6 ms·

What do you mean not sustainable??? If we limited and regulated car use pretty extremely and stuck with trains, bikes, and walking, we would be half the way th

What do you mean not sustainable??? If we limited and regulated car use pretty extremely and stuck with trains, bikes, and walking, we would be half the way there toward a completely sustainable society. Cars are a major source of the least sustainable aspects of humanity on earth today.

josephcsible 5y ago
Most of America needs cars. Society would collapse if you just "limited and regulated car use pretty extremely". If there's a solution to that, then let's just do that, and skip the authoritarian part afterward.
- quadrangle 5y ago
  You mean most of America is designed to be car-dependent. So, yes, in the current design it needs cars. I wasn't saying we could just suddenly ban them tomorrow. The solution is hard because of how bad we've gotten things. But the solution has little authoritarian about it. We just change our priorities for the design of public infrastructure. We don't even need to actually ban cars at all. Make it practical and enjoyable to do everything by train, bike, or walking whenever possible and most people will happily do it. The result is a huge decrease in deaths both through healthier living and less cars. https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos describes things pretty well and accessibly. In short: the Netherlands was on track 40 years ago to be nearly as car-dependent as the U.S. and yet protesters blocked some highway proposals and the country went in a different direction. Today, it's the best designed place in the world, and its even better for drivers too.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > But the solution has little authoritarian about it. The authoritarian part was limiting/regulating car use pretty extremely. I'm perfectly fine with making alternatives to cars more practical, just not with making cars less practical.
    - pm90 5y ago
      Nothing authoritarian about that if the majority of the population agrees that’s the best way to move forward.
    - quadrangle 5y ago
      We already regulate where cars are allowed to go (e.g. which direction in which lane on which streets). All anyone means around "banning" cars is to have changes (reductions) in which places we allow cars. There's no increase in authoritarianism with that.
      - pyuser583 5y ago
        Ok here’s what we can do: pass laws significantly reducing the places cars can go. Tax automobiles. Buy up used cars and destroy them to keep prices high and ensure cars use recent environment technology. Then create public transit districts, which operate like school districts. Real estate is taxed, and the proceeds go to busses. Areas with high real estate values will have excellent public transit. Those with lower real estate values will have worse transit. The advantage is (1) support by middle and upper class voters, who are traditionally opposed to public transit, (2) funding sustainability, (3) money is kept in local communities. The downside is a drastic increase in inequality. I’m obviously joking … but do you see how discouraging cars would increase inequality unless it was combine with an extremely equitable political system? A political system America doesn’t have?
        quadrangle 5y ago
        I see effort at nuance here, but the conclusion is both almost right and also not at all right. America's deeply unequal political system WILL NOT ever get us better equality. It's *incidental*, a symptom of the political reality that discouraging cars would be done in a way that exacerbates inequality. Almost any policy can be done in ways that exacerbate inequality. And a more equitable political system would be needed in order to have more equitable policies. There's nothing specific to cars about this stuff. So, there's no point in focusing on discouraging cars as inherently part of this trend. Gentrification is a real issue. But don't blame yoga for gentrification just because yoga studios are in gentrified areas. Policies that encourage healthy tree canopy also exacerbate inequality because richer areas can hire urban foresters and so on. I mean, every single worthwhile thing you can think of exacerbates inequality if the policies are set up to make the worthwhile thing go along with already-wealthier places. None of the worthwhile things are themselves the cause of inequality.
Auracle 5y ago
I can’t wait to bike 12 miles to the nearest town in -20 degree weather to catch a train that doesn’t exist so I can get groceries. You might as well say, “Well, if we just invented teleporters…”
- pm90 5y ago
  I would suggest you try and see how countries that aren’t as car centered as the US operate. Trains, buses, trams all can make it very easy to lose the car addiction. And it can be done today, no teleportation required.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Those countries are usually heavily urbanized, though so is the USA. Those not living in urban areas generally have more dependence on cars (eg in Australia or New Zealand).
  - Auracle 5y ago
    I’ve been to Japan (and NYC and…), so I have a pretty good idea. The system works great in Tokyo, and obviously the bullet train is amazing. In rural areas though, you’re dealing with long train rides and waiting on bus schedules. It can be done, but it seems like a lot of people in those areas just had cars. It should be done where it’s practical, but in most of the US geographically it isn’t.
    - pm90 5y ago
      Most of the US lives in urban areas.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Then you would know what it looks like to live in the Alaskan bush (not many roads, so cars aren’t that useful). Of course, where Alaska does have roads, they have a super high death rate. An uncle who I never knew being one of them (though in this case, and as usual, alcohol was also involved).
- 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago

Most of America needs cars. Society would collapse if you just "limited and regulated car use pretty extremely". If there's a solution to that, then let's just do that, and skip the authoritarian part afterward.

quadrangle 5y ago
You mean most of America is designed to be car-dependent. So, yes, in the current design it needs cars. I wasn't saying we could just suddenly ban them tomorrow. The solution is hard because of how bad we've gotten things. But the solution has little authoritarian about it. We just change our priorities for the design of public infrastructure. We don't even need to actually ban cars at all. Make it practical and enjoyable to do everything by train, bike, or walking whenever possible and most people will happily do it. The result is a huge decrease in deaths both through healthier living and less cars. https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes/videos describes things pretty well and accessibly. In short: the Netherlands was on track 40 years ago to be nearly as car-dependent as the U.S. and yet protesters blocked some highway proposals and the country went in a different direction. Today, it's the best designed place in the world, and its even better for drivers too.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > But the solution has little authoritarian about it. The authoritarian part was limiting/regulating car use pretty extremely. I'm perfectly fine with making alternatives to cars more practical, just not with making cars less practical.
  - pm90 5y ago
    Nothing authoritarian about that if the majority of the population agrees that’s the best way to move forward.
  - quadrangle 5y ago
    We already regulate where cars are allowed to go (e.g. which direction in which lane on which streets). All anyone means around "banning" cars is to have changes (reductions) in which places we allow cars. There's no increase in authoritarianism with that.
    - pyuser583 5y ago
      Ok here’s what we can do: pass laws significantly reducing the places cars can go. Tax automobiles. Buy up used cars and destroy them to keep prices high and ensure cars use recent environment technology. Then create public transit districts, which operate like school districts. Real estate is taxed, and the proceeds go to busses. Areas with high real estate values will have excellent public transit. Those with lower real estate values will have worse transit. The advantage is (1) support by middle and upper class voters, who are traditionally opposed to public transit, (2) funding sustainability, (3) money is kept in local communities. The downside is a drastic increase in inequality. I’m obviously joking … but do you see how discouraging cars would increase inequality unless it was combine with an extremely equitable political system? A political system America doesn’t have?
      - quadrangle 5y ago
        I see effort at nuance here, but the conclusion is both almost right and also not at all right. America's deeply unequal political system WILL NOT ever get us better equality. It's *incidental*, a symptom of the political reality that discouraging cars would be done in a way that exacerbates inequality. Almost any policy can be done in ways that exacerbate inequality. And a more equitable political system would be needed in order to have more equitable policies. There's nothing specific to cars about this stuff. So, there's no point in focusing on discouraging cars as inherently part of this trend. Gentrification is a real issue. But don't blame yoga for gentrification just because yoga studios are in gentrified areas. Policies that encourage healthy tree canopy also exacerbate inequality because richer areas can hire urban foresters and so on. I mean, every single worthwhile thing you can think of exacerbates inequality if the policies are set up to make the worthwhile thing go along with already-wealthier places. None of the worthwhile things are themselves the cause of inequality.

Auracle 5y ago

I can’t wait to bike 12 miles to the nearest town in -20 degree weather to catch a train that doesn’t exist so I can get groceries. You might as well say, “Well, if we just invented teleporters…”

pm90 5y ago
I would suggest you try and see how countries that aren’t as car centered as the US operate. Trains, buses, trams all can make it very easy to lose the car addiction. And it can be done today, no teleportation required.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Those countries are usually heavily urbanized, though so is the USA. Those not living in urban areas generally have more dependence on cars (eg in Australia or New Zealand).
- Auracle 5y ago
  I’ve been to Japan (and NYC and…), so I have a pretty good idea. The system works great in Tokyo, and obviously the bullet train is amazing. In rural areas though, you’re dealing with long train rides and waiting on bus schedules. It can be done, but it seems like a lot of people in those areas just had cars. It should be done where it’s practical, but in most of the US geographically it isn’t.
  - pm90 5y ago
    Most of the US lives in urban areas.
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Then you would know what it looks like to live in the Alaskan bush (not many roads, so cars aren’t that useful). Of course, where Alaska does have roads, they have a super high death rate. An uncle who I never knew being one of them (though in this case, and as usual, alcohol was also involved).
5y ago