8 ms·

That's not a valid comparison. Mobility and transportation is a necessity for a functioning society. Your food doesn't make it onto the table without being tr

by bborud 5y ago

That's not a valid comparison. Mobility and transportation is a necessity for a functioning society. Your food doesn't make it onto the table without being transported there. Are you going to fetch the eggs out at the farm on foot? No, seriously, I am asking you a direct question: how are you going to transport food if you are not going to use any cars or trucks anywhere along the process? Cigarettes are not a necessity for a functioning society. Stick also doesn't work as well as carrot. You could tax fuel to discourage "unwanted behavior", but it doesn't have the consequences you want. It drives up prices, which affects the population unevenly. I can afford at least one doubling in fuel price without it affecting me. Perhaps even two. Do you think the guy who has to drive 2 hours to work from the middle of nowhere to work in an Amazon fulfilment center can afford this? Electric cars becoming a viable option for more people is a positive change. That's how we solve problems: by creating better alternatives. And if they do not emerge easily: help these industries along by providing them tax breaks and help. I live in a country that has some of the highest gas prices in the world. High taxation of gas did _nothing_ to reduce the use of cars. It might have made the needle shiver a bit, but it didn't move it. I also happen to live in the country that has the most electric cars per capita. Electric has 70% market share among new cars sold. In 20 years, you will not even be able to buy a new gas powered car here. That's change. That's the all-important break between hydrocarbons and land-based transport. That's the hard part. This didn't happen due to gas tax or any other disincentives. It _ONLY_ happened by providing a better alternative. By cutting tax on electric cars so the market could reach the critical point where electric is viable. Now that we're there, we can slowly start to roll off the tax cuts as prices on electric vehicles drop. It is tempting to piss on the things you don't like. But just being against things and not providing viable alternatives is not a plan. It is also not a plan to have vague dreams of things you cannot execute on. (If you think this constitutes a plan, ask the Chinese about "the great leap forward" or the Russians why the Soviet industry didn't become the envy of the world). It doesn't create any lasting change. Lasting change comes from providing people with better alternatives and the enthusiastic participation of the masses.

roenxi 5y ago
Mobility and transport by car aren't necessary for a functioning society. Trains, buses, bicycles and walking can build a perfectly functional society. It'd be disruptive, certainly. Smoking was taking a group of people and telling that they can't do something they want to do. Banning cars would be similar. People don't really seem to be honest about how arbitrary the anti-smoking campaign is. I'd much rather people smoked than drank.
- chii 5y ago
  I'd like to see you transport your mattress or ikea shelf via public transport. Cars are a luxury that people have gotten used to, and to remove it is to remove quality of life.
  - vincnetas 5y ago
    You don't have to get rid of ALL cars. computer cars would be 99% enough. People somehow manage to get by without car in countries like Netherlands, and till have they furniture moved around when they move.
    - bborud 5y ago
      You are being dishonest here by implying people in the Netherlands do not have cars. Since you chose to make a claim without presenting any numbers I'll do it for you. The Netherlands has about 499 motor vehicles per 1000 people. That's about 38% fewer cars per capita than the US, but it still in the top 30 countries in the world and it is about 12% lower than the european average. Your statement is, at best, grossly misleading.
      - eulenteufel 5y ago
        The comment is neither dishonest nor misleading. It is a fact that many people living in dense areas live a normal live without owning a car. GP was just responding to the problem of transporting large objects without owning a car and correctly stating that there is some amount of people getting by without car in the Netherlands. The solution is of course to just rent a transportation car for a few hours when you need it. I live in a high density area (Berlin) myself with 1.4 Million cars on 3.6 Million cars. Obviously living in Berlin without a car is possible without much hassle for lots of people. Claiming that doesn't mean that nobody in Berlin needs a car. But because most of the 3.6 Million Berliners manage to move and transport furniture sometimes, we can conclude that they definitely do not need it to transport their Ikea purchase.
vincnetas 5y ago
Having to drive 2 hours to work from middle of nowhere does not sound like good base for functioning, SUSTAINABLE society. You want to live in the middle of nowhere, you have to factor in the costs of your choice.
- bborud 5y ago
  Off the top of your head, can you think of some reasons why people might end up living some distance from where they work?
  - thefr0g 5y ago
    They bought a house or apartment and can't sell it or rent it out fast enough when they had to take a new job?
    - bborud 5y ago
      Or perhaps they simply cannot afford to live where they work or earn a living wage where they live?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Millions of people have decided that it sucks less than the alternatives so IDK what to tell you. Sustainable or not, until something better comes along society is just gonna keep doing it.
msk-lywenn 5y ago
« Are you going to fetch the eggs out at the farm on foot? » (France) We used to, when I was a kid. But more and more gigantic supermarkets put the little farms out of business and now we can’t anymore. So, to answer your question: yes. (Maybe on a bike though, it’s faster and I enjoy it more than walking)
- bborud 5y ago
  OK, now go through the rest of your shopping needs and tally up the amount of time you are going to spend fetching these items. And no cheating by buying anything that had to be transported by truck or long haul. I'm assuming you have a job. This provides you a basis for calculating the cost of having to spend more of your time bicycling these errands. For my grandmother, maintaining the house, washing, running errands and cooking was more than a full time job. Meaning, she worked more than a 12 hour day and her daughter had to help her. This meant they couldn't have a job outside the household. Nor did they have much free time. My wife has a full time job, which essentially doubles our income. The amount of time spent on baseline "errands" is approximately 2 hours per week in total (shared between the two of us). I spend on average 1-1.5 hours per day in the kitchen cooking. The rest of the time is either income-generating work or it is spare time. Are you willing to give up much of your spare time and cut back on your income?
  - msk-lywenn 5y ago
    I don’t own a car, don’t even have a licence. I bike everywhere. Yes I have a job.
teucris 5y ago
Very few of the people on this forum are advocating for a complete removal of vehicles from society! Cars and trucks have a purpose and we should always use them when it’s the best choice for hauling goods. But we overuse cars because our infrastructure is designed for cars, causing a negative feedback loop.

by bborud 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

Mobility and transport by car aren't necessary for a functioning society. Trains, buses, bicycles and walking can build a perfectly functional society. It'd be disruptive, certainly. Smoking was taking a group of people and telling that they can't do something they want to do. Banning cars would be similar. People don't really seem to be honest about how arbitrary the anti-smoking campaign is. I'd much rather people smoked than drank.

chii 5y ago
I'd like to see you transport your mattress or ikea shelf via public transport. Cars are a luxury that people have gotten used to, and to remove it is to remove quality of life.
- vincnetas 5y ago
  You don't have to get rid of ALL cars. computer cars would be 99% enough. People somehow manage to get by without car in countries like Netherlands, and till have they furniture moved around when they move.
  - bborud 5y ago
    You are being dishonest here by implying people in the Netherlands do not have cars. Since you chose to make a claim without presenting any numbers I'll do it for you. The Netherlands has about 499 motor vehicles per 1000 people. That's about 38% fewer cars per capita than the US, but it still in the top 30 countries in the world and it is about 12% lower than the european average. Your statement is, at best, grossly misleading.
    - eulenteufel 5y ago
      The comment is neither dishonest nor misleading. It is a fact that many people living in dense areas live a normal live without owning a car. GP was just responding to the problem of transporting large objects without owning a car and correctly stating that there is some amount of people getting by without car in the Netherlands. The solution is of course to just rent a transportation car for a few hours when you need it. I live in a high density area (Berlin) myself with 1.4 Million cars on 3.6 Million cars. Obviously living in Berlin without a car is possible without much hassle for lots of people. Claiming that doesn't mean that nobody in Berlin needs a car. But because most of the 3.6 Million Berliners manage to move and transport furniture sometimes, we can conclude that they definitely do not need it to transport their Ikea purchase.

vincnetas 5y ago

Having to drive 2 hours to work from middle of nowhere does not sound like good base for functioning, SUSTAINABLE society. You want to live in the middle of nowhere, you have to factor in the costs of your choice.

bborud 5y ago
Off the top of your head, can you think of some reasons why people might end up living some distance from where they work?
- thefr0g 5y ago
  They bought a house or apartment and can't sell it or rent it out fast enough when they had to take a new job?
  - bborud 5y ago
    Or perhaps they simply cannot afford to live where they work or earn a living wage where they live?
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Millions of people have decided that it sucks less than the alternatives so IDK what to tell you. Sustainable or not, until something better comes along society is just gonna keep doing it.

msk-lywenn 5y ago

« Are you going to fetch the eggs out at the farm on foot? » (France) We used to, when I was a kid. But more and more gigantic supermarkets put the little farms out of business and now we can’t anymore. So, to answer your question: yes. (Maybe on a bike though, it’s faster and I enjoy it more than walking)

bborud 5y ago
OK, now go through the rest of your shopping needs and tally up the amount of time you are going to spend fetching these items. And no cheating by buying anything that had to be transported by truck or long haul. I'm assuming you have a job. This provides you a basis for calculating the cost of having to spend more of your time bicycling these errands. For my grandmother, maintaining the house, washing, running errands and cooking was more than a full time job. Meaning, she worked more than a 12 hour day and her daughter had to help her. This meant they couldn't have a job outside the household. Nor did they have much free time. My wife has a full time job, which essentially doubles our income. The amount of time spent on baseline "errands" is approximately 2 hours per week in total (shared between the two of us). I spend on average 1-1.5 hours per day in the kitchen cooking. The rest of the time is either income-generating work or it is spare time. Are you willing to give up much of your spare time and cut back on your income?
- msk-lywenn 5y ago
  I don’t own a car, don’t even have a licence. I bike everywhere. Yes I have a job.

teucris 5y ago

Very few of the people on this forum are advocating for a complete removal of vehicles from society! Cars and trucks have a purpose and we should always use them when it’s the best choice for hauling goods. But we overuse cars because our infrastructure is designed for cars, causing a negative feedback loop.