3 ms·

To answer shortly to your questions. 1 - No; 2 - No. Expanded explanation. Due to economics you'd invest in a more expensive technology, using more manual labo

To answer shortly to your questions. 1 - No; 2 - No. Expanded explanation. Due to economics you'd invest in a more expensive technology, using more manual labor, having less free time to think to more advance tech, which in turn leads to slower development. Using more manual labor would also, in turn, lead to less need for coal and oil demand and that would mean lesser climate change problem. My 2 cents

southerntofu 6y ago
> you'd invest in a more expensive technology How can collective transportation be more expensive than cars, as a whole? Most western countries had really well connected railroads going in all the very small towns and did that for pennies compared to the overall price of car society. The overall cost of cars is not just the individual car. It's also infrastructure that caters to cars, which requires roads everywhere (otherwise your car is pretty useless), parking spaces.. etc.. While i agree with the conclusion (better for the environment, and probably for everything else), and i agree manual labor is usually (though not always) preferable to industrialized labor, i don't understand why collective transportation would require more manual labor.
- unnouinceput 6y ago
  In cities you'd have instead of roads for cars, to cover each individual need, rolling sidewalks, going all different directions. Which means a lot of interconnected stuff to cover everything. If I want to go to my friend who is 3 blocks to the right and then a U turn and 5 more blocks to the left currently I take a car and I am there in 5 minutes. But if this society where individual cars don't exists but something else covers that highly customized needs for each individual - how you'd envision said technology? I would envision sidewalks on different levels, interconnected with elevators, and all of them on winches and trolleys and whatnot. Hence a lot more expensive technology to deploy/maintain. Or are we talking Sci-Fi and some alien technology became available to us?
  - rini17 6y ago
    WHAT? I think parent was talking about trams.
  - alvarlagerlof 6y ago
    It sounds like you live in an american city. I live in Stockholm, and people here mostly don't even dream of driving to each other or stores. It's expensive to park and own cars. Instead we have a large bus, tram, train, and subway network, and that's all that's needed.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      >I live in Stockholm, and people here mostly don't even dream of driving to each other or stores. So it sounds like they don't dream of it in the same way that many people in the US don't dream of being chauffeured everywhere in an Uber. It's so expensive that it's not even within the realm of possibility. Having "good" public transit as an option is very nice. I once lived in a city like that. But it's not hard to see why a lot of people (and not just in the US) choose suburbs and sitting in traffic as the option that sucks less than the others.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    Have you never taken a bus?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

southerntofu 6y ago

> you'd invest in a more expensive technology How can collective transportation be more expensive than cars, as a whole? Most western countries had really well connected railroads going in all the very small towns and did that for pennies compared to the overall price of car society. The overall cost of cars is not just the individual car. It's also infrastructure that caters to cars, which requires roads everywhere (otherwise your car is pretty useless), parking spaces.. etc.. While i agree with the conclusion (better for the environment, and probably for everything else), and i agree manual labor is usually (though not always) preferable to industrialized labor, i don't understand why collective transportation would require more manual labor.

unnouinceput 6y ago
In cities you'd have instead of roads for cars, to cover each individual need, rolling sidewalks, going all different directions. Which means a lot of interconnected stuff to cover everything. If I want to go to my friend who is 3 blocks to the right and then a U turn and 5 more blocks to the left currently I take a car and I am there in 5 minutes. But if this society where individual cars don't exists but something else covers that highly customized needs for each individual - how you'd envision said technology? I would envision sidewalks on different levels, interconnected with elevators, and all of them on winches and trolleys and whatnot. Hence a lot more expensive technology to deploy/maintain. Or are we talking Sci-Fi and some alien technology became available to us?
- rini17 6y ago
  WHAT? I think parent was talking about trams.
- alvarlagerlof 6y ago
  It sounds like you live in an american city. I live in Stockholm, and people here mostly don't even dream of driving to each other or stores. It's expensive to park and own cars. Instead we have a large bus, tram, train, and subway network, and that's all that's needed.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >I live in Stockholm, and people here mostly don't even dream of driving to each other or stores. So it sounds like they don't dream of it in the same way that many people in the US don't dream of being chauffeured everywhere in an Uber. It's so expensive that it's not even within the realm of possibility. Having "good" public transit as an option is very nice. I once lived in a city like that. But it's not hard to see why a lot of people (and not just in the US) choose suburbs and sitting in traffic as the option that sucks less than the others.
- Talanes 6y ago
  Have you never taken a bus?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]