Manhattan 2009 vs 1609

WHO_DAT

WHO_DAT

Member
Being skiers I think we all have a duty to be Eco-friendly and take care of our environment. I'm kind of a modern day hippy, (minus the drugs)... and felt disgusted when I saw these pictures.

Scientists recently recreated what they believe Manhattan looked like when English explorer Henry Hudson arrived in 1609. 400 years later and we have completely destroyed the once beautiful natural wonder.

1242279158090424-01-mannahatta-manhattan-island_big.jpg


1242279197090424-03-mannahatta-manhattan-island_big.jpg


1242279216090424-04-mannahatta-manhattan-island_big.jpg


1242279178090424-02-mannahatta-manhattan-island_big.jpg


1242279253ht_manhattan2_090422_ssh.jpg

 
its called population change you dumb cunt, people have to live somewhere. we have a few more people now than we did 400 years ago.
use your tiny woman brain occasionally. its good for shit other than cooking/cleaning/doin the dishes/ suckin mah D
 
+K to you for being the most disrespectful, inconsiderate, immature member of NS.

Obviously there's a fucking population change, I'm not a fucking idiot. The problem is the unnecessary pollution idiots like you are creating because you don't give a shit.

Go suck your own dick.
 
I think Manhattan right now as it is is beautiful in its own right. Its a really interesting place to go and see tons of different cultures getting along. How many places can you walk one block, get some pizza, then ten feet away get some kick ass halal food, then walk another ten feet and get chicago style dogs.
 
thanks for the karma? i guess i wa kinda harsh, but seriously, were wayyy overpopulated, people have to live somewhere, all those pretty trees are gonna have to go bye bye someday.
i also do give a shit about pollution and the environment, i just dont go bragging about being a non hippie, hippie, via internet.
and ill leave the dick suckin to dumb broads like you.

and to fappy, yea im an internet tough guy, no lie, i wouldnt be a douche bag like this irl hahah, but its ns, why not!
 
those pictures are pretty cool, i think its really interesting to see how we've changed the earth. this could have been a good/interesting thread if the op had taken it in another direction and just been less whiny in general
 
right before you said that you should have added "Sorry, I choke on small objects..."

shuts people up pretty quick haha
 
Dumb broad?

1. The +K comment was sarcastic.

2. You have the worst grammar in the world.

3. Normal people with normal self-esteems don't feel the need to be assholes in situations where they can be without consequences.

4. If you really have that low of a view on girls as to call them "dumb broads" you should really start questioning your sexuality.

I'm going to be 19 years old in June and I already have a well-payed position with one of the most prestigious Action Sports Camps in the U.S. and I'm posting a thread concerning our environment... And I'm the dumb broad? I'm not bragging about being a hippy, I'm showing interesting pictures.

Your immature comments are unwanted and unnecessary, grow up and be a man. People will respect you more.
 
how does that make you disgusted? what did you expect nyc to look like in 1609? did you think it was a big deserted rock? you didn't expect to see an island covered in trees? dumb bitch.

new york is one of the greatest cities on earth and the economic capitol of the world. there are still plenty of trees on this earth, just not in the northeast. if nyc makes you disgusted, then you might as well move to canada because you are unamerican.
 
Natural wonder??? HA! Its the mouth of the hudson river not yosemite or the grand canyon. Calling it a natural wonder is like calling a suburban home an engineering marvel (when compared to skyscrapers...see the CSTV buildings in beijing by OMA or the turning torso building by santiago calatrava).

That is just laughable in itself.

Ok, it was nice, but it was nothing special. That entire area was destined to be essentially populated and destroyed. Pollution was inevitable because people back in the day didn't really know what they were doing. You could do the exact same thing with those pictures with almost every other major city...Paris, London, Tokyo, Mumbai, Hong Kong, etc. You see the same thing...The surrounding landscape is developed. Pollution in created. Once people got their shit together, they limited pollution. The Hudson looks a lot better now than when it did a long time ago when there was so much pollution, you could walk across it.

There is no way for humans to not leave a mark on this earth, in a literal sense and with pollution. There will always be pollution, no matter how much you try, it will still be a little bit. The cost of eliminating it rises as you try to eliminate more of it. Eliminate the pollution as long as the cost of eliminating that next bit of pollution is less than the benefit recieved.

If you actually think that humans can populate an area(over a span of the last hundred years and given the behavior and knowledge we have had at different time periods) and not pollute an area so highly populated, you need to get in touch with reality.
 
The pictures are really interesting though. I forgot to say that. Stuff like this is pretty cool. It reminds me of a special on the discovery channel that was about what would happen if everyone on earth disappeared and everything was just left to weather. They said eventually Manhattan would become what it once was, but that many of the buildings would be hills of rubble. It was pretty cool.
 
CORRECTION: NOT THE CITY ITSELF... THE POLLUTION WE HUMANS have created.

I am FUCKING AWARE a city was bound to grow there! It's NOT THE CITY I am sad about.

P.S. I am Canadian, and proud.
 
Two viable solutions then it seems - develop technology to do so or reduce our population. I'm a fan of both.
 
to be fair, if you were concerned about just pollution, you had poor image choice with the new york pictures. with what you said in your first post and the supporting images, it makes one think about just the city, not the pollution.
 
there's a big difference between a digital image and an actual picture, plus i see no smog at all in any of those pictures
 
One is happening. The other is going the opposite way. Everyone makes a huge deal about climate change and shit, but overpopulation is just going to be ridiculous in 100 years, 200 years, whenever. (I dont want to say a certain time because its kind of laughable about the scientist's reports from the 50s saying there would be no food by 1995). There will prob be a worldwide famine or disease that wipes out a bunch of people. Look at the flu epidemic near WWI.
 


True. I guess I should have showed the supporting article...

It's called the Manhattan Project and it's about trying to make New York as Eco-Friendly as they can to how it use to be.

I guess I thought the disgusting water and smog was kind of obvious, I should have worded it differently.

Nonetheless, I'm not surprised at the reaction. NSers will shoot down anyone and anything they can... Whether it's for a good cause or not.
 
That's not what people see when they see the pictures. They are small pictures. There is a drastic difference between the built environment in one and the natural environment in another. The difference is so alarming it takes you to point out what youre talking about in the pictures in your original post for people to have a clear understanding of what youre talking about.

So, when people see what you wrote and the pictures, all they see, because of the nature of the photographs is city and no city and the pollution is just a detail and hard to see. Unless you provide more specific images or rephrase your original wording, people think youre talking about something else. we understand now, but people dont read entire threads.
 
This picture very accurately describes this thread

1242283342.jpg


The photographer seems to have been trying to capture extreme disappointment, probably related to somebody slowing down the progress of the human race, and or some dumb Canadian getting high off of there retarded idea that they live in a magical fairy land, or possibly a combination of the two.

And please don't reply to this, and turn off your computer, I don't want you to waste power and pollute your Canadian fairy tale land

and ALTskier, thank you for cleaning house.

and yes we have very much so "Pimped out the island"
 
Do you think its ironic its called the Manhattan project when that was the project in WWII to develop the first atomic bomb? I just think that's funny.

Theres some good projects in NY. Diller Scofidio and Renfo had a good project reusing old elevated train tracks turning it into a park. Then theres a bunch of good green projects in Manhattan as well. Manhattan is possibly one of the most eco friendly cities already. It is dense and has an amazing mass transportation system. Although it has many less people, Atlanta is a terrible polluter. It is the definition of sprawl. It is the least dense and most sprawled out city in the US. People live 40 miles from the city and commute to work. That is standard and theres nothing weird about that around here. There are many undeveloped tracts of land less than 3-5 miles from downtown. We are well below the national average on park acreage (I believe NY is pretty good at that). Cities do much better with carbon footprints than rural areas. It may seem like much with heat islands and populations, but since there is great density, heat is retained. Example: A standard townhome or condo whatever on Manhattan island, a rowhouse, whatever. You can lose heat on 3 sides of your unit, front, back, top. A suburban house has 5 sides that let heat out. Its little things like these that allow cities to have small carbon footprints per person than less dense towns and rural areas. Im not arguing that this project is dumb, cause theres always better things that can happen. Im just trying to make the point that cities really arent as bad as they seem...unless you are talking about atlanta.
 
Actually, both. Population predictions have been steadily lessening, and the rate of birth is actually decreasing in this new millennium compared to the late 20th century. Developed countries are experiencing level birth rates, and in some areas, actual negative population growth.
 
NY is no where NEARLY as bad as Los Angeles would be in pollution production. In NY most people walk and a lot don't have cars. In Los Angeles, people commute hours both ways each day, just to get to work. So with so many Los Angeles suburbs, there is much more pollution coming from Los Angeles then NY. It is much better to have more people in a centralized location like that, then have people spread out everywhere. Reasons: Less pollution in other places, more habitats left alone for animals, less polluted areas. If people were not bunched together in, let's say, California, then people would cover the entire state, including way up in the mountains. So if everyone that lived in NY was a little bit more spread out and lived in suburbs and drove to work everyday, there would be MUCH MUCH more pollution.
 
who are all these people? theres too many people on this earth, we need a new plague.

this thread is so pointless in so many ways, those are digitally created images...they are in no way guaranteed to be even close to accurate, so chill the fuck out. People are starting to make somewhat of an effort so we are slightly trying to better ourselves at least. I just dont get what you think the city should look like...mud shithouses and people climbing trees to get around? christ...

oh, and just a tip...tooting your own horn about being a hippie doesnt help get you a positive reaction from NS, neither does bragging about your job at woodward when it is completely irrelevant.
 
oh and yes i realize you were talking about the pollution, thats life...the water will get dirty and the air will too no matter how hard we try to stop it in any city.
 
You're fucking welcome, mother nature. Obvious improvement right there. The place was definitely not a "natural wonder" by any stretch of the imagination before, but it's pretty wondrous now! I mean how hard was it to get a high class hooker in the woods there 400 years ago? Granted the deer probably didn't mug you for cash to score meth, but you need to learn to take the bad news along with the good. For example, pollution is horrible, but I just saved 200 dollars on my car insurance by switching to geico.

No but seriously, I do not see urbanization as a significant flaw in the development of humankind. Pollution? Sure. Let's do something about that. Please, for the love of God, someone listen to Al Gore, before he starts visiting us personally in our homes (no one needs that). But in the meantime don't feed me this BS about how everything would've been better off if we'd just lived like ewoks. That don't fly.
 
you think manhattan and NYC have it bad.. shit..

go look at the same thing with Los Angeles... or even better, Mexico City... yeeeeikes.
 
For once im going to have to defend a girl on NS...

Sure the images dont represent pollution or anything, they simply show the changes caused by human population, which are pretty obvious... And granted, the fact that she had to see these pictures to be disgusted by what the human race has done to the environment is also pretty stupid, as is calling the mouth of a random river a 'natural wonder'...

i think the point she was trying to make is that we're destroying our environment... which everyone is already very well aware of... and the fact that shes a modern day hippie... which she probably isnt, she just cares about the environment, just like everyone else on the planet nowadays...

wow it really is hard to defend a girl's post on NS... i give up.
 
the 1609 picture is recreated, why would they give it shitty looking water if they can make it all purty.

and to your revious post, fuck grammer, fuck yourself, and cpngratulations on teh job. i went to woodward once, it was baller, but way too much money.
adn to the kid who said ny sucks, fuck yes it does, cantwait to get the fuck outta here next year.
im not gonna argue over a stupid topic like this. because rowen already said it all, so did atlantaskier. we need technology, or we need to stop driving our cars for a few years, and not burn any gas, ect...
i think i know which ones gonna happen first, remember earth day? we couldnt even get everyone to turn off thir electricity for an hour! how do you expect us to stop driving or whatever. so unless people all by hybrids, shits gonna continue.
 
which do you think henry hudson would have been more amazed seeing, how it was back in 1609, or how it is now?...

pollution is inevitable, its been happeneing long before manhattan was discovered by the white man, just increases exponentially in the last century or so because of the technologies we've discovered. theres no way to exist how we do today without most of the pollution that also exists. think about it, no one would be able to fly to woodward, or much less pay that amount of money, and give you a job if it wasnt for how we lived today.

im not saying i necessarily totally disagree with what you're trying to say, but more or less say that we really cant do anything about it. overpopulation should be the main concern, as it has been suggested to occur within 100, or 200 years...well i feel it will be much less than that. many places are already well overpopulated. and the US has the largest land to population ratio(each person, has the most amount of land to themselves on average) than any other industrialized country in the world. we have barely even felt the effects of overpopulation yet it has been occuring for years already.

sure, we need to protect where we live, but part of this huge uproar of doing so is why the economic struggles have occured, sending production else where while they dont have environmental laws. i guess you gotta see both sides of the story, but hell, i just wanna ski
 
these are impressive pictures, but they don't say anything. it's obvious that new york city used to be a regular forest. all i can see from what you posted is that one side is developed and one is natural, but there aren't any shocking signs of pollution (aside from the color of the water, which doesn't say much because the alternative is digitally drawn) it may be a cool visual, but it doesn't tell me anything i didn't know. furthermore, urban areas are way more environmentally sound than less populated areas, it's just the density that fools you into thinking otherwise. so you're basically exposing to us the wrong aspects of human population; it's better that we live dense. it's not like you can even compare the world populations of then and now, so just the fact that you can see signs of far more people isn't a surprise to us (especially seeing as it's manhattan...duh!)
 
The USA has about 31 people per square km...

Sweden has 20, New Zealand has 15, Norway has 12, Canada, Iceland and Australia have 3...
 
Dude how many years did the indians live here "like ewoks" They were here for thousands of years before the europeans and they seamed to be living just fine. God i wish the indians had never let the white man off his ship
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top