Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say)

From: "spike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:36:54 -0800

> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Samantha Atkins
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say)
> 
> Everything is a technological dead end if it cannot be defended against
> every possible terrorist act?  This would be life totally controlled by
> our fear.  I wouldn't want to live there.  Would you?
> 
> - samantha

Let's not make it easy for them.  Subways make terrorism
too easy.  That would lead to having our lives controlled
by fear.  Let us build stuff that is more robust.  Roads 
and freeways are better than subways anyhow.

spike

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Joseph Bloch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:58:59 -0500

Says someone who has obviously not tried to live in Boston and own a car 
at the same time...

;-)

Joseph

Enhance your body "beyond well" and your mind "beyond normal":
http://www.humanenhancement.com

New Jersey Transhumanist Association:
http://www.goldenfuture.net/njta

---

From: "spike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:23:58 -0800

Roads and freeways are better than subways anyhow.

spike

________________________________________
On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch

Says someone who has obviously not tried to live in Boston and own a car at
the same time...

;-)

Joseph 

Oy, ain't it the truth.  I have travelled to Boston, and
ja parking is a huge problem there.  Driving is a huge
problem there too: the roads go every which way.

But I have a suggested solution to this.  Clearly there
are cities that were built before there were cars.  There
is no easy way to retrofit these places: there are buildings
right where the parking lots need to go.  

The suggestion is to let those cities be just as they
are, and build entirely new ones nearby.  Then historical
structures can be left standing, and those that want a
place to park will gravitate toward the newer more efficient
cities.  Everyone then can have what they want, and the
overall effect is a more robust landscape.

California seems to be drifting in this direction.  The
local historical societies want to preserve any building
that can be reliably dated to the twentieth century.  I
don't see why they couldn't apply the historical preservation
rules to parking lots.

An example of de facto drift to more efficient city
layouts can be seen all around us.  Cities evolve.  Leave
the old ones to historians and build new from the ground up.

spike