26 ms·

Of course you can't do them storming straight out of the gates. It just doesn't work like that. But sure, you can do them perfectly. How? - You provide incent

Of course you can't do them storming straight out of the gates. It just doesn't work like that. But sure, you can do them perfectly. How? - You provide incentives for attractive alternatives. - You invest in those alternatives and you invest in contextual drivers that make the transition more appealing. For instance, you provide an integrated plans for urban planning that cover different concerns. - You emphasize the benefits of those alternatives on an individual level. - You make a compelling narrative why the status quo is holding the individual back. - You diversify your narrative to to identify / appeal with as many different social groups as you have to. That's just the content. Then there's also your political position. Whether your part of a power elite, or your not, you still need tactics to garner support, whether you like it or not. Alinsky's 12 rules for radicals, for instance, is a classic example in that regard. The automative industry or the meat industry didn't just happen simply because individual consumers out of their own accord. They also happened because consumers where incentivized to buy in a 'modern' lifestyle with a heavy focus on cheap and convenience during the 20th century as opposed to more traditional, localized ways of living; and because those industries that supported this cultural shift were directly and indirectly subsidized. For instance, cities got covered in highway infrastructure in the 1950's and 1960's paid for through public funding and public policy making. Public governance is about figuring out feedback loops in social, economical and political dynamics and finding ways to bend them towards your agenda. Banning cars in city centers is already happening in European cities. The usual argument is to make living in the city more comfortable or make the city more attractive for commerce driven by regional or international tourism (both of which having their own drawbacks and tensions).

mytailorisrich 6y ago
People used to eat little meat, not because of a "traditional" or "localized" way of living but because they were too poor to afford it. As soon as they got richer they could do what they dreamed of. It's like cars, really. People used to walk. Not because it was nice and healthy but because they had no choice. Then bikes and public transport werean improvement, but really people do prefer the comfort and freedom of driving their own cars and when that became possible and affordable they did not need much convincing to jump at the opportunity.
- baq 6y ago
  exactly. our western standard of living is simply too cheap. too many costs are externalized and, even worse, people like to pretend these costs don't even exist.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  > they were too poor Beware of value attribution and hindsight bias. First, historic cuisines and diets evolved throughout history, and differed greatly depending by geographic location. Beware of generalizing particular historic contexts. You can't reliably extrapolate the dietary patterns of European serfs - as explained by their particular socio-economic context - and apply that the Mayan culture during the Classic period (same time frame 200-900 AD). Second, the "they were too poor" argument only carries meaning in concrete socio-economic contexts. Even then, do note that the modern liberal conceptual framework of poor and rich didn't exist in earlier times. This even holds up today. It's tenuous claim to assume that, for instance, native cultures perceive themselves as "poor". If they do see themselves as "poor" today, that's always in reference to the dominant modern economic model based on western liberal enlightenment values and principles which has impacted their culture as an external factor. > People used to walk. Not because it was nice and healthy but because they had no choice. They didn't have a choice, but that doesn't say anything about how people perceived relying on muscle power across history, culture and geographical location. Just 20 years ago, nobody considered the absence of social media and smartphones as a fundamental lacking in life. That's totally different today. For a short while, it was a choice, today, access to digital technology is a hard requirement in order to be able to participate in modern industrialized society. This is an example of how a feedback loop was created between availability and demand creating an artificial need. The same is true for most modern conveniences. I'm deeply happy that I don't have to live a relatively short life working land, foraging or hunting game. But at the same time, I'm very much aware that's a hindsight bias and I'm very much aware that most modern conveniences aren't a prerequisite for the survival of humanity. As it stands, many of those modern conveniences have contributed to the existential threat which is Climate Change.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    > Beware of value attribution and hindsight bias. It's not. It's a general observation that holds true in many place, certainly Europe (and thus the West in general) and, say, China. The amount of meat eaten was constrained by the value of animals and most people simply could not afford to eat more meat than they did. Likewise for cars. It seems to be an ideological take to claim that people do not prefer comfort and ease of transport...

mytailorisrich 6y ago

People used to eat little meat, not because of a "traditional" or "localized" way of living but because they were too poor to afford it. As soon as they got richer they could do what they dreamed of. It's like cars, really. People used to walk. Not because it was nice and healthy but because they had no choice. Then bikes and public transport werean improvement, but really people do prefer the comfort and freedom of driving their own cars and when that became possible and affordable they did not need much convincing to jump at the opportunity.

baq 6y ago
exactly. our western standard of living is simply too cheap. too many costs are externalized and, even worse, people like to pretend these costs don't even exist.
CaptArmchair 6y ago
> they were too poor Beware of value attribution and hindsight bias. First, historic cuisines and diets evolved throughout history, and differed greatly depending by geographic location. Beware of generalizing particular historic contexts. You can't reliably extrapolate the dietary patterns of European serfs - as explained by their particular socio-economic context - and apply that the Mayan culture during the Classic period (same time frame 200-900 AD). Second, the "they were too poor" argument only carries meaning in concrete socio-economic contexts. Even then, do note that the modern liberal conceptual framework of poor and rich didn't exist in earlier times. This even holds up today. It's tenuous claim to assume that, for instance, native cultures perceive themselves as "poor". If they do see themselves as "poor" today, that's always in reference to the dominant modern economic model based on western liberal enlightenment values and principles which has impacted their culture as an external factor. > People used to walk. Not because it was nice and healthy but because they had no choice. They didn't have a choice, but that doesn't say anything about how people perceived relying on muscle power across history, culture and geographical location. Just 20 years ago, nobody considered the absence of social media and smartphones as a fundamental lacking in life. That's totally different today. For a short while, it was a choice, today, access to digital technology is a hard requirement in order to be able to participate in modern industrialized society. This is an example of how a feedback loop was created between availability and demand creating an artificial need. The same is true for most modern conveniences. I'm deeply happy that I don't have to live a relatively short life working land, foraging or hunting game. But at the same time, I'm very much aware that's a hindsight bias and I'm very much aware that most modern conveniences aren't a prerequisite for the survival of humanity. As it stands, many of those modern conveniences have contributed to the existential threat which is Climate Change.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  > Beware of value attribution and hindsight bias. It's not. It's a general observation that holds true in many place, certainly Europe (and thus the West in general) and, say, China. The amount of meat eaten was constrained by the value of animals and most people simply could not afford to eat more meat than they did. Likewise for cars. It seems to be an ideological take to claim that people do not prefer comfort and ease of transport...