3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - Decade 9y ago
    > > It is not a regression if that way of life was not sustainable. > Yes it is. It's literally a regression. It’s not a regression. It’s an advance in way of life. In the past, if you wanted to move fast, you had to own the car. Now you don’t need to own it, and can use the space for something else. Now you don’t need to drive it, and can have your hands free while someone else drives the car. > > 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. > 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. Owning a car is not freedom. Owning a car is being separated from friends and family, because the car is literally, physically, coming between you. Owning a car is being stuck in traffic. Owning a car is being a slave to the DMV, the gas station, and the repair shop. Living without a car is not giving up mobility. It’s living in a place where the car is just one option, and not necessarily the best option. Growing up, my family of five carted around town via public transit. We couldn’t afford to own a car, so living in a place built around car ownership would have meant living in isolation. Requiring a car is not sustainable. > > Emission control technology and tree plantings make urban life sometimes less polluted than rural life. > A vague generalization, and generally unlikely. https://www.livestrong.com/article/119955-harmful-effects-fertilizers/ https://www.livestrong.com/article/119955-harmful-effects-fe... https://www.menshealth.com/health/lawn-chemical-hazards https://www.menshealth.com/health/lawn-chemical-hazards Intensive agriculture has helped make food incredibly cheap, but the concentrated chemicals do not seem healthy to be near. > > 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. Not everybody owned the horse-drawn carriage. And people did give up the horse, sometimes reluctantly, because they could not afford to keep it. Fortunately, they lived in places where the horse was just one option, and not necessarily the best option. https://www.strongtowns.org/curbside-chat-1/2015/12/14/americas-suburban-experiment https://www.strongtowns.org/curbside-chat-1/2015/12/14/ameri...

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.
- Decade 9y ago
  > > It is not a regression if that way of life was not sustainable. > Yes it is. It's literally a regression. It’s not a regression. It’s an advance in way of life. In the past, if you wanted to move fast, you had to own the car. Now you don’t need to own it, and can use the space for something else. Now you don’t need to drive it, and can have your hands free while someone else drives the car. > > 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. > 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. Owning a car is not freedom. Owning a car is being separated from friends and family, because the car is literally, physically, coming between you. Owning a car is being stuck in traffic. Owning a car is being a slave to the DMV, the gas station, and the repair shop. Living without a car is not giving up mobility. It’s living in a place where the car is just one option, and not necessarily the best option. Growing up, my family of five carted around town via public transit. We couldn’t afford to own a car, so living in a place built around car ownership would have meant living in isolation. Requiring a car is not sustainable. > > Emission control technology and tree plantings make urban life sometimes less polluted than rural life. > A vague generalization, and generally unlikely. https://www.livestrong.com/article/119955-harmful-effects-fertilizers/ https://www.livestrong.com/article/119955-harmful-effects-fe... https://www.menshealth.com/health/lawn-chemical-hazards https://www.menshealth.com/health/lawn-chemical-hazards Intensive agriculture has helped make food incredibly cheap, but the concentrated chemicals do not seem healthy to be near. > > 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. Not everybody owned the horse-drawn carriage. And people did give up the horse, sometimes reluctantly, because they could not afford to keep it. Fortunately, they lived in places where the horse was just one option, and not necessarily the best option. https://www.strongtowns.org/curbside-chat-1/2015/12/14/americas-suburban-experiment https://www.strongtowns.org/curbside-chat-1/2015/12/14/ameri...