6 ms·

But how would you move around? Public transportation cannot reach everywhere. I would just stop seeing my family without having a car.

craigds 9y ago
We'll find a way though, after some pain. Maybe we'll just become less mobile, and be okay with that. Denser housing and more distributed community hubs seem the obvious solution. The harder question is how would you get from here to a world without cars in the first place. There are some pretty massive political and social hurdles to overcome. I don't think this will happen until we basically run out of fuel, unfortunately.
- explainplease 9y ago
  > Maybe we'll just become less mobile, and be okay with that. This is bizarre. Is there any other technology, any other quality-of-life issue, in which people would advocate or settle for regression? Technology is advancing faster than ever before, the pace is still increasing--yet people are saying that we should go back to not having personal vehicles, not travelling much... What's going on here?
  - c3833174 9y ago
    Some people are different than others.
  - junkcollector 9y ago
    Most discussions centered on environmental concerns boil down to accepting a massive quality of life reduction for most of the world's population. It is usually colored by someone who thinks it wouldn't impact themselves much and that the world would be better if more people just lived like them i.e. in dense urban environments. This argument at least is not predicated on the need to kill a bunch of people such as you commonly hear in biotech or agriculture discussions.
  - Decade 9y ago
    It is not a regression if that way of life was not sustainable. http://www.businessinsider.com/strong-towns-growth-ponzi-scheme-suburbs-2011-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/strong-towns-growth-ponzi-sch... But most urbanists and community groups aren’t interested in the big-picture finances. They’re concerned with on-the-ground experience, and the personal car is not essential to it. Technology is providing car sharing and ride sharing for short distances, and airplanes for long distances. Just-in-time global supply chains that make tropical fruit affordable in the neighborhood grocery store, also provide anything else in the world to my doorstep. Emission control technology and tree plantings make urban life sometimes less polluted than rural life. We live great lives without personal cars, and we don’t want to be forced into legacy environments that require cars.
    - explainplease 9y ago
      > It is not a regression if that way of life was not sustainable. Yes it is. It's literally a regression. The reason for the regression is orthogonal to the fact that it is a regression. > They’re concerned with on-the-ground experience, and the personal car is not essential to it. This is a generalization that does not account for the way of life of most of the population. > Technology is providing car sharing and ride sharing for short distances, and airplanes for long distances. Just-in-time global supply chains that make tropical fruit affordable in the neighborhood grocery store, also provide anything else in the world to my doorstep. Emission control technology and tree plantings make urban life sometimes less polluted than rural life. None of that helps a family of four cart their kids around town. Or anyone who lives outside of an urban area. Or anyone who likes to have room to carry anything around, go on weekend trips, etc. > Emission control technology and tree plantings make urban life sometimes less polluted than rural life. A vague generalization, and generally unlikely. > We live great lives without personal cars, and we don’t want to be forced into legacy environments that require cars. This is also bizarre. It's especially so when you look at the bigger picture, in which cars are an evolution of the horse-drawn carriage. Imagine telling a family 150 years ago that their horse is not sustainable, so they have to give it up. Imagine telling them that you live a great life without a horse, and you don't want to be forced into a legacy environment that requires horses, so they should get used to life without a horse.
bigbugbag 9y ago
Walking, bikes, trains and other public transportation. Maybe carpooling. But in countries built around roads and cheap oil such as the U.S. the consequences of those choices will be harsher. Specially as the people in charge know of this but did and still do nothing to address the issue.
- chrisper 9y ago
  I live in a country where public transportation is excellent and car sharing exists. I lived 2 months without a car and just could not stand it any longer after that. Now I just do a mix of driving my own car + taking public transportation. If you only live in a big city and only want to do things there, then public transportation is ok.
- Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  I live in a country with a good public transportation network. It takes takes 1.5 - 2x more time to get around, at only a slim financial difference. I used it primarily for a couple of years, but it was only viable because I was lucky to live in cycling or walking distance of a train station. Right now it's just not viable anymore; my commute would be 2 hours instead of <1 if I were to try it with public transit, and would involve two buses, two trains, and a lot of waiting in between.

craigds 9y ago

We'll find a way though, after some pain. Maybe we'll just become less mobile, and be okay with that. Denser housing and more distributed community hubs seem the obvious solution. The harder question is how would you get from here to a world without cars in the first place. There are some pretty massive political and social hurdles to overcome. I don't think this will happen until we basically run out of fuel, unfortunately.

explainplease 9y ago
> Maybe we'll just become less mobile, and be okay with that. This is bizarre. Is there any other technology, any other quality-of-life issue, in which people would advocate or settle for regression? Technology is advancing faster than ever before, the pace is still increasing--yet people are saying that we should go back to not having personal vehicles, not travelling much... What's going on here?
- c3833174 9y ago
  Some people are different than others.
- junkcollector 9y ago
  Most discussions centered on environmental concerns boil down to accepting a massive quality of life reduction for most of the world's population. It is usually colored by someone who thinks it wouldn't impact themselves much and that the world would be better if more people just lived like them i.e. in dense urban environments. This argument at least is not predicated on the need to kill a bunch of people such as you commonly hear in biotech or agriculture discussions.
- Decade 9y ago
  It is not a regression if that way of life was not sustainable. http://www.businessinsider.com/strong-towns-growth-ponzi-scheme-suburbs-2011-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/strong-towns-growth-ponzi-sch... But most urbanists and community groups aren’t interested in the big-picture finances. They’re concerned with on-the-ground experience, and the personal car is not essential to it. Technology is providing car sharing and ride sharing for short distances, and airplanes for long distances. Just-in-time global supply chains that make tropical fruit affordable in the neighborhood grocery store, also provide anything else in the world to my doorstep. Emission control technology and tree plantings make urban life sometimes less polluted than rural life. We live great lives without personal cars, and we don’t want to be forced into legacy environments that require cars.
  - explainplease 9y ago
    > It is not a regression if that way of life was not sustainable. Yes it is. It's literally a regression. The reason for the regression is orthogonal to the fact that it is a regression. > They’re concerned with on-the-ground experience, and the personal car is not essential to it. This is a generalization that does not account for the way of life of most of the population. > Technology is providing car sharing and ride sharing for short distances, and airplanes for long distances. Just-in-time global supply chains that make tropical fruit affordable in the neighborhood grocery store, also provide anything else in the world to my doorstep. Emission control technology and tree plantings make urban life sometimes less polluted than rural life. None of that helps a family of four cart their kids around town. Or anyone who lives outside of an urban area. Or anyone who likes to have room to carry anything around, go on weekend trips, etc. > Emission control technology and tree plantings make urban life sometimes less polluted than rural life. A vague generalization, and generally unlikely. > We live great lives without personal cars, and we don’t want to be forced into legacy environments that require cars. This is also bizarre. It's especially so when you look at the bigger picture, in which cars are an evolution of the horse-drawn carriage. Imagine telling a family 150 years ago that their horse is not sustainable, so they have to give it up. Imagine telling them that you live a great life without a horse, and you don't want to be forced into a legacy environment that requires horses, so they should get used to life without a horse.

bigbugbag 9y ago

Walking, bikes, trains and other public transportation. Maybe carpooling. But in countries built around roads and cheap oil such as the U.S. the consequences of those choices will be harsher. Specially as the people in charge know of this but did and still do nothing to address the issue.

chrisper 9y ago
I live in a country where public transportation is excellent and car sharing exists. I lived 2 months without a car and just could not stand it any longer after that. Now I just do a mix of driving my own car + taking public transportation. If you only live in a big city and only want to do things there, then public transportation is ok.
Cthulhu_ 9y ago
I live in a country with a good public transportation network. It takes takes 1.5 - 2x more time to get around, at only a slim financial difference. I used it primarily for a couple of years, but it was only viable because I was lucky to live in cycling or walking distance of a train station. Right now it's just not viable anymore; my commute would be 2 hours instead of <1 if I were to try it with public transit, and would involve two buses, two trains, and a lot of waiting in between.