4 ms·

How many suburban 17 year olds are saying, no thanks, I'll continue to take the bus and not get my driver's license?

by robrenaud 6y ago

naavis 6y ago
Quite many outside USA, I would say.
rthomas6 6y ago
A lot, actually. The rate of people with driver's licenses in the US has been steadily decreasing since 1983.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
cmehdy 6y ago
This is a false dichotomy. You could very well get your drivers license and have the ability to drive a car but not own one, for example. Reducing your consumption doesn't mean accepting something that prevents you from functioning at all. Everyone can improve things their own way, and oil isn't just there to power your damn car. Take a look around your place and tell me how much plastic is used around you. What about those plans to extend your house if you have one? What about perhaps investing that same money into increasing energy efficiency for your living space? The whole "think of those poor people who can't drive to work" thing is an absolutely false dichotomy. If you don't actually chip off the unnecessary bits of your energy and materials consumption in your life by your own choice, you will NOT have the choice over what gets chipped off. If you're 17 right now, this will very much affect you and your kids even by the time you reach the age of those execs.
throw0101a 6y ago
It is no longer necessary to use oil to power automobiles. You can have your car and reduce fossil fuel use at the same time.
- cultus 6y ago
  Not really. Personal cars are just not a sustainable solution. Personal electric cars are less worse, but still are large machines toxic batteries and still require massively more energy than is necessary for the task of moving their comparatively small human occupants. They have a large embedded carbon and ecological cost. We need better density and better transit so they aren't necessary for the vast majority of people. Besides, cars are miserable in cities. Cities with extensive metro systems such as Paris or New York are far more livable than ones like Los Angeles or Seattle.
JeremyNT 6y ago
These kinds of small changes are meaningless and do nothing beyond assuaging one's own guilt and virtue signaling. This kind of system failure cannot be fixed by "voting with your wallet;" nobody actually pays the cost of fossil fuel usage directly, and so people will continue to make money at the expense of society as a whole. The kind of changes required here are well beyond any individual's ability to enact directly. The nature of capitalism and resource exploitation needs to be fundamentally and seriously reevaluated. This is the world we are leaving to our children. Complaining about kids not using the bus, or implying that it's somehow hypocritical to do so, is just victim blaming.

How many suburban 17 year olds are saying, no thanks, I'll continue to take the bus and not get my driver's license?

naavis 6y ago

Quite many outside USA, I would say.

rthomas6 6y ago

A lot, actually. The rate of people with driver's licenses in the US has been steadily decreasing since 1983.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

cmehdy 6y ago

This is a false dichotomy. You could very well get your drivers license and have the ability to drive a car but not own one, for example. Reducing your consumption doesn't mean accepting something that prevents you from functioning at all. Everyone can improve things their own way, and oil isn't just there to power your damn car. Take a look around your place and tell me how much plastic is used around you. What about those plans to extend your house if you have one? What about perhaps investing that same money into increasing energy efficiency for your living space? The whole "think of those poor people who can't drive to work" thing is an absolutely false dichotomy. If you don't actually chip off the unnecessary bits of your energy and materials consumption in your life by your own choice, you will NOT have the choice over what gets chipped off. If you're 17 right now, this will very much affect you and your kids even by the time you reach the age of those execs.

throw0101a 6y ago

It is no longer necessary to use oil to power automobiles. You can have your car and reduce fossil fuel use at the same time.

cultus 6y ago
Not really. Personal cars are just not a sustainable solution. Personal electric cars are less worse, but still are large machines toxic batteries and still require massively more energy than is necessary for the task of moving their comparatively small human occupants. They have a large embedded carbon and ecological cost. We need better density and better transit so they aren't necessary for the vast majority of people. Besides, cars are miserable in cities. Cities with extensive metro systems such as Paris or New York are far more livable than ones like Los Angeles or Seattle.

JeremyNT 6y ago

These kinds of small changes are meaningless and do nothing beyond assuaging one's own guilt and virtue signaling. This kind of system failure cannot be fixed by "voting with your wallet;" nobody actually pays the cost of fossil fuel usage directly, and so people will continue to make money at the expense of society as a whole. The kind of changes required here are well beyond any individual's ability to enact directly. The nature of capitalism and resource exploitation needs to be fundamentally and seriously reevaluated. This is the world we are leaving to our children. Complaining about kids not using the bus, or implying that it's somehow hypocritical to do so, is just victim blaming.