<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_231232</id>
	<title>How Slums Can Save the Planet</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267266000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://peacecorpsonline.org/standingbear/" rel="nofollow">Standing Bear</a> writes <i>"One billion people live in squatter cities and, according to the UN, this number will double in the next 25 years. Stewart Brand writes in Prospect Magazine about <a href="http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/01/how-slums-can-save-the-planet/">what squatter cities can teach us about future urban living</a>. 'The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents,' writes Brand. 'Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green. They have maximum density &mdash; 1M people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai &mdash; and have minimum energy and material use. People get around by foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or the universal shared taxi.' Brand adds that in most slums recycling is literally a way of life e.g. the Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 rag-pickers. 'Of course, fast-growing cities are far from an unmitigated good. They concentrate crime, pollution, disease, and injustice as much as business, innovation, education, and entertainment,' says Brand. Still, as architect Peter Calthorpe wrote in 1985: 'The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities.'"</i> Reader Kanel adds this note of perspective: <i>"Kevin Kelly is another guy who <a href="http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/07/the\_choice\_of\_c.php">wrote about slums in a very positive light</a>, though he was more interested in self-organisation and why cities are cool, I think. Kelly also reports on the <a href="http://kk.org/ct2/2009/01/slum-tourism.php">strange trend for slum tourism</a>. What we're seeing here is that the 'slums' have become a vehicle for people to bring out their own ideas about cities, humans, and the universe at large. I have a feeling that we're not really going to learn a lot about slums if we study them through these guys."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Standing Bear writes " One billion people live in squatter cities and , according to the UN , this number will double in the next 25 years .
Stewart Brand writes in Prospect Magazine about what squatter cities can teach us about future urban living .
'The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents, ' writes Brand .
'Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green .
They have maximum density    1M people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai    and have minimum energy and material use .
People get around by foot , bicycle , rickshaw , or the universal shared taxi .
' Brand adds that in most slums recycling is literally a way of life e.g .
the Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 rag-pickers .
'Of course , fast-growing cities are far from an unmitigated good .
They concentrate crime , pollution , disease , and injustice as much as business , innovation , education , and entertainment, ' says Brand .
Still , as architect Peter Calthorpe wrote in 1985 : 'The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement .
Each city dweller consumes less land , less energy , less water , and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities .
' " Reader Kanel adds this note of perspective : " Kevin Kelly is another guy who wrote about slums in a very positive light , though he was more interested in self-organisation and why cities are cool , I think .
Kelly also reports on the strange trend for slum tourism .
What we 're seeing here is that the 'slums ' have become a vehicle for people to bring out their own ideas about cities , humans , and the universe at large .
I have a feeling that we 're not really going to learn a lot about slums if we study them through these guys .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standing Bear writes "One billion people live in squatter cities and, according to the UN, this number will double in the next 25 years.
Stewart Brand writes in Prospect Magazine about what squatter cities can teach us about future urban living.
'The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents,' writes Brand.
'Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green.
They have maximum density — 1M people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai — and have minimum energy and material use.
People get around by foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or the universal shared taxi.
' Brand adds that in most slums recycling is literally a way of life e.g.
the Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 rag-pickers.
'Of course, fast-growing cities are far from an unmitigated good.
They concentrate crime, pollution, disease, and injustice as much as business, innovation, education, and entertainment,' says Brand.
Still, as architect Peter Calthorpe wrote in 1985: 'The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement.
Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities.
'" Reader Kanel adds this note of perspective: "Kevin Kelly is another guy who wrote about slums in a very positive light, though he was more interested in self-organisation and why cities are cool, I think.
Kelly also reports on the strange trend for slum tourism.
What we're seeing here is that the 'slums' have become a vehicle for people to bring out their own ideas about cities, humans, and the universe at large.
I have a feeling that we're not really going to learn a lot about slums if we study them through these guys.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304400</id>
	<title>Summary of article: great but we won't live there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267358520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So a brief summary of the article would appear to be: affluent Westerners  living in air conditioned, well educated, health insured cosmopolitan urban areas think that slums with no sewage facilities, running water, health care or protection against corruption or physical violence are a great way of housing migrant, poor populations. Said poor will have more opportunities in life if they live in urban slums than rural poverty. Rich authors of articles do not offer to move out of their million dollar homes to move into the slums, despite singing their praises.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a brief summary of the article would appear to be : affluent Westerners living in air conditioned , well educated , health insured cosmopolitan urban areas think that slums with no sewage facilities , running water , health care or protection against corruption or physical violence are a great way of housing migrant , poor populations .
Said poor will have more opportunities in life if they live in urban slums than rural poverty .
Rich authors of articles do not offer to move out of their million dollar homes to move into the slums , despite singing their praises .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a brief summary of the article would appear to be: affluent Westerners  living in air conditioned, well educated, health insured cosmopolitan urban areas think that slums with no sewage facilities, running water, health care or protection against corruption or physical violence are a great way of housing migrant, poor populations.
Said poor will have more opportunities in life if they live in urban slums than rural poverty.
Rich authors of articles do not offer to move out of their million dollar homes to move into the slums, despite singing their praises.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305104</id>
	<title>Slums are models for software too</title>
	<author>Mr\_Blank</author>
	<datestamp>1267367940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of the <a href="http://www.laputan.org/mud/mud.html#BigBallOfMud" title="laputan.org">BIG BALL OF MUD</a> [laputan.org] theory by Brian Foote and Joseph Yoder at the Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.</p><blockquote><div><p>Shantytowns are squalid, sprawling slums. Everyone seems to agree they are a bad idea, but forces conspire to promote their emergence anyway. What is it that they are doing right?</p><p>Shantytowns are usually built from common, inexpensive materials and simple tools. Shantytowns can be built using relatively unskilled labor. Even though the labor force is "unskilled" in the customary sense, the construction and maintenance of this sort of housing can be quite labor intensive. There is little specialization. Each housing unit is constructed and maintained primarily by its inhabitants, and each inhabitant must be a jack of all the necessary trades. There is little concern for infrastructure, since infrastructure requires coordination and capital, and specialized resources, equipment, and skills. There is little overall planning or regulation of growth. Shantytowns emerge where there is a need for housing, a surplus of unskilled labor, and a dearth of capital investment. Shantytowns fulfill an immediate, local need for housing by bringing available resources to bear on the problem. Loftier architectural goals are a luxury that has to wait.</p><p>All too many of our software systems are, architecturally, little more than shantytowns. Investment in tools and infrastructure is too often inadequate. Tools are usually primitive, and infrastructure such as libraries and frameworks, is under-capitalized. Individual portions of the system grow unchecked, and the lack of infrastructure and architecture allows problems in one part of the system to erode and pollute adjacent portions. Deadlines loom like monsoons, and architectural elegance seems unattainable.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Clicky the linky above to read the whole paper.  It is full of useful insights for many disciplines besides computer science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the BIG BALL OF MUD [ laputan.org ] theory by Brian Foote and Joseph Yoder at the Department of Computer Science , University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Shantytowns are squalid , sprawling slums .
Everyone seems to agree they are a bad idea , but forces conspire to promote their emergence anyway .
What is it that they are doing right ? Shantytowns are usually built from common , inexpensive materials and simple tools .
Shantytowns can be built using relatively unskilled labor .
Even though the labor force is " unskilled " in the customary sense , the construction and maintenance of this sort of housing can be quite labor intensive .
There is little specialization .
Each housing unit is constructed and maintained primarily by its inhabitants , and each inhabitant must be a jack of all the necessary trades .
There is little concern for infrastructure , since infrastructure requires coordination and capital , and specialized resources , equipment , and skills .
There is little overall planning or regulation of growth .
Shantytowns emerge where there is a need for housing , a surplus of unskilled labor , and a dearth of capital investment .
Shantytowns fulfill an immediate , local need for housing by bringing available resources to bear on the problem .
Loftier architectural goals are a luxury that has to wait.All too many of our software systems are , architecturally , little more than shantytowns .
Investment in tools and infrastructure is too often inadequate .
Tools are usually primitive , and infrastructure such as libraries and frameworks , is under-capitalized .
Individual portions of the system grow unchecked , and the lack of infrastructure and architecture allows problems in one part of the system to erode and pollute adjacent portions .
Deadlines loom like monsoons , and architectural elegance seems unattainable .
Clicky the linky above to read the whole paper .
It is full of useful insights for many disciplines besides computer science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the BIG BALL OF MUD [laputan.org] theory by Brian Foote and Joseph Yoder at the Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Shantytowns are squalid, sprawling slums.
Everyone seems to agree they are a bad idea, but forces conspire to promote their emergence anyway.
What is it that they are doing right?Shantytowns are usually built from common, inexpensive materials and simple tools.
Shantytowns can be built using relatively unskilled labor.
Even though the labor force is "unskilled" in the customary sense, the construction and maintenance of this sort of housing can be quite labor intensive.
There is little specialization.
Each housing unit is constructed and maintained primarily by its inhabitants, and each inhabitant must be a jack of all the necessary trades.
There is little concern for infrastructure, since infrastructure requires coordination and capital, and specialized resources, equipment, and skills.
There is little overall planning or regulation of growth.
Shantytowns emerge where there is a need for housing, a surplus of unskilled labor, and a dearth of capital investment.
Shantytowns fulfill an immediate, local need for housing by bringing available resources to bear on the problem.
Loftier architectural goals are a luxury that has to wait.All too many of our software systems are, architecturally, little more than shantytowns.
Investment in tools and infrastructure is too often inadequate.
Tools are usually primitive, and infrastructure such as libraries and frameworks, is under-capitalized.
Individual portions of the system grow unchecked, and the lack of infrastructure and architecture allows problems in one part of the system to erode and pollute adjacent portions.
Deadlines loom like monsoons, and architectural elegance seems unattainable.
Clicky the linky above to read the whole paper.
It is full of useful insights for many disciplines besides computer science.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306872</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>genoese</author>
	<datestamp>1267380420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to tackle your discernment of "evil" and see if I can pinpoint it, because I had exactly the same feeling. Please forgive the distasteful imagery in the following, but I think you'll see what I'm trying to do.</p><p>It would seem as if the ultimate, unspoken ideal of the individual who wrote such stuff is the packaging of human meat "on the foot" as "efficiently" as possible, meaning maximum density with minimum overhead (i.e. energy and resource consumption, carbon production, etc). Clearly this is what it must be, once *the well-being and happiness* of those who live in such packing-house conditions (or lack thereof, rather) is not the primary consideration. It's almost as if humans are spoken of as a commodity, rather like chickens or other, perhaps herded, animals.</p><p>A point to ponder: why it is often the case that the same ones who won't eat meat or eggs from anything but free-range chickens because of the unspeakable cruelty of the non-free-range producers ( full disclosure -- I agree with that assessment -- it is cruelty ) think that this kind of thinking is OK for human beings, s long as it makes "Gaia" happy? You very likely would agree with me that such thinking is upside-down. I will not go into that now.</p><p>It is well and good to ponder over how 20+ billion individuals are supposed to share this planet, and indeed it is prudent to do so. But if these ideas are permitted to take root at the center of this pondering, the result can only be beyond horror, with the same old result -- the ones doing the 'central planning' somehow never seem to share the fate of those subjected to their plans. This simply cannot be permitted to happen. Such ideas must be refuted with vigor  everywhere they crop up. Once a human being is seen as mere meat, Stalinist-Russia.Nazi-Germany.Maoist.China 2.0 is the inevitable result.</p><p>Historically the motivations for this are so that the very, very few can live the way they want. Consider comment http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1565742&amp;cid=31304366. I think that captures it, and I believe that's what you're sensing.</p><p>Your assessment is correct. Perhaps I should limit that to saying only that I agree. It is evil.</p><p>Grace and peace</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to tackle your discernment of " evil " and see if I can pinpoint it , because I had exactly the same feeling .
Please forgive the distasteful imagery in the following , but I think you 'll see what I 'm trying to do.It would seem as if the ultimate , unspoken ideal of the individual who wrote such stuff is the packaging of human meat " on the foot " as " efficiently " as possible , meaning maximum density with minimum overhead ( i.e .
energy and resource consumption , carbon production , etc ) .
Clearly this is what it must be , once * the well-being and happiness * of those who live in such packing-house conditions ( or lack thereof , rather ) is not the primary consideration .
It 's almost as if humans are spoken of as a commodity , rather like chickens or other , perhaps herded , animals.A point to ponder : why it is often the case that the same ones who wo n't eat meat or eggs from anything but free-range chickens because of the unspeakable cruelty of the non-free-range producers ( full disclosure -- I agree with that assessment -- it is cruelty ) think that this kind of thinking is OK for human beings , s long as it makes " Gaia " happy ?
You very likely would agree with me that such thinking is upside-down .
I will not go into that now.It is well and good to ponder over how 20 + billion individuals are supposed to share this planet , and indeed it is prudent to do so .
But if these ideas are permitted to take root at the center of this pondering , the result can only be beyond horror , with the same old result -- the ones doing the 'central planning ' somehow never seem to share the fate of those subjected to their plans .
This simply can not be permitted to happen .
Such ideas must be refuted with vigor everywhere they crop up .
Once a human being is seen as mere meat , Stalinist-Russia.Nazi-Germany.Maoist.China 2.0 is the inevitable result.Historically the motivations for this are so that the very , very few can live the way they want .
Consider comment http : //news.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1565742&amp;cid = 31304366 .
I think that captures it , and I believe that 's what you 're sensing.Your assessment is correct .
Perhaps I should limit that to saying only that I agree .
It is evil.Grace and peace</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to tackle your discernment of "evil" and see if I can pinpoint it, because I had exactly the same feeling.
Please forgive the distasteful imagery in the following, but I think you'll see what I'm trying to do.It would seem as if the ultimate, unspoken ideal of the individual who wrote such stuff is the packaging of human meat "on the foot" as "efficiently" as possible, meaning maximum density with minimum overhead (i.e.
energy and resource consumption, carbon production, etc).
Clearly this is what it must be, once *the well-being and happiness* of those who live in such packing-house conditions (or lack thereof, rather) is not the primary consideration.
It's almost as if humans are spoken of as a commodity, rather like chickens or other, perhaps herded, animals.A point to ponder: why it is often the case that the same ones who won't eat meat or eggs from anything but free-range chickens because of the unspeakable cruelty of the non-free-range producers ( full disclosure -- I agree with that assessment -- it is cruelty ) think that this kind of thinking is OK for human beings, s long as it makes "Gaia" happy?
You very likely would agree with me that such thinking is upside-down.
I will not go into that now.It is well and good to ponder over how 20+ billion individuals are supposed to share this planet, and indeed it is prudent to do so.
But if these ideas are permitted to take root at the center of this pondering, the result can only be beyond horror, with the same old result -- the ones doing the 'central planning' somehow never seem to share the fate of those subjected to their plans.
This simply cannot be permitted to happen.
Such ideas must be refuted with vigor  everywhere they crop up.
Once a human being is seen as mere meat, Stalinist-Russia.Nazi-Germany.Maoist.China 2.0 is the inevitable result.Historically the motivations for this are so that the very, very few can live the way they want.
Consider comment http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1565742&amp;cid=31304366.
I think that captures it, and I believe that's what you're sensing.Your assessment is correct.
Perhaps I should limit that to saying only that I agree.
It is evil.Grace and peace</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312886</id>
	<title>Re:Save the planet from WHAT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267475940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Things I've learned from reading your post:</p><p>1) I shouldn't even talk about going to the hospital until someone PROVES that the pain in my chest really is a heart attack, and PROVES that it will kill me if left untreated.</p><p>2) Using the title of legislation to describe what you hope to accomplish with it is:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; a) evil for some reason</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; b) when Democrats do it</p><p>I've never felt so smart!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things I 've learned from reading your post : 1 ) I should n't even talk about going to the hospital until someone PROVES that the pain in my chest really is a heart attack , and PROVES that it will kill me if left untreated.2 ) Using the title of legislation to describe what you hope to accomplish with it is :     a ) evil for some reason     b ) when Democrats do itI 've never felt so smart !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things I've learned from reading your post:1) I shouldn't even talk about going to the hospital until someone PROVES that the pain in my chest really is a heart attack, and PROVES that it will kill me if left untreated.2) Using the title of legislation to describe what you hope to accomplish with it is:
    a) evil for some reason
    b) when Democrats do itI've never felt so smart!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304870</id>
	<title>We don't have a resource problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267365480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of resources, there are too many people.  When people start praising the virtues of living like slum rats, you know society is beginning to lose all perspective.  Overpopulation isn't some far-fetched future problem, it has been a problem for quite some time now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of resources , there are too many people .
When people start praising the virtues of living like slum rats , you know society is beginning to lose all perspective .
Overpopulation is n't some far-fetched future problem , it has been a problem for quite some time now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of resources, there are too many people.
When people start praising the virtues of living like slum rats, you know society is beginning to lose all perspective.
Overpopulation isn't some far-fetched future problem, it has been a problem for quite some time now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307014</id>
	<title>P-shaw...</title>
	<author>MadCat</author>
	<datestamp>1267381500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a westerner living in Jakarta, I am very familiar with slums around here, and believe me, the article is just romanticizing the whole thing. Sure, yay, slums are green. You know why recycling is a way of life there? Because it's the only income some people have. 30.000 rag pickers in Mumbai you say? Well, anyone think they're doing it because they want to be "green"? Fuck no, they're doing it because it puts their meal on the table.</p><p>Just for fun, think about this: You have a wife, and a child. You are living in, say, Jakarta, Indonesia. If you are lucky, every day you have $2 to spend on *everything*. If you aren't lucky, you have $0. Your "house" consists of plywood, 2x4's, maybe some sheet metal, and whatever else you have managed to fish out of the river that you live next to, that is filled with human waste, industrial waste, and god knows what else. This same river has a tendency to flood, so every so often you will have to take whatever belongings you have, and find refuge someplace else. That is, if the police hasn't performed what's colloquilly called an "eksekusi" where the original land owners want the slums cleared. In case the slum residents are unwilling, mysterious fires often solve the problem of them not wanting to move. Oh, I forgot, your trash picking that you do, every day, to bring money home? Yeah, you have to pay the local thugs "protection" money. So in the event that you get lucky and manage to make $2, expect to have to pay half to them. So, there you are with your dollar. Now you have three mouths to feed, clothe, and one child to educate. Of course, you cannot afford to educate your child, so he or she will never get any sort of good job. Food will consist of a bowl of rice. Maybe some veggies if you're lucky. If you're really lucky, a small piece of chicken. Split three ways. You bathe in the same river you shit in, you wash your clothes in the same river you shit in. Your clothes, by the way, are hand-me-downs, or free "event" t-shirts and shorts. You walk barefoot through the most disgusting things. You walk miles daily, barefoot, until your feet are so calloused up you could stand on knife points and not feel it. If you get ill, or injure yourself, the chances of seeing a doctor or the inside of a hospital are next to none.</p><p>Yeah, I see how that's being "green", how that is so "cool" and "urban" and how slums are such a good thing, and how slums are so incredibly self-organising. Some people need to have the blinds removed from their eyes, and see things for themselves. Yet, I want to bet the authors of the respective articles haven't set a damn food inside a slum for longer than the few hours it took to do their "research". Live it for a few months and see if you're still so enthousiastic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a westerner living in Jakarta , I am very familiar with slums around here , and believe me , the article is just romanticizing the whole thing .
Sure , yay , slums are green .
You know why recycling is a way of life there ?
Because it 's the only income some people have .
30.000 rag pickers in Mumbai you say ?
Well , anyone think they 're doing it because they want to be " green " ?
Fuck no , they 're doing it because it puts their meal on the table.Just for fun , think about this : You have a wife , and a child .
You are living in , say , Jakarta , Indonesia .
If you are lucky , every day you have $ 2 to spend on * everything * .
If you are n't lucky , you have $ 0 .
Your " house " consists of plywood , 2x4 's , maybe some sheet metal , and whatever else you have managed to fish out of the river that you live next to , that is filled with human waste , industrial waste , and god knows what else .
This same river has a tendency to flood , so every so often you will have to take whatever belongings you have , and find refuge someplace else .
That is , if the police has n't performed what 's colloquilly called an " eksekusi " where the original land owners want the slums cleared .
In case the slum residents are unwilling , mysterious fires often solve the problem of them not wanting to move .
Oh , I forgot , your trash picking that you do , every day , to bring money home ?
Yeah , you have to pay the local thugs " protection " money .
So in the event that you get lucky and manage to make $ 2 , expect to have to pay half to them .
So , there you are with your dollar .
Now you have three mouths to feed , clothe , and one child to educate .
Of course , you can not afford to educate your child , so he or she will never get any sort of good job .
Food will consist of a bowl of rice .
Maybe some veggies if you 're lucky .
If you 're really lucky , a small piece of chicken .
Split three ways .
You bathe in the same river you shit in , you wash your clothes in the same river you shit in .
Your clothes , by the way , are hand-me-downs , or free " event " t-shirts and shorts .
You walk barefoot through the most disgusting things .
You walk miles daily , barefoot , until your feet are so calloused up you could stand on knife points and not feel it .
If you get ill , or injure yourself , the chances of seeing a doctor or the inside of a hospital are next to none.Yeah , I see how that 's being " green " , how that is so " cool " and " urban " and how slums are such a good thing , and how slums are so incredibly self-organising .
Some people need to have the blinds removed from their eyes , and see things for themselves .
Yet , I want to bet the authors of the respective articles have n't set a damn food inside a slum for longer than the few hours it took to do their " research " .
Live it for a few months and see if you 're still so enthousiastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a westerner living in Jakarta, I am very familiar with slums around here, and believe me, the article is just romanticizing the whole thing.
Sure, yay, slums are green.
You know why recycling is a way of life there?
Because it's the only income some people have.
30.000 rag pickers in Mumbai you say?
Well, anyone think they're doing it because they want to be "green"?
Fuck no, they're doing it because it puts their meal on the table.Just for fun, think about this: You have a wife, and a child.
You are living in, say, Jakarta, Indonesia.
If you are lucky, every day you have $2 to spend on *everything*.
If you aren't lucky, you have $0.
Your "house" consists of plywood, 2x4's, maybe some sheet metal, and whatever else you have managed to fish out of the river that you live next to, that is filled with human waste, industrial waste, and god knows what else.
This same river has a tendency to flood, so every so often you will have to take whatever belongings you have, and find refuge someplace else.
That is, if the police hasn't performed what's colloquilly called an "eksekusi" where the original land owners want the slums cleared.
In case the slum residents are unwilling, mysterious fires often solve the problem of them not wanting to move.
Oh, I forgot, your trash picking that you do, every day, to bring money home?
Yeah, you have to pay the local thugs "protection" money.
So in the event that you get lucky and manage to make $2, expect to have to pay half to them.
So, there you are with your dollar.
Now you have three mouths to feed, clothe, and one child to educate.
Of course, you cannot afford to educate your child, so he or she will never get any sort of good job.
Food will consist of a bowl of rice.
Maybe some veggies if you're lucky.
If you're really lucky, a small piece of chicken.
Split three ways.
You bathe in the same river you shit in, you wash your clothes in the same river you shit in.
Your clothes, by the way, are hand-me-downs, or free "event" t-shirts and shorts.
You walk barefoot through the most disgusting things.
You walk miles daily, barefoot, until your feet are so calloused up you could stand on knife points and not feel it.
If you get ill, or injure yourself, the chances of seeing a doctor or the inside of a hospital are next to none.Yeah, I see how that's being "green", how that is so "cool" and "urban" and how slums are such a good thing, and how slums are so incredibly self-organising.
Some people need to have the blinds removed from their eyes, and see things for themselves.
Yet, I want to bet the authors of the respective articles haven't set a damn food inside a slum for longer than the few hours it took to do their "research".
Live it for a few months and see if you're still so enthousiastic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308344</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267347900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing?</p></div><p>If you have been inculcated with a loathing for yourself and every other member of your non-slum culture then, naturally, you will be inclined to promote the advantages and careful not to discuss the problems.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't put my finger on, I smell evil here, not ignorance.</p></div><p>Either they don't know in which case you have ignorance, or they know and you have evil.  Does it matter?  Why split that hair?</p><p>A later post states:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>+1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe it's just something you have to experience first-hand to really 'get'</p></div><p>Congratulations.  You have discovered the source of passivism; inexperience coupled with a carefully managed imagination.  Some people need to experience shrapnel before they can decide whether it is tolerable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing ? If you have been inculcated with a loathing for yourself and every other member of your non-slum culture then , naturally , you will be inclined to promote the advantages and careful not to discuss the problems.I ca n't put my finger on , I smell evil here , not ignorance.Either they do n't know in which case you have ignorance , or they know and you have evil .
Does it matter ?
Why split that hair ? A later post states : + 1 ... maybe it 's just something you have to experience first-hand to really 'get'Congratulations .
You have discovered the source of passivism ; inexperience coupled with a carefully managed imagination .
Some people need to experience shrapnel before they can decide whether it is tolerable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing?If you have been inculcated with a loathing for yourself and every other member of your non-slum culture then, naturally, you will be inclined to promote the advantages and careful not to discuss the problems.I can't put my finger on, I smell evil here, not ignorance.Either they don't know in which case you have ignorance, or they know and you have evil.
Does it matter?
Why split that hair?A later post states:+1 ... maybe it's just something you have to experience first-hand to really 'get'Congratulations.
You have discovered the source of passivism; inexperience coupled with a carefully managed imagination.
Some people need to experience shrapnel before they can decide whether it is tolerable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31321410</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1267435800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;for some reason I can't put my finger on, I smell evil</p><p>Maybe because you didn't RTFA?</p><p>That's the usual reason for couched speculation here on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; for some reason I ca n't put my finger on , I smell evilMaybe because you did n't RTFA ? That 's the usual reason for couched speculation here on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;for some reason I can't put my finger on, I smell evilMaybe because you didn't RTFA?That's the usual reason for couched speculation here on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307350</id>
	<title>There's plenty of recycling already.</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1267383720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the article, and I see \_some\_ value in it, but it misses the mark by praising slums too much, and not connecting them well to the world people able to read the article live in.  How many people want to live in a space of less than 30 square feet? (which is how much space you get with a million people per square mile).</p><p>We actually already do quite of bit of recycling and re-use.  I shop at thrift stores relatively often, and you can find some incredible bargains if you're willing to look.  Over a period of a year or so for I bought an entire collection of around 10 pieces of old Revere Ware (steel and copper pots and pans) that was probably already 40 years old  and in great condition that'll easily last another 30-40 years.  It easily cost less than $40.  You can find similar deals for construction materials at places like Habitat for Humanity re-use centers.  To many people think old=bad, and new=good.</p><p>I think much of the point is, we can already make better use of the "waste" we produce instead of producing more and disposing of the old.  To some degree I'll bet Craiglist and Ebay have only increased re-use.  I know I've certainly bought a lot of used items on both sites that I wouldn't have had they not existed.  The point being that we don't have to live like people do in slums.   We can learn something from people that are forced to be efficient though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the article , and I see \ _some \ _ value in it , but it misses the mark by praising slums too much , and not connecting them well to the world people able to read the article live in .
How many people want to live in a space of less than 30 square feet ?
( which is how much space you get with a million people per square mile ) .We actually already do quite of bit of recycling and re-use .
I shop at thrift stores relatively often , and you can find some incredible bargains if you 're willing to look .
Over a period of a year or so for I bought an entire collection of around 10 pieces of old Revere Ware ( steel and copper pots and pans ) that was probably already 40 years old and in great condition that 'll easily last another 30-40 years .
It easily cost less than $ 40 .
You can find similar deals for construction materials at places like Habitat for Humanity re-use centers .
To many people think old = bad , and new = good.I think much of the point is , we can already make better use of the " waste " we produce instead of producing more and disposing of the old .
To some degree I 'll bet Craiglist and Ebay have only increased re-use .
I know I 've certainly bought a lot of used items on both sites that I would n't have had they not existed .
The point being that we do n't have to live like people do in slums .
We can learn something from people that are forced to be efficient though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the article, and I see \_some\_ value in it, but it misses the mark by praising slums too much, and not connecting them well to the world people able to read the article live in.
How many people want to live in a space of less than 30 square feet?
(which is how much space you get with a million people per square mile).We actually already do quite of bit of recycling and re-use.
I shop at thrift stores relatively often, and you can find some incredible bargains if you're willing to look.
Over a period of a year or so for I bought an entire collection of around 10 pieces of old Revere Ware (steel and copper pots and pans) that was probably already 40 years old  and in great condition that'll easily last another 30-40 years.
It easily cost less than $40.
You can find similar deals for construction materials at places like Habitat for Humanity re-use centers.
To many people think old=bad, and new=good.I think much of the point is, we can already make better use of the "waste" we produce instead of producing more and disposing of the old.
To some degree I'll bet Craiglist and Ebay have only increased re-use.
I know I've certainly bought a lot of used items on both sites that I wouldn't have had they not existed.
The point being that we don't have to live like people do in slums.
We can learn something from people that are forced to be efficient though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306842</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267380300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... The solution? Massive condom airdrops<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Help the people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  not having children.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... easier access to abortions.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... crime rate has dropped<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a child  will grow to be just another useless gangsta or thug<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>Why?</p><p>War, famine, medical omision, and physical blockade seem to be working rather fine.</p><p>A lot of those "not committing crimes" are doing it Iraq and the Stans.</p><p>And while, the habitual behaviour of hundreds of thousands of directors, employees, associates, collaborators, and sympathizers of too-big-to fail corporations - in finance, automaking, health, energy, tobacco,etc. - does technically constitute crimes of all sorts (from conspiracy and world-court crimes against humanity, all the way to simple murder, rape, corruption, misappropriation, robbery and petty theft). They do not - usually - dwell in slums. So, even if they do abet, conspire, incentivate, and commit crimes of all sorts - usually collective or mass crimes, affecting whole communities or populations - there is no real need to forcibly cull their numbers. Their number and birth-rate being proportionally low - for the general population. Irrespective or their general perniciosness to humanity.</p><p>But, enough of that!</p><p>That is still <b>much</b> better than having a fraction of that conlict-capitalism money de-accumulate and be used to end slums, boost employment, education, innovation, and application of science and technology in social and human development.</p><p>After all, the fewer there are, the more there is for the chosen few, right ?</p><p>Of course, that's all temporary. Society is constantly evolving and improving past these minor development pangs.</p><p>Everything will improve immensely once Tuoblasfemo gets its world-patent on wombs, placental child-bearing and mammalian nurture. After, of course,  introducing its transgenic varieties that contaminate all the seed, ovii, milk, and and placentae on the planet.</p><p>And, then er, "DRM" ( as per previous post on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. ) all pregnancy and childbirth.</p><p>That will happen slightly after GMO-induced mutations settle in your (and the world population's) guts - making those their property. The 'produce' will naturally, be the 'producers' problem - unless they find a way of profiting from it. In which case, you'll be forced to put a DRM-compliant lock and key on your... ahem,  "system".</p><p>And slightly after the world pop's genome gets GMO-tagged, turning humanity into their property - and optional chattel - as well, by the same legal means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... The solution ?
Massive condom airdrops ... Help the people ... not having children .
... easier access to abortions .
... crime rate has dropped ... a child will grow to be just another useless gangsta or thug ...Why ? War , famine , medical omision , and physical blockade seem to be working rather fine.A lot of those " not committing crimes " are doing it Iraq and the Stans.And while , the habitual behaviour of hundreds of thousands of directors , employees , associates , collaborators , and sympathizers of too-big-to fail corporations - in finance , automaking , health , energy , tobacco,etc .
- does technically constitute crimes of all sorts ( from conspiracy and world-court crimes against humanity , all the way to simple murder , rape , corruption , misappropriation , robbery and petty theft ) .
They do not - usually - dwell in slums .
So , even if they do abet , conspire , incentivate , and commit crimes of all sorts - usually collective or mass crimes , affecting whole communities or populations - there is no real need to forcibly cull their numbers .
Their number and birth-rate being proportionally low - for the general population .
Irrespective or their general perniciosness to humanity.But , enough of that ! That is still much better than having a fraction of that conlict-capitalism money de-accumulate and be used to end slums , boost employment , education , innovation , and application of science and technology in social and human development.After all , the fewer there are , the more there is for the chosen few , right ? Of course , that 's all temporary .
Society is constantly evolving and improving past these minor development pangs.Everything will improve immensely once Tuoblasfemo gets its world-patent on wombs , placental child-bearing and mammalian nurture .
After , of course , introducing its transgenic varieties that contaminate all the seed , ovii , milk , and and placentae on the planet.And , then er , " DRM " ( as per previous post on / .
) all pregnancy and childbirth.That will happen slightly after GMO-induced mutations settle in your ( and the world population 's ) guts - making those their property .
The 'produce ' will naturally , be the 'producers ' problem - unless they find a way of profiting from it .
In which case , you 'll be forced to put a DRM-compliant lock and key on your... ahem , " system " .And slightly after the world pop 's genome gets GMO-tagged , turning humanity into their property - and optional chattel - as well , by the same legal means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... The solution?
Massive condom airdrops ... Help the people ...  not having children.
... easier access to abortions.
... crime rate has dropped ... a child  will grow to be just another useless gangsta or thug ...Why?War, famine, medical omision, and physical blockade seem to be working rather fine.A lot of those "not committing crimes" are doing it Iraq and the Stans.And while, the habitual behaviour of hundreds of thousands of directors, employees, associates, collaborators, and sympathizers of too-big-to fail corporations - in finance, automaking, health, energy, tobacco,etc.
- does technically constitute crimes of all sorts (from conspiracy and world-court crimes against humanity, all the way to simple murder, rape, corruption, misappropriation, robbery and petty theft).
They do not - usually - dwell in slums.
So, even if they do abet, conspire, incentivate, and commit crimes of all sorts - usually collective or mass crimes, affecting whole communities or populations - there is no real need to forcibly cull their numbers.
Their number and birth-rate being proportionally low - for the general population.
Irrespective or their general perniciosness to humanity.But, enough of that!That is still much better than having a fraction of that conlict-capitalism money de-accumulate and be used to end slums, boost employment, education, innovation, and application of science and technology in social and human development.After all, the fewer there are, the more there is for the chosen few, right ?Of course, that's all temporary.
Society is constantly evolving and improving past these minor development pangs.Everything will improve immensely once Tuoblasfemo gets its world-patent on wombs, placental child-bearing and mammalian nurture.
After, of course,  introducing its transgenic varieties that contaminate all the seed, ovii, milk, and and placentae on the planet.And, then er, "DRM" ( as per previous post on /.
) all pregnancy and childbirth.That will happen slightly after GMO-induced mutations settle in your (and the world population's) guts - making those their property.
The 'produce' will naturally, be the 'producers' problem - unless they find a way of profiting from it.
In which case, you'll be forced to put a DRM-compliant lock and key on your... ahem,  "system".And slightly after the world pop's genome gets GMO-tagged, turning humanity into their property - and optional chattel - as well, by the same legal means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304970</id>
	<title>TROLL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267366680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">where it belong5,</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>where it belong5 , [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where it belong5, [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305054</id>
	<title>Slums are a liberal utopia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since everyone is equally miserable, Liberals can take great joy in the success of their socioeconomic theory - economic equality through equal suffering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since everyone is equally miserable , Liberals can take great joy in the success of their socioeconomic theory - economic equality through equal suffering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since everyone is equally miserable, Liberals can take great joy in the success of their socioeconomic theory - economic equality through equal suffering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305250</id>
	<title>No one will want to live that way</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1267369080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure being poor is always green but not by choice and claiming the green virtues of a slum town isn't going to mean squat to any one. The biggest thing that needs to be done for pollution and population health is to get people out of their cars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure being poor is always green but not by choice and claiming the green virtues of a slum town is n't going to mean squat to any one .
The biggest thing that needs to be done for pollution and population health is to get people out of their cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure being poor is always green but not by choice and claiming the green virtues of a slum town isn't going to mean squat to any one.
The biggest thing that needs to be done for pollution and population health is to get people out of their cars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304422</id>
	<title>Recycling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267358760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a little shocked that people in the suburbs are always surprised to hear that dense cities, particularly areas with poor people recycle practically everything. In Bogota, Lima, Rio de Janeiro,  and Buenos Aires - HUGE, bustling cities easily on par with the populations of NYC and LA -- it was not the least bit surprising to see an entire family (yes their 4 and 5 year old children happily helped out), or groups of widows, or simply a homeless man working together to pull apart the trashbags left out on the sidewalk and digging through all the thrown away food for the odd aluminum can, recyclable soda bottle, a pile of used staples or bent paperclips. At the end of buisness the streets would be teeming with boys aged 12-15 collecting shreded paper from banks in giant sacks 3' in diameter, carted off on wobbly, self made carts to who knows where, grinning at their great haul. Cleaning crews would show up about an hour later and cart off whatever was left behind (very, very little). Even in Dallas I've had to run off homeless people from my backyard, digging through my trash to find the odd bottle or soda can. Recycling is everywhere -- except the suburbs.<br>
&nbsp; <br>As Santiago, Chile has proven, there are many developed countries that are under the global radar with bustling cities that are rather self sufficient. The huge sprawling, wasteful metroplexes of the US are rather unique. Even poor China and India with their bad pollution recycles practically anything and everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a little shocked that people in the suburbs are always surprised to hear that dense cities , particularly areas with poor people recycle practically everything .
In Bogota , Lima , Rio de Janeiro , and Buenos Aires - HUGE , bustling cities easily on par with the populations of NYC and LA -- it was not the least bit surprising to see an entire family ( yes their 4 and 5 year old children happily helped out ) , or groups of widows , or simply a homeless man working together to pull apart the trashbags left out on the sidewalk and digging through all the thrown away food for the odd aluminum can , recyclable soda bottle , a pile of used staples or bent paperclips .
At the end of buisness the streets would be teeming with boys aged 12-15 collecting shreded paper from banks in giant sacks 3 ' in diameter , carted off on wobbly , self made carts to who knows where , grinning at their great haul .
Cleaning crews would show up about an hour later and cart off whatever was left behind ( very , very little ) .
Even in Dallas I 've had to run off homeless people from my backyard , digging through my trash to find the odd bottle or soda can .
Recycling is everywhere -- except the suburbs .
  As Santiago , Chile has proven , there are many developed countries that are under the global radar with bustling cities that are rather self sufficient .
The huge sprawling , wasteful metroplexes of the US are rather unique .
Even poor China and India with their bad pollution recycles practically anything and everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a little shocked that people in the suburbs are always surprised to hear that dense cities, particularly areas with poor people recycle practically everything.
In Bogota, Lima, Rio de Janeiro,  and Buenos Aires - HUGE, bustling cities easily on par with the populations of NYC and LA -- it was not the least bit surprising to see an entire family (yes their 4 and 5 year old children happily helped out), or groups of widows, or simply a homeless man working together to pull apart the trashbags left out on the sidewalk and digging through all the thrown away food for the odd aluminum can, recyclable soda bottle, a pile of used staples or bent paperclips.
At the end of buisness the streets would be teeming with boys aged 12-15 collecting shreded paper from banks in giant sacks 3' in diameter, carted off on wobbly, self made carts to who knows where, grinning at their great haul.
Cleaning crews would show up about an hour later and cart off whatever was left behind (very, very little).
Even in Dallas I've had to run off homeless people from my backyard, digging through my trash to find the odd bottle or soda can.
Recycling is everywhere -- except the suburbs.
  As Santiago, Chile has proven, there are many developed countries that are under the global radar with bustling cities that are rather self sufficient.
The huge sprawling, wasteful metroplexes of the US are rather unique.
Even poor China and India with their bad pollution recycles practically anything and everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308310</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>martyros</author>
	<datestamp>1267347660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've seen slums in India and I totally agree with you.</p></div></blockquote><p>You've <i>seen</i> them, but have you lived in them?
</p><p>I haven't seen them, but in <i>Shantaram</i>, by Gregory David Roberts, he paints them in a distinctly positive light.  The main character is an Australian, at some point forced by circumstances to move into one of the slums.  Before moving in he talks to two people from the slums.  He realizes later that it was actually an interview: they were there to see if they were going to <i>allow</i> him into their community.  Conditions looked delporable on the outside, but everyone lived as a big community, because their lives all depended on each other.
</p><p>Obviously that's fiction, but it's based on the author's own experience in the slums in Mumbai.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen slums in India and I totally agree with you.You 've seen them , but have you lived in them ?
I have n't seen them , but in Shantaram , by Gregory David Roberts , he paints them in a distinctly positive light .
The main character is an Australian , at some point forced by circumstances to move into one of the slums .
Before moving in he talks to two people from the slums .
He realizes later that it was actually an interview : they were there to see if they were going to allow him into their community .
Conditions looked delporable on the outside , but everyone lived as a big community , because their lives all depended on each other .
Obviously that 's fiction , but it 's based on the author 's own experience in the slums in Mumbai .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen slums in India and I totally agree with you.You've seen them, but have you lived in them?
I haven't seen them, but in Shantaram, by Gregory David Roberts, he paints them in a distinctly positive light.
The main character is an Australian, at some point forced by circumstances to move into one of the slums.
Before moving in he talks to two people from the slums.
He realizes later that it was actually an interview: they were there to see if they were going to allow him into their community.
Conditions looked delporable on the outside, but everyone lived as a big community, because their lives all depended on each other.
Obviously that's fiction, but it's based on the author's own experience in the slums in Mumbai.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298</id>
	<title>Been there and hated it</title>
	<author>zoomshorts</author>
	<datestamp>1267356120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slums? What a retarded story, yes I read it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slums ?
What a retarded story , yes I read it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slums?
What a retarded story, yes I read it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305110</id>
	<title>Save the planet from WHAT?</title>
	<author>gregorio</author>
	<datestamp>1267368000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are saving the planet? From what?<br> <br>

From people? From pollution? From cute grass-jumpin cats? From what?<br> <br>

Why does every spoiled left-wing liberal arts major tags their ideas and projects as something that will "save" earth? Is the new eco religion that self-centered?<br> <br>

About the article: It's funny to see how the radical left (I'm not from the Right, before anyone confuses me with a Pro-Life Republican, I'm not even from the US and I don't vote right-wing where I live) has turned sides on the poverty issue. Things turned from "we should all save the poor from the destruction caused by the heterossexual white man, we should distribute the wealth that was stolen from the poor" into "the poor should stay poor to avoid damaging the environment" after what, one decade?<br> <br>

Nobody can talk about saving the planet until it's PROVEN that the planet needs to saved from anything. This kind of silly tagging reminds me of how Democrats tag their bills with names like "fairness" and "recovery". Until you recover something or bring fairness to a situation, shut up. Don't brag before the results and don't polarize the discussion with charged names. Democrats should respect the discussion and think for at least one moment that 1. They might be wrong, 2. Their solution might not achieve the desired results, 3. The results itself might not be necessary or even prejudicial to the actual issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are saving the planet ?
From what ?
From people ?
From pollution ?
From cute grass-jumpin cats ?
From what ?
Why does every spoiled left-wing liberal arts major tags their ideas and projects as something that will " save " earth ?
Is the new eco religion that self-centered ?
About the article : It 's funny to see how the radical left ( I 'm not from the Right , before anyone confuses me with a Pro-Life Republican , I 'm not even from the US and I do n't vote right-wing where I live ) has turned sides on the poverty issue .
Things turned from " we should all save the poor from the destruction caused by the heterossexual white man , we should distribute the wealth that was stolen from the poor " into " the poor should stay poor to avoid damaging the environment " after what , one decade ?
Nobody can talk about saving the planet until it 's PROVEN that the planet needs to saved from anything .
This kind of silly tagging reminds me of how Democrats tag their bills with names like " fairness " and " recovery " .
Until you recover something or bring fairness to a situation , shut up .
Do n't brag before the results and do n't polarize the discussion with charged names .
Democrats should respect the discussion and think for at least one moment that 1 .
They might be wrong , 2 .
Their solution might not achieve the desired results , 3 .
The results itself might not be necessary or even prejudicial to the actual issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are saving the planet?
From what?
From people?
From pollution?
From cute grass-jumpin cats?
From what?
Why does every spoiled left-wing liberal arts major tags their ideas and projects as something that will "save" earth?
Is the new eco religion that self-centered?
About the article: It's funny to see how the radical left (I'm not from the Right, before anyone confuses me with a Pro-Life Republican, I'm not even from the US and I don't vote right-wing where I live) has turned sides on the poverty issue.
Things turned from "we should all save the poor from the destruction caused by the heterossexual white man, we should distribute the wealth that was stolen from the poor" into "the poor should stay poor to avoid damaging the environment" after what, one decade?
Nobody can talk about saving the planet until it's PROVEN that the planet needs to saved from anything.
This kind of silly tagging reminds me of how Democrats tag their bills with names like "fairness" and "recovery".
Until you recover something or bring fairness to a situation, shut up.
Don't brag before the results and don't polarize the discussion with charged names.
Democrats should respect the discussion and think for at least one moment that 1.
They might be wrong, 2.
Their solution might not achieve the desired results, 3.
The results itself might not be necessary or even prejudicial to the actual issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308390</id>
	<title>This is total crap</title>
	<author>terryfunk</author>
	<datestamp>1267348320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stewart Brand has been going on about this for years. I don't know anyone who would want to live like these people have to. In fact, I challenge Brand to go live as a squatter in Africa.</p><p>What a maroon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stewart Brand has been going on about this for years .
I do n't know anyone who would want to live like these people have to .
In fact , I challenge Brand to go live as a squatter in Africa.What a maroon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stewart Brand has been going on about this for years.
I don't know anyone who would want to live like these people have to.
In fact, I challenge Brand to go live as a squatter in Africa.What a maroon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306414</id>
	<title>Re:It's more environmentally friendly to die.</title>
	<author>Fnkmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1267377540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't the appropriate measure of "greenness" also include quality of life as a factor?  The real goal should be maximizing the ratio of quality of life to resources consumed, not just minimizing resources consumed.</p><p>Yes, living in the slums may be really "green", but it generally sucks as a place to live and surely anybody there would choose to live in a nicer house, in a neighborhood with greenery and proper sewage, and jobs, and electricity, and health care providers, and so on.  As you point out, being dead minimizes resource use entirely, but no sane person would choose that state over living.</p><p>I'd be much more impressed by a description of a community that achieves low resource use with an excellent modern standard of life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the appropriate measure of " greenness " also include quality of life as a factor ?
The real goal should be maximizing the ratio of quality of life to resources consumed , not just minimizing resources consumed.Yes , living in the slums may be really " green " , but it generally sucks as a place to live and surely anybody there would choose to live in a nicer house , in a neighborhood with greenery and proper sewage , and jobs , and electricity , and health care providers , and so on .
As you point out , being dead minimizes resource use entirely , but no sane person would choose that state over living.I 'd be much more impressed by a description of a community that achieves low resource use with an excellent modern standard of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the appropriate measure of "greenness" also include quality of life as a factor?
The real goal should be maximizing the ratio of quality of life to resources consumed, not just minimizing resources consumed.Yes, living in the slums may be really "green", but it generally sucks as a place to live and surely anybody there would choose to live in a nicer house, in a neighborhood with greenery and proper sewage, and jobs, and electricity, and health care providers, and so on.
As you point out, being dead minimizes resource use entirely, but no sane person would choose that state over living.I'd be much more impressed by a description of a community that achieves low resource use with an excellent modern standard of life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304758</id>
	<title>I'll pass</title>
	<author>FatherDale</author>
	<datestamp>1267364160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in India. If this is the future, I'm not interested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in India .
If this is the future , I 'm not interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in India.
If this is the future, I'm not interested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304720</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267363620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes it is cynical.

Poverty is good unless you're rich, in which case poverty becomes essential or you can't be rich</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it is cynical .
Poverty is good unless you 're rich , in which case poverty becomes essential or you ca n't be rich</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it is cynical.
Poverty is good unless you're rich, in which case poverty becomes essential or you can't be rich</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304688</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267363260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was immediately reminded of Isaac Asimov's Caves of Steel.  In that novel the humans live in very, very compact fashion..... basically like dorms.  One dorm per family.  Shared bathrooms/toilets.  They have to because there's not enough energy to live like we live, and support 20 billion people, so the humans must live in the most "green" way possible - minimally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was immediately reminded of Isaac Asimov 's Caves of Steel .
In that novel the humans live in very , very compact fashion..... basically like dorms .
One dorm per family .
Shared bathrooms/toilets .
They have to because there 's not enough energy to live like we live , and support 20 billion people , so the humans must live in the most " green " way possible - minimally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was immediately reminded of Isaac Asimov's Caves of Steel.
In that novel the humans live in very, very compact fashion..... basically like dorms.
One dorm per family.
Shared bathrooms/toilets.
They have to because there's not enough energy to live like we live, and support 20 billion people, so the humans must live in the most "green" way possible - minimally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305588</id>
	<title>Nuts</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1267371720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe that dude is an architect who can design something good, but he has no idea whatsoever what it takes to sustain a city and the people there.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>'The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities.'"</p></div><p>That's just a complete steaming pile of crap.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; There's a rather inhumane experiment that has been performed many times down through history that proves this without any doubt whatsoever. It's repeatable, it is completely scientific and valid, you will get the same results over and over.</p><p>
&nbsp; Wall a city off, or besiege it, whatever, so that no external sources are brought in. Now, see how well these "low impact" people do. Big hint, they starve, run out of fuel, run out of water, etc.</p><p>
&nbsp; Big city dwellers, whether in the scrap constructed slums or the penthouses or in the apartments in between, use the same amount of resources, it is just one or more steps removed from where they are at, they are using all the land, energy, resources,  etc, that anyone else is, <i>just by proxy and delivery truck or delivery wire or delivery freight train or delivery pipeline, and to a large extent by economic exploitation, forced true wealth transference, from other folks, outside of the city, via their physical labor and governmental theft and/or severe underpayment or compensation of natural resources</i>.</p><p>
&nbsp; They don't "exist" in any real sense divorced from outside the city resources. That's some fairy tale I have seen repeated many times by people with no clue whatsoever. Typically I'll read some drivel like "well, I get by with just walking or using my pogo stick or riding the tube, so there, I R just so much greener and "low impact" than you are!!".</p><p>Just clueless. Completely misses how stuff works or where things come from or what real energy and resources are really needed in order so that they can commute by skateboard or rickshaw or "shared taxi" and "live".</p><p>These slum dwellers exist on scrap from what stuff is imported to the more affluent urban dwellers. Remove those imports, eventually even the scrap waste users "go broke", their wealth becomes depleted, and their existence becomes *completely untenable*. Sure they recycle, so do a lot of other people outside the city, so what's the point there, you can only recycle if you live in a city??</p><p>And here's another clue, most of those people in the green slums work as hard as they can in order to get the heck out of that "green" slum, because they live there and know it major league *sucks*.</p><p>
&nbsp; And a lot of them would have never moved to some urban slum or existence in the first place if their rural areas weren't run into the ground economically in the first place by urban centric internal exploitation and colonialism or imperialistic policies. They get their resources stripped bare by governmental and business exploitation, it gets shipped to these big cities, then they become desperate, move to where what were their resources got shipped to.</p><p>
&nbsp; Colonialism doesn't necessarily have to mean as the only definition that nation A goes and takes over and exploits nation B, it frequently means nation A subset b urban scene exploits the heck out of nation A subset c rural areas and peoples. and they can be so overly exploited that they become desperate refugees, even if they get a few bones thrown back at them by the urban scene, it frequently won't be enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe that dude is an architect who can design something good , but he has no idea whatsoever what it takes to sustain a city and the people there .
'The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement .
Each city dweller consumes less land , less energy , less water , and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities .
' " That 's just a complete steaming pile of crap .
    There 's a rather inhumane experiment that has been performed many times down through history that proves this without any doubt whatsoever .
It 's repeatable , it is completely scientific and valid , you will get the same results over and over .
  Wall a city off , or besiege it , whatever , so that no external sources are brought in .
Now , see how well these " low impact " people do .
Big hint , they starve , run out of fuel , run out of water , etc .
  Big city dwellers , whether in the scrap constructed slums or the penthouses or in the apartments in between , use the same amount of resources , it is just one or more steps removed from where they are at , they are using all the land , energy , resources , etc , that anyone else is , just by proxy and delivery truck or delivery wire or delivery freight train or delivery pipeline , and to a large extent by economic exploitation , forced true wealth transference , from other folks , outside of the city , via their physical labor and governmental theft and/or severe underpayment or compensation of natural resources .
  They do n't " exist " in any real sense divorced from outside the city resources .
That 's some fairy tale I have seen repeated many times by people with no clue whatsoever .
Typically I 'll read some drivel like " well , I get by with just walking or using my pogo stick or riding the tube , so there , I R just so much greener and " low impact " than you are ! !
" .Just clueless .
Completely misses how stuff works or where things come from or what real energy and resources are really needed in order so that they can commute by skateboard or rickshaw or " shared taxi " and " live " .These slum dwellers exist on scrap from what stuff is imported to the more affluent urban dwellers .
Remove those imports , eventually even the scrap waste users " go broke " , their wealth becomes depleted , and their existence becomes * completely untenable * .
Sure they recycle , so do a lot of other people outside the city , so what 's the point there , you can only recycle if you live in a city ?
? And here 's another clue , most of those people in the green slums work as hard as they can in order to get the heck out of that " green " slum , because they live there and know it major league * sucks * .
  And a lot of them would have never moved to some urban slum or existence in the first place if their rural areas were n't run into the ground economically in the first place by urban centric internal exploitation and colonialism or imperialistic policies .
They get their resources stripped bare by governmental and business exploitation , it gets shipped to these big cities , then they become desperate , move to where what were their resources got shipped to .
  Colonialism does n't necessarily have to mean as the only definition that nation A goes and takes over and exploits nation B , it frequently means nation A subset b urban scene exploits the heck out of nation A subset c rural areas and peoples .
and they can be so overly exploited that they become desperate refugees , even if they get a few bones thrown back at them by the urban scene , it frequently wo n't be enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe that dude is an architect who can design something good, but he has no idea whatsoever what it takes to sustain a city and the people there.
'The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement.
Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities.
'"That's just a complete steaming pile of crap.
    There's a rather inhumane experiment that has been performed many times down through history that proves this without any doubt whatsoever.
It's repeatable, it is completely scientific and valid, you will get the same results over and over.
  Wall a city off, or besiege it, whatever, so that no external sources are brought in.
Now, see how well these "low impact" people do.
Big hint, they starve, run out of fuel, run out of water, etc.
  Big city dwellers, whether in the scrap constructed slums or the penthouses or in the apartments in between, use the same amount of resources, it is just one or more steps removed from where they are at, they are using all the land, energy, resources,  etc, that anyone else is, just by proxy and delivery truck or delivery wire or delivery freight train or delivery pipeline, and to a large extent by economic exploitation, forced true wealth transference, from other folks, outside of the city, via their physical labor and governmental theft and/or severe underpayment or compensation of natural resources.
  They don't "exist" in any real sense divorced from outside the city resources.
That's some fairy tale I have seen repeated many times by people with no clue whatsoever.
Typically I'll read some drivel like "well, I get by with just walking or using my pogo stick or riding the tube, so there, I R just so much greener and "low impact" than you are!!
".Just clueless.
Completely misses how stuff works or where things come from or what real energy and resources are really needed in order so that they can commute by skateboard or rickshaw or "shared taxi" and "live".These slum dwellers exist on scrap from what stuff is imported to the more affluent urban dwellers.
Remove those imports, eventually even the scrap waste users "go broke", their wealth becomes depleted, and their existence becomes *completely untenable*.
Sure they recycle, so do a lot of other people outside the city, so what's the point there, you can only recycle if you live in a city?
?And here's another clue, most of those people in the green slums work as hard as they can in order to get the heck out of that "green" slum, because they live there and know it major league *sucks*.
  And a lot of them would have never moved to some urban slum or existence in the first place if their rural areas weren't run into the ground economically in the first place by urban centric internal exploitation and colonialism or imperialistic policies.
They get their resources stripped bare by governmental and business exploitation, it gets shipped to these big cities, then they become desperate, move to where what were their resources got shipped to.
  Colonialism doesn't necessarily have to mean as the only definition that nation A goes and takes over and exploits nation B, it frequently means nation A subset b urban scene exploits the heck out of nation A subset c rural areas and peoples.
and they can be so overly exploited that they become desperate refugees, even if they get a few bones thrown back at them by the urban scene, it frequently won't be enough.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306350</id>
	<title>Re:Kevin McCloud explored this</title>
	<author>thePig</author>
	<datestamp>1267377240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus, being a foreigner, he would be provided a much better quality of living by his neighbours, due to the curiosity of the unknown.<br>Plus, being a foreigner, the gangsters would harass him much less, due to the fear of the unknown.<br>Plus, being a foreigner, the police would not even dare to trouble him.<br>Had he lived for say 3 years, and then he writes his experiences, I would give much more value to his words.<br>This, is just sham.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , being a foreigner , he would be provided a much better quality of living by his neighbours , due to the curiosity of the unknown.Plus , being a foreigner , the gangsters would harass him much less , due to the fear of the unknown.Plus , being a foreigner , the police would not even dare to trouble him.Had he lived for say 3 years , and then he writes his experiences , I would give much more value to his words.This , is just sham .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, being a foreigner, he would be provided a much better quality of living by his neighbours, due to the curiosity of the unknown.Plus, being a foreigner, the gangsters would harass him much less, due to the fear of the unknown.Plus, being a foreigner, the police would not even dare to trouble him.Had he lived for say 3 years, and then he writes his experiences, I would give much more value to his words.This, is just sham.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312638</id>
	<title>Improve the quality of rural life</title>
	<author>lpress</author>
	<datestamp>1267387080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is clear that urban slums are terrible places.  It is also clear that the landless rural poor vote with their feet and move to those slums.  Improving the quality of rural life might be a way out.
<p>
Many people have been working to bring Internet connectivity to rural areas of developing nations with this goal in mind.  Social innovators like Grameen Bank have also focused on the rural poor.  We will hopefully invent sustainable means of bringing electric power to villages.
</p><p>
Perhaps we can one day solve the urban slum problem by solving the rural poverty problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is clear that urban slums are terrible places .
It is also clear that the landless rural poor vote with their feet and move to those slums .
Improving the quality of rural life might be a way out .
Many people have been working to bring Internet connectivity to rural areas of developing nations with this goal in mind .
Social innovators like Grameen Bank have also focused on the rural poor .
We will hopefully invent sustainable means of bringing electric power to villages .
Perhaps we can one day solve the urban slum problem by solving the rural poverty problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is clear that urban slums are terrible places.
It is also clear that the landless rural poor vote with their feet and move to those slums.
Improving the quality of rural life might be a way out.
Many people have been working to bring Internet connectivity to rural areas of developing nations with this goal in mind.
Social innovators like Grameen Bank have also focused on the rural poor.
We will hopefully invent sustainable means of bringing electric power to villages.
Perhaps we can one day solve the urban slum problem by solving the rural poverty problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307658</id>
	<title>The grave's a fine and private place</title>
	<author>Viadd</author>
	<datestamp>1267385940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most ecologically sound place to put people is underground.  The dead don't reproduce (though, surprisingly, their number increase every day) and they don't use energy, food, or other resources.</p><p>That doesn't mean that it's a good way to live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most ecologically sound place to put people is underground .
The dead do n't reproduce ( though , surprisingly , their number increase every day ) and they do n't use energy , food , or other resources.That does n't mean that it 's a good way to live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most ecologically sound place to put people is underground.
The dead don't reproduce (though, surprisingly, their number increase every day) and they don't use energy, food, or other resources.That doesn't mean that it's a good way to live.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306390</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1267377480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen slums in India and I totally agree with you. Hell on earth is probably understating it. It's just not possible to express how bad these places are in words, the words just don't exist. No human could see real slums and believe they can teach us anything.</p><p>Stewart Brand and Kevin Kelly should try living in a slum for just 24 hours. The mental scars would last a lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen slums in India and I totally agree with you .
Hell on earth is probably understating it .
It 's just not possible to express how bad these places are in words , the words just do n't exist .
No human could see real slums and believe they can teach us anything.Stewart Brand and Kevin Kelly should try living in a slum for just 24 hours .
The mental scars would last a lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen slums in India and I totally agree with you.
Hell on earth is probably understating it.
It's just not possible to express how bad these places are in words, the words just don't exist.
No human could see real slums and believe they can teach us anything.Stewart Brand and Kevin Kelly should try living in a slum for just 24 hours.
The mental scars would last a lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308188</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267390020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to remember that the paper was written by an insane Marxist, for whom all non-white people are saints, no matter what they are really like.</p><p>What sort of scumbag would have children, in a slum, knowing his children are going to grow up in that filth? The sort of scum who live in slums, that's who.</p><p>Without exception, slums are full of the worst people on Earth, the underclass, the losers. Yeah, yeah, "We're all the same", sure we are. You have no empathy for the children who grow up in those shit environments, with shit parents, who are clearly incapable of feeling the suffering of others, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD CHILDREN IN THE FIRST PLACE.</p><p>Just what we need - a billion more third world scumbags destroying this once beautiful Earth. Try having a conversation with one of these savages about how human beings are destroying the planet - they couldn't care less - that's why they live in a slum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to remember that the paper was written by an insane Marxist , for whom all non-white people are saints , no matter what they are really like.What sort of scumbag would have children , in a slum , knowing his children are going to grow up in that filth ?
The sort of scum who live in slums , that 's who.Without exception , slums are full of the worst people on Earth , the underclass , the losers .
Yeah , yeah , " We 're all the same " , sure we are .
You have no empathy for the children who grow up in those shit environments , with shit parents , who are clearly incapable of feeling the suffering of others , OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD CHILDREN IN THE FIRST PLACE.Just what we need - a billion more third world scumbags destroying this once beautiful Earth .
Try having a conversation with one of these savages about how human beings are destroying the planet - they could n't care less - that 's why they live in a slum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to remember that the paper was written by an insane Marxist, for whom all non-white people are saints, no matter what they are really like.What sort of scumbag would have children, in a slum, knowing his children are going to grow up in that filth?
The sort of scum who live in slums, that's who.Without exception, slums are full of the worst people on Earth, the underclass, the losers.
Yeah, yeah, "We're all the same", sure we are.
You have no empathy for the children who grow up in those shit environments, with shit parents, who are clearly incapable of feeling the suffering of others, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD CHILDREN IN THE FIRST PLACE.Just what we need - a billion more third world scumbags destroying this once beautiful Earth.
Try having a conversation with one of these savages about how human beings are destroying the planet - they couldn't care less - that's why they live in a slum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307386</id>
	<title>Re:Population density</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1267384020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That is my main problem with cities in general. You can eliminate pollution, make the city bike- and walk-friendly, reduce crime etc., but living together with tens of thousands of people tends to increase psychological stress. Well at least it increases my level of stress living in a city, but I guess I'm not alone.</p></div><p>No, you are not alone. Around 300 millions of people agree with you. Almost everyone outside US disagrees, and laughs at how Americans yearn for bucolic rural lifestyle, how they fear and hate each other, and how they end up in suburbs that can be best described as giant cemeteries for the living.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is my main problem with cities in general .
You can eliminate pollution , make the city bike- and walk-friendly , reduce crime etc. , but living together with tens of thousands of people tends to increase psychological stress .
Well at least it increases my level of stress living in a city , but I guess I 'm not alone.No , you are not alone .
Around 300 millions of people agree with you .
Almost everyone outside US disagrees , and laughs at how Americans yearn for bucolic rural lifestyle , how they fear and hate each other , and how they end up in suburbs that can be best described as giant cemeteries for the living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is my main problem with cities in general.
You can eliminate pollution, make the city bike- and walk-friendly, reduce crime etc., but living together with tens of thousands of people tends to increase psychological stress.
Well at least it increases my level of stress living in a city, but I guess I'm not alone.No, you are not alone.
Around 300 millions of people agree with you.
Almost everyone outside US disagrees, and laughs at how Americans yearn for bucolic rural lifestyle, how they fear and hate each other, and how they end up in suburbs that can be best described as giant cemeteries for the living.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304408</id>
	<title>Kevin McCloud explored this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267358580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.channel4.com/4homes/on-tv/kevin-mccloud-slumming-it/" title="channel4.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.channel4.com/4homes/on-tv/kevin-mccloud-slumming-it/</a> [channel4.com]

Quite an interesting documentary series on the benefits and shortcomings of living in slums in Mumbai. He goes and lives in Dharavi for a few weeks and describes his experiences from a micro and macro point of view.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.channel4.com/4homes/on-tv/kevin-mccloud-slumming-it/ [ channel4.com ] Quite an interesting documentary series on the benefits and shortcomings of living in slums in Mumbai .
He goes and lives in Dharavi for a few weeks and describes his experiences from a micro and macro point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.channel4.com/4homes/on-tv/kevin-mccloud-slumming-it/ [channel4.com]

Quite an interesting documentary series on the benefits and shortcomings of living in slums in Mumbai.
He goes and lives in Dharavi for a few weeks and describes his experiences from a micro and macro point of view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305016</id>
	<title>Re:Recycling</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1267367040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because we Americans and Europeans have "time" on our side.  It sounds like those poor persons are spending literally hours searching through trash just to find a few bottles and other knick-knacks.</p><p>In contrast, we in America and Europe only need a few minutes to earn the money and just BUY the bottle.  For us it is not logical to spend hours to get these items.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because we Americans and Europeans have " time " on our side .
It sounds like those poor persons are spending literally hours searching through trash just to find a few bottles and other knick-knacks.In contrast , we in America and Europe only need a few minutes to earn the money and just BUY the bottle .
For us it is not logical to spend hours to get these items .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because we Americans and Europeans have "time" on our side.
It sounds like those poor persons are spending literally hours searching through trash just to find a few bottles and other knick-knacks.In contrast, we in America and Europe only need a few minutes to earn the money and just BUY the bottle.
For us it is not logical to spend hours to get these items.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306744</id>
	<title>Cities use more resources, not less</title>
	<author>hessian</author>
	<datestamp>1267379760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People in the country own more land.</p><p>But they use fewer resources.</p><p>Your land use is not just your dwelling. It's roads, hospitals, schools, stores, bars, gov't agencies and so forth.</p><p>If anything, cities use more land because they offer more services and cater to people who want more things like fast food, nail polishing, designer haircuts, etc.</p><p>How this idiotic and unscientific article got on the front page of Slashdot... I'm guessing it's just an easy pitch for troll batting practice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People in the country own more land.But they use fewer resources.Your land use is not just your dwelling .
It 's roads , hospitals , schools , stores , bars , gov't agencies and so forth.If anything , cities use more land because they offer more services and cater to people who want more things like fast food , nail polishing , designer haircuts , etc.How this idiotic and unscientific article got on the front page of Slashdot... I 'm guessing it 's just an easy pitch for troll batting practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People in the country own more land.But they use fewer resources.Your land use is not just your dwelling.
It's roads, hospitals, schools, stores, bars, gov't agencies and so forth.If anything, cities use more land because they offer more services and cater to people who want more things like fast food, nail polishing, designer haircuts, etc.How this idiotic and unscientific article got on the front page of Slashdot... I'm guessing it's just an easy pitch for troll batting practice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307742</id>
	<title>Food comes from the grocery store</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1267386540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What do you expect from people who believe food comes from the grocery store?

Arithmetic???</htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you expect from people who believe food comes from the grocery store ?
Arithmetic ? ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you expect from people who believe food comes from the grocery store?
Arithmetic???</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304492</id>
	<title>Let me make this abundantly clear...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267360320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would rather subjugate an entire continent into forced labour to maintain my country's standard of living than live in a slum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would rather subjugate an entire continent into forced labour to maintain my country 's standard of living than live in a slum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would rather subjugate an entire continent into forced labour to maintain my country's standard of living than live in a slum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306632</id>
	<title>slums are great... for the other guy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy for Stewart Brand to say all this nonsense from his home in zip code 94965<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>http://www.movoto.com/neighborhood/ca/sausalito/94965.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy for Stewart Brand to say all this nonsense from his home in zip code 94965 ....http : //www.movoto.com/neighborhood/ca/sausalito/94965.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy for Stewart Brand to say all this nonsense from his home in zip code 94965 ....http://www.movoto.com/neighborhood/ca/sausalito/94965.htm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305146</id>
	<title>Clueless Philantropist</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1267368300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA is obviously written by someone that has never even seen a slum, nevermind lived in one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is obviously written by someone that has never even seen a slum , nevermind lived in one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA is obviously written by someone that has never even seen a slum, nevermind lived in one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304328</id>
	<title>Where do the authors live?</title>
	<author>e9th</author>
	<datestamp>1267356780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how many of the cited authors live in "conurbations made up of people who do not legally occupy the land they live on."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many of the cited authors live in " conurbations made up of people who do not legally occupy the land they live on .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many of the cited authors live in "conurbations made up of people who do not legally occupy the land they live on.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308598</id>
	<title>We Need Slums In America</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1267349940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>       There are probably towns in the US that have few if any homeless people. But many areas have large numbers of homeless and certain areas refuse to shelter them. Southern Florida is one such area. The reasoning is that any little thing done to help the homeless may well attract many thousands more. It is like the feeding the pigeon theory. The more you feed the more you get.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And that line of thought has very,very, dangerous roots. When eugenics was in vogue it included the notion that medical care or death prevention allowed the unfit to reproduce. The homeless were considered unfit as they were considered defective in their ability to meet social norms. This actually led to the slaughter of large numbers of Americans. For example one mental hospital deliberately used tuberculosis infested milk to see how many inmates would have the ability to resist the disease. If they got sick they were not treated and the disease took them to their graves.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The tension remains. Ft.Lauderdale has about 8,000 homeless on a typical day. If they are allowed to build huts the fear is that many more will come as the climate here is less harsh. Neglect can be a form of mass murder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are probably towns in the US that have few if any homeless people .
But many areas have large numbers of homeless and certain areas refuse to shelter them .
Southern Florida is one such area .
The reasoning is that any little thing done to help the homeless may well attract many thousands more .
It is like the feeding the pigeon theory .
The more you feed the more you get .
                And that line of thought has very,very , dangerous roots .
When eugenics was in vogue it included the notion that medical care or death prevention allowed the unfit to reproduce .
The homeless were considered unfit as they were considered defective in their ability to meet social norms .
This actually led to the slaughter of large numbers of Americans .
For example one mental hospital deliberately used tuberculosis infested milk to see how many inmates would have the ability to resist the disease .
If they got sick they were not treated and the disease took them to their graves .
              The tension remains .
Ft.Lauderdale has about 8,000 homeless on a typical day .
If they are allowed to build huts the fear is that many more will come as the climate here is less harsh .
Neglect can be a form of mass murder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       There are probably towns in the US that have few if any homeless people.
But many areas have large numbers of homeless and certain areas refuse to shelter them.
Southern Florida is one such area.
The reasoning is that any little thing done to help the homeless may well attract many thousands more.
It is like the feeding the pigeon theory.
The more you feed the more you get.
                And that line of thought has very,very, dangerous roots.
When eugenics was in vogue it included the notion that medical care or death prevention allowed the unfit to reproduce.
The homeless were considered unfit as they were considered defective in their ability to meet social norms.
This actually led to the slaughter of large numbers of Americans.
For example one mental hospital deliberately used tuberculosis infested milk to see how many inmates would have the ability to resist the disease.
If they got sick they were not treated and the disease took them to their graves.
              The tension remains.
Ft.Lauderdale has about 8,000 homeless on a typical day.
If they are allowed to build huts the fear is that many more will come as the climate here is less harsh.
Neglect can be a form of mass murder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305586</id>
	<title>A stupid idea</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1267371720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The slums are not eco-friendly because they are slums but because the people there have a low standard of living.

Burning materials in a non well-controlled way, having houses with little isolation only works in areas where people throw away a lot of burnables and the climate is warm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The slums are not eco-friendly because they are slums but because the people there have a low standard of living .
Burning materials in a non well-controlled way , having houses with little isolation only works in areas where people throw away a lot of burnables and the climate is warm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The slums are not eco-friendly because they are slums but because the people there have a low standard of living.
Burning materials in a non well-controlled way, having houses with little isolation only works in areas where people throw away a lot of burnables and the climate is warm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304732</id>
	<title>Re:Kevin McCloud explored this</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1267363740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"He goes and lives in Dharavi for a few weeks and describes his experiences from a micro and macro point of view."</i>
<br> <br>
All the time knowing he can fly home whenever he wants.
<br> <br>
30yrs ago as a young married guy with one kid I lived on what American's call a trailer park, I worked 60hr weeks as a day labourer on nearby farms which still did not pay enough to live in a rented house. I lost count of the number of tourists I told to go fuck themselves after they had remarked to me what a "carefree lifestyle" I had.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" He goes and lives in Dharavi for a few weeks and describes his experiences from a micro and macro point of view .
" All the time knowing he can fly home whenever he wants .
30yrs ago as a young married guy with one kid I lived on what American 's call a trailer park , I worked 60hr weeks as a day labourer on nearby farms which still did not pay enough to live in a rented house .
I lost count of the number of tourists I told to go fuck themselves after they had remarked to me what a " carefree lifestyle " I had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He goes and lives in Dharavi for a few weeks and describes his experiences from a micro and macro point of view.
"
 
All the time knowing he can fly home whenever he wants.
30yrs ago as a young married guy with one kid I lived on what American's call a trailer park, I worked 60hr weeks as a day labourer on nearby farms which still did not pay enough to live in a rented house.
I lost count of the number of tourists I told to go fuck themselves after they had remarked to me what a "carefree lifestyle" I had.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305708</id>
	<title>Re:You can find someone to agree with any POV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267372560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is just another example of someone saying "I'm rich and the status quo works in my favour.  I am therefore going to defend the status quo, even if that means spouting on about how wonderful it is that all these poor people live in such terrible conditions".</p></div><p>Except that plenty of black South Africans hold a similar view today.<br>http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/Politics/1057/9742dfe2995e427589c77a78fad32d82/27-10-2007-04-34/Better\_off\_under\_apartheid</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another example of someone saying " I 'm rich and the status quo works in my favour .
I am therefore going to defend the status quo , even if that means spouting on about how wonderful it is that all these poor people live in such terrible conditions " .Except that plenty of black South Africans hold a similar view today.http : //www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/Politics/1057/9742dfe2995e427589c77a78fad32d82/27-10-2007-04-34/Better \ _off \ _under \ _apartheid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another example of someone saying "I'm rich and the status quo works in my favour.
I am therefore going to defend the status quo, even if that means spouting on about how wonderful it is that all these poor people live in such terrible conditions".Except that plenty of black South Africans hold a similar view today.http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/Politics/1057/9742dfe2995e427589c77a78fad32d82/27-10-2007-04-34/Better\_off\_under\_apartheid
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31311966</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>lonecrow</author>
	<datestamp>1267378500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You obviously don't know who <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart\_Brand" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Stewart Brand</a> [wikipedia.org] is or you wouldn't suspect him of brainwashing for the Plutarchs.   He basically re-launched the ecological movement in the 60's by lobbing the US government to release a photo of the Earth from space.
<br> <br>
But since your also on slashdot you should also now him from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_WELL" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">TheWELL</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
I for one would love to learn how to have 1m people per square mile in an efficient manner.  Then we could build <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">arcologies</a> [wikipedia.org] like those cool ones in the new Star Trek movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously do n't know who Stewart Brand [ wikipedia.org ] is or you would n't suspect him of brainwashing for the Plutarchs .
He basically re-launched the ecological movement in the 60 's by lobbing the US government to release a photo of the Earth from space .
But since your also on slashdot you should also now him from TheWELL [ wikipedia.org ] I for one would love to learn how to have 1m people per square mile in an efficient manner .
Then we could build arcologies [ wikipedia.org ] like those cool ones in the new Star Trek movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously don't know who Stewart Brand [wikipedia.org] is or you wouldn't suspect him of brainwashing for the Plutarchs.
He basically re-launched the ecological movement in the 60's by lobbing the US government to release a photo of the Earth from space.
But since your also on slashdot you should also now him from TheWELL [wikipedia.org]
 
I for one would love to learn how to have 1m people per square mile in an efficient manner.
Then we could build arcologies [wikipedia.org] like those cool ones in the new Star Trek movie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318</id>
	<title>Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267356540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>do others regard this as cynical as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do others regard this as cynical as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>do others regard this as cynical as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304978</id>
	<title>Re:Recycling</title>
	<author>mobby\_6kl</author>
	<datestamp>1267366740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You present this as a positive thing rather than just a fact of life in these places, so disregard this if this wasn't your intention.</p><p>Some recycling isn't bad of course, but all those people do this mainly because they're really fucking poor, not because they share Al Gore's concerns. There aren't many homeless or very poor people in American suburbs, therefore nobody wants to waste their time picking up bottles and cans off the streets. I don't think young children being forced to do this is a good sign, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You present this as a positive thing rather than just a fact of life in these places , so disregard this if this was n't your intention.Some recycling is n't bad of course , but all those people do this mainly because they 're really fucking poor , not because they share Al Gore 's concerns .
There are n't many homeless or very poor people in American suburbs , therefore nobody wants to waste their time picking up bottles and cans off the streets .
I do n't think young children being forced to do this is a good sign , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You present this as a positive thing rather than just a fact of life in these places, so disregard this if this wasn't your intention.Some recycling isn't bad of course, but all those people do this mainly because they're really fucking poor, not because they share Al Gore's concerns.
There aren't many homeless or very poor people in American suburbs, therefore nobody wants to waste their time picking up bottles and cans off the streets.
I don't think young children being forced to do this is a good sign, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306448</id>
	<title>And do any of these guys live in a slum themselves</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1267377780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't think so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't think so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304868</id>
	<title>Son you don't know what you sayin'</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267365480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in one of the biggest cities of the world, and that would be S&#227;o Paulo, Brazil. The population is around 12 million people. The city core (which actually compromises a huge stake of the total city area) is pretty much highly developed (except for the huge daily congestion). Now, if you go to the outskirts, you will reach the slums. Have you ever been to one, I ask you? Do you really think it's green? You don't really know what you're saying then. First, most of the slums here are located in the southern portion of the city - which compromise hills, and, guess what, forests. However, the green hills no longer exist. They have been swept by slums. This also happens in Rio, just google for pictures and you'll know what I mean.<br>Slums don't have piped water. That means the population will dispose at nearby rivers or land, causing irreversible environmental damages. Slum "houses" are poorly constructed wood made structures. Now guess what happens when it rains? The water force takes everything downhill, houses and garbage. The avalanche destroys everything on its ways. People get killed. The garbage ends up on rivers anyway, or clogging the city sewage, causing massive floods. How green is that?<br>There are a bunch of counter arguments on the "slum is green" stupid theory. I could spend hours talking about them, but I think it is also worth mentioning the social side.<br>Hell, would you leave your comfortable house now to dwell in a place which is even worse than tree houses? Dirty? Dangerous? Rain prone?<br>Why don't you ask India whether they like their slums, sir?</p><p>I am sorry, but in theory it might even sound a little bit cute. In practice, you ain't got no damn idea of what you sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in one of the biggest cities of the world , and that would be S   o Paulo , Brazil .
The population is around 12 million people .
The city core ( which actually compromises a huge stake of the total city area ) is pretty much highly developed ( except for the huge daily congestion ) .
Now , if you go to the outskirts , you will reach the slums .
Have you ever been to one , I ask you ?
Do you really think it 's green ?
You do n't really know what you 're saying then .
First , most of the slums here are located in the southern portion of the city - which compromise hills , and , guess what , forests .
However , the green hills no longer exist .
They have been swept by slums .
This also happens in Rio , just google for pictures and you 'll know what I mean.Slums do n't have piped water .
That means the population will dispose at nearby rivers or land , causing irreversible environmental damages .
Slum " houses " are poorly constructed wood made structures .
Now guess what happens when it rains ?
The water force takes everything downhill , houses and garbage .
The avalanche destroys everything on its ways .
People get killed .
The garbage ends up on rivers anyway , or clogging the city sewage , causing massive floods .
How green is that ? There are a bunch of counter arguments on the " slum is green " stupid theory .
I could spend hours talking about them , but I think it is also worth mentioning the social side.Hell , would you leave your comfortable house now to dwell in a place which is even worse than tree houses ?
Dirty ? Dangerous ?
Rain prone ? Why do n't you ask India whether they like their slums , sir ? I am sorry , but in theory it might even sound a little bit cute .
In practice , you ai n't got no damn idea of what you sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in one of the biggest cities of the world, and that would be São Paulo, Brazil.
The population is around 12 million people.
The city core (which actually compromises a huge stake of the total city area) is pretty much highly developed (except for the huge daily congestion).
Now, if you go to the outskirts, you will reach the slums.
Have you ever been to one, I ask you?
Do you really think it's green?
You don't really know what you're saying then.
First, most of the slums here are located in the southern portion of the city - which compromise hills, and, guess what, forests.
However, the green hills no longer exist.
They have been swept by slums.
This also happens in Rio, just google for pictures and you'll know what I mean.Slums don't have piped water.
That means the population will dispose at nearby rivers or land, causing irreversible environmental damages.
Slum "houses" are poorly constructed wood made structures.
Now guess what happens when it rains?
The water force takes everything downhill, houses and garbage.
The avalanche destroys everything on its ways.
People get killed.
The garbage ends up on rivers anyway, or clogging the city sewage, causing massive floods.
How green is that?There are a bunch of counter arguments on the "slum is green" stupid theory.
I could spend hours talking about them, but I think it is also worth mentioning the social side.Hell, would you leave your comfortable house now to dwell in a place which is even worse than tree houses?
Dirty? Dangerous?
Rain prone?Why don't you ask India whether they like their slums, sir?I am sorry, but in theory it might even sound a little bit cute.
In practice, you ain't got no damn idea of what you sayin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31310086</id>
	<title>the blatantly obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267361100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm Stewart Brand, and I'm a total fucking idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm Stewart Brand , and I 'm a total fucking idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm Stewart Brand, and I'm a total fucking idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31310952</id>
	<title>Re:Son you don't know what you sayin'</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1267368300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost every single poster in this article has widely missed the point. The fact, people living in slums use a lot less resources than anbody else in the world. That is why it is green, not because they are painted green, or have lots of trees. As the world population expands, we have less resources to go around. THIS IS WHY WE CAN LEARN MORE. Nobody is saying we should all live like this, but is things don't change, We will. Go read 'make room, make room or soylent green.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost every single poster in this article has widely missed the point .
The fact , people living in slums use a lot less resources than anbody else in the world .
That is why it is green , not because they are painted green , or have lots of trees .
As the world population expands , we have less resources to go around .
THIS IS WHY WE CAN LEARN MORE .
Nobody is saying we should all live like this , but is things do n't change , We will .
Go read 'make room , make room or soylent green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost every single poster in this article has widely missed the point.
The fact, people living in slums use a lot less resources than anbody else in the world.
That is why it is green, not because they are painted green, or have lots of trees.
As the world population expands, we have less resources to go around.
THIS IS WHY WE CAN LEARN MORE.
Nobody is saying we should all live like this, but is things don't change, We will.
Go read 'make room, make room or soylent green.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>siloko</author>
	<datestamp>1267361280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the predominant lesson learned from Slums is not how to prevent them then I think we are missing something . . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the predominant lesson learned from Slums is not how to prevent them then I think we are missing something .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the predominant lesson learned from Slums is not how to prevent them then I think we are missing something .
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305366</id>
	<title>Wow Slashdot....Its not very often....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267370160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An article seems to bring out a higher quantity/percentage of quality comments.</p><p>One mans slum is another mans home.</p><p>So what does all this really mean?</p><p>Could it be that Haiti doesn't really have a problem from the quake?</p><p>They don't really need all the money that's been and being collected up, now do they?</p><p>So where do you think the money is really going?</p><p>Guess my name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An article seems to bring out a higher quantity/percentage of quality comments.One mans slum is another mans home.So what does all this really mean ? Could it be that Haiti does n't really have a problem from the quake ? They do n't really need all the money that 's been and being collected up , now do they ? So where do you think the money is really going ? Guess my name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An article seems to bring out a higher quantity/percentage of quality comments.One mans slum is another mans home.So what does all this really mean?Could it be that Haiti doesn't really have a problem from the quake?They don't really need all the money that's been and being collected up, now do they?So where do you think the money is really going?Guess my name.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304916</id>
	<title>"Humans are a stain on Gaia" is shithead idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267366200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Slums are good because they're green"?!?!</p><p>WTF?  Anyone think any of the purveyors of that absolute stupidity ever lived in anything other than a sheltered suburban home with no exposure to any hardship whatsoever?  And their Mommy and Daddy took care of all their needs, paying for their college "education", after which they got a "hard" job typing on an (energy-sucking!) computer at some useless "think" tank where they could "save the planet from the EVIL humans"?  Clueless dimwits.</p><p>Calling someone who thinks that slums are good a shit-for-brains idiot is an insult to every single turd ever pinched out over the entire lifespan of the Universe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Slums are good because they 're green " ? ! ? ! WTF ?
Anyone think any of the purveyors of that absolute stupidity ever lived in anything other than a sheltered suburban home with no exposure to any hardship whatsoever ?
And their Mommy and Daddy took care of all their needs , paying for their college " education " , after which they got a " hard " job typing on an ( energy-sucking !
) computer at some useless " think " tank where they could " save the planet from the EVIL humans " ?
Clueless dimwits.Calling someone who thinks that slums are good a shit-for-brains idiot is an insult to every single turd ever pinched out over the entire lifespan of the Universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Slums are good because they're green"?!?!WTF?
Anyone think any of the purveyors of that absolute stupidity ever lived in anything other than a sheltered suburban home with no exposure to any hardship whatsoever?
And their Mommy and Daddy took care of all their needs, paying for their college "education", after which they got a "hard" job typing on an (energy-sucking!
) computer at some useless "think" tank where they could "save the planet from the EVIL humans"?
Clueless dimwits.Calling someone who thinks that slums are good a shit-for-brains idiot is an insult to every single turd ever pinched out over the entire lifespan of the Universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304592</id>
	<title>Keyword here is teach</title>
	<author>hughbar</author>
	<datestamp>1267362060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with many of the posters here that say most of the current slums are horrific. Also, I live in a poor part of London and have just returned from Bangkok where I visited and walked through some of their slums.
<br> <br>
However, I believe the key word here is 'teach'. There are many things that I admire in Bangkok that I'd like to introduce to the East End. Good street food at an affordable price rather than look-alike hamburger chains (as part of the informal economy), re-use of anything reusable, (often) better levels of respect for property and people, ingenuity that doesn't exist in the gadget-heavy west. Yes, there are rats and open-sewers as well, but that doesn't invalidate the rest.
<br> <br>
Walkability is also a big factor. I live near a canal but many of my female neighbours won't use the towpath because no-one else does, of course, this is a downward spiral, so I'm trying to get it to be a little more attractive, then more people walk it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with many of the posters here that say most of the current slums are horrific .
Also , I live in a poor part of London and have just returned from Bangkok where I visited and walked through some of their slums .
However , I believe the key word here is 'teach' .
There are many things that I admire in Bangkok that I 'd like to introduce to the East End .
Good street food at an affordable price rather than look-alike hamburger chains ( as part of the informal economy ) , re-use of anything reusable , ( often ) better levels of respect for property and people , ingenuity that does n't exist in the gadget-heavy west .
Yes , there are rats and open-sewers as well , but that does n't invalidate the rest .
Walkability is also a big factor .
I live near a canal but many of my female neighbours wo n't use the towpath because no-one else does , of course , this is a downward spiral , so I 'm trying to get it to be a little more attractive , then more people walk it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with many of the posters here that say most of the current slums are horrific.
Also, I live in a poor part of London and have just returned from Bangkok where I visited and walked through some of their slums.
However, I believe the key word here is 'teach'.
There are many things that I admire in Bangkok that I'd like to introduce to the East End.
Good street food at an affordable price rather than look-alike hamburger chains (as part of the informal economy), re-use of anything reusable, (often) better levels of respect for property and people, ingenuity that doesn't exist in the gadget-heavy west.
Yes, there are rats and open-sewers as well, but that doesn't invalidate the rest.
Walkability is also a big factor.
I live near a canal but many of my female neighbours won't use the towpath because no-one else does, of course, this is a downward spiral, so I'm trying to get it to be a little more attractive, then more people walk it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498</id>
	<title>Re:Been there and hated it</title>
	<author>nutshell42</author>
	<datestamp>1267349220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps you did read it but you sure as hell didn't understand it. Neither did a lot of other slashtards judging by the flood of idiotic commentary further down.<p>
The author talks about the benefits of high population density at all income levels. City dwellers use less resources than people in rural areas.</p><p>
No one wants to live in a slum... except the millions of people moving from rural areas into slums every year. They're not all completely ignorant, it's just that the countryside around the city is even more of a hellhole than the slums. Thinking used to be that that wave of migration should be stopped at all costs but that has changed and in many country it's now policy to try and improve the situation in the slums instead. That's because planners have come to realize that by and large urban poverty's better than rural poverty. Education, sanitation, health, social mobility, environmental footprint, cities are superior to villages in almost every way.</p><p>
I don't know where everyone got the idea that the author recommends that we turn regular cities into slums or that everyone should be poor. 90\% of the upvoted comments are variations on "omg he sezs we should all live in slums. the author should try living in one, kthxbye." I haven't seen so many burning strawmen outside a Microsoft article in years.</p><p>
P.S.: The only valid argument I could find in 10 pages was about transport costs but it still is wrong. Yes, transporting food costs energy. But it's not much. When people talk about local food in rich countries they aren't talking about growing vegetables on your roof. The problem is that vegetables from Virginia are shipped to Thailand for processing and then shipped back to Maryland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you did read it but you sure as hell did n't understand it .
Neither did a lot of other slashtards judging by the flood of idiotic commentary further down .
The author talks about the benefits of high population density at all income levels .
City dwellers use less resources than people in rural areas .
No one wants to live in a slum... except the millions of people moving from rural areas into slums every year .
They 're not all completely ignorant , it 's just that the countryside around the city is even more of a hellhole than the slums .
Thinking used to be that that wave of migration should be stopped at all costs but that has changed and in many country it 's now policy to try and improve the situation in the slums instead .
That 's because planners have come to realize that by and large urban poverty 's better than rural poverty .
Education , sanitation , health , social mobility , environmental footprint , cities are superior to villages in almost every way .
I do n't know where everyone got the idea that the author recommends that we turn regular cities into slums or that everyone should be poor .
90 \ % of the upvoted comments are variations on " omg he sezs we should all live in slums .
the author should try living in one , kthxbye .
" I have n't seen so many burning strawmen outside a Microsoft article in years .
P.S. : The only valid argument I could find in 10 pages was about transport costs but it still is wrong .
Yes , transporting food costs energy .
But it 's not much .
When people talk about local food in rich countries they are n't talking about growing vegetables on your roof .
The problem is that vegetables from Virginia are shipped to Thailand for processing and then shipped back to Maryland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you did read it but you sure as hell didn't understand it.
Neither did a lot of other slashtards judging by the flood of idiotic commentary further down.
The author talks about the benefits of high population density at all income levels.
City dwellers use less resources than people in rural areas.
No one wants to live in a slum... except the millions of people moving from rural areas into slums every year.
They're not all completely ignorant, it's just that the countryside around the city is even more of a hellhole than the slums.
Thinking used to be that that wave of migration should be stopped at all costs but that has changed and in many country it's now policy to try and improve the situation in the slums instead.
That's because planners have come to realize that by and large urban poverty's better than rural poverty.
Education, sanitation, health, social mobility, environmental footprint, cities are superior to villages in almost every way.
I don't know where everyone got the idea that the author recommends that we turn regular cities into slums or that everyone should be poor.
90\% of the upvoted comments are variations on "omg he sezs we should all live in slums.
the author should try living in one, kthxbye.
" I haven't seen so many burning strawmen outside a Microsoft article in years.
P.S.: The only valid argument I could find in 10 pages was about transport costs but it still is wrong.
Yes, transporting food costs energy.
But it's not much.
When people talk about local food in rich countries they aren't talking about growing vegetables on your roof.
The problem is that vegetables from Virginia are shipped to Thailand for processing and then shipped back to Maryland.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305388</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1267370340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the lesson is that if we don't get a hold of population growth and energy consumption, we're all going to end up in slums.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the lesson is that if we do n't get a hold of population growth and energy consumption , we 're all going to end up in slums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the lesson is that if we don't get a hold of population growth and energy consumption, we're all going to end up in slums.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304546</id>
	<title>Slums *are* green though</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267361400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of people are making the entirely reasonable and correct point that slums are not very nice places to live. Nevertheless, the article is correct in saying that slums engender efficient, low-impact living, when compared to the lifestyles of the rich (anyone reading this is almost certainly rich, in global terms).

I've heard various people say things along the lines of "you want to see an environmental disaster area - go and look at a slum". This thinking attempts to sidestep the responsibility of the rich by blaming the poor, who are in fact relatively guiltless. We might not want to live there, but we should jettison the popular idea that slums are bad ecologically, as it is the reverse of the truth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people are making the entirely reasonable and correct point that slums are not very nice places to live .
Nevertheless , the article is correct in saying that slums engender efficient , low-impact living , when compared to the lifestyles of the rich ( anyone reading this is almost certainly rich , in global terms ) .
I 've heard various people say things along the lines of " you want to see an environmental disaster area - go and look at a slum " .
This thinking attempts to sidestep the responsibility of the rich by blaming the poor , who are in fact relatively guiltless .
We might not want to live there , but we should jettison the popular idea that slums are bad ecologically , as it is the reverse of the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people are making the entirely reasonable and correct point that slums are not very nice places to live.
Nevertheless, the article is correct in saying that slums engender efficient, low-impact living, when compared to the lifestyles of the rich (anyone reading this is almost certainly rich, in global terms).
I've heard various people say things along the lines of "you want to see an environmental disaster area - go and look at a slum".
This thinking attempts to sidestep the responsibility of the rich by blaming the poor, who are in fact relatively guiltless.
We might not want to live there, but we should jettison the popular idea that slums are bad ecologically, as it is the reverse of the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304728</id>
	<title>You can find someone to agree with any POV</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1267363680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go back a couple of hundred years and you can find monographs written saying what a wonderful thing black slavery was.</p><p>More recently, apartheid in South Africa provoked similar views - plenty of white South Africans didn't really see a problem with denying 80\% of the population all sorts of rights.</p><p>This is just another example of someone saying "I'm rich and the status quo works in my favour.  I am therefore going to defend the status quo, even if that means spouting on about how wonderful it is that all these poor people live in such terrible conditions".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go back a couple of hundred years and you can find monographs written saying what a wonderful thing black slavery was.More recently , apartheid in South Africa provoked similar views - plenty of white South Africans did n't really see a problem with denying 80 \ % of the population all sorts of rights.This is just another example of someone saying " I 'm rich and the status quo works in my favour .
I am therefore going to defend the status quo , even if that means spouting on about how wonderful it is that all these poor people live in such terrible conditions " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go back a couple of hundred years and you can find monographs written saying what a wonderful thing black slavery was.More recently, apartheid in South Africa provoked similar views - plenty of white South Africans didn't really see a problem with denying 80\% of the population all sorts of rights.This is just another example of someone saying "I'm rich and the status quo works in my favour.
I am therefore going to defend the status quo, even if that means spouting on about how wonderful it is that all these poor people live in such terrible conditions".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267368180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No shit. Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing? I've spent a fair bit of time in and around the slums of South Africa, and trust me, it is roughly akin to hell on Earth --- they are not an "example", there is absolutely nothing positive about them, they cannot "teach us" anything, and the only lessons we must take away are how to prevent them.</p><p>What is perhaps a more useful question to ask is, what are the motives behind those who would attempt to brainwash us into thinking they're a positive thing? I am highly suspicious; for some reason I can't put my finger on, I smell evil here, not ignorance.</p><p>If slums were better, people would live in them voluntarily and self-organise their communities like slums naturally when <i>given the choice</i>. Those that live in them are dying to get out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit .
Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing ?
I 've spent a fair bit of time in and around the slums of South Africa , and trust me , it is roughly akin to hell on Earth --- they are not an " example " , there is absolutely nothing positive about them , they can not " teach us " anything , and the only lessons we must take away are how to prevent them.What is perhaps a more useful question to ask is , what are the motives behind those who would attempt to brainwash us into thinking they 're a positive thing ?
I am highly suspicious ; for some reason I ca n't put my finger on , I smell evil here , not ignorance.If slums were better , people would live in them voluntarily and self-organise their communities like slums naturally when given the choice .
Those that live in them are dying to get out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shit.
Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing?
I've spent a fair bit of time in and around the slums of South Africa, and trust me, it is roughly akin to hell on Earth --- they are not an "example", there is absolutely nothing positive about them, they cannot "teach us" anything, and the only lessons we must take away are how to prevent them.What is perhaps a more useful question to ask is, what are the motives behind those who would attempt to brainwash us into thinking they're a positive thing?
I am highly suspicious; for some reason I can't put my finger on, I smell evil here, not ignorance.If slums were better, people would live in them voluntarily and self-organise their communities like slums naturally when given the choice.
Those that live in them are dying to get out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307226</id>
	<title>Of course they're "green"...</title>
	<author>J'raxis</author>
	<datestamp>1267382880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green. They have maximum density -- 1M people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai -- and have minimum energy and material use. People get around by foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or the universal shared taxi.' Brand adds that in most slums recycling is literally a way of life e.g. the Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 rag-pickers.</p></div></blockquote><p>Um, yeah. That's because the people living in slums are dirt-bloody-poor. But it's interesting that someone would describe such dismal living conditions in positive terms: I've long suspected that much of environmentalism is nothing more than crypto-Luddism or -primitivism, and this only adds to that suspicion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green .
They have maximum density -- 1M people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai -- and have minimum energy and material use .
People get around by foot , bicycle , rickshaw , or the universal shared taxi .
' Brand adds that in most slums recycling is literally a way of life e.g .
the Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 rag-pickers.Um , yeah .
That 's because the people living in slums are dirt-bloody-poor .
But it 's interesting that someone would describe such dismal living conditions in positive terms : I 've long suspected that much of environmentalism is nothing more than crypto-Luddism or -primitivism , and this only adds to that suspicion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green.
They have maximum density -- 1M people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai -- and have minimum energy and material use.
People get around by foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or the universal shared taxi.
' Brand adds that in most slums recycling is literally a way of life e.g.
the Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 rag-pickers.Um, yeah.
That's because the people living in slums are dirt-bloody-poor.
But it's interesting that someone would describe such dismal living conditions in positive terms: I've long suspected that much of environmentalism is nothing more than crypto-Luddism or -primitivism, and this only adds to that suspicion.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306932</id>
	<title>Second verse, same as the first</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1267380900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like the latest version of those who don't have live in poverty romanticizing the lives of the peasantry.</p><p>I bet that, as usual, the peasants and the poor don't feel particularly blessed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like the latest version of those who do n't have live in poverty romanticizing the lives of the peasantry.I bet that , as usual , the peasants and the poor do n't feel particularly blessed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like the latest version of those who don't have live in poverty romanticizing the lives of the peasantry.I bet that, as usual, the peasants and the poor don't feel particularly blessed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308802</id>
	<title>Let's move the author to a slum</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1267351500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first proposal since the author is so enamoured of slums is to move the bastard there. I have long suspected that militant greenies would like to lower our standard of living and take away anything that makes our lives more convenient. This particular greeny has proven that he is just like that. So lets start with him. Take away all his money and possessions, strip him of his citizenship and put him in a slum with no prospect of getting any outside help. See how he feels about it in 5 years (if he's survived). Fucker!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first proposal since the author is so enamoured of slums is to move the bastard there .
I have long suspected that militant greenies would like to lower our standard of living and take away anything that makes our lives more convenient .
This particular greeny has proven that he is just like that .
So lets start with him .
Take away all his money and possessions , strip him of his citizenship and put him in a slum with no prospect of getting any outside help .
See how he feels about it in 5 years ( if he 's survived ) .
Fucker !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first proposal since the author is so enamoured of slums is to move the bastard there.
I have long suspected that militant greenies would like to lower our standard of living and take away anything that makes our lives more convenient.
This particular greeny has proven that he is just like that.
So lets start with him.
Take away all his money and possessions, strip him of his citizenship and put him in a slum with no prospect of getting any outside help.
See how he feels about it in 5 years (if he's survived).
Fucker!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305098</id>
	<title>The question left</title>
	<author>tecnico.hitos</author>
	<datestamp>1267367880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do people become environmentally friendly in a large scale only when they don't have any other choice left?</p><p>Living in a slum might be "green"*, but it is a horrible situation. People there often either depend on environmentally friendly actions (recycling) or can't do anything else (having/driving a car). Does it say something about us? </p><p>*except for the overpopulation and constant growth of the slums themselves, which often are invasions on protected lands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do people become environmentally friendly in a large scale only when they do n't have any other choice left ? Living in a slum might be " green " * , but it is a horrible situation .
People there often either depend on environmentally friendly actions ( recycling ) or ca n't do anything else ( having/driving a car ) .
Does it say something about us ?
* except for the overpopulation and constant growth of the slums themselves , which often are invasions on protected lands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do people become environmentally friendly in a large scale only when they don't have any other choice left?Living in a slum might be "green"*, but it is a horrible situation.
People there often either depend on environmentally friendly actions (recycling) or can't do anything else (having/driving a car).
Does it say something about us?
*except for the overpopulation and constant growth of the slums themselves, which often are invasions on protected lands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304730</id>
	<title>Re:Population density</title>
	<author>BlackPignouf</author>
	<datestamp>1267363680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus, the "environmentally-friendliness" in function of the population density is *not* monotonically increasing.</p><p>There's an optimum somewhere, but I can assure you it isn't attained in LA or in Shanghai.<br>All the food has to be imported from at least a few 100 miles, people having to commute from one side of town to the other have to stay in traffic jams a few hours a day, and the heat island effect has a huge impact on air conditioning and electricity demand.</p><p>As far as TFA is concerned, environmentalists have to take minimum standards of living into account or they're just being assholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , the " environmentally-friendliness " in function of the population density is * not * monotonically increasing.There 's an optimum somewhere , but I can assure you it is n't attained in LA or in Shanghai.All the food has to be imported from at least a few 100 miles , people having to commute from one side of town to the other have to stay in traffic jams a few hours a day , and the heat island effect has a huge impact on air conditioning and electricity demand.As far as TFA is concerned , environmentalists have to take minimum standards of living into account or they 're just being assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, the "environmentally-friendliness" in function of the population density is *not* monotonically increasing.There's an optimum somewhere, but I can assure you it isn't attained in LA or in Shanghai.All the food has to be imported from at least a few 100 miles, people having to commute from one side of town to the other have to stay in traffic jams a few hours a day, and the heat island effect has a huge impact on air conditioning and electricity demand.As far as TFA is concerned, environmentalists have to take minimum standards of living into account or they're just being assholes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312342</id>
	<title>Re:Been there and hated it</title>
	<author>\_Sharp'r\_</author>
	<datestamp>1267383720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How slums can save the planet:</p></div></blockquote><p>By proving that <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=slums+property+rights" title="google.com">property rights are necessary</a> [google.com] for masses of people to live decent lives?</p><p>By demonstrating that what the IPCC really means when it says we need to reduce our "carbon footprint" is that everyone should be equally poor, like slum dwellers? There must be a Soviet Russia joke in there somewhere....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How slums can save the planet : By proving that property rights are necessary [ google.com ] for masses of people to live decent lives ? By demonstrating that what the IPCC really means when it says we need to reduce our " carbon footprint " is that everyone should be equally poor , like slum dwellers ?
There must be a Soviet Russia joke in there somewhere... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How slums can save the planet:By proving that property rights are necessary [google.com] for masses of people to live decent lives?By demonstrating that what the IPCC really means when it says we need to reduce our "carbon footprint" is that everyone should be equally poor, like slum dwellers?
There must be a Soviet Russia joke in there somewhere....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306400</id>
	<title>Kelly should go live in a favela...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267377540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hooray for capitalism! What an asshole. A privileged white male from America lecturing us on what creative thing slums are!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hooray for capitalism !
What an asshole .
A privileged white male from America lecturing us on what creative thing slums are !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hooray for capitalism!
What an asshole.
A privileged white male from America lecturing us on what creative thing slums are!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307550</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267385220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what I was reminded of too, actually. Of course, if you continue the series it get's to the point where it is realized that that way of living is also unsustainable and that we need to relocate to new planets, so...<br>no matter how you look at it, rising population is a problem. This guy seems to be trying to find a solution in slums, but something tells me he hasn't done his research.<br>Or, he's just an idiot. That works too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I was reminded of too , actually .
Of course , if you continue the series it get 's to the point where it is realized that that way of living is also unsustainable and that we need to relocate to new planets , so...no matter how you look at it , rising population is a problem .
This guy seems to be trying to find a solution in slums , but something tells me he has n't done his research.Or , he 's just an idiot .
That works too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I was reminded of too, actually.
Of course, if you continue the series it get's to the point where it is realized that that way of living is also unsustainable and that we need to relocate to new planets, so...no matter how you look at it, rising population is a problem.
This guy seems to be trying to find a solution in slums, but something tells me he hasn't done his research.Or, he's just an idiot.
That works too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304414</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1267358700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely ridiculous.  Live in your toilet, it's green... <br> <br>  Having been to Barbados, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic I'm fucking speechless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely ridiculous .
Live in your toilet , it 's green... Having been to Barbados , Cuba , and the Dominican Republic I 'm fucking speechless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely ridiculous.
Live in your toilet, it's green...    Having been to Barbados, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic I'm fucking speechless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305486</id>
	<title>Economics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267371180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the vast majority of the worlds population becpme more wealthy then they will demand and get a better standard of living, and use more of the worlds resources. If they stay poor then they will stick to riding bicycles instead of driving SUVs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the vast majority of the worlds population becpme more wealthy then they will demand and get a better standard of living , and use more of the worlds resources .
If they stay poor then they will stick to riding bicycles instead of driving SUVs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the vast majority of the worlds population becpme more wealthy then they will demand and get a better standard of living, and use more of the worlds resources.
If they stay poor then they will stick to riding bicycles instead of driving SUVs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31311668</id>
	<title>Hypocrisy++</title>
	<author>CalcuttaWala</author>
	<datestamp>1267375200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slums are ecofriendly ? Are you nuts ? Have you lived in one or anywhere close to one
They may be energy efficient but that is not by choice but by bloody necessity<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. because there is neither energy, nor the money to buy them.
Life is hard, tough and painful in a slum and those who live there do so because they have no other choice.  Given half a chance any self respecting slum dweller would leave it on the first available opportunity.  But circumstances are such -- and this is not the place to go into the causes of urban despair -- that they have no way to move out. So they grin and bear it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and try to make a virtue out of necessity.  So let us not have any illusions about the "beauty of slums"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slums are ecofriendly ?
Are you nuts ?
Have you lived in one or anywhere close to one They may be energy efficient but that is not by choice but by bloody necessity .. because there is neither energy , nor the money to buy them .
Life is hard , tough and painful in a slum and those who live there do so because they have no other choice .
Given half a chance any self respecting slum dweller would leave it on the first available opportunity .
But circumstances are such -- and this is not the place to go into the causes of urban despair -- that they have no way to move out .
So they grin and bear it ... and try to make a virtue out of necessity .
So let us not have any illusions about the " beauty of slums "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slums are ecofriendly ?
Are you nuts ?
Have you lived in one or anywhere close to one
They may be energy efficient but that is not by choice but by bloody necessity .. because there is neither energy, nor the money to buy them.
Life is hard, tough and painful in a slum and those who live there do so because they have no other choice.
Given half a chance any self respecting slum dweller would leave it on the first available opportunity.
But circumstances are such -- and this is not the place to go into the causes of urban despair -- that they have no way to move out.
So they grin and bear it ... and try to make a virtue out of necessity.
So let us not have any illusions about the "beauty of slums"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304554</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1267361460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's my translation of it:</p><p>Rich people could learn how to safe money from watching poor people.</p><p>Seriously?  All you can learn from poor people about money is how they spend it when they -have no choice- in how they spend it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my translation of it : Rich people could learn how to safe money from watching poor people.Seriously ?
All you can learn from poor people about money is how they spend it when they -have no choice- in how they spend it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my translation of it:Rich people could learn how to safe money from watching poor people.Seriously?
All you can learn from poor people about money is how they spend it when they -have no choice- in how they spend it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304914</id>
	<title>Re:It's more environmentally friendly to die.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267366200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better yet to not be born at all, so that we stop suffocating the planet and ourselves with our avarice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet to not be born at all , so that we stop suffocating the planet and ourselves with our avarice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet to not be born at all, so that we stop suffocating the planet and ourselves with our avarice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305852</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>tburkhol</author>
	<datestamp>1267373700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No shit. Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing? I've spent a fair bit of time in and around the slums of South Africa, and trust me, it is roughly akin to hell on Earth --- they are not an "example", there is absolutely nothing positive about them, they cannot "teach us" anything, and the only lessons we must take away are how to prevent them.</p></div><p>They can teach us about the resilience of life.  They can teach us that it is possible, if extremely unpleasant, to live on almost nothing.  In its extreme, "green living" means to live on almost nothing, and a slum is an example of what your life could be like if you truly minimize your carbon footprint.  They're not positive, but they're definitely lessons.</p><p>One imagines that the lesson we should really take is that neither a zero carbon lifestyle nor a McMansion-living, Hummer-driving US lifestyle can be the future.  That you don't really <i>need</i> single-serving, prepackaged, frozen corn, but you don't really want to rely on the box it came as roofing material.  Compromise, somewhere between the fanatics on both sides.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit .
Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing ?
I 've spent a fair bit of time in and around the slums of South Africa , and trust me , it is roughly akin to hell on Earth --- they are not an " example " , there is absolutely nothing positive about them , they can not " teach us " anything , and the only lessons we must take away are how to prevent them.They can teach us about the resilience of life .
They can teach us that it is possible , if extremely unpleasant , to live on almost nothing .
In its extreme , " green living " means to live on almost nothing , and a slum is an example of what your life could be like if you truly minimize your carbon footprint .
They 're not positive , but they 're definitely lessons.One imagines that the lesson we should really take is that neither a zero carbon lifestyle nor a McMansion-living , Hummer-driving US lifestyle can be the future .
That you do n't really need single-serving , prepackaged , frozen corn , but you do n't really want to rely on the box it came as roofing material .
Compromise , somewhere between the fanatics on both sides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shit.
Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing?
I've spent a fair bit of time in and around the slums of South Africa, and trust me, it is roughly akin to hell on Earth --- they are not an "example", there is absolutely nothing positive about them, they cannot "teach us" anything, and the only lessons we must take away are how to prevent them.They can teach us about the resilience of life.
They can teach us that it is possible, if extremely unpleasant, to live on almost nothing.
In its extreme, "green living" means to live on almost nothing, and a slum is an example of what your life could be like if you truly minimize your carbon footprint.
They're not positive, but they're definitely lessons.One imagines that the lesson we should really take is that neither a zero carbon lifestyle nor a McMansion-living, Hummer-driving US lifestyle can be the future.
That you don't really need single-serving, prepackaged, frozen corn, but you don't really want to rely on the box it came as roofing material.
Compromise, somewhere between the fanatics on both sides.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304320</id>
	<title>Sector 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267356600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever I think "Slums" I think of the Sector 7 slums from FF7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever I think " Slums " I think of the Sector 7 slums from FF7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever I think "Slums" I think of the Sector 7 slums from FF7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306852</id>
	<title>It's not "green". But it's the present and future.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1267380360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The giant urban slum is a phenomenon of the last 50 years.  Fifty years ago, New York City was the biggest city in the world.  It had poor people, but most of them had real jobs.  New York is now in 13th place (one can argue over how to count), and the top 5 are all third world cities surrounded by slums.  This is called "over-urbanization".
</p><p>
There's a step up from the "favelas out to the horizon".  It's the "housing project". The better-organized big cities have vast numbers of cheap concrete high-rise apartment blocks,
resembling US housing projects of the 1960s.  That's what Tokyo, Beijing, Hong Kong, and Shanghai residential areas look like.  It's an efficient way of warehousing a large number of humans.  Whether it's a good life depends more on the people than the architecture.  (Luxury apartment buildings and housing projects cost about the same to build per room for the basic structure.  The luxury building may cost less to run, because vandalism and crime will be lower and the number of children per household will be lower.)
</p><p>
The US is unique in having most of its population in suburbs.  Only cheap oil made that possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The giant urban slum is a phenomenon of the last 50 years .
Fifty years ago , New York City was the biggest city in the world .
It had poor people , but most of them had real jobs .
New York is now in 13th place ( one can argue over how to count ) , and the top 5 are all third world cities surrounded by slums .
This is called " over-urbanization " .
There 's a step up from the " favelas out to the horizon " .
It 's the " housing project " .
The better-organized big cities have vast numbers of cheap concrete high-rise apartment blocks , resembling US housing projects of the 1960s .
That 's what Tokyo , Beijing , Hong Kong , and Shanghai residential areas look like .
It 's an efficient way of warehousing a large number of humans .
Whether it 's a good life depends more on the people than the architecture .
( Luxury apartment buildings and housing projects cost about the same to build per room for the basic structure .
The luxury building may cost less to run , because vandalism and crime will be lower and the number of children per household will be lower .
) The US is unique in having most of its population in suburbs .
Only cheap oil made that possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The giant urban slum is a phenomenon of the last 50 years.
Fifty years ago, New York City was the biggest city in the world.
It had poor people, but most of them had real jobs.
New York is now in 13th place (one can argue over how to count), and the top 5 are all third world cities surrounded by slums.
This is called "over-urbanization".
There's a step up from the "favelas out to the horizon".
It's the "housing project".
The better-organized big cities have vast numbers of cheap concrete high-rise apartment blocks,
resembling US housing projects of the 1960s.
That's what Tokyo, Beijing, Hong Kong, and Shanghai residential areas look like.
It's an efficient way of warehousing a large number of humans.
Whether it's a good life depends more on the people than the architecture.
(Luxury apartment buildings and housing projects cost about the same to build per room for the basic structure.
The luxury building may cost less to run, because vandalism and crime will be lower and the number of children per household will be lower.
)

The US is unique in having most of its population in suburbs.
Only cheap oil made that possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304762</id>
	<title>Poverty, not density, forces effeciency</title>
	<author>Lacraia</author>
	<datestamp>1267364220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article just make me sick. Any discourse involving slums without considering the effects of poverty just comes out wrong. Of course people living in slums " have minimum energy and material use". They have to. They have no choice. With such a small amount of resources that the people in the slums have they are forced to use them as efficient as possible. Something we, wealthy people, don't need to. At least in our own narrow perspective. We, the rich, aren't less energy efficient because we happen to live less dense. It because we feel like we can afford it. I can go by car, not because it's the only means of traveling, but it's more convenient and it doesn't mean I have to refrain from eating a couple of days. A enormous amount of the worlds population don't have this luxury. One proof of this missintepration of why people in densely populated areas are more energy efficient is that rich people in, for example, Manhattan (as it is used in the article) will most likely travel a lot by taxi and several times a year, if not monthly, travel by air. The reason for this: because they have the resources to do so. It seems like we're benign to use whatever resources that are available to us.

I don't want force everyone to live like those in Rosinha, Rio de Janeiro. Neither do I want everyone to put a strain on the world like the financial elite. Judging by the growth of the world population and the state of the environment, we, rich and lucky, need to learn to use what we have in a much sustainable and efficient manner. We might have to look to the poor for this knowledge, but don't think that they are more efficient for no other reason then a dire need to be so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article just make me sick .
Any discourse involving slums without considering the effects of poverty just comes out wrong .
Of course people living in slums " have minimum energy and material use " .
They have to .
They have no choice .
With such a small amount of resources that the people in the slums have they are forced to use them as efficient as possible .
Something we , wealthy people , do n't need to .
At least in our own narrow perspective .
We , the rich , are n't less energy efficient because we happen to live less dense .
It because we feel like we can afford it .
I can go by car , not because it 's the only means of traveling , but it 's more convenient and it does n't mean I have to refrain from eating a couple of days .
A enormous amount of the worlds population do n't have this luxury .
One proof of this missintepration of why people in densely populated areas are more energy efficient is that rich people in , for example , Manhattan ( as it is used in the article ) will most likely travel a lot by taxi and several times a year , if not monthly , travel by air .
The reason for this : because they have the resources to do so .
It seems like we 're benign to use whatever resources that are available to us .
I do n't want force everyone to live like those in Rosinha , Rio de Janeiro .
Neither do I want everyone to put a strain on the world like the financial elite .
Judging by the growth of the world population and the state of the environment , we , rich and lucky , need to learn to use what we have in a much sustainable and efficient manner .
We might have to look to the poor for this knowledge , but do n't think that they are more efficient for no other reason then a dire need to be so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article just make me sick.
Any discourse involving slums without considering the effects of poverty just comes out wrong.
Of course people living in slums " have minimum energy and material use".
They have to.
They have no choice.
With such a small amount of resources that the people in the slums have they are forced to use them as efficient as possible.
Something we, wealthy people, don't need to.
At least in our own narrow perspective.
We, the rich, aren't less energy efficient because we happen to live less dense.
It because we feel like we can afford it.
I can go by car, not because it's the only means of traveling, but it's more convenient and it doesn't mean I have to refrain from eating a couple of days.
A enormous amount of the worlds population don't have this luxury.
One proof of this missintepration of why people in densely populated areas are more energy efficient is that rich people in, for example, Manhattan (as it is used in the article) will most likely travel a lot by taxi and several times a year, if not monthly, travel by air.
The reason for this: because they have the resources to do so.
It seems like we're benign to use whatever resources that are available to us.
I don't want force everyone to live like those in Rosinha, Rio de Janeiro.
Neither do I want everyone to put a strain on the world like the financial elite.
Judging by the growth of the world population and the state of the environment, we, rich and lucky, need to learn to use what we have in a much sustainable and efficient manner.
We might have to look to the poor for this knowledge, but don't think that they are more efficient for no other reason then a dire need to be so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307320</id>
	<title>So fucking stupid it's insane</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267383480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents,'<br>The rivers and streams near these settlements are shit in, washed in, used as a garbage dump and polluted to high heaven until the very area around reeks with a foul stench and the water is turned black. IMPROVED? WTF.</p><p>Maximum density? Y'know what, let's build 10 square foot apartments for everyone, that'll minimise their land use! Hurrah. Dumbass.</p><p>RECYCLING?? This is what I hate the most. Y'know how they recycle? Gather all electronic components in a pile and set fire to it. To extract the small quantities of gold and what not used in it. Why, that's ridiculous, extremely toxic and inefficient you say? Yes. It's stupid and there are people who do it.</p><p>There are lines for and fights over water. Clean water is rare if at all present. The ONLY way it produces less pollution is if there isn't a full factory in the place. But, there are plenty chemical producing tiny huts and plastics and 'recycling' places. All generating a tiny amount of pollution and vastly less goods than a factory would. The inefficiency cancels out the low pollution. BTW, even with low pollution comparatively, the entire area stinks bad, it would choke any non-local entering it.</p><p>Most environmentally...this guy needs a swift kick in the nuts. It spews pollution everywhere around and just take a look at it on google maps. The damn brown haze will block the view.</p><p>The author is a massive moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents,'The rivers and streams near these settlements are shit in , washed in , used as a garbage dump and polluted to high heaven until the very area around reeks with a foul stench and the water is turned black .
IMPROVED ? WTF.Maximum density ?
Y'know what , let 's build 10 square foot apartments for everyone , that 'll minimise their land use !
Hurrah. Dumbass.RECYCLING ? ?
This is what I hate the most .
Y'know how they recycle ?
Gather all electronic components in a pile and set fire to it .
To extract the small quantities of gold and what not used in it .
Why , that 's ridiculous , extremely toxic and inefficient you say ?
Yes. It 's stupid and there are people who do it.There are lines for and fights over water .
Clean water is rare if at all present .
The ONLY way it produces less pollution is if there is n't a full factory in the place .
But , there are plenty chemical producing tiny huts and plastics and 'recycling ' places .
All generating a tiny amount of pollution and vastly less goods than a factory would .
The inefficiency cancels out the low pollution .
BTW , even with low pollution comparatively , the entire area stinks bad , it would choke any non-local entering it.Most environmentally...this guy needs a swift kick in the nuts .
It spews pollution everywhere around and just take a look at it on google maps .
The damn brown haze will block the view.The author is a massive moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents,'The rivers and streams near these settlements are shit in, washed in, used as a garbage dump and polluted to high heaven until the very area around reeks with a foul stench and the water is turned black.
IMPROVED? WTF.Maximum density?
Y'know what, let's build 10 square foot apartments for everyone, that'll minimise their land use!
Hurrah. Dumbass.RECYCLING??
This is what I hate the most.
Y'know how they recycle?
Gather all electronic components in a pile and set fire to it.
To extract the small quantities of gold and what not used in it.
Why, that's ridiculous, extremely toxic and inefficient you say?
Yes. It's stupid and there are people who do it.There are lines for and fights over water.
Clean water is rare if at all present.
The ONLY way it produces less pollution is if there isn't a full factory in the place.
But, there are plenty chemical producing tiny huts and plastics and 'recycling' places.
All generating a tiny amount of pollution and vastly less goods than a factory would.
The inefficiency cancels out the low pollution.
BTW, even with low pollution comparatively, the entire area stinks bad, it would choke any non-local entering it.Most environmentally...this guy needs a swift kick in the nuts.
It spews pollution everywhere around and just take a look at it on google maps.
The damn brown haze will block the view.The author is a massive moron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305652</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1267372200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They have to because there's not enough energy to live like we live, and support 20 billion people, so the humans must live in the most "green" way possible - minimally.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, the population of Earth in "Caves of Steel" was more like 8 billion than 20 billion.  And there's not all that much evidence that an extra 25\% population growth will be that much of an issue.
</p><p>Also, it must be noted that the humans on Earth in the "Caves of Steel" weren't living in a "green" way - it's not really green to put everyone into honking huge buildings so that the rest of the world can be farmland (which is why they lived that way - the forests and wild country were GONE in that fictional future).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have to because there 's not enough energy to live like we live , and support 20 billion people , so the humans must live in the most " green " way possible - minimally.Actually , the population of Earth in " Caves of Steel " was more like 8 billion than 20 billion .
And there 's not all that much evidence that an extra 25 \ % population growth will be that much of an issue .
Also , it must be noted that the humans on Earth in the " Caves of Steel " were n't living in a " green " way - it 's not really green to put everyone into honking huge buildings so that the rest of the world can be farmland ( which is why they lived that way - the forests and wild country were GONE in that fictional future ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have to because there's not enough energy to live like we live, and support 20 billion people, so the humans must live in the most "green" way possible - minimally.Actually, the population of Earth in "Caves of Steel" was more like 8 billion than 20 billion.
And there's not all that much evidence that an extra 25\% population growth will be that much of an issue.
Also, it must be noted that the humans on Earth in the "Caves of Steel" weren't living in a "green" way - it's not really green to put everyone into honking huge buildings so that the rest of the world can be farmland (which is why they lived that way - the forests and wild country were GONE in that fictional future).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31310192</id>
	<title>For non RTFAers, a video of Stewart Brand</title>
	<author>Dr. Spork</author>
	<datestamp>1267361700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No fair, you RTFA'd! You've got a lot to learn about Slashdot etiquette. Here's a link to a very thought provoking video in which Brand addresses this and some related topics:</p><p>

<a href="http://fora.tv/2009/10/09/Stewart\_Brand\_Rethinking\_Green" title="fora.tv">http://fora.tv/2009/10/09/Stewart\_Brand\_Rethinking\_Green</a> [fora.tv]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No fair , you RTFA 'd !
You 've got a lot to learn about Slashdot etiquette .
Here 's a link to a very thought provoking video in which Brand addresses this and some related topics : http : //fora.tv/2009/10/09/Stewart \ _Brand \ _Rethinking \ _Green [ fora.tv ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No fair, you RTFA'd!
You've got a lot to learn about Slashdot etiquette.
Here's a link to a very thought provoking video in which Brand addresses this and some related topics:

http://fora.tv/2009/10/09/Stewart\_Brand\_Rethinking\_Green [fora.tv]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305288</id>
	<title>Re:Son you don't know what you sayin'</title>
	<author>FroBugg</author>
	<datestamp>1267369380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just spent a month working in El Paso, TX. Every morning we'd be up in the hills at sunrise, so we had a fantastic view all the way across into Mexico. Juarez is much, much bigger than El Paso, and every single morning it was covered by this thick green haze. It was ridiculous how bad the air pollution there was.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just spent a month working in El Paso , TX .
Every morning we 'd be up in the hills at sunrise , so we had a fantastic view all the way across into Mexico .
Juarez is much , much bigger than El Paso , and every single morning it was covered by this thick green haze .
It was ridiculous how bad the air pollution there was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just spent a month working in El Paso, TX.
Every morning we'd be up in the hills at sunrise, so we had a fantastic view all the way across into Mexico.
Juarez is much, much bigger than El Paso, and every single morning it was covered by this thick green haze.
It was ridiculous how bad the air pollution there was.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308240</id>
	<title>Re:It's more environmentally friendly to die.</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1267390380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ugly truth is that the world has too many people to have a western standard of living without conflict and war, most people are not responsible in their breeding habits and there are too many religious, irresponsible and uneducated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ugly truth is that the world has too many people to have a western standard of living without conflict and war , most people are not responsible in their breeding habits and there are too many religious , irresponsible and uneducated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ugly truth is that the world has too many people to have a western standard of living without conflict and war, most people are not responsible in their breeding habits and there are too many religious, irresponsible and uneducated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31310506</id>
	<title>Green Bums</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267364220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't RTFA, but based on the summary, I've come to the conclusion that bums are the ultimate green people. Even more so than those slum-dwellers. They own very little. They eat very little. They sleep on small sections of sidewalk, pavement or a park bench... It's the ultimate in no-impact to the planet.<br>
&nbsp; Hurrah! Let's all be bums.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't RTFA , but based on the summary , I 've come to the conclusion that bums are the ultimate green people .
Even more so than those slum-dwellers .
They own very little .
They eat very little .
They sleep on small sections of sidewalk , pavement or a park bench... It 's the ultimate in no-impact to the planet .
  Hurrah !
Let 's all be bums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't RTFA, but based on the summary, I've come to the conclusion that bums are the ultimate green people.
Even more so than those slum-dwellers.
They own very little.
They eat very little.
They sleep on small sections of sidewalk, pavement or a park bench... It's the ultimate in no-impact to the planet.
  Hurrah!
Let's all be bums.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306642</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267379100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Overlooking the obvious negative attitude of the poster, this is actually correct. Birthrates in developing nations/areas are much higher than in developed nations. Even taking infant mortality into account, the overall population is increasing faster too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Overlooking the obvious negative attitude of the poster , this is actually correct .
Birthrates in developing nations/areas are much higher than in developed nations .
Even taking infant mortality into account , the overall population is increasing faster too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Overlooking the obvious negative attitude of the poster, this is actually correct.
Birthrates in developing nations/areas are much higher than in developed nations.
Even taking infant mortality into account, the overall population is increasing faster too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31309112</id>
	<title>Mod parent up</title>
	<author>korean.ian</author>
	<datestamp>1267354020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hooray! the second person in two days with a clue on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<br>There is some hope after all...and it's not Obi-Wan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hooray !
the second person in two days with a clue on /.There is some hope after all...and it 's not Obi-Wan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hooray!
the second person in two days with a clue on /.There is some hope after all...and it's not Obi-Wan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307808</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Mspangler</author>
	<datestamp>1267386960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's cynical.</p><p>The meme now among the radical environmentalists is that humans should be collected into cities to minimize their ecological footprint.</p><p>The other side of this can be seen with the Buffalo Commons, and the Pleistocene Rewilding scemes that keep popping up. These involve forcibly removing people from large tracts of the Western US, and turning it into a giant theme park for the urban elite.</p><p>The region between the cities and the parks will be worked by the 50 million eco-serfs Richard Heinberg is always going on about, who will be grubbing on organic subsistence farms at bayonet point. (I do give the man credit for honesty.)  There is countermovement now that the food should be grown in specially designed skyscrapers, so I'm waiting to see how that one plays out. Organic food vs the ultimate factory produced hydroponic food which is arguably even greener.</p><p>And as a bonus, this will certainly create Increasing Property Values for non-slum dwelling in the cities, so the Realtor's will be all over this.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's cynical.The meme now among the radical environmentalists is that humans should be collected into cities to minimize their ecological footprint.The other side of this can be seen with the Buffalo Commons , and the Pleistocene Rewilding scemes that keep popping up .
These involve forcibly removing people from large tracts of the Western US , and turning it into a giant theme park for the urban elite.The region between the cities and the parks will be worked by the 50 million eco-serfs Richard Heinberg is always going on about , who will be grubbing on organic subsistence farms at bayonet point .
( I do give the man credit for honesty .
) There is countermovement now that the food should be grown in specially designed skyscrapers , so I 'm waiting to see how that one plays out .
Organic food vs the ultimate factory produced hydroponic food which is arguably even greener.And as a bonus , this will certainly create Increasing Property Values for non-slum dwelling in the cities , so the Realtor 's will be all over this .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's cynical.The meme now among the radical environmentalists is that humans should be collected into cities to minimize their ecological footprint.The other side of this can be seen with the Buffalo Commons, and the Pleistocene Rewilding scemes that keep popping up.
These involve forcibly removing people from large tracts of the Western US, and turning it into a giant theme park for the urban elite.The region between the cities and the parks will be worked by the 50 million eco-serfs Richard Heinberg is always going on about, who will be grubbing on organic subsistence farms at bayonet point.
(I do give the man credit for honesty.
)  There is countermovement now that the food should be grown in specially designed skyscrapers, so I'm waiting to see how that one plays out.
Organic food vs the ultimate factory produced hydroponic food which is arguably even greener.And as a bonus, this will certainly create Increasing Property Values for non-slum dwelling in the cities, so the Realtor's will be all over this.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312006</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267378980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If slums were better, people would live in them voluntarily and self-organise their communities like slums naturally when <i>given the choice</i>. Those that live in them are dying to get out.</p></div><p>While you may have the right opinion about the overall appeal of slums, and you have your right to your own paranoia (or whatever you call that) this argument stinks pretty bad.  You insist that if there were to be discovered an ideal organization for society, it would be immediately and automatically appealing to everyone.</p><p>You could not be more wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If slums were better , people would live in them voluntarily and self-organise their communities like slums naturally when given the choice .
Those that live in them are dying to get out.While you may have the right opinion about the overall appeal of slums , and you have your right to your own paranoia ( or whatever you call that ) this argument stinks pretty bad .
You insist that if there were to be discovered an ideal organization for society , it would be immediately and automatically appealing to everyone.You could not be more wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If slums were better, people would live in them voluntarily and self-organise their communities like slums naturally when given the choice.
Those that live in them are dying to get out.While you may have the right opinion about the overall appeal of slums, and you have your right to your own paranoia (or whatever you call that) this argument stinks pretty bad.
You insist that if there were to be discovered an ideal organization for society, it would be immediately and automatically appealing to everyone.You could not be more wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304752</id>
	<title>Re:Population density</title>
	<author>anticlimate</author>
	<datestamp>1267364100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is my main problem with cities in general. You can eliminate pollution, make the city bike- and walk-friendly, reduce crime etc., but living together with tens of thousands of people tends to increase psychological stress. Well at least it increases my level of stress living in a city, but I guess I'm not alone.
<br> <br>
Another factor against large cities sounds rather strange, (and I'm not really sure it should be decisive choosing your place of living): resistance to disaster - be it a flood, earthquake or a war. I remember seeing a presentation somewhere from the '50s which recommended developing suburb-like living areas because human casualties would be lower there in case of a nuclear explosion, than in a dense city.

<br> <br>
That said I think there are major factors, other than wether you will live near a target if a nuclear war breaks out, or if Gozilla will stomp over your apartment (those monsters just love dense cities<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is my main problem with cities in general .
You can eliminate pollution , make the city bike- and walk-friendly , reduce crime etc. , but living together with tens of thousands of people tends to increase psychological stress .
Well at least it increases my level of stress living in a city , but I guess I 'm not alone .
Another factor against large cities sounds rather strange , ( and I 'm not really sure it should be decisive choosing your place of living ) : resistance to disaster - be it a flood , earthquake or a war .
I remember seeing a presentation somewhere from the '50s which recommended developing suburb-like living areas because human casualties would be lower there in case of a nuclear explosion , than in a dense city .
That said I think there are major factors , other than wether you will live near a target if a nuclear war breaks out , or if Gozilla will stomp over your apartment ( those monsters just love dense cities : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is my main problem with cities in general.
You can eliminate pollution, make the city bike- and walk-friendly, reduce crime etc., but living together with tens of thousands of people tends to increase psychological stress.
Well at least it increases my level of stress living in a city, but I guess I'm not alone.
Another factor against large cities sounds rather strange, (and I'm not really sure it should be decisive choosing your place of living): resistance to disaster - be it a flood, earthquake or a war.
I remember seeing a presentation somewhere from the '50s which recommended developing suburb-like living areas because human casualties would be lower there in case of a nuclear explosion, than in a dense city.
That said I think there are major factors, other than wether you will live near a target if a nuclear war breaks out, or if Gozilla will stomp over your apartment (those monsters just love dense cities :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31309170</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267354500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article must be a contender for the gold medal of stupidity. Anyone who would say slums are good for the planet obviously doesn't give a damn about humanity. Anyone who has been in or anywhere near a third-world slum knows they are a cesspool of sewage, disease, malnutrition, illiteracy, poverty, infant mortality, and crime. People who live in slums would leave them in a second if they had a chance. The lifespan of people in slums is probably the shortest of any urban setting. But I guess if you think slums are good for the planet, then people dying early is a good thing. Only a sick misanthropist could advocate slums.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article must be a contender for the gold medal of stupidity .
Anyone who would say slums are good for the planet obviously does n't give a damn about humanity .
Anyone who has been in or anywhere near a third-world slum knows they are a cesspool of sewage , disease , malnutrition , illiteracy , poverty , infant mortality , and crime .
People who live in slums would leave them in a second if they had a chance .
The lifespan of people in slums is probably the shortest of any urban setting .
But I guess if you think slums are good for the planet , then people dying early is a good thing .
Only a sick misanthropist could advocate slums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article must be a contender for the gold medal of stupidity.
Anyone who would say slums are good for the planet obviously doesn't give a damn about humanity.
Anyone who has been in or anywhere near a third-world slum knows they are a cesspool of sewage, disease, malnutrition, illiteracy, poverty, infant mortality, and crime.
People who live in slums would leave them in a second if they had a chance.
The lifespan of people in slums is probably the shortest of any urban setting.
But I guess if you think slums are good for the planet, then people dying early is a good thing.
Only a sick misanthropist could advocate slums.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31319174</id>
	<title>Re:Been there and hated it</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1267470480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Education, sanitation, health, social mobility, environmental footprint, cities are superior to villages in almost every way.</p></div><p>
Except that I can't play my drums in the city without inciting a jihad from my neighbors. I can't keep a well stocked, functioning garage at a reasonable price with which to maintain my motorcycle. I can't open the garage door to my shop without my neighbors freaking out over the strange smells coming from that, "mad scientist's lab." I can't raise my pet cow in the city, which provides milk and, eventually, a couple years worth of meat for my family. I can't raise chickens in the city, which provide eggs and a convenient means of waste disposal, in the city. I can't clean my vintage rifle collection to ensure that they remain in good, functional condition without my neighbors freaking the crap out over the madman next door. I can't walk around without my shirt off on a hot day because some over-reactive mother thinks that means I am some kind of pervert.
<br> <br>
So, sure, high population density areas are nice in quite a few ways. The one thing they are not nice about is encouraging innovation, invention, or trying something new. City life has its advantages, I will never deny that. But you can be damned sure that if you are going to live in the city you are going to have to fight for your right to try new things every step of the way.
<br> <br>
I'll take my freedom any day, thanks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Education , sanitation , health , social mobility , environmental footprint , cities are superior to villages in almost every way .
Except that I ca n't play my drums in the city without inciting a jihad from my neighbors .
I ca n't keep a well stocked , functioning garage at a reasonable price with which to maintain my motorcycle .
I ca n't open the garage door to my shop without my neighbors freaking out over the strange smells coming from that , " mad scientist 's lab .
" I ca n't raise my pet cow in the city , which provides milk and , eventually , a couple years worth of meat for my family .
I ca n't raise chickens in the city , which provide eggs and a convenient means of waste disposal , in the city .
I ca n't clean my vintage rifle collection to ensure that they remain in good , functional condition without my neighbors freaking the crap out over the madman next door .
I ca n't walk around without my shirt off on a hot day because some over-reactive mother thinks that means I am some kind of pervert .
So , sure , high population density areas are nice in quite a few ways .
The one thing they are not nice about is encouraging innovation , invention , or trying something new .
City life has its advantages , I will never deny that .
But you can be damned sure that if you are going to live in the city you are going to have to fight for your right to try new things every step of the way .
I 'll take my freedom any day , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Education, sanitation, health, social mobility, environmental footprint, cities are superior to villages in almost every way.
Except that I can't play my drums in the city without inciting a jihad from my neighbors.
I can't keep a well stocked, functioning garage at a reasonable price with which to maintain my motorcycle.
I can't open the garage door to my shop without my neighbors freaking out over the strange smells coming from that, "mad scientist's lab.
" I can't raise my pet cow in the city, which provides milk and, eventually, a couple years worth of meat for my family.
I can't raise chickens in the city, which provide eggs and a convenient means of waste disposal, in the city.
I can't clean my vintage rifle collection to ensure that they remain in good, functional condition without my neighbors freaking the crap out over the madman next door.
I can't walk around without my shirt off on a hot day because some over-reactive mother thinks that means I am some kind of pervert.
So, sure, high population density areas are nice in quite a few ways.
The one thing they are not nice about is encouraging innovation, invention, or trying something new.
City life has its advantages, I will never deny that.
But you can be damned sure that if you are going to live in the city you are going to have to fight for your right to try new things every step of the way.
I'll take my freedom any day, thanks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312130</id>
	<title>Re:Been there and hated it</title>
	<author>transami</author>
	<datestamp>1267380660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No one wants to live in a slum... except the millions of people moving from rural areas into slums every year. They're not all completely ignorant, it's just that the countryside around the city is even more of a hellhole than the slums."</p><p>That not true. Lots of people go to cities for work to make money and then return home after a few years to their farms and family to "retire". Others are driven off their farms b/c large Agribusinesses have forcedpushed them out or pushed prices so low small farms can not compete. Of course there are also populations issues that force people to the cities, as well as the persistent myths that one can "make it big" in the city b/c a few have manged to do so.</p><p>The slums are a means of exploitation. Period. Anything positive about them is secondary, like breaking your arm is good b/c you didn't have to go to work for awhile. While there may be interesting cultural facts to discern from them, they are nothing to extol.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No one wants to live in a slum... except the millions of people moving from rural areas into slums every year .
They 're not all completely ignorant , it 's just that the countryside around the city is even more of a hellhole than the slums .
" That not true .
Lots of people go to cities for work to make money and then return home after a few years to their farms and family to " retire " .
Others are driven off their farms b/c large Agribusinesses have forcedpushed them out or pushed prices so low small farms can not compete .
Of course there are also populations issues that force people to the cities , as well as the persistent myths that one can " make it big " in the city b/c a few have manged to do so.The slums are a means of exploitation .
Period. Anything positive about them is secondary , like breaking your arm is good b/c you did n't have to go to work for awhile .
While there may be interesting cultural facts to discern from them , they are nothing to extol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No one wants to live in a slum... except the millions of people moving from rural areas into slums every year.
They're not all completely ignorant, it's just that the countryside around the city is even more of a hellhole than the slums.
"That not true.
Lots of people go to cities for work to make money and then return home after a few years to their farms and family to "retire".
Others are driven off their farms b/c large Agribusinesses have forcedpushed them out or pushed prices so low small farms can not compete.
Of course there are also populations issues that force people to the cities, as well as the persistent myths that one can "make it big" in the city b/c a few have manged to do so.The slums are a means of exploitation.
Period. Anything positive about them is secondary, like breaking your arm is good b/c you didn't have to go to work for awhile.
While there may be interesting cultural facts to discern from them, they are nothing to extol.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304508</id>
	<title>What a cynical, naive and misleading article</title>
	<author>carlhaagen</author>
	<datestamp>1267360620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Worst. Train of thought. Ever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Worst .
Train of thought .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worst.
Train of thought.
Ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306506</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1267378200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the predominant lesson learned from Slums is not how to prevent them then I think we are missing something . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>Indeed.</p><p>Slums are not idyllic.  But we should learn from them.</p><p>Because, if we don't, that's how we could all end up living once the era of cheap energy ends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the predominant lesson learned from Slums is not how to prevent them then I think we are missing something .
. .Indeed.Slums are not idyllic .
But we should learn from them.Because , if we do n't , that 's how we could all end up living once the era of cheap energy ends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the predominant lesson learned from Slums is not how to prevent them then I think we are missing something .
. .Indeed.Slums are not idyllic.
But we should learn from them.Because, if we don't, that's how we could all end up living once the era of cheap energy ends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312470</id>
	<title>Re:Been there and hated it</title>
	<author>j4kl1ng3r</author>
	<datestamp>1267385280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The increase in slums will come at an increase in people, and no matter how green they are; more people is less green.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The increase in slums will come at an increase in people , and no matter how green they are ; more people is less green .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The increase in slums will come at an increase in people, and no matter how green they are; more people is less green.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31309806</id>
	<title>I told you I should have all the food</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1267359480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rest of you would pollute a lot less then!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of you would pollute a lot less then !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of you would pollute a lot less then!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305164</id>
	<title>quality of life</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1267368420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me environmentalism is all about quality of life. Energy efficiency makes for an easy example: the savings in electricity cost should approximately cover the increased capital cost, so we have a net added value in the form of reduced pollution and reduced use of energy resources. Those benefits are to society rather than me individually, but doing it this way is not sacrificing my standard of living much and if everyone is doing this kind of thing then in the grand scheme it comes back to me eventually. </p><p>Sure it's not always so clear-cut, but examples are supposed to be straight forward. Some things being put forward in the name of environmentalism don't have a good enough cost vs. benefit, for example electric cars are useless with even a 1 hour charge time because it means the car is impractical as anything other than  a form of local transport (on the other hand maybe we could swap in pre-charged batteries, but I digress). </p><p>Therefore, the idea of living in slums to be more environmental is that we should massively sacrifice our standard of living in order to avoid sacrificing our standard of living. Huh?</p><p>But... The article doesn't say that. I doesn't actually say slums are a good thing. I only says slums have SOME good things, which we can learn from. Unfortunately it does also highlight that some slums aren't necessarily quite the cesspools we imagine them to be from watching Slumdog Millionaire, but this is just confusing his message, it's not saying slums are some way forward. It's there in the title: "The squatter cities that have emerged can teach us much about future urban living".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me environmentalism is all about quality of life .
Energy efficiency makes for an easy example : the savings in electricity cost should approximately cover the increased capital cost , so we have a net added value in the form of reduced pollution and reduced use of energy resources .
Those benefits are to society rather than me individually , but doing it this way is not sacrificing my standard of living much and if everyone is doing this kind of thing then in the grand scheme it comes back to me eventually .
Sure it 's not always so clear-cut , but examples are supposed to be straight forward .
Some things being put forward in the name of environmentalism do n't have a good enough cost vs. benefit , for example electric cars are useless with even a 1 hour charge time because it means the car is impractical as anything other than a form of local transport ( on the other hand maybe we could swap in pre-charged batteries , but I digress ) .
Therefore , the idea of living in slums to be more environmental is that we should massively sacrifice our standard of living in order to avoid sacrificing our standard of living .
Huh ? But... The article does n't say that .
I does n't actually say slums are a good thing .
I only says slums have SOME good things , which we can learn from .
Unfortunately it does also highlight that some slums are n't necessarily quite the cesspools we imagine them to be from watching Slumdog Millionaire , but this is just confusing his message , it 's not saying slums are some way forward .
It 's there in the title : " The squatter cities that have emerged can teach us much about future urban living " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me environmentalism is all about quality of life.
Energy efficiency makes for an easy example: the savings in electricity cost should approximately cover the increased capital cost, so we have a net added value in the form of reduced pollution and reduced use of energy resources.
Those benefits are to society rather than me individually, but doing it this way is not sacrificing my standard of living much and if everyone is doing this kind of thing then in the grand scheme it comes back to me eventually.
Sure it's not always so clear-cut, but examples are supposed to be straight forward.
Some things being put forward in the name of environmentalism don't have a good enough cost vs. benefit, for example electric cars are useless with even a 1 hour charge time because it means the car is impractical as anything other than  a form of local transport (on the other hand maybe we could swap in pre-charged batteries, but I digress).
Therefore, the idea of living in slums to be more environmental is that we should massively sacrifice our standard of living in order to avoid sacrificing our standard of living.
Huh?But... The article doesn't say that.
I doesn't actually say slums are a good thing.
I only says slums have SOME good things, which we can learn from.
Unfortunately it does also highlight that some slums aren't necessarily quite the cesspools we imagine them to be from watching Slumdog Millionaire, but this is just confusing his message, it's not saying slums are some way forward.
It's there in the title: "The squatter cities that have emerged can teach us much about future urban living".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307440</id>
	<title>Sanitation?</title>
	<author>Joao</author>
	<datestamp>1267384380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the author completely overlooked the issue of sanitation.</p><p>Slums have no sewer treatment systems.  All of the sewer is deposited directly in the local water system or local soil.</p><p>Slums also have no garbage management.  The garbage is usually just piled up somewhere in open air, and sometimes just left on the streets.</p><p>It just takes a quick visit to any slum anywhere in the world to see that it is no way to live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the author completely overlooked the issue of sanitation.Slums have no sewer treatment systems .
All of the sewer is deposited directly in the local water system or local soil.Slums also have no garbage management .
The garbage is usually just piled up somewhere in open air , and sometimes just left on the streets.It just takes a quick visit to any slum anywhere in the world to see that it is no way to live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the author completely overlooked the issue of sanitation.Slums have no sewer treatment systems.
All of the sewer is deposited directly in the local water system or local soil.Slums also have no garbage management.
The garbage is usually just piled up somewhere in open air, and sometimes just left on the streets.It just takes a quick visit to any slum anywhere in the world to see that it is no way to live.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305450</id>
	<title>Just a bet</title>
	<author>loox</author>
	<datestamp>1267370760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet Stewart Brand doesn't live in a slum.</p><p>lux</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet Stewart Brand does n't live in a slum.lux</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet Stewart Brand doesn't live in a slum.lux</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304700</id>
	<title>I have to say this about the article.</title>
	<author>cuby</author>
	<datestamp>1267363380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is Fascist.
Try to pass through a slum with a million people without sewers and see how green it is.
Science without considering human wellbeing is not a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is Fascist .
Try to pass through a slum with a million people without sewers and see how green it is .
Science without considering human wellbeing is not a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is Fascist.
Try to pass through a slum with a million people without sewers and see how green it is.
Science without considering human wellbeing is not a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304908</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267366080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slums are a self-replicating problem. Look at the slums in India or various African nations, for instance. Or even the ghettos of American cities, especially LA. The cycle works like this:</p><p>1) A person is born into a slum.<br>2) If the person survives into adult-hood, they have no education, no job and far too much free time.<br>3) Since they have no job obligations of any sort, they fuck far more often than anyone in a civilized Western non-slum city is able to. Oh, and they do this without using condoms or birth control of any sort.<br>4) The women thus shit out far more children, per-capita, than those living in better conditions. When I visited the slums of Mumbai, for instance, it was routine to see a 30-year-old woman with seven children. And those are just the ones that survived; most women had actually had 10 to 12 children by that point, but some did not make it. Most women end up having 10 living children by the time they hit menopause.<br>5) So one man and one woman have now created five to ten more people who start back at Step 1), and repeat the process.</p><p>The solution? Massive condom airdrops would probably be a good place to start. Blanket the slums in condoms for a generation. Help the people there break that cycle they've gotten into by not having children.</p><p>We've seen a similar thing happen in America over the past 30 years, with easier access to abortions. The crime rate has dropped in many areas, since poor women who become pregnant can abort their pregnancy rather than having a child who will grow up to become just another useless gangsta or thug committing crime all day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slums are a self-replicating problem .
Look at the slums in India or various African nations , for instance .
Or even the ghettos of American cities , especially LA .
The cycle works like this : 1 ) A person is born into a slum.2 ) If the person survives into adult-hood , they have no education , no job and far too much free time.3 ) Since they have no job obligations of any sort , they fuck far more often than anyone in a civilized Western non-slum city is able to .
Oh , and they do this without using condoms or birth control of any sort.4 ) The women thus shit out far more children , per-capita , than those living in better conditions .
When I visited the slums of Mumbai , for instance , it was routine to see a 30-year-old woman with seven children .
And those are just the ones that survived ; most women had actually had 10 to 12 children by that point , but some did not make it .
Most women end up having 10 living children by the time they hit menopause.5 ) So one man and one woman have now created five to ten more people who start back at Step 1 ) , and repeat the process.The solution ?
Massive condom airdrops would probably be a good place to start .
Blanket the slums in condoms for a generation .
Help the people there break that cycle they 've gotten into by not having children.We 've seen a similar thing happen in America over the past 30 years , with easier access to abortions .
The crime rate has dropped in many areas , since poor women who become pregnant can abort their pregnancy rather than having a child who will grow up to become just another useless gangsta or thug committing crime all day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slums are a self-replicating problem.
Look at the slums in India or various African nations, for instance.
Or even the ghettos of American cities, especially LA.
The cycle works like this:1) A person is born into a slum.2) If the person survives into adult-hood, they have no education, no job and far too much free time.3) Since they have no job obligations of any sort, they fuck far more often than anyone in a civilized Western non-slum city is able to.
Oh, and they do this without using condoms or birth control of any sort.4) The women thus shit out far more children, per-capita, than those living in better conditions.
When I visited the slums of Mumbai, for instance, it was routine to see a 30-year-old woman with seven children.
And those are just the ones that survived; most women had actually had 10 to 12 children by that point, but some did not make it.
Most women end up having 10 living children by the time they hit menopause.5) So one man and one woman have now created five to ten more people who start back at Step 1), and repeat the process.The solution?
Massive condom airdrops would probably be a good place to start.
Blanket the slums in condoms for a generation.
Help the people there break that cycle they've gotten into by not having children.We've seen a similar thing happen in America over the past 30 years, with easier access to abortions.
The crime rate has dropped in many areas, since poor women who become pregnant can abort their pregnancy rather than having a child who will grow up to become just another useless gangsta or thug committing crime all day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308678</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1267350540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>they cannot "teach us" anything</p></div></blockquote><p>I disagree with TFA as you do, and take issue with it's whiff of noble savagery, but must take issue with this.  Everything can teach us something.  You can observe a slum and see how it organizes itself without wanting anyone to live in one, just as you can observe any physical system.  It just happens to be a common theme of the environmental movement that, for the planet to survive, we must learn to live more simply.  I happen to agree with that to a limited extent, but if it means my children have to pick through garbage to survive I sure don't.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  The goal of efficiency is laudable, but is itself unsustainable if it forces people to give up too much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they can not " teach us " anythingI disagree with TFA as you do , and take issue with it 's whiff of noble savagery , but must take issue with this .
Everything can teach us something .
You can observe a slum and see how it organizes itself without wanting anyone to live in one , just as you can observe any physical system .
It just happens to be a common theme of the environmental movement that , for the planet to survive , we must learn to live more simply .
I happen to agree with that to a limited extent , but if it means my children have to pick through garbage to survive I sure do n't .
: ) The goal of efficiency is laudable , but is itself unsustainable if it forces people to give up too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they cannot "teach us" anythingI disagree with TFA as you do, and take issue with it's whiff of noble savagery, but must take issue with this.
Everything can teach us something.
You can observe a slum and see how it organizes itself without wanting anyone to live in one, just as you can observe any physical system.
It just happens to be a common theme of the environmental movement that, for the planet to survive, we must learn to live more simply.
I happen to agree with that to a limited extent, but if it means my children have to pick through garbage to survive I sure don't.
:)  The goal of efficiency is laudable, but is itself unsustainable if it forces people to give up too much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304448</id>
	<title>It's more environmentally friendly to die.</title>
	<author>MongooseCN</author>
	<datestamp>1267359540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Living in a slum is good because it's environmentally friendly and uses less resources? He may as well argue that's it's even more environmentally friendly to die young.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Living in a slum is good because it 's environmentally friendly and uses less resources ?
He may as well argue that 's it 's even more environmentally friendly to die young .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Living in a slum is good because it's environmentally friendly and uses less resources?
He may as well argue that's it's even more environmentally friendly to die young.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306948</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267380960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ditto for <a href="http://www.worldswithoutend.com/novel.asp?id=1778" title="worldswithoutend.com" rel="nofollow">The Space Merchants"</a> [worldswithoutend.com], by Frederick Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth. Unforgettable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto for The Space Merchants " [ worldswithoutend.com ] , by Frederick Pohl and C.M .
Kornbluth. Unforgettable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto for The Space Merchants" [worldswithoutend.com], by Frederick Pohl and C.M.
Kornbluth. Unforgettable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304398</id>
	<title>Population density</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267358460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how it can ever be pleasant to live so close to other people. I'm all for energy efficiency, but there has to be a better way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how it can ever be pleasant to live so close to other people .
I 'm all for energy efficiency , but there has to be a better way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how it can ever be pleasant to live so close to other people.
I'm all for energy efficiency, but there has to be a better way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305724</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267372620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No shit. Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing?</p></div><p>The United Nations Population Fund considers that they are better socially, economically, and environmentally when compared to rural areas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit .
Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing ? The United Nations Population Fund considers that they are better socially , economically , and environmentally when compared to rural areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shit.
Who the hell thinks slums are a positive thing?The United Nations Population Fund considers that they are better socially, economically, and environmentally when compared to rural areas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305032</id>
	<title>Re:Am I alone or</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could not agree more.  The only reason slums are 'green' or recycle is due to poverty.  They cant afford power and they cant afford to buy new.  The latter being a mildly good affect of the first.<br>This article/idea is just more rubbish from people who want everyone to go green no matter the cost. Be it lifestyle or effect on economies.  I for one do not welcome our new green wanna be overlords.<br>We should focus more on bringing everyone up to the level 1st world countries expect.  We should be focusing on how to generate renewable power, not on how to use less.  We should focus on how to take all garbage and recycle it easily.  Sorting and cleaning is ridiculous.  Garbage is dirty!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could not agree more .
The only reason slums are 'green ' or recycle is due to poverty .
They cant afford power and they cant afford to buy new .
The latter being a mildly good affect of the first.This article/idea is just more rubbish from people who want everyone to go green no matter the cost .
Be it lifestyle or effect on economies .
I for one do not welcome our new green wan na be overlords.We should focus more on bringing everyone up to the level 1st world countries expect .
We should be focusing on how to generate renewable power , not on how to use less .
We should focus on how to take all garbage and recycle it easily .
Sorting and cleaning is ridiculous .
Garbage is dirty !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could not agree more.
The only reason slums are 'green' or recycle is due to poverty.
They cant afford power and they cant afford to buy new.
The latter being a mildly good affect of the first.This article/idea is just more rubbish from people who want everyone to go green no matter the cost.
Be it lifestyle or effect on economies.
I for one do not welcome our new green wanna be overlords.We should focus more on bringing everyone up to the level 1st world countries expect.
We should be focusing on how to generate renewable power, not on how to use less.
We should focus on how to take all garbage and recycle it easily.
Sorting and cleaning is ridiculous.
Garbage is dirty!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304934</id>
	<title>Re:Population density</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1267366440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Focus on the third dimension, both up and down. You can still have nice big houses, but there's going to be 5-10 of them stacked on top of each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Focus on the third dimension , both up and down .
You can still have nice big houses , but there 's going to be 5-10 of them stacked on top of each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Focus on the third dimension, both up and down.
You can still have nice big houses, but there's going to be 5-10 of them stacked on top of each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304398</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31309112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31311966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31319174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31310192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31310952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31321410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_231232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31310192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31319174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31309112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312006
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31321410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306390
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308310
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308188
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306872
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305724
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31311966
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304908
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306842
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31310952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31308240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31306414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31312886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31304546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31305098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_231232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_231232.31307226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
