- This topic has 210 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
34f3f3f.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 28, 2009 at 11:32 AM #438668July 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM #437998
(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantI am just glad that I already bought at the bottom (not a Downtown condo BTW).
July 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM #438201ParticipantI am just glad that I already bought at the bottom (not a Downtown condo BTW).
July 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM #438523ParticipantI am just glad that I already bought at the bottom (not a Downtown condo BTW).
July 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM #438595ParticipantI am just glad that I already bought at the bottom (not a Downtown condo BTW).
July 28, 2009 at 1:18 PM #438763ParticipantI am just glad that I already bought at the bottom (not a Downtown condo BTW).
July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM #438008briansd1
Guest[quote=qwerty007]With land prices being what they are, I see building upwards being the trend for the future. De-urbanisation, community building, centralised town planning, public transportation, affordable housing, eco-living, oh yeah, and de-parochialisation crash course.[/quote]
Doesn’t de-urbanization contradict centralized planning and densification and public transport?
Eco-living will not work. It’s just a marketing fad. The best way to be eco-friendly is to consume less and to reproduce less.
Cut all consumption by 50%. Most Americans could easily reduce their clothing purchases by 50% and drive their cars twice as long and double the replacement cycle of their goods. That would collapse the economy but be great for the environment.
Our society is based on consumption so I don’t see eco-living happening. Green is a marketing slogan to make consumers feel less guilty about consuming.
July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM #438211Guest[quote=qwerty007]With land prices being what they are, I see building upwards being the trend for the future. De-urbanisation, community building, centralised town planning, public transportation, affordable housing, eco-living, oh yeah, and de-parochialisation crash course.[/quote]
Doesn’t de-urbanization contradict centralized planning and densification and public transport?
Eco-living will not work. It’s just a marketing fad. The best way to be eco-friendly is to consume less and to reproduce less.
Cut all consumption by 50%. Most Americans could easily reduce their clothing purchases by 50% and drive their cars twice as long and double the replacement cycle of their goods. That would collapse the economy but be great for the environment.
Our society is based on consumption so I don’t see eco-living happening. Green is a marketing slogan to make consumers feel less guilty about consuming.
July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM #438533Guest[quote=qwerty007]With land prices being what they are, I see building upwards being the trend for the future. De-urbanisation, community building, centralised town planning, public transportation, affordable housing, eco-living, oh yeah, and de-parochialisation crash course.[/quote]
Doesn’t de-urbanization contradict centralized planning and densification and public transport?
Eco-living will not work. It’s just a marketing fad. The best way to be eco-friendly is to consume less and to reproduce less.
Cut all consumption by 50%. Most Americans could easily reduce their clothing purchases by 50% and drive their cars twice as long and double the replacement cycle of their goods. That would collapse the economy but be great for the environment.
Our society is based on consumption so I don’t see eco-living happening. Green is a marketing slogan to make consumers feel less guilty about consuming.
July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM #438605Guest[quote=qwerty007]With land prices being what they are, I see building upwards being the trend for the future. De-urbanisation, community building, centralised town planning, public transportation, affordable housing, eco-living, oh yeah, and de-parochialisation crash course.[/quote]
Doesn’t de-urbanization contradict centralized planning and densification and public transport?
Eco-living will not work. It’s just a marketing fad. The best way to be eco-friendly is to consume less and to reproduce less.
Cut all consumption by 50%. Most Americans could easily reduce their clothing purchases by 50% and drive their cars twice as long and double the replacement cycle of their goods. That would collapse the economy but be great for the environment.
Our society is based on consumption so I don’t see eco-living happening. Green is a marketing slogan to make consumers feel less guilty about consuming.
July 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM #438774Guest[quote=qwerty007]With land prices being what they are, I see building upwards being the trend for the future. De-urbanisation, community building, centralised town planning, public transportation, affordable housing, eco-living, oh yeah, and de-parochialisation crash course.[/quote]
Doesn’t de-urbanization contradict centralized planning and densification and public transport?
Eco-living will not work. It’s just a marketing fad. The best way to be eco-friendly is to consume less and to reproduce less.
Cut all consumption by 50%. Most Americans could easily reduce their clothing purchases by 50% and drive their cars twice as long and double the replacement cycle of their goods. That would collapse the economy but be great for the environment.
Our society is based on consumption so I don’t see eco-living happening. Green is a marketing slogan to make consumers feel less guilty about consuming.
July 29, 2009 at 2:07 AM #43826734f3f3f
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=qwerty007]
Doesn’t de-urbanization contradict centralized planning and densification and public transport?
Eco-living will not work. It’s just a marketing fad. The best way to be eco-friendly is to consume less and to reproduce less.
Cut all consumption by 50%. Most Americans could easily reduce their clothing purchases by 50% and drive their cars twice as long and double the replacement cycle of their goods. That would collapse the economy but be great for the environment.
Our society is based on consumption so I don’t see eco-living happening. Green is a marketing slogan to make consumers feel less guilty about consuming.[/quote]
Read urbanisation soCal style viz; suburbanisation. So yes, a possible diction error. Eco-living will not work? That may depend on how you define eco-living, but perhaps you can offer some thoughts on why using alternative fuels, installing photo-voltaic cells, re-cycling, and consuming less “won’t work”? Fads are a by-product of the media-driven, consumer-oriented information age we live in. If fads are an effective means to get a Sword of Damocles message across then that might say more about us than the means. And if the message is one of doom vs consumption then I would have thought it makes people more guilty about consuming, not less.
July 29, 2009 at 2:07 AM #438470Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=qwerty007]
Doesn’t de-urbanization contradict centralized planning and densification and public transport?
Eco-living will not work. It’s just a marketing fad. The best way to be eco-friendly is to consume less and to reproduce less.
Cut all consumption by 50%. Most Americans could easily reduce their clothing purchases by 50% and drive their cars twice as long and double the replacement cycle of their goods. That would collapse the economy but be great for the environment.
Our society is based on consumption so I don’t see eco-living happening. Green is a marketing slogan to make consumers feel less guilty about consuming.[/quote]
Read urbanisation soCal style viz; suburbanisation. So yes, a possible diction error. Eco-living will not work? That may depend on how you define eco-living, but perhaps you can offer some thoughts on why using alternative fuels, installing photo-voltaic cells, re-cycling, and consuming less “won’t work”? Fads are a by-product of the media-driven, consumer-oriented information age we live in. If fads are an effective means to get a Sword of Damocles message across then that might say more about us than the means. And if the message is one of doom vs consumption then I would have thought it makes people more guilty about consuming, not less.
July 29, 2009 at 2:07 AM #438794Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=qwerty007]
Doesn’t de-urbanization contradict centralized planning and densification and public transport?
Eco-living will not work. It’s just a marketing fad. The best way to be eco-friendly is to consume less and to reproduce less.
Cut all consumption by 50%. Most Americans could easily reduce their clothing purchases by 50% and drive their cars twice as long and double the replacement cycle of their goods. That would collapse the economy but be great for the environment.
Our society is based on consumption so I don’t see eco-living happening. Green is a marketing slogan to make consumers feel less guilty about consuming.[/quote]
Read urbanisation soCal style viz; suburbanisation. So yes, a possible diction error. Eco-living will not work? That may depend on how you define eco-living, but perhaps you can offer some thoughts on why using alternative fuels, installing photo-voltaic cells, re-cycling, and consuming less “won’t work”? Fads are a by-product of the media-driven, consumer-oriented information age we live in. If fads are an effective means to get a Sword of Damocles message across then that might say more about us than the means. And if the message is one of doom vs consumption then I would have thought it makes people more guilty about consuming, not less.
July 29, 2009 at 2:07 AM #438868Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=qwerty007]
Doesn’t de-urbanization contradict centralized planning and densification and public transport?
Eco-living will not work. It’s just a marketing fad. The best way to be eco-friendly is to consume less and to reproduce less.
Cut all consumption by 50%. Most Americans could easily reduce their clothing purchases by 50% and drive their cars twice as long and double the replacement cycle of their goods. That would collapse the economy but be great for the environment.
Our society is based on consumption so I don’t see eco-living happening. Green is a marketing slogan to make consumers feel less guilty about consuming.[/quote]
Read urbanisation soCal style viz; suburbanisation. So yes, a possible diction error. Eco-living will not work? That may depend on how you define eco-living, but perhaps you can offer some thoughts on why using alternative fuels, installing photo-voltaic cells, re-cycling, and consuming less “won’t work”? Fads are a by-product of the media-driven, consumer-oriented information age we live in. If fads are an effective means to get a Sword of Damocles message across then that might say more about us than the means. And if the message is one of doom vs consumption then I would have thought it makes people more guilty about consuming, not less.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.