3 ms·

Or just doesn't care about the wellbeing of the majority and prefers pollution with cars, sprawled cities, pushing people with low incomes always further from t

Or just doesn't care about the wellbeing of the majority and prefers pollution with cars, sprawled cities, pushing people with low incomes always further from the center (where they might still work), yada yada. It's a terrible stance for both ecological and social matters.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 9y ago
You demonstrate a perfect example of that self-sure self-righteousness. I'd strongly suggest you maybe try to understand the perspective of other people more, instead of trying to paint it into a story that you can oppose.
- hycaria 9y ago
  A whole continent doesn't get it ; oppose this to most europeans, for whom it's very normal. I get the perspective, doesn't mean it's better for mankind/society/the earth. Having one's own, shallow interests (because it's often revolving around sacred concept of space, which mostly exists to stash more of the shit one can buy) to the detriment of global ones is not something to be proud of.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    Oh boy, more self-sure self-righteousness. You obviously don't get the perspective, because you literally aren't telling me their perspective, you are telling me a caricature you've made up about their perspective. You've combined that with some moralizing about why your personal view is the only possible morally right one, and how it's not just the right personal view, it's the only possible sane and moral view of global interests when it's definitely not. It's a particular perspective, and the sooner you realize there are valid other ones, the better off you'll be[1], because your approach is a sure-fire way to succeed in not convincing people. Or is your plan to just try to force your view on them? Because that's another thing that works great! [1] It's also one definitely not shared by "The entire continent", because the entire continent's worth of people are not able to be pigeon-holed in their views so easily.
    - hycaria 9y ago
      I'm sorry that this issue leads you to attack me personnally, twice now. Also nowhere have I said that I wanted to force anything on anyone. I pointed out effects that this choice for sprawled suburbs (so in a city setting, and not rural, which is a different deal) has real consequences. And that maybe it's not frowned upon because those people are seen as NIMBY's or speculators, but simply that those choices are unconsiderate to our future challenges as a species (ie global warming, social fissure, ...). So maybe if one doesn't care at all about environment and sustainability, and only about his own individual life, sprawled cities and suburbs can seem like a good idea. But roads and infrastructure are polluting, sometimes to the detriment of arable land. Such suburbs exists on dependance of the personal vehicle so far (shared ones will help matters a bit, sure but this still faces the issue) so more GHG pollution and so on. Ecology is the most worrying aspect of it to me, but sadly socially it's also desastrous. I have read urbanist books that focused more that matter but in my native tongue so probably no point in making references but still : http://www.lechappee.org/collections/pour-en-finir-avec/le-cauchemar-pavillonnaire http://www.lechappee.org/collections/pour-en-finir-avec/le-c... The problen is that if most people own vehicles, there's no need for PT, which consequently does not develop, and so a whole fringe of population that can't afford a car is isolated. Density brings populations together, if you live in a sprawled neighborhood you never meet other people, narrowing your perspective on your society. Also note that this was not always the case. Cities used to have active centers, people lived around and did most errands by foot, streets were narrower... Now we go to malls, often peripherial, and single, private owned businesses are eaten up. As for why people are attracted to suburbs (also largely sourced in books interested in the social phenomenon). More living space (so more volume to heat, see ecological concerns), which largely exceeds the actual comfortable need we have for it (and enables the stashing of shit, shit we don't need and that pollutes, consuming as much as one can, see ecological and social concerns). The garden, which is seemingly essential to some idyllistic upbringing of children, but probably nothing more (at least I don't feel people who grew up with gardens are significantly more attracted and careful towards nature but YMMV). So yeah, sometimes specific hobbies (car collection, woodworking, gardening, whatever) can make sense of such choices. But that doesn't make it's inconvenients less real. And tbqh, most often people don't even think much of them in the first place. Enough posts in the thread described European cities that I don't need to do so. But there's a need for density in the US, and the suburbian nightmare (which is also prevalent here) has to be taken control of.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

DannyBee 9y ago

You demonstrate a perfect example of that self-sure self-righteousness. I'd strongly suggest you maybe try to understand the perspective of other people more, instead of trying to paint it into a story that you can oppose.

hycaria 9y ago
A whole continent doesn't get it ; oppose this to most europeans, for whom it's very normal. I get the perspective, doesn't mean it's better for mankind/society/the earth. Having one's own, shallow interests (because it's often revolving around sacred concept of space, which mostly exists to stash more of the shit one can buy) to the detriment of global ones is not something to be proud of.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  Oh boy, more self-sure self-righteousness. You obviously don't get the perspective, because you literally aren't telling me their perspective, you are telling me a caricature you've made up about their perspective. You've combined that with some moralizing about why your personal view is the only possible morally right one, and how it's not just the right personal view, it's the only possible sane and moral view of global interests when it's definitely not. It's a particular perspective, and the sooner you realize there are valid other ones, the better off you'll be[1], because your approach is a sure-fire way to succeed in not convincing people. Or is your plan to just try to force your view on them? Because that's another thing that works great! [1] It's also one definitely not shared by "The entire continent", because the entire continent's worth of people are not able to be pigeon-holed in their views so easily.
  - hycaria 9y ago
    I'm sorry that this issue leads you to attack me personnally, twice now. Also nowhere have I said that I wanted to force anything on anyone. I pointed out effects that this choice for sprawled suburbs (so in a city setting, and not rural, which is a different deal) has real consequences. And that maybe it's not frowned upon because those people are seen as NIMBY's or speculators, but simply that those choices are unconsiderate to our future challenges as a species (ie global warming, social fissure, ...). So maybe if one doesn't care at all about environment and sustainability, and only about his own individual life, sprawled cities and suburbs can seem like a good idea. But roads and infrastructure are polluting, sometimes to the detriment of arable land. Such suburbs exists on dependance of the personal vehicle so far (shared ones will help matters a bit, sure but this still faces the issue) so more GHG pollution and so on. Ecology is the most worrying aspect of it to me, but sadly socially it's also desastrous. I have read urbanist books that focused more that matter but in my native tongue so probably no point in making references but still : http://www.lechappee.org/collections/pour-en-finir-avec/le-cauchemar-pavillonnaire http://www.lechappee.org/collections/pour-en-finir-avec/le-c... The problen is that if most people own vehicles, there's no need for PT, which consequently does not develop, and so a whole fringe of population that can't afford a car is isolated. Density brings populations together, if you live in a sprawled neighborhood you never meet other people, narrowing your perspective on your society. Also note that this was not always the case. Cities used to have active centers, people lived around and did most errands by foot, streets were narrower... Now we go to malls, often peripherial, and single, private owned businesses are eaten up. As for why people are attracted to suburbs (also largely sourced in books interested in the social phenomenon). More living space (so more volume to heat, see ecological concerns), which largely exceeds the actual comfortable need we have for it (and enables the stashing of shit, shit we don't need and that pollutes, consuming as much as one can, see ecological and social concerns). The garden, which is seemingly essential to some idyllistic upbringing of children, but probably nothing more (at least I don't feel people who grew up with gardens are significantly more attracted and careful towards nature but YMMV). So yeah, sometimes specific hobbies (car collection, woodworking, gardening, whatever) can make sense of such choices. But that doesn't make it's inconvenients less real. And tbqh, most often people don't even think much of them in the first place. Enough posts in the thread described European cities that I don't need to do so. But there's a need for density in the US, and the suburbian nightmare (which is also prevalent here) has to be taken control of.