As population increased over the years, people would still push out from the cities.

A thousand year world history of constant growth of the center cities denies that.

It certainly does not. The mere fact that many people live in cities does not prove that most people would do so. The very fact that many people choose long commutes over city life proves your theory to be wrong.

Most people living today can't remember when cities really were where people lived --- and worked. Factories were right down town, people walked to work or took a bus or subway. Scools didn't need a bus fleet to get the kids to school, they lived close enough to walk.

You are ignoring the fact that the population has greatly increased since you were a child in the 1930s.

Not at all the population has increased by a factor of about 150% since 1940. The number of cars on the road has increased by far more than that and the number of people living "down town" has actually decreased since then along with the rural population while the suburbs (which require much more driving) have exploded.

I can only assume that your 'number of cars on the road' data is based on registered vehicles. As I explained previously, the mere fact that a family owns multiple vehicles (in our case, five) doesn't mean that there is a corresponding increase in cars on the road. Further, your statement that the number of people living in the cities has decreased appears to contradict your previous argument that growth of city centers proves that people would remain in the cities if the interstate system did not exist.

Note: Please do not insert your responses within the quotes of others. Doing so makes the conversation very confusing for others as the practice makes it appear that one person posted something that he did not. This problem becomes exacerbated when the altered post is replied to.

 

[Smitty37]

History

Granted I wasn't alive back then, but all the history stuff I've read and watched seems to imply that before the industrial revolution, the only major cities you tended to have were hub cities which tended to be ports, and even the hubs were no where near the size of the major cities these days. Otherwise the population was spread throughout the countryside. So I guess we should blame industry for making it where we can even support large populations on small areas.


Now if we use DC as an example, You have the business district, the different neighborhoods, and the shopping centers. Taking the Metro (subway) out of the equation since most cities don't have them, you would not want to walk between those areas. DC was originally 100 square miles (a square ten miles on each side), but let VA take Arlington back. So its not huge by today's standards. Driving a car in DC is a huge pain. Going from A to B which are 5 miles apart can take half an hour some days. That's probably 10 miles worth of gas in a 30mpg car if you didn't have to stop and go.

So I don't think the cities made things better necessarily. As cities grew, increases in disease and crime happened just a couple examples.

Well the Greek city States go back quite a way...so did Troy, Carthage, Rome, Alexandria in Egypt, Baghdad, ....quite a long list.

London was a major city close to 1000 years ago as was Paris, Rome, Constantinople.Byzentium/Istanbul was a major city at least 1800 years ago.

To say cities were not major population centers ignores history. Cities were needed for protection and commerce about as long as there has been history.

Cities were usually surrounded by what you would call a green zone that provided the food, etc. Those who worked the land often lived in the city and went out to work in the morning. That goes back at least to Biblical times.

Even when I was young most cities DID have decent public transportation, trollies, and or buses in many of them. Bigger cities also had decent feeders, usually trains or buses and people commuted from up to 100 miles away to places like NY.

Here we have no disagreement. I didn't say (or didn't mean to say) that cities made things "better". But living down town rather than in the suburbs made things different.

Washington DC is an exception....it was not designed to be a big city. It was planned for mostly transient living for a lot of people and a government much much smaller and with many many less employees and far less lobbiests than we actually have. It is terrible to drive in because it wasn't designed to drive through. Most cities weren't.

 

[Seer]

What I was thinking when I posted this was it is a shame our society has become a throy away society which I absolutely abhor even though I need a few of these items. I will not buy throw away razors I wll change the blade (straight razors scare me) since I started making pens I will never buy a pen again, just the refills. In other words this was not meant to offend anyone and I am sorry if it did, but it sure did open a can of worms here.

 

[Russianwolf]

Granted I wasn't alive back then, but all the history stuff I've read and watched seems to imply that before the industrial revolution, the only major cities you tended to have were hub cities which tended to be ports, and even the hubs were no where near the size of the major cities these days. Otherwise the population was spread throughout the countryside. So I guess we should blame industry for making it where we can even support large populations on small areas.


Now if we use DC as an example, You have the business district, the different neighborhoods, and the shopping centers. Taking the Metro (subway) out of the equation since most cities don't have them, you would not want to walk between those areas. DC was originally 100 square miles (a square ten miles on each side), but let VA take Arlington back. So its not huge by today's standards. Driving a car in DC is a huge pain. Going from A to B which are 5 miles apart can take half an hour some days. That's probably 10 miles worth of gas in a 30mpg car if you didn't have to stop and go.

So I don't think the cities made things better necessarily. As cities grew, increases in disease and crime happened just a couple examples.

Well the Greek city States go back quite a way...so did Troy, Carthage, Rome, Alexandria in Egypt, Baghdad, ....quite a long list.

London was a major city close to 1000 years ago as was Paris, Rome, Constantinople.Byzentium/Istanbul was a major city at least 1800 years ago.

To say cities were not major population centers ignores history. Cities were needed for protection and commerce about as long as there has been history.

Cities were usually surrounded by what you would call a green zone that provided the food, etc. Those who worked the land often lived in the city and went out to work in the morning. That goes back at least to Biblical times.

Even when I was young most cities DID have decent public transportation, trollies, and or buses in many of them. Bigger cities also had decent feeders, usually trains or buses and people commuted from up to 100 miles away to places like NY.

Here we have no disagreement. I didn't say (or didn't mean to say) that cities made things "better". But living down town rather than in the suburbs made things different.

Washington DC is an exception....it was not designed to be a big city. It was planned for mostly transient living for a lot of people and a government much much smaller and with many many less employees and far less lobbiests than we actually have. It is terrible to drive in because it wasn't designed to drive through. Most cities weren't.

And all those cities were Hubs and at those times they didn't have populations to rival those of the rural areas. Most people during those times didn't live in major cities.

For Example: London - compare these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London#Population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England

A thousand years ago, London had maybe 20k people or about 1% of the population of the country. It peaked in 1939 with about 20% of the population living in London.

Small towns and the rural areas made up the majority of the population of the world before the industrial age.

As to DC, it did have a trolly system and still has buses. but those run on streets and take the same kind of time and fuel as cars do in congestion. Remember trollys were powered by coal, and they had no way to store the energy so the system was running constantly even if the trollys were in traffic. Was it more efficient than cars, yes, but less harmful than today's cars? debatable. I removed the metro as it was not available then and still isn't in most cities.

 

[Smitty37]

... Two car families were rare until the late 60s and early 70s so while there were half as many people there were less than half as many cars. Get rid of half the cars now and we'd have no worries about using too much foreign oil. ...

Actually, that plan would likely increase the amount of gas used, not decrease it.

Between my wife and I, we have five cars. All five of those cars are not burning fuel at the same time. Many days, in fact, the only vehicle that is used is the one that I drive to work. If we only had one vehicle, however, we would double our driven miles on those days because my wife would drive me to work and pick me up.

Probably not. My wife and I had one car the first 5 years we were married - she drove me to work 2 or 3 times a month.

That may have worked fine for you, but my wife would need the vehicle to get her work done and in case there was a need to run an errand, take the kids somewhere, or help out her elderly parents.

Consider how much less gasoline we would use wihout the interstate highway system?

I suspect that our gas usage would increase considerably. After all, we would still have to drive from A to B, we just wouldn't be able to do so on the relatively efficient highways.

Point A and point B would likely be much closer together for a lot of descretionary driving. Much more freight would be moved by train.

With the population increase, it is very unlikely that all people would continue to live in cities as you surmise.

Consider how many more of us would live "in town" rather than in the suburbs.

As population increased over the years, people would still push out from the cities.

A thousand year world history of constant growth of the center cities denies that.

It certainly does not. The mere fact that many people live in cities does not prove that most people would do so. The very fact that many people choose long commutes over city life proves your theory to be wrong.

Most people living today can't remember when cities really were where people lived --- and worked. Factories were right down town, people walked to work or took a bus or subway. Scools didn't need a bus fleet to get the kids to school, they lived close enough to walk.

You are ignoring the fact that the population has greatly increased since you were a child in the 1930s.

Not at all the population has increased by a factor of about 150% since 1940. The number of cars on the road has increased by far more than that and the number of people living "down town" has actually decreased since then along with the rural population while the suburbs (which require much more driving) have exploded.

I can only assume that your 'number of cars on the road' data is based on registered vehicles. As I explained previously, the mere fact that a family owns multiple vehicles (in our case, five) doesn't mean that there is a corresponding increase in cars on the road.
Further, your statement that the number of people living in the cities has decreased appears to contradict your previous argument that growth of city centers proves that people would remain in the cities if the interstate system did not exist.



Note: Please do not insert your responses within the quotes of others. Doing so makes the conversation very confusing for others as the practice makes it appear that one person posted something that he did not. This problem becomes exacerbated when the altered post is replied to.

No it doesn't. The interstate highways do exist and in addition they contributed to and actually made practical much more highway building. So saying that more people would be living down town without them isn't contradictory at all.

That the number of cars actually on the road has increased at a more rapid rate than the population growth is obvious. If you had only one car you and your spouse would have to plan a little different and perhaps live a little different. My wife and I today couldn't do with only one car either because of lifestyle differences.

 

[sbell111]

You keep going back and forth with your arguments. I'm no longer sure what your actual position is (other than old=good and young=bad).

 

[bitshird]

as far back as 1798 a mathematician named Thomas Malthus nailed the problem smack on the forehead "I think I may fairly make two postulata. First, that food is necessary to the existence of man. Secondly, that the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state. These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are... Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio."

This was long before we started using crop lands to drill for oil or clearcut the rain forest for farms that burn out in a few years, We lived in a suburb of Los Angeles in the 40's and early 50's when we were ran out by urban sprawl, we had two cars, got our first TV in around 52 or 53, big thing the cabinet was half the size of a refrigerator screen was about 7 inch Diagonal. try ling in a city the size it is now, and not having a decent highway system , I think TV sucks, we have 5 computers, and 1 TV no radios just use a computer. don't buy bottled water and grow as much of our food as we can. PS I really don't hold a lot of hope for the next generation unless they perfect space travel. because the population will and is outstripping the food sources just as Malthus predicted over 200 years ago.

 

[Smitty37]

You keep going back and forth with your arguments. I'm no longer sure what your actual position is (other than old=good and young=bad).

I have asked you before not to state my position - I never said young = bad or old = good.

Truth is I didn't say whether I think the population move from cities to suburbs was either good or bad....just that it had happened and if it hadn't been for the interstate highways it would have been a lot smaller migration.

 

[EBorraga]

I think Kermit the Frog said it the best - "It's Not Easy Being Green" :biggrin:

 

[sbell111]

You keep going back and forth with your arguments. I'm no longer sure what your actual position is (other than old=good and young=bad).

I have asked you before not to state my position - I never said young = bad or old = good.

Truth is I didn't say whether I think the population move from cities to suburbs was either good or bad....just that it had happened and if it hadn't been for the interstate highways it would have been a lot smaller migration.

Given the opportunity to nail down your position, you merely tell us what your position isn't. Thanks for that, I guess.

 

[Smitty37]

No position

You keep going back and forth with your arguments. I'm no longer sure what your actual position is (other than old=good and young=bad).

I have asked you before not to state my position - I never said young = bad or old = good.

Truth is I didn't say whether I think the population move from cities to suburbs was either good or bad....just that it had happened and if it hadn't been for the interstate highways it would have been a lot smaller migration.

Given the opportunity to nail down your position, you merely tell us what your position isn't. Thanks for that, I guess.

I don't have a position on whether the move from the country and small towns to the cities that took place over about a thousand years or so and the move from the cities to the suburbs which has taken place over the last 70 or 80 years is good or bad....They just happened.

Additionally, my position is that without the interstates the more recent move would not have been as pronounced. Can I prove that...no.
My position is also that without the interstates we would have fewer cars on the road, driving fewer miles and would use less gas. I also don't have a position on whether that is good or bad, I just think that it is true. Additionally, I think it is so obvious that I wouldn't attempt to prove it. If you disagree try to prove it wrong.

You seem to be under the impression that because I think something is true that I must either approve or disapprove...not so. There are a lot of things that are true that I take no position on. They just are.

I do think that the USA made a mistake in going as far as we have in favoring Road and Air traffic over water and train traffic (both of which are more economical). That however is a moot position because it can't be proved or disproved only stated as an opinion.

 

[Smitty37]

For what its worth

To understand why I think the Interstate Highway system has had such an impact on energy use look at this site.

http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter8.shtml

Charts 8.1, 8.2 & 8.3 were most interesting to me.

In 1950 when our population was just about half of what it was in 2008 there were around 43 million cars...in 2008 there were around 250 million.
Twice the population and 5 times the number of cars.

In 1950 we logge 3017 vehicle miles per person in the USA. in 2008 we logged 9776 and that was down a little from the peak in 2004.

The interstate was passed in 1956 and the first work started about the same year. While there are still on-going things the year of completion is usually considered to be 1992.

3017 miles were driven per person in the USA in 1950; 3994 in 1960; 5440 in 1970; 6772 in 1980; 8573 in 1990; 9728 in 2000; 10108 in the peak year of 2004 and 9766 in 2008. Remember that is almost 10,000 vehicle miles for every man, woman and child in the USA.

In 1950 we had .286 vehicles per capata in 2009 we had .827 almost 3 times as many vehicles per person.

In 1950 there were .74 vehicles for every civilian employee...in 2008 there were 1.72. That is getting close to two cars for every working person.

Now I believe that the building of the Interstate Highway System is the driving force behind the relocation of where we live, work, shop and go to school, which many might cite as the cause of so many cars being driven so far.

 

[sbell111]

When the roads are crap and the cars are slower and less accommodating, we drive fewer miles. News at eleven.

Not sure what any of that has to do with this thread's topic.

 

[Russianwolf]

I love numbers.

Looking at chart 8.1

If you chart the increases year over year as a percentage, you'll notice that population growth is fairly steady at between 1 and 2 percent every year.

The increase in the number of cars in operation though various from as little as .04% in 1992 and .62% in 2008 to a high of 7.08% in 1951. In fact the 10 highest years of increase are 1951, 1955, 1953, 1956, 1959, 1973, 1965, 1972, 1954, and 1969 in that order.

Oddly enough, those same years are some of the highest percentages in miles driven with 1955, 1951, 1972, 1971, 1953, 1976, 1988, 1959, 1968, and 1978. The highest 1955 at 7.77% and the lowest being 2008 with negative 1.94%. The miles driven looking to have more to do with A) fuel prices (big dip in 2008 and 1974) and B) the economy (1979 and 80, 2001, etc).

 

[Smitty37]

When the roads are crap and the cars are slower and less accommodating, we drive fewer miles. News at eleven.

Not sure what any of that has to do with this thread's topic.

Which is exactly what we had before the interstates.