3 ms·
> On balance, cars -- at least our ability to use them -- has been a huge negative. Honestly there's no way this is true. How many people would die if they cou
by malvosenior 7y ago
> On balance, cars -- at least our ability to use them -- has been a huge negative.
Honestly there's no way this is true. How many people would die if they couldn't use an ambulance? How many people are surviving on goods shipped to them via trucks?
Of course things can be improved, but there's no way the automobile was a net negative on humanity.
- joshklein 7y agoWhat if the larger story of the industrialization enabled by that trucking warms the planet to the point that humanity goes extinct? Something to at least consider; unintended consequences are still consequences.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- malvosenior 7y agoHumanity is not at risk of going extinct from global warming.
- manthedudeguy 7y ago"There's no way". What a compelling argument. There's "no way" that 60 million people would have died in the 20th century if there was no such thing as an ambulance. I'm positive we would have invented a workable replacement.
- wolco 7y agoShipment of food / water / medicine might.
- malvosenior 7y ago"I'm positive we would have invented a workable replacement." is also not a compelling argument :) It's actually rather absurd to suggest automobiles were a net negative. They are one of the greatest inventions in the history of humanity. It's like saying electricity is a net negative.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pwthornton 7y agoYou could have ambulances without personal cars. But a huge amount of ambulance rides are due to car accidents. Also, our shipping system is backboned by freight rail and ocean shipping, not trucks. In particular, the US has a really robust freight rail system for moving massive amounts of goods across the country.