5 ms·

> And it's normal to feel personally attacked when they tell you to give up your car. It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. It's a really interes

> And it's normal to feel personally attacked when they tell you to give up your car. It's literally a personal attack on your freedom. It's a really interesting comment which I wish we could explore deeper. I get the same feelings but about different things. So I know you are sincere. But also, it's cultural and quite superficial. In psychology it's called "identification". An attack on a thing you identify with feels like an attack on you personally. So for example, for me, attacks on free software, or my "right" to program in a language I choose, or to run a server, feel like actual attacks on my fundamental "freedom" as you say. In reality though, if the world took those things away, within a couple of months or years I'd have forgotten and moved along with the flow. I know this from the experience of being half a century old :) Now, if I took away your car, I can promise you'd feel the same in no time at all. Why? I don't own a car, and haven't for about 30 years. I git rid of my car when I moved to London, because private cars are a liability there. One or twice it's been a minor inconvenience. But apart from that I feel as free as ever - I go where I like, when I like, with who I like.... just rarely by car. Even though I'm a fairly conservative person in some ways, I think we must recognise that many things we cling to as "essential freedoms" are actually just in our minds.

Loughla 4y ago
I don't understand what you're getting at. Freedom of movement is absolutely a freedom for humans. In places like London, or even New York for a US example, you may be able to achieve this without a car. Are you arguing that all it takes is the saturation of public transportation for the entire US? Or are you arguing that people should just all move to mega-cities? I'm genuinely confused about what you're trying to explain to OP.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > I'm genuinely confused about what you're trying to explain to OP That people adapt. That deeply held beliefs about the importance of some things turn out to be skin-deep.
- shlant 4y ago
  yea the "well I can do it so you can to" approach is pretty weak. I'm not sure how good faith the original comment is being anyways, but I don't think this response is very effective regardless. It should at least be caveated with "if you are in a similar location to London" or "your car will be replaced by effective public transit". "You'll adapt just like I did" is not very convincing for the majority of people.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > "You'll adapt just like I did" is not very convincing for the majority of people. That's not my assertion, nor the point of my comment. The point is that identification (and misplaced sense of ownership) makes us very reluctant to be convinced [1]. A point which you agreeing with. Nonetheless, people adapt when change comes. Another example, only just in my living memory was "decimalisation" (and for other Europeans when the currency switched to Euro). My grandmother swore blind the world would end if they brought in decimal currency. Within weeks she was the strongest supporter. In 1752 people in England rioted because the calendars changed from Julian to Gregorian. People thought they were being robbed of 11 days. When the day arrived everybody awoke, got on with their lives as usual and in no time completely forgot it ever happened. EDIT: [1] In fact people can be so challenged by identification they'll downvote the most polite and reasoned of comments to feel better rather than respond intelligently.
    - j2bax 4y ago
      I like and agree with the general sentiment of your comment (people are more adaptive than they may think) but I think the example isn't a great one... What would be your suggestion for people that live in rural areas of the US (we have a lot of them in almost every state)? Public transit would operate at a pretty significant loss in these areas and would be a logistical nightmare. Given enough time, I'm sure some solutions could help make it possible, but there would be significant inconvenience, loss of security/safety in the short term.
      - nonrandomstring 4y ago
CyanBird 4y ago
> . I git rid of my car when I moved to London, Yes, and if you hadn't moved to London then you would indeed have a car and consider it being part of your transportation "must haves" In most of North America, and now Latin America and bits of Asia, car dependancy is a serious problem, cities being built, such as in China which are wholly car depending, and designed to punish non-car moving people, it is a bad, bad, bad state of affairs Hopefully eventually most cities will move to a scheme closer to London's, but if anything, things might be moving the other way
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > Yes, and if you hadn't moved to London then you would indeed have a car I've since moved out of London, and still have no car. > transportation "must haves" There are no "must haves" in this world. > car dependency is a serious problem, cities being built, such as in China which are wholly car depending, and designed to punish non-car moving people, it is a bad, bad, bad state of affairs Yes, that's tragic. And I don't think those places have a long-term future as they are. Fortunately urban areas can undergo radical redesign. I think the post-pandemic is going to force that on us anyway.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    There are many places where you can live without a car. However they are overall a minority. Most people in the US live where living without the car is next to impossible. either there isn't any transit at all, or there is transit that only works for someone working 9-5 downtown, but you are still expected to drive a car for all other errands. Yes in the core of a few other cities (New York is most obvious) you can reasonably live without a car. Most people don't live close enough to the core though. The bad transit options is the first thing that needs to change. However nobody actually cares about that. Democrats are more interested in union jobs even though it drives costs up to the point where it isn't cost effective. Republicans don't even realize that it would be possible to have useful transit and so they fight throwing good money after bad.
helloworld11 4y ago
The self indulgence of your comment is laughable (aside from the ugliness of a philosophy in which "you'll adapt" is a good reason for being subjected to restrictions, regardless of their deeper merit). Because you live in one of the densest, oldest and most public transit-packed urban areas in Europe, you think that your easy shift to not having a car is worth a damn to hundreds of millions of people who don't live in London, or another big, dense, highly developed city like it? A Texas farmer or Louisiana fisherman isn't just being a selfish, green-hating ass when he or she says that they NEED their truck or car. They really do, to live, and almost every day. What kinds of mental bubbles do some of the privileged people who comment on this site live in?
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Thank you, your outraged reaction has entirely proved the point I was making about identification and its effects. Change is coming, whether you like it or not. The greatest obstacles are probably not technical, but psychological. It's coming for reasons of ecological fact, not because anyone wants to subject others to meritless restrictions. (As if one guy on the internet had that power.) And people will adapt to it, because that's what we've been doing for hundreds of thousands of years. That's not ugly, it's beautiful. It's beautiful that humans are adaptable, resilient and inventive. Well most of us anyway.
  - helloworld11 4y ago
    No, not outraged, just derisive. Change is indeed innate to the human experience and to the course of civilization, but the kind of bubble mentality you display with your comment is if anything especially brittle against practical realities. In a genuine catastrophic climate change context, do you really think your privileged urban lifestyle will be better suited for adaptation? Maybe, I can't be sure, but maybe circumstances cause you to rethink your current idea of change being beautiful. That aside, it really is absurd to dismiss the needs and complaints of hundreds of millions of diverse vehicle-owning non-urban dwellers based on how smugly easy you think it was to not own a car in London of all places. There's nothing psychologically obtuse about pointing out the closed mindedness of your notion. Yet you speak of identification and its effects.

Loughla 4y ago

I don't understand what you're getting at. Freedom of movement is absolutely a freedom for humans. In places like London, or even New York for a US example, you may be able to achieve this without a car. Are you arguing that all it takes is the saturation of public transportation for the entire US? Or are you arguing that people should just all move to mega-cities? I'm genuinely confused about what you're trying to explain to OP.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> I'm genuinely confused about what you're trying to explain to OP That people adapt. That deeply held beliefs about the importance of some things turn out to be skin-deep.
shlant 4y ago
yea the "well I can do it so you can to" approach is pretty weak. I'm not sure how good faith the original comment is being anyways, but I don't think this response is very effective regardless. It should at least be caveated with "if you are in a similar location to London" or "your car will be replaced by effective public transit". "You'll adapt just like I did" is not very convincing for the majority of people.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > "You'll adapt just like I did" is not very convincing for the majority of people. That's not my assertion, nor the point of my comment. The point is that identification (and misplaced sense of ownership) makes us very reluctant to be convinced [1]. A point which you agreeing with. Nonetheless, people adapt when change comes. Another example, only just in my living memory was "decimalisation" (and for other Europeans when the currency switched to Euro). My grandmother swore blind the world would end if they brought in decimal currency. Within weeks she was the strongest supporter. In 1752 people in England rioted because the calendars changed from Julian to Gregorian. People thought they were being robbed of 11 days. When the day arrived everybody awoke, got on with their lives as usual and in no time completely forgot it ever happened. EDIT: [1] In fact people can be so challenged by identification they'll downvote the most polite and reasoned of comments to feel better rather than respond intelligently.
  - j2bax 4y ago
    I like and agree with the general sentiment of your comment (people are more adaptive than they may think) but I think the example isn't a great one... What would be your suggestion for people that live in rural areas of the US (we have a lot of them in almost every state)? Public transit would operate at a pretty significant loss in these areas and would be a logistical nightmare. Given enough time, I'm sure some solutions could help make it possible, but there would be significant inconvenience, loss of security/safety in the short term.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago

CyanBird 4y ago

> . I git rid of my car when I moved to London, Yes, and if you hadn't moved to London then you would indeed have a car and consider it being part of your transportation "must haves" In most of North America, and now Latin America and bits of Asia, car dependancy is a serious problem, cities being built, such as in China which are wholly car depending, and designed to punish non-car moving people, it is a bad, bad, bad state of affairs Hopefully eventually most cities will move to a scheme closer to London's, but if anything, things might be moving the other way

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> Yes, and if you hadn't moved to London then you would indeed have a car I've since moved out of London, and still have no car. > transportation "must haves" There are no "must haves" in this world. > car dependency is a serious problem, cities being built, such as in China which are wholly car depending, and designed to punish non-car moving people, it is a bad, bad, bad state of affairs Yes, that's tragic. And I don't think those places have a long-term future as they are. Fortunately urban areas can undergo radical redesign. I think the post-pandemic is going to force that on us anyway.
- bluGill 4y ago
  There are many places where you can live without a car. However they are overall a minority. Most people in the US live where living without the car is next to impossible. either there isn't any transit at all, or there is transit that only works for someone working 9-5 downtown, but you are still expected to drive a car for all other errands. Yes in the core of a few other cities (New York is most obvious) you can reasonably live without a car. Most people don't live close enough to the core though. The bad transit options is the first thing that needs to change. However nobody actually cares about that. Democrats are more interested in union jobs even though it drives costs up to the point where it isn't cost effective. Republicans don't even realize that it would be possible to have useful transit and so they fight throwing good money after bad.

helloworld11 4y ago

The self indulgence of your comment is laughable (aside from the ugliness of a philosophy in which "you'll adapt" is a good reason for being subjected to restrictions, regardless of their deeper merit). Because you live in one of the densest, oldest and most public transit-packed urban areas in Europe, you think that your easy shift to not having a car is worth a damn to hundreds of millions of people who don't live in London, or another big, dense, highly developed city like it? A Texas farmer or Louisiana fisherman isn't just being a selfish, green-hating ass when he or she says that they NEED their truck or car. They really do, to live, and almost every day. What kinds of mental bubbles do some of the privileged people who comment on this site live in?

nonrandomstring 4y ago
Thank you, your outraged reaction has entirely proved the point I was making about identification and its effects. Change is coming, whether you like it or not. The greatest obstacles are probably not technical, but psychological. It's coming for reasons of ecological fact, not because anyone wants to subject others to meritless restrictions. (As if one guy on the internet had that power.) And people will adapt to it, because that's what we've been doing for hundreds of thousands of years. That's not ugly, it's beautiful. It's beautiful that humans are adaptable, resilient and inventive. Well most of us anyway.
- helloworld11 4y ago
  No, not outraged, just derisive. Change is indeed innate to the human experience and to the course of civilization, but the kind of bubble mentality you display with your comment is if anything especially brittle against practical realities. In a genuine catastrophic climate change context, do you really think your privileged urban lifestyle will be better suited for adaptation? Maybe, I can't be sure, but maybe circumstances cause you to rethink your current idea of change being beautiful. That aside, it really is absurd to dismiss the needs and complaints of hundreds of millions of diverse vehicle-owning non-urban dwellers based on how smugly easy you think it was to not own a car in London of all places. There's nothing psychologically obtuse about pointing out the closed mindedness of your notion. Yet you speak of identification and its effects.