5 ms·

Humans destroy the environment, maybe we should get rid of them. I don't see how greenhouse emissions is relevant to this conversation. Obviously, we'd prefer

Humans destroy the environment, maybe we should get rid of them. I don't see how greenhouse emissions is relevant to this conversation. Obviously, we'd prefer to all be driving around (human operated or otherwise) in vehicles powered 100% by clean energy, and certainly people are working on that, but that's independent of whether or not those vehicles are operated by humans.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> Humans destroy the environment, maybe we should get rid of them. I belive genocide is against the law in most civilised societies, but, be my guest.
- gpm 8y ago
  <Not that it matters> Genocide isn't the right term here. Genocide is to wipe out a national group [0]. Rather we are looking for a word that means "to extinct a species" or alternatively "to extinct our own species". It looks like "extinguish" or "eradicate" is the closest word we have to the former [1]. I'm not aware of any word for the latter. <It matters even less, but> You could argue that to eradicate humans you would have to commit genocide several times. [0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/genocide https://www.etymonline.com/word/genocide [1] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/253505/is-there-a-verb-form-of-extinct#253513 https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/253505/is-there-...
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> I don't see how greenhouse emissions is relevant to this conversation. More cars means more emissions, the industry wants to sell more cars by loading them with self-driving features, therefore the issue of emmissions is relevants. I mean, that's kind of like saying "I don't see how coronary heart disease is relevant to this conversation that's about selling more hamburgers", or "I don't see how diabetes is relevant to this conversation that's abot selling more sugary drinks".
- bumholio 8y ago
  > the industry wants to sell more cars by loading them with self-driving features Strangely as it may sound, the plan is exactly the opposite, to make personal cars a rarity. > "I don't see how coronary heart disease is relevant to this conversation that's about ending world hunger" Fixed that for you. People without access to cheap transport or food really don't have time to worry about emissions or coronaries.
  - jellicle 8y ago
    Your plan includes banning personal car ownership? If it doesn't, then how do you plan to reduce it?
    - bumholio 8y ago
      Aside for car fetishists, owning a car is an expensive and draining choice for most people. It stands to reason that, if the fantastic self driving promises materialize, people would chose not to own a personal car, just like they choose not to own a chicken coop or a cow - themselves prized possessions in times before refrigeration and supermarkets (and cars). The promises might fail but that's the plan anyway, to make ride hailing so ubiquitous and frictionless that it's more convenient than ownership.
tomjakubowski 8y ago
The GP did not say anything about greenhouse emissions: > (with the infrastructure needed to accommodate them) Laying pavement quite literally destroys the environment, and a _ton_ of it is needed to support personal automobile lifestyles (particularly in suburban sprawl); far more than the amount required to support freight, walkers, cyclists, and mass transit. Modern US car-centric streets are very inefficient in space.
- dane-pgp 8y ago
  I don't know how much of the environment you think needs to be protected from being "destroyed" by the laying of pavement, but a helpful comparison might be to look at the figures for England: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096 "the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is… 2.27%."

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> Humans destroy the environment, maybe we should get rid of them. I belive genocide is against the law in most civilised societies, but, be my guest.

gpm 8y ago
<Not that it matters> Genocide isn't the right term here. Genocide is to wipe out a national group [0]. Rather we are looking for a word that means "to extinct a species" or alternatively "to extinct our own species". It looks like "extinguish" or "eradicate" is the closest word we have to the former [1]. I'm not aware of any word for the latter. <It matters even less, but> You could argue that to eradicate humans you would have to commit genocide several times. [0] https://www.etymonline.com/word/genocide https://www.etymonline.com/word/genocide [1] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/253505/is-there-a-verb-form-of-extinct#253513 https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/253505/is-there-...

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> I don't see how greenhouse emissions is relevant to this conversation. More cars means more emissions, the industry wants to sell more cars by loading them with self-driving features, therefore the issue of emmissions is relevants. I mean, that's kind of like saying "I don't see how coronary heart disease is relevant to this conversation that's about selling more hamburgers", or "I don't see how diabetes is relevant to this conversation that's abot selling more sugary drinks".

bumholio 8y ago
> the industry wants to sell more cars by loading them with self-driving features Strangely as it may sound, the plan is exactly the opposite, to make personal cars a rarity. > "I don't see how coronary heart disease is relevant to this conversation that's about ending world hunger" Fixed that for you. People without access to cheap transport or food really don't have time to worry about emissions or coronaries.
- jellicle 8y ago
  Your plan includes banning personal car ownership? If it doesn't, then how do you plan to reduce it?
  - bumholio 8y ago
    Aside for car fetishists, owning a car is an expensive and draining choice for most people. It stands to reason that, if the fantastic self driving promises materialize, people would chose not to own a personal car, just like they choose not to own a chicken coop or a cow - themselves prized possessions in times before refrigeration and supermarkets (and cars). The promises might fail but that's the plan anyway, to make ride hailing so ubiquitous and frictionless that it's more convenient than ownership.

tomjakubowski 8y ago

The GP did not say anything about greenhouse emissions: > (with the infrastructure needed to accommodate them) Laying pavement quite literally destroys the environment, and a _ton_ of it is needed to support personal automobile lifestyles (particularly in suburban sprawl); far more than the amount required to support freight, walkers, cyclists, and mass transit. Modern US car-centric streets are very inefficient in space.

dane-pgp 8y ago
I don't know how much of the environment you think needs to be protected from being "destroyed" by the laying of pavement, but a helpful comparison might be to look at the figures for England: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096 "the proportion of England's landscape which is built on is… 2.27%."