Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7235Re: [carfree_cities] ANSE Island

Expand Messages
  • emperor@ansempire.net
    May 10, 2004
      Hello Steve:

      Steve Geller wrote:

      > The human territorial instinct has ensured that every island on the planet
      > is claimed by some nation. Trying to take over one of them
      > can be dangerous to a group's health. China makes threatening
      > noises about Taiwan. Indonesia fought over West Irian.
      > Argentina and Britain went to war over the Falklands.
      > The American Indian Movement held Alcatraz for a while.
      > Look at what happened to the urban "islands" held by
      > the Branch Davidians and MOVE.

      I agree with you. That is why we have chosen to build an island rather than
      attempt to claim sovereignty over an already existing island, or to attempt
      to take land by force. Our numbers are just too small for conflict at the
      moment. We would prefere peace, of course, but we expect that we will have
      to defend our island at some point.

      > I don't think any island nations have found it comfortable
      > to be car-free. Singapore hasn't. Iceland hasn't.
      > Taiwan sure hasn't, even though they use a lot of scooters.
      > Britain and Ireland haven't.

      I suppost that has a lot to do with how their cities are built. I think the
      author might agree.

      > Even isolated island communities still keep cars.
      > The only exception I could think of immediately
      > was the island of Mackinac, off Michigan.
      > Being car-free is a selling point for its tourist economy.

      We have a member who lives on Mackinac Island although I didn't know much
      about it to ask him anything about it until now.

      > Sounds difficult and expensive. The island economy would have to have
      > some strong export component, like Singapore's shipping or Qatar's oil.
      > What would be really great would be to find s shoal attached to
      > a diamond pipe.

      That would be nice, but not likely at the site we have chosen. We expect
      that agricultural will be the largest export. We are looking into the
      possibility of setting up a smaller satalite island for a casino.

      > The image I get is something like French Frigate Shoals, Hawaii,
      > which was built up to be habitable by the USN/USCG.
      > http://www.radiojerry.com/frigate/

      I will have to look into this site.

      > I suppose a group like ANSE could get first rights on a new island,
      > as it rose from an undersea volcano.

      Perhaps, but I am not sure that it would be practicle to try to establish
      any city on it, unless you like putting out your city every so often.

      > Even for a shoal, there's the concept of exclusive national economic
      > The US and Canada, normally happy neighbors, have squabbled over fishing
      > rights. Iceland tangled with the Brits.

      Yes, territorial waters = 12 nauticle miles, economic zones, up to 200
      nauticle miles. We will have to deal with Mexico on this one.

      > Even the Nazis in Germany didn't get close to a pure racial nation.
      > Germans have always come in many racial strains -- not all are
      > blond blue-eyed "aryans". No nation has. One of the main reasons
      > for racial diversity has been the importation of slaves in the past
      > and guest workers today. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are unlikely
      > to remain racially pure if they keep importing workers.

      Adolf Hitler realized this fact. He was short and certianly didn't have
      blond hair. The concept was to evolve the race to be better than it is. I
      think every race can do this and keep pure bloodlines. Of course, pure is a
      reletive term. Again, even Adolf realized this. His idea was that we could
      atone for the dilution of the bloodlines by working to make them better and
      better over time. Euginics was to be the means.

      > Your island ANSE nation might find it needs "other" people
      > living there to keep the place running.

      I am sure that we can do what any "other" person could do effectivly enough.

      > Japan still seems fairly racially homogeneous. They have decent
      > public transportation, but are nowhere near car-free.

      I like Japan because the people there embrace technology. However, they are
      a bit overcrowded. At least from what I've see. I've never been there, but
      everytime I see something on TV about Japan, the scene is just... dense.
      Dense with people, buildings, cars, etc.

      > The common features of car-free places seem to be
      > small size, isolation, or geography inconvenient for roads.
      > An urban areas, can be car-free if people can get to nearly
      > all their destinations on foot, as in the Moroccan Medinas.

      I believe that is the idea that the author was attempting to get across when
      he spoke of the campus of the school he attended. Getting to a place on foot
      is the ideal way to do it but everything has to be close, within walking
      distance. When this is not practical, bikes and public transportation can be

      Living in Denver, Colorado for a time, I have to say that there is an
      extensive public transportation system there (primarily busses). That makes
      it convenient to get around. I lived there for a little over two years and
      never had a car until my last two months there. When I moved back to
      Arkansas, I was reminded of the utter lack of public transport. Sure, Little
      Rock and North Little Rock have busses, but not many. And I live in Conway,
      Arkansas. No public transportation here at all. In order to live and do the
      things necessary to living (work, grocery shopping, etc.) one MUST have a
      car or do without the most basic needs.

    • Show all 12 messages in this topic