3 ms·

You could make similar arguments about houses, offices, etc. Humans have a desire for comfort, being protected from the elements and such, and those desires are

by sva_ 5y ago

You could make similar arguments about houses, offices, etc. Humans have a desire for comfort, being protected from the elements and such, and those desires aren't invalid. The argument of cars wasting space is a very city-centric view, in which people live in a very densely populated area. The surface area of this planet is around 500e6 km^2, of which about 1/3 is land-area (~166e6 km^2). Of course not nearly all of that is inhabitable, but if we assumed that every person owned a car, they'd all combined take 8e9 * 10 m^2 = 8e4 km^2 of space, or < 0.0005% of available land. Very, very rough estimation, but just to poke fun at the ridiculous claim that allocating 10 m^2 for every person's transportation device is wasteful. We got enough space, it's just our way of living stacked on top of each other, which is weird. Sure, it could be more efficient, but people's basic desires aren't numbers to do cold optimizations like that on.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lm28469 5y ago
If you compare everything to the surface area of the planet then sure, my 3cm brain tumor isn't that big either then... What matters is that cars are taking all the space in cities, most people do live in cities, and the rate of urbanisation is going up. I don't think cars are a "desire" either, it's more of a need we imposed ourselves because of the way we chose to live, and we see where this is leading us: polluted, pedestrian hostile cities, the creation of large commercial centers outside of cities which in turn created a need for more cars, &c. Visit any medium/big city and imagine it without parked cars, these small 10 sq meters quickly add up and would change the way you perceive the city. No more noise, no more danger for pedestrians, maybe more apartments, parks, trees/vegetations, terraces, bicycle lanes, community gardens, &c. I believe the current form of EVs are the last breath of a dying beast, personal vehicles are bound to disappear of city centers. I commute by bike and I see traffic jams every single day in virtually every major streets of my city, jams made of mostly 5 seats cars being used by one person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country#/media/File:Urbanized_population_2018.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country#/media... https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS
- PartiallyTyped 5y ago
  Where I come from, there is so little urbanization that the average number of active cars is very close to the number of adults in the country. Even within cities, the situation is pretty rough, there's just too many cars, and too little public transportation. This creates a vicious cycle, nobody wants to move to the city because of the cars, the smog, the noise, and traffic, so everybody moves out, except that most people have to commute in the city. I have since moved to Copenhagen, and I have not used a car in 2 years, buses are always packed but there's always another one coming in 5 minutes, and a bike is more than sufficient for my needs. Contrasting the two was eye opening, and Copenhagen isn't even a Metropolis like NY or Tokyo. I hope that pedestrians and cyclists reclaim cities from cars. Vastly more efficient, better for our health, the environment, noise pollution, and far safer for children.
jeromegv 5y ago
Now re-do your math but take into account where people actually live. People aren't equally distributed across the earth, they live in majority in cities where space is a major problem. Not just "high density" cities like New York, just cities. "It could be more efficient", it is already more efficient in a lot of part of the globe as not every countries created themselves a society that depends on every single person having a car to be able to go to work. Do you mean those people basic desires are not fulfilled?
atq2119 5y ago
Living in cities is already more efficient than the alternative. Having everything in close proximity to each other is huge for efficiency. Imagine how much more efficient it could be without cars. But yes, people living a rural life usually need cars. And their lifestyle is less efficient. Both can be true at the same time.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by sva_ 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lm28469 5y ago

If you compare everything to the surface area of the planet then sure, my 3cm brain tumor isn't that big either then... What matters is that cars are taking all the space in cities, most people do live in cities, and the rate of urbanisation is going up. I don't think cars are a "desire" either, it's more of a need we imposed ourselves because of the way we chose to live, and we see where this is leading us: polluted, pedestrian hostile cities, the creation of large commercial centers outside of cities which in turn created a need for more cars, &c. Visit any medium/big city and imagine it without parked cars, these small 10 sq meters quickly add up and would change the way you perceive the city. No more noise, no more danger for pedestrians, maybe more apartments, parks, trees/vegetations, terraces, bicycle lanes, community gardens, &c. I believe the current form of EVs are the last breath of a dying beast, personal vehicles are bound to disappear of city centers. I commute by bike and I see traffic jams every single day in virtually every major streets of my city, jams made of mostly 5 seats cars being used by one person. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country#/media/File:Urbanized_population_2018.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_by_country#/media... https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS

PartiallyTyped 5y ago
Where I come from, there is so little urbanization that the average number of active cars is very close to the number of adults in the country. Even within cities, the situation is pretty rough, there's just too many cars, and too little public transportation. This creates a vicious cycle, nobody wants to move to the city because of the cars, the smog, the noise, and traffic, so everybody moves out, except that most people have to commute in the city. I have since moved to Copenhagen, and I have not used a car in 2 years, buses are always packed but there's always another one coming in 5 minutes, and a bike is more than sufficient for my needs. Contrasting the two was eye opening, and Copenhagen isn't even a Metropolis like NY or Tokyo. I hope that pedestrians and cyclists reclaim cities from cars. Vastly more efficient, better for our health, the environment, noise pollution, and far safer for children.

jeromegv 5y ago

Now re-do your math but take into account where people actually live. People aren't equally distributed across the earth, they live in majority in cities where space is a major problem. Not just "high density" cities like New York, just cities. "It could be more efficient", it is already more efficient in a lot of part of the globe as not every countries created themselves a society that depends on every single person having a car to be able to go to work. Do you mean those people basic desires are not fulfilled?

atq2119 5y ago

Living in cities is already more efficient than the alternative. Having everything in close proximity to each other is huge for efficiency. Imagine how much more efficient it could be without cars. But yes, people living a rural life usually need cars. And their lifestyle is less efficient. Both can be true at the same time.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]