4 ms·

In your imagination this is true. In real life it is not. Sure, in theory it is possible to imagine a world where powered personal transportation doesn't exis

by bborud 5y ago

In your imagination this is true. In real life it is not. Sure, in theory it is possible to imagine a world where powered personal transportation doesn't exist. It might even be possible in a limited sense (for instance in densely populated, well funded cities it should be eminently possible. But not everyone lives in a well funded, densely populated city). If you want to have adult conversations with people who feel you are taking the subject seriously, you must acknowledge reality and the non-trivial delta between it and what you suggest. And I am serious about the "adult" part. By pretending you "know" your utopian view is possible, you expect other people to take you seriously despite not having made any effort to show your math. That's pretty disrespectful to other people. It also shows you learned nothing from past history where utopian political fantasies coupled with power ended up costing tens of millions of lives.

roenxi 5y ago
Most people do live in large densely populated cities. That is the thing about large areas with high population density - it means there are a lot of people there. > you must acknowledge ... the non-trivial delta between it and what you suggest. Yeah, it would be radical change. People aren't give up their cars by choice. But people didn't give up smoking because of their personal health concerns. If the argument is to get rid of cars then I'm with the thread ancestor - it is better to be direct about what you want. A cars-lite future is not only possible, it is reasonable and even likely. Electric cars are not cheap and it seems optimistic to say that the grid will support them any time soon. Maybe hydrogen will work out, but these alternatives are all fundamentally uncertain technologies.
- bborud 5y ago
  Somewhere north of 4Bn people live in cities. The vast majority of which are nowhere near the utopia hinted at. Perhaps somewhere on the order of 100-200M people live in sufficiently dense and modern cities that are even capable of envisioning a path towards zero powered personal transportation. In addition, roughly 4Bn people who do not live in cities. Densely populated and well funded or otherwise. So no, even if we are to consider only the first half of the population, your assertion does not hold in any meaningful sense. If the goal is to get rid of powered personal transport then it begs the question "why?". Is this really a useful goal? What problem are we really trying to solve? For half the human population it makes very little sense, which means that adopting it as a sort of universal solution to all problems is a bit silly. I can recommend reading Hans Rosling's "Factfulness" for some perspective. Because the book talks a lot about perspective and why most people in the richest part of the world tend to have a very hard time understanding what it means to be in the various wealth segments. In particular it bears thinking about what access to efficient transport means in terms of quality of life. First you need to understand the numbers, then you need to focus on solutions. And then change can happen. The thread ancestor makes no effort to even look in this direction.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    > ...it begs the question "why?"... If roads were only for arterial traffic flows that would enable very high density areas without roads or parking, where people could walk to all the places they want to get to. It'd be cheaper for everyone, probably have better health outcomes and be a bit more communal. Plus safer for children because they can't be run over. Just look at how much space is wasted leaving it empty for light amounts of traffic. And I'll also add that you are the only one who wants this to be utopian. It is transport policy. That is pretty mundane, mostly practical details and not all that exciting. The goal here would be maybe increase urban density by 20%-40%, and there are trade offs to the benefits. If you think that is a utopia then I admire how achievable your goals are. > I can recommend reading Hans Rosling's "Factfulness"... In which you will discover that most people can't even afford cars and nevertheless the globe keeps spinning.
    - bborud 5y ago
      > In which you will discover that most people can't even afford cars and nevertheless the globe keeps spinning. Then I think you have to read the book again and pay attention to what happens when people move between the bottom 3 tiers. He also spends some time describing the "view from above" problem that we experience. I think you missed the entire point of the book. Solutions have to provide a plan for the majority of human kind. Not just the top few percent. Especially since the bottom two tiers are moving really rapidly.
Fricken 5y ago
I've been hearing about the climate crisis since I was a kid in the 80s. I was also taught that an adult is someone who takes responsibility for their actions. So I've had my whole life to set my life up in a carbon conscious way. What have all the other uhh, 'adults' been doing this whole time?
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>In real life it is not. My grandparents never owned a car along with most of their generation.

by bborud 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

Most people do live in large densely populated cities. That is the thing about large areas with high population density - it means there are a lot of people there. > you must acknowledge ... the non-trivial delta between it and what you suggest. Yeah, it would be radical change. People aren't give up their cars by choice. But people didn't give up smoking because of their personal health concerns. If the argument is to get rid of cars then I'm with the thread ancestor - it is better to be direct about what you want. A cars-lite future is not only possible, it is reasonable and even likely. Electric cars are not cheap and it seems optimistic to say that the grid will support them any time soon. Maybe hydrogen will work out, but these alternatives are all fundamentally uncertain technologies.

bborud 5y ago
Somewhere north of 4Bn people live in cities. The vast majority of which are nowhere near the utopia hinted at. Perhaps somewhere on the order of 100-200M people live in sufficiently dense and modern cities that are even capable of envisioning a path towards zero powered personal transportation. In addition, roughly 4Bn people who do not live in cities. Densely populated and well funded or otherwise. So no, even if we are to consider only the first half of the population, your assertion does not hold in any meaningful sense. If the goal is to get rid of powered personal transport then it begs the question "why?". Is this really a useful goal? What problem are we really trying to solve? For half the human population it makes very little sense, which means that adopting it as a sort of universal solution to all problems is a bit silly. I can recommend reading Hans Rosling's "Factfulness" for some perspective. Because the book talks a lot about perspective and why most people in the richest part of the world tend to have a very hard time understanding what it means to be in the various wealth segments. In particular it bears thinking about what access to efficient transport means in terms of quality of life. First you need to understand the numbers, then you need to focus on solutions. And then change can happen. The thread ancestor makes no effort to even look in this direction.
- roenxi 5y ago
  > ...it begs the question "why?"... If roads were only for arterial traffic flows that would enable very high density areas without roads or parking, where people could walk to all the places they want to get to. It'd be cheaper for everyone, probably have better health outcomes and be a bit more communal. Plus safer for children because they can't be run over. Just look at how much space is wasted leaving it empty for light amounts of traffic. And I'll also add that you are the only one who wants this to be utopian. It is transport policy. That is pretty mundane, mostly practical details and not all that exciting. The goal here would be maybe increase urban density by 20%-40%, and there are trade offs to the benefits. If you think that is a utopia then I admire how achievable your goals are. > I can recommend reading Hans Rosling's "Factfulness"... In which you will discover that most people can't even afford cars and nevertheless the globe keeps spinning.
  - bborud 5y ago
    > In which you will discover that most people can't even afford cars and nevertheless the globe keeps spinning. Then I think you have to read the book again and pay attention to what happens when people move between the bottom 3 tiers. He also spends some time describing the "view from above" problem that we experience. I think you missed the entire point of the book. Solutions have to provide a plan for the majority of human kind. Not just the top few percent. Especially since the bottom two tiers are moving really rapidly.

Fricken 5y ago

I've been hearing about the climate crisis since I was a kid in the 80s. I was also taught that an adult is someone who takes responsibility for their actions. So I've had my whole life to set my life up in a carbon conscious way. What have all the other uhh, 'adults' been doing this whole time?

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

>In real life it is not. My grandparents never owned a car along with most of their generation.