5 ms·

The article mixes together some good points, some true but somewhat slanted positions and some highly debatable points. And calls this "literacy", in analogy to

The article mixes together some good points, some true but somewhat slanted positions and some highly debatable points. And calls this "literacy", in analogy to very basic, object things everyone should know. It's extremely off-putting. Example of highly debateable position: "That automobiles are a lifeline to people who live in rural areas (almost 20% in the US alone), and who were deeply isolated in the era before the car and the telephone." Automobile based urbanization has entirely reshaped the landscape of rural America rather than just giving previous here a way to get around. Where I live, once there were small cities, 1000-2000 people in walking distance of each other, dotting the landscape. Now it's a carpet of dispersed single family homes. Many debate the value of the landscape - in California, huge level of urban-wildland interface development has rather disastrous consequence, being a significant factor in our massive fires.

baybal2 6y ago
I see this not changing the fact that genuinely rural populations genuinely need an automobile. Yes, American urban population, and city builders can certainly consider going without a car, and building cities without making car ownership a prerequisite to live in.
- mcv 6y ago
  Yeah, but this works both ways: people live in rural places where they absolutely need to have a car, because they have access to cars. Without cars, less people would live there. Society adapts to the existence of the car.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    They've lived there before there were cars though. They just didn't have options to go to the next town, or the hospital when they'd need it. People lived before modern medicine as well. Without modern medicine, less people would live. Society adapts to the existence of modern medicine.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  I don't think "genuinely rural" means anything. Plenty of places in the US and around the world have been abandoned when no economic opportunities existed. As I said, the cities of 100 years ago are abandoned - rural population of that era has moved - some a short distance, some a long distance. The US has made decision (consciously or by default) to encourage dispersed rural/exurban/suburban development fueled by the private automobile. It probably can't reversed entirely but there's no "genuine, authentic rural thing-in-itself" that cries for automobile without history.
cyberdrunk 6y ago
Before automobile, people were using horses and buggies to travel to neighboring farms and the nearest town. They weren't that isolated.
- Gravityloss 6y ago
  They say the bicycle did wonders for genetics.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Not everyone could afford a horse before the automobile. Most people only had their feet. And modest families were much more numerous than today.
reader_mode 6y ago
Have you lived in a 1000-2000 people town/village without a car ? I did at one point when I was younger - our islands here have plenty of such places. I can't see anyone with the ability to drive chose not to in this situation - even the basic things like shopping - there's usually one or two small stores arround but getting to a bigger shopping mall was 30km round trip, doctor comes to town ambulance three times per week and if you have a medical emergency you're at the mercy of your neighbors or lottery that the ambulance from the closest ER is not busy, taking your children anywhere involves planning bus trips with limited time windows, if they miss a buss to school they are out for the day. And not to mention about 70% of people need it for work.
- ginko 6y ago
  If anything that's just an argument to move most people(other than those strictly necessary for agriculture) from rural towns into dense cities.
  - adrianN 6y ago
    Where "dense city" is still a pretty small town. A five digit population can easily support a hospital, a school, a train station and other basic necessities of life (e.g. jobs that don't require commuting to the next urban core).
  - reader_mode 6y ago
    There are unique opportunities in such small communities and qualities that cannot be replicated in denser urban areas. Once my children grow up I could see myself living there. Suggesting that we shouldn't live that way because it nececitaces a car ridiculous.
    - ginko 6y ago
      In my opinion living on the country side is a luxury. Sure, feel free to live in a small town, but please pay for all the externalities yourself.

baybal2 6y ago

I see this not changing the fact that genuinely rural populations genuinely need an automobile. Yes, American urban population, and city builders can certainly consider going without a car, and building cities without making car ownership a prerequisite to live in.

mcv 6y ago
Yeah, but this works both ways: people live in rural places where they absolutely need to have a car, because they have access to cars. Without cars, less people would live there. Society adapts to the existence of the car.
- luckylion 6y ago
  They've lived there before there were cars though. They just didn't have options to go to the next town, or the hospital when they'd need it. People lived before modern medicine as well. Without modern medicine, less people would live. Society adapts to the existence of modern medicine.
joe_the_user 6y ago
I don't think "genuinely rural" means anything. Plenty of places in the US and around the world have been abandoned when no economic opportunities existed. As I said, the cities of 100 years ago are abandoned - rural population of that era has moved - some a short distance, some a long distance. The US has made decision (consciously or by default) to encourage dispersed rural/exurban/suburban development fueled by the private automobile. It probably can't reversed entirely but there's no "genuine, authentic rural thing-in-itself" that cries for automobile without history.

cyberdrunk 6y ago

Before automobile, people were using horses and buggies to travel to neighboring farms and the nearest town. They weren't that isolated.

Gravityloss 6y ago
They say the bicycle did wonders for genetics.
ekianjo 6y ago
Not everyone could afford a horse before the automobile. Most people only had their feet. And modest families were much more numerous than today.

reader_mode 6y ago

Have you lived in a 1000-2000 people town/village without a car ? I did at one point when I was younger - our islands here have plenty of such places. I can't see anyone with the ability to drive chose not to in this situation - even the basic things like shopping - there's usually one or two small stores arround but getting to a bigger shopping mall was 30km round trip, doctor comes to town ambulance three times per week and if you have a medical emergency you're at the mercy of your neighbors or lottery that the ambulance from the closest ER is not busy, taking your children anywhere involves planning bus trips with limited time windows, if they miss a buss to school they are out for the day. And not to mention about 70% of people need it for work.

ginko 6y ago
If anything that's just an argument to move most people(other than those strictly necessary for agriculture) from rural towns into dense cities.
- adrianN 6y ago
  Where "dense city" is still a pretty small town. A five digit population can easily support a hospital, a school, a train station and other basic necessities of life (e.g. jobs that don't require commuting to the next urban core).
- reader_mode 6y ago
  There are unique opportunities in such small communities and qualities that cannot be replicated in denser urban areas. Once my children grow up I could see myself living there. Suggesting that we shouldn't live that way because it nececitaces a car ridiculous.
  - ginko 6y ago
    In my opinion living on the country side is a luxury. Sure, feel free to live in a small town, but please pay for all the externalities yourself.