3 ms·
Yes, patricians. That's a hint this kind of thing isn't sustainable when everyone is doing it.
by talideon 5y ago
Yes, patricians. That's a hint this kind of thing isn't sustainable when everyone is doing it.
- pandaman 5y agoThis is also a hint that people were not told to pretend they like it, is not it? Rich and powerful all through the history do not shun low density living and personal transport yet the message that I've replied to asserts that people only want these things because they are told to pretend they are desirable but without external influence people would rather live in apartments and have no personal transport.
- talideon 5y agoAt this point even out "patricians" shouldn't really be living in low density housing either.
- pandaman 5y agoSo you are not even arguing practicality, it's just straight up class conflict for you? Color me unsurprised.
- talideon 5y agoWTF are you even talking about? You were contrasting a world that had about 150,000,000 people living it with today where we have about 7,800,000,000. It's nothing to do with "class conflict", and all to do with load bearing. As things stand, we only just have the resources to support a fraction of those at Western living standards, and we damned well can't support the billions who haven't achieved them yet as things stand. So yes, it's all about practicality. And you and I are amongst the "patricians" already. Also, don't pretend you know me at all.
- pandaman 5y agoIf it had nothing to do with the class conflict then you would not care how rich people live because rich accommodations do not create any noticeable load. And as for practicality - somebody living in a big house would not make your apartment any less practical yet you think everybody has to live like you. I don't know if you are fooling yourself into thinking you are being rational and caring for environment and practicality but you are not fooling me.