Fred, much of what you suggest here has been tried on a small scale in
communities across the country. Carefully planned developments with strict
rules about what residents can and cannot do, designs that force people to
walk rather than ride for certain daily activities such as collecting their
mail, and so on exist. And even Congress has gotten into the act
attempting to pass social legislation (and sometimes actually passing the
laws). They tend to fail when implemented in any appreciable size because
most humans refuse to be boxed in by such rules.
I don't like the city or county government telling me I can't have a live
chicken in my back yard, or I can't grow certain types of trees because the
"committee" doesn't like them. I am a licensed amateur radio operator and
like to put up antennas. I also own a satellite receiving system. In many
places those would not be allowed.
I am an individualist and I don't want some gov'ment burro crat telling
me how to live. And I think there are enough others like me that many of
those concepts will never be approved. Maybe not though. The
improbability of getting an informed citizenry is a big reason why. Not to
mention getting them involved.
> e) put technology at the service of societys needs and interests
>while not neglecting environmental needs and concerns;
A few nuts (some in positions of power) think my antennas are a hazard to
--Dan in Sunny Puerto Rico--
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command