4 ms·

> The problem I see is that the electorate doesn't work the way the founders imagine. Ding ding ding! Precisely. We’ve been designing cities well for thousands

> The problem I see is that the electorate doesn't work the way the founders imagine. Ding ding ding! Precisely. We’ve been designing cities well for thousands of years. I mean, pre-automobile, it made zero sense to have 5, 10, 15, 20 miles between you and a merchant or a doctor or law enforcement. This is a political problem. NIMBY property owners are increasingly the only ones able to vote in a given location, partially because they’re the only ones who can afford to live there. I mean, Jane Jacobs was writing in the ‘60s about how we’re ruining thousands of years of urban planning knowledge.

matt4077 8y ago
Of course US urban planning, and especially its reliance on cars and the wrongheaded deprecation of mixed zoning are a problem. But telling people "you're idiots" just doesn't seem to change any minds. It being a political problem (which is almost a truism) doesn't change anything regarding the tools that can be successful. NIMBYs obviously fear change. If they are right, and some development would cause unreasonable harms, then it'd be wrong to dismiss them. If, however, as most people seem to assume, their fears tend to be overblown, then what better way to change minds than showing them a believable simulation? Possibly one that lets them interactively fiddle with the assumptions, examine the experts' opinions previously presented as inscrutable dogma, and arrive at more realistic expectations.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Kalium 8y ago
  Not to wax cynical, but hasn't that precise approach proven less effective than might be hoped in the arena of climate change politics?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Was it even tried? I'm yet to see "believable simulations" shown to the general public. Something that doesn't look like a video of an indexed-color Earth with randomly rotating palette, but is explainable, explained, and possibly interactive. I myself believe scientists working on this have such simulations. But I've never seen any being discussed with regular people.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      Speaking only and solely for myself, I've seen a whole series of believable simulations shown to the general public and explained to a degree I find adequate. VESL springs to mind: https://vesl.jpl.nasa.gov/ https://vesl.jpl.nasa.gov/ Of course, believable tends to be a matter of opinion, and climate scientists have often been treated somewhat harshly by regular people when they attempt to engage. It's enough to lead me to think that there is a whole series of such tools, already existing and meeting every one of your completely reasonable criteria! Unfortunately, they do not seem to be having the impact an optimist might hope for. Among other things, it requires a person to trust the programs involved, trust that the models correspond meaningfully to reality, and trust the intentions of the people creating them. None of these are small asks in a politically charged arena, you know?
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        > VESL springs to mind Haven't seen or heard that before; thanks, I'll have something to show some people. > Among other things, it requires a person to trust the programs involved, trust that the models correspond meaningfully to reality, and trust the intentions of the people creating them. Yes, those are the basics, they may not be small asks in a politically charged areas, but if you don't have them your alternative is to coerce people by threats. It's entirely reasonable to require these three things, as if people were to suddenly suspend them, they'd be quickly conned. This makes the problem hard, especially that you have a lot of people, including pretty much all news companies, who make money by burning that trust. Maybe a lot of convincing simulations were shown as a matter of large-scale public discussion, and were rejected based on trust issue. If so, I must have missed it, and it's a shame :(. RE politically charged areas, I'm reminded of this quote: > As near as I can tell, the political process converts ideas from logical propositions into group signaling devices. Once a idea becomes a signal, any question of its truth or falsehood is commonly ignored for several human generations. -- dlss, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12699503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12699503

matt4077 8y ago

Of course US urban planning, and especially its reliance on cars and the wrongheaded deprecation of mixed zoning are a problem. But telling people "you're idiots" just doesn't seem to change any minds. It being a political problem (which is almost a truism) doesn't change anything regarding the tools that can be successful. NIMBYs obviously fear change. If they are right, and some development would cause unreasonable harms, then it'd be wrong to dismiss them. If, however, as most people seem to assume, their fears tend to be overblown, then what better way to change minds than showing them a believable simulation? Possibly one that lets them interactively fiddle with the assumptions, examine the experts' opinions previously presented as inscrutable dogma, and arrive at more realistic expectations.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Kalium 8y ago
Not to wax cynical, but hasn't that precise approach proven less effective than might be hoped in the arena of climate change politics?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Was it even tried? I'm yet to see "believable simulations" shown to the general public. Something that doesn't look like a video of an indexed-color Earth with randomly rotating palette, but is explainable, explained, and possibly interactive. I myself believe scientists working on this have such simulations. But I've never seen any being discussed with regular people.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    Speaking only and solely for myself, I've seen a whole series of believable simulations shown to the general public and explained to a degree I find adequate. VESL springs to mind: https://vesl.jpl.nasa.gov/ https://vesl.jpl.nasa.gov/ Of course, believable tends to be a matter of opinion, and climate scientists have often been treated somewhat harshly by regular people when they attempt to engage. It's enough to lead me to think that there is a whole series of such tools, already existing and meeting every one of your completely reasonable criteria! Unfortunately, they do not seem to be having the impact an optimist might hope for. Among other things, it requires a person to trust the programs involved, trust that the models correspond meaningfully to reality, and trust the intentions of the people creating them. None of these are small asks in a politically charged arena, you know?
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      > VESL springs to mind Haven't seen or heard that before; thanks, I'll have something to show some people. > Among other things, it requires a person to trust the programs involved, trust that the models correspond meaningfully to reality, and trust the intentions of the people creating them. Yes, those are the basics, they may not be small asks in a politically charged areas, but if you don't have them your alternative is to coerce people by threats. It's entirely reasonable to require these three things, as if people were to suddenly suspend them, they'd be quickly conned. This makes the problem hard, especially that you have a lot of people, including pretty much all news companies, who make money by burning that trust. Maybe a lot of convincing simulations were shown as a matter of large-scale public discussion, and were rejected based on trust issue. If so, I must have missed it, and it's a shame :(. RE politically charged areas, I'm reminded of this quote: > As near as I can tell, the political process converts ideas from logical propositions into group signaling devices. Once a idea becomes a signal, any question of its truth or falsehood is commonly ignored for several human generations. -- dlss, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12699503 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12699503