Brian Atkins <email@example.com> wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > Jutta.Stoeckel@t-online.de (Brian Atkins) wrote:
> > > I am playing devil's advocate here... why aren't all you non-US folk
> > > moving here? Laying aside for the moment the INS/immigration issues-
> > Possible reasons for not moving: being afraid of crime rates. Preferring
> > to live in dense pedestrian-oriented cities, not boonie real estate or
> > suburban
> You could live in NYC if you prefer. It is quite safe if you live in a
> nice area.
1) Only so many people can live in NYC. Large numbers of Europeans moving
from London and Paris and Basel and Amsterdam into NYC/Boston/San Francsico
just doesn't work.
2) So you live in a nice area (and pay extra for that), and learn to avoid
visiting bad areas. Or you can live in a city which doesn't have that sort of
bad area, partly because of the nasty welfare and health care systems.
> > deserts. Not wishing to partake in a culture dependent upon cars (and
> > cheap gas and subsidized roads, to trade cheap shots.) Dependency on a
> Nonsense, you can live pretty much anywhere and still get around by bicycle
> if you really want to limit yourself to that. Or you could live in Europe
This may be actually false, for parts of LA connected only by freeways. I've
been on a bus which spends two minutes on the freeway, apparently because
there are no connecting streets.
And denser cities (think of it as making efficient use of the third dimension)
make it easier to walk or bike.
> heavier). Let's face it: good cars = maximum mobility/freedom.
I'll remember that the next time I walk past the parking lots the downtown
streets here turn into. Or look out the window at the cars waiting to get
onto the Bay Bridge. Waiting, waiting, waiting...
Cars have their advantages. They also have their costs. Besides the obvious
ones -- paying for the car, insuring the car, insuring yourself -- there's
what having _lots_ of cars does to a place. Parking problems. (Or monetary
cost.) Gridlock. If places are spaced out, to allow more parking, then
that's more distance to drive, and people who'd otherwise have walked, biked,
or taken the bus now start driving as well, eating up the parking space.
> Dependency... what would you have us all just walk around? At some point
The question was why people might decline moving to the US. I gave a reason.
People who enjoy commuting through Silicon Valley can stay there; I'll stay in
San Francisco. And others will stay in cities with good public
transportation. The market at work, yes?
> we have to wed ourselves to technology and its attendant risks.
We do? We can't say "no, this isn't worth it, this is bad tool for the job"?
> > a much higher baseline concern for the quality of food. A feeling that
> More FUD
I wasn't talking about health quality. I was talking about taste. I haven't
eaten in Europe, but I've heard this from a lot of people who have.
> > Europeans are better educated and more interesting, or that it's easier to
> > find those who are, in coffeehouses and such.
> If you are willing to sacrifice so many things to have this "feeling" and
> the ability to visit a coffeehouse in the flesh (vs. virtual chats) then
> I think you should re-evaluate your logic.
Well, the very first item on the list was a claim that Americans were more
interesting; this last item is a suggestion that Europeans are more
interesting. Works both way, yes?
And you think virtual chat works the same way as talking to people in person,
in coffeehouses or elsewhere? The memory of Extropy #3 comes to mind...
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:33:55 MDT