3 ms·

Necessary for who? Those times saw a lot of poverty and suffering among the working class who had little choice in where they worked, while enriching only a sma

Necessary for who? Those times saw a lot of poverty and suffering among the working class who had little choice in where they worked, while enriching only a small few industrialists. Similarly today, I don't see a lot of combustion engine use as necessary. Average car trip is only a few miles and could easily be made by bike. If we had designed cities for people, with good transit and cycling/walking infrastructure, we would have far less pollution in our urban environment. But instead we made policies that maximised car and gas sales rather than maximise health and wellness, again to enrich the few at the expense of the many.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>Those times saw a lot of poverty and suffering among the working class who had little choice in where they worked, while enriching only a small few industrialists. Industrialisation the 1800s and early 1900s saw the end of child labour and slavery, the rise of the 8 hour work day and an increase in life expectancy by an entire decade. Life then was terrible compared to the post-war era, but was constantly exponentially improving in material terms. >But instead we made policies that maximised car and gas sales rather than maximise health and wellness, again to enrich the few at the expense of the many. Poor city design and the existence of the internal combustion engine are two separate problems. Even with perfectly designed cities, we still reap huge benefits from the technology in terms of trucking, shipping and mechanised agriculture (!!!).