4 ms·

I won't really get into the politics of vehicles, but many people do need a car if they are to make a living, thinking otherwise is naive and unrealistic. For m

I won't really get into the politics of vehicles, but many people do need a car if they are to make a living, thinking otherwise is naive and unrealistic. For many, it is their living. Others need it for personal freedom, some people enjoy a road trip; others like to be able to visit friends and family. Perhaps some even use a vehicle to come take care of sick and elderly living in rural areas. People who don't live in cities need cars; public transportation is not widespread enough or flexible enough. Maybe you want to condemn everyone to live in cities? Or to not have big families, or to not produce goods where at one point those goods need to be transported to outlets by vehicle. The manufacturing of goods cause pollution as well, you don't want to have that production in urban areas and affect the health of those living there. Not all transportation can be done by other means, shipping, trains, etc. Goods have to get to stores. Sometime in the future, we will have more efficient means of delivery, at the very least all the vehicles delivering goods will be autonomous and electric, but for now, we're not there. In the case of Denmark, first off, their vehicles per capita is very low, and not because of taxation. Going after the few people who need their cars is punishing, kind of hypocritical as well, when you're at the same time burning coal. Second, Denmark's contribution to global warming is infinitesimal, let's focus on the United States and China who's the biggest polluters, by far. You don't cut the snake's tail.

fulafel 9y ago
> I won't really get into the politics of vehicles, but many people do need a car if they are to make a living, thinking otherwise is naive and unrealistic. Like I said with "people don't inherently need cars", this line of thinking is anchored in the wrong thing. It's of course trivially true that many current jobs rely on cars, but we have to rapidly change that - otherwise much worse things than carlessness and change of job will happen to people and the ecosphere. Try s/cars/slaves/ in your text to see what I mean. Re coal - it is a logical fallacy to deny necessary improvement A because we have not made a tangential, equally necessary improvement B yet. Of course we have to stop burning coal as well. Re cities - history does know instances of people living outside cities before widespread private car ownership...
- erikbye 9y ago
  > Like I said with "people don't inherently need cars", this line of thinking is anchored in the wrong thing. Inherent need as in without you die? No. But right now, for efficient (compared to walking) mobility outside of the public transportation infrastructure, we need vehicles. What is your suggestion for mobility outside cities, in a way that grants as much liberty, personal freedom as a car does? > Re coal - it is a logical fallacy to deny necessary improvement A because we have not made a tangential, equally necessary improvement B yet. Of course we have to stop burning coal as well. The logical fallacy is putting the cart before the horse. > Re cities - history does know instances of people living outside cities before widespread private car ownership... Your point being?

fulafel 9y ago

> I won't really get into the politics of vehicles, but many people do need a car if they are to make a living, thinking otherwise is naive and unrealistic. Like I said with "people don't inherently need cars", this line of thinking is anchored in the wrong thing. It's of course trivially true that many current jobs rely on cars, but we have to rapidly change that - otherwise much worse things than carlessness and change of job will happen to people and the ecosphere. Try s/cars/slaves/ in your text to see what I mean. Re coal - it is a logical fallacy to deny necessary improvement A because we have not made a tangential, equally necessary improvement B yet. Of course we have to stop burning coal as well. Re cities - history does know instances of people living outside cities before widespread private car ownership...

erikbye 9y ago
> Like I said with "people don't inherently need cars", this line of thinking is anchored in the wrong thing. Inherent need as in without you die? No. But right now, for efficient (compared to walking) mobility outside of the public transportation infrastructure, we need vehicles. What is your suggestion for mobility outside cities, in a way that grants as much liberty, personal freedom as a car does? > Re coal - it is a logical fallacy to deny necessary improvement A because we have not made a tangential, equally necessary improvement B yet. Of course we have to stop burning coal as well. The logical fallacy is putting the cart before the horse. > Re cities - history does know instances of people living outside cities before widespread private car ownership... Your point being?