3 ms·

Stop digging your (energy-efficient, metaphorical) grave! You lost this argument five levels up when you started making assertions explicitly in conflict with t

Stop digging your (energy-efficient, metaphorical) grave! You lost this argument five levels up when you started making assertions explicitly in conflict with the laws of physics. I can understand if you prefer the countryside: maybe you don't enjoy how people continuously try to correct you when you're wrong. Or these bike-riding eco-hippies just smell funny. But then you should be glad that others enjoy cities (and logic): if we try to evenly disperse them among the liveable space of the earth, I guarantee you there will be some neighbours moving in far to close for your comfort.

xte 8y ago
Ok, so I imaging that the fact I heat my home with far less bill that my ancient and smaller apartment was a figment of my imagination... Also I imaging that the total (semi-public) skyrocketing high cost of public transportation in my old city per capita are higher than the cost of private transportation in the countryside again per capita because of someone conspiracy... What you do not understand is that we do not live since today for today, we do not build new cities and houses from ground to the ceiling today. We need to evolve and we can evolve far more in the countryside as a result while in theory tall buildings are more efficient than single houses, in practice we have more "newer" individual houses and less newer tall building so in the end the practice is the opposite. Perhaps you do not even understand why speed trains does not gain traction in the USA but works well enough in French because of the urbanization level of certain area those density are so high that the cost of "pierce" the urbanized area is so high nobody try to sustain. Essentially you study too much the details that you loss the sight of the big picture, a common mistake these days.

3 ms·

Stop digging your (energy-efficient, metaphorical) grave! You lost this argument five levels up when you started making assertions explicitly in conflict with t

by matt4077 8y ago

xte 8y ago
Ok, so I imaging that the fact I heat my home with far less bill that my ancient and smaller apartment was a figment of my imagination... Also I imaging that the total (semi-public) skyrocketing high cost of public transportation in my old city per capita are higher than the cost of private transportation in the countryside again per capita because of someone conspiracy... What you do not understand is that we do not live since today for today, we do not build new cities and houses from ground to the ceiling today. We need to evolve and we can evolve far more in the countryside as a result while in theory tall buildings are more efficient than single houses, in practice we have more "newer" individual houses and less newer tall building so in the end the practice is the opposite. Perhaps you do not even understand why speed trains does not gain traction in the USA but works well enough in French because of the urbanization level of certain area those density are so high that the cost of "pierce" the urbanized area is so high nobody try to sustain. Essentially you study too much the details that you loss the sight of the big picture, a common mistake these days.