4 ms·

> You're right that it's just as nice in cities, if not nicer. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it not a maladaptation within our economic sy

by mlyle 4y ago

> You're right that it's just as nice in cities, if not nicer. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it not a maladaptation within our economic system. Also, please note... a frequent mistake in economics is to conflate positive statements ("Ordering online causes additional emissions and use of cardboard and packaging products") with normative statements ("it is wrong to waste cardboard and emit carbon for the convenience of online shopping"). Every agent in the economic system has their own normative beliefs and utility function. Hume showed us you can't get to the normative statement through positive observations.

woodruffw 4y ago
> Hume showed us you can't get to the normative statement through positive observations. Hume and I disagree :-) The original comment was a normative one: I think our current scheme is wrong, in a moral sense. I think it's also wrong in an economic sense, but that's just a cherry on top.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > I think our current scheme is wrong, in a moral sense If we had, say, 1000x the resources that could be used without too adverse of consequences, would it still be wrong in your eyes? Or are you saying that you don't believe that the resource use is justified within our current constraints?
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    The latter. But that's one among many sufficient reasons: I also think it's indicative of an economic and social policy that encourages civic alienation and delocalization. The more snappy way of saying it: we're maximizing short term advantages (any plastic crap I want in 48 hours, shareholder value) at the cost of long term advantages (cities and towns worth living in, a sense of community rooted in part in supporting local businesses, not needing surveillance in every aspect of our lives because we've automated out the tacit security of being around other humans.)
    - mlyle 4y ago
      Is it always wrong to prioritize a short term advantage over a long term advantage? > cities and towns worth living in Like-- this is something America has really just not understood how to do. It doesn't have much to do with e-commerce (which is still popular in places that do know how to do it). > a sense of community rooted in part in supporting local businesses Sometimes having a strong local business is great. But in the best case, you're limited by the tastes and curation choices of a small number of vendors-- you lose the value of the long tail. And in the worst case, you find yourself beholden to an actively exploitative and/or hostile supplier. > not needing surveillance in every aspect of our lives because we've automated out the tacit security of being around other humans We're personally safer and more secure in our effects than in any time before in US history (well, the best point was a decade ago, but still-- we're about the same as then). It has nothing to do with surveillance or e-commerce, and only minimally has to do with suburbia vs. city living. In the end, I think you've just got "this feels wrong to me". I bet I could look at a choice that you've made and I'd recoil from it as wasteful and repugnant, too. P.S. Thank you for indulging me in this conversation. I'm going to be teaching AP Microeconomics for the first time next year, and as much as anything I'm practicing being the devil's advocate.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        > Is it always wrong to prioritize a short term advantage over a long term advantage? Nope! But I think this is an instance where the long term advantage is much more "important" (morally, sociologically) than the short term one. You're welcome to disagree, naturally, but I think there's a growing sociological/sociopolitical consensus that our current mode of life and consumption is overwhelmingly unsustainable. You're completely right that this just isn't something the US is good at, full stop. But I see the proliferation of delivery as part-and-parcel of the problem, rather than an unrelated phenomenon that somewhat ameliorates local issues. In other words: e-commerce thrives because we've economically primed it to thrive via other bad social and economic decisionmaking. > But in the best case, you're limited by the tastes and curation choices of a small number of vendors-- you lose the value of the long tail. And in the worst case, you find yourself beholden to an actively exploitative and/or hostile supplier. This is true, and it's part of the tradeoff. But I'll note: in sufficiently dense cities, this collapses back in on itself. From my apartment, I can walk to my choice of a dozen independent grocers, hardware stores, &c. And it's not as if Amazon doesn't reflect this as well: my understanding is that much of the current Amazon experience is sifting through rebrands of the same basic product (especially in the context of consumer electronics, where it's all the same IC/SoC in a different plastic case). If that isn't an exploitation of diminished choice, I don't know what is! > We're personally safer and more secure in our effects than in any time before in US history (well, the best point was a decade ago, but still-- we're about the same as then). It has nothing to do with surveillance or e-commerce, and only minimally has to do with suburbia vs. city living. Absolutely right again. I should have said "the perception of safety," which perversely has tracked against actual safety. I lay a lot of the "blame" for that at the feet of forces that encourage civic alienation (again, car-centric living, decline of local businesses, &c.). > I bet I could look at a choice that you've made and I'd recoil from it as wasteful and repugnant, too. I'm positive that you could! That's why I'm trying to avoid an individual critique, as such -- I don't blame people living in suburbs, or for shopping on Amazon, or for driving everywhere. The economic incentives are all right for those things, and I have my own economic incentives that push me to do things that are absolutely wasteful and repugnant. The critique instead is directed as the incentive structures themselves which, if we can collapse or undermine them, will hopefully result in better human action without the stress and tears of a blame session. (I also appreciate your indulgence. I definitely started out with some extra snark, and the fact that you tolerated it is a testament to fairness and levelheadedness when you could have rightfully ignored me.)
grog454 4y ago
> "Ordering online causes additional emissions Am I missing something? Isn't it significantly more efficient for a van/truck to follow a computer optimized route to deliver 100s-1000s of orders per tank of gas than me driving to and from Home Depot to buy one thing?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Am I missing something? Isn't it significantly more efficient for a van/truck to follow a computer optimized route to deliver 100s-1000s of orders per tank of gas than me driving to and from Home Depot to buy one thing? Maybe, maybe not. Packaging takes energy. This alone tends to mean the breakeven distance is many miles-- very rural and low density suburban may come out slightly ahead, but most other uses don't. But beyond that, the trend for e-commerce is many small orders and individual boxes and more trips, while the typical person taking a single purpose trip to Home Depot will buy more. (Or-- has an urgent need for something that can't be satisfied soon enough by e-commerce).
- ikr678 4y ago
  In isolation on one purchase, yes. But much like the introduction of credit cards, it's made consuption frictionless and so more purchases are being made than might otherwise would have been. Also, packaging from shipping, facilitating for returns (depending on retailer)

by mlyle 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago

> Hume showed us you can't get to the normative statement through positive observations. Hume and I disagree :-) The original comment was a normative one: I think our current scheme is wrong, in a moral sense. I think it's also wrong in an economic sense, but that's just a cherry on top.

mlyle 4y ago
> I think our current scheme is wrong, in a moral sense If we had, say, 1000x the resources that could be used without too adverse of consequences, would it still be wrong in your eyes? Or are you saying that you don't believe that the resource use is justified within our current constraints?
- woodruffw 4y ago
  The latter. But that's one among many sufficient reasons: I also think it's indicative of an economic and social policy that encourages civic alienation and delocalization. The more snappy way of saying it: we're maximizing short term advantages (any plastic crap I want in 48 hours, shareholder value) at the cost of long term advantages (cities and towns worth living in, a sense of community rooted in part in supporting local businesses, not needing surveillance in every aspect of our lives because we've automated out the tacit security of being around other humans.)
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Is it always wrong to prioritize a short term advantage over a long term advantage? > cities and towns worth living in Like-- this is something America has really just not understood how to do. It doesn't have much to do with e-commerce (which is still popular in places that do know how to do it). > a sense of community rooted in part in supporting local businesses Sometimes having a strong local business is great. But in the best case, you're limited by the tastes and curation choices of a small number of vendors-- you lose the value of the long tail. And in the worst case, you find yourself beholden to an actively exploitative and/or hostile supplier. > not needing surveillance in every aspect of our lives because we've automated out the tacit security of being around other humans We're personally safer and more secure in our effects than in any time before in US history (well, the best point was a decade ago, but still-- we're about the same as then). It has nothing to do with surveillance or e-commerce, and only minimally has to do with suburbia vs. city living. In the end, I think you've just got "this feels wrong to me". I bet I could look at a choice that you've made and I'd recoil from it as wasteful and repugnant, too. P.S. Thank you for indulging me in this conversation. I'm going to be teaching AP Microeconomics for the first time next year, and as much as anything I'm practicing being the devil's advocate.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      > Is it always wrong to prioritize a short term advantage over a long term advantage? Nope! But I think this is an instance where the long term advantage is much more "important" (morally, sociologically) than the short term one. You're welcome to disagree, naturally, but I think there's a growing sociological/sociopolitical consensus that our current mode of life and consumption is overwhelmingly unsustainable. You're completely right that this just isn't something the US is good at, full stop. But I see the proliferation of delivery as part-and-parcel of the problem, rather than an unrelated phenomenon that somewhat ameliorates local issues. In other words: e-commerce thrives because we've economically primed it to thrive via other bad social and economic decisionmaking. > But in the best case, you're limited by the tastes and curation choices of a small number of vendors-- you lose the value of the long tail. And in the worst case, you find yourself beholden to an actively exploitative and/or hostile supplier. This is true, and it's part of the tradeoff. But I'll note: in sufficiently dense cities, this collapses back in on itself. From my apartment, I can walk to my choice of a dozen independent grocers, hardware stores, &c. And it's not as if Amazon doesn't reflect this as well: my understanding is that much of the current Amazon experience is sifting through rebrands of the same basic product (especially in the context of consumer electronics, where it's all the same IC/SoC in a different plastic case). If that isn't an exploitation of diminished choice, I don't know what is! > We're personally safer and more secure in our effects than in any time before in US history (well, the best point was a decade ago, but still-- we're about the same as then). It has nothing to do with surveillance or e-commerce, and only minimally has to do with suburbia vs. city living. Absolutely right again. I should have said "the perception of safety," which perversely has tracked against actual safety. I lay a lot of the "blame" for that at the feet of forces that encourage civic alienation (again, car-centric living, decline of local businesses, &c.). > I bet I could look at a choice that you've made and I'd recoil from it as wasteful and repugnant, too. I'm positive that you could! That's why I'm trying to avoid an individual critique, as such -- I don't blame people living in suburbs, or for shopping on Amazon, or for driving everywhere. The economic incentives are all right for those things, and I have my own economic incentives that push me to do things that are absolutely wasteful and repugnant. The critique instead is directed as the incentive structures themselves which, if we can collapse or undermine them, will hopefully result in better human action without the stress and tears of a blame session. (I also appreciate your indulgence. I definitely started out with some extra snark, and the fact that you tolerated it is a testament to fairness and levelheadedness when you could have rightfully ignored me.)

grog454 4y ago

> "Ordering online causes additional emissions Am I missing something? Isn't it significantly more efficient for a van/truck to follow a computer optimized route to deliver 100s-1000s of orders per tank of gas than me driving to and from Home Depot to buy one thing?

mlyle 4y ago
> Am I missing something? Isn't it significantly more efficient for a van/truck to follow a computer optimized route to deliver 100s-1000s of orders per tank of gas than me driving to and from Home Depot to buy one thing? Maybe, maybe not. Packaging takes energy. This alone tends to mean the breakeven distance is many miles-- very rural and low density suburban may come out slightly ahead, but most other uses don't. But beyond that, the trend for e-commerce is many small orders and individual boxes and more trips, while the typical person taking a single purpose trip to Home Depot will buy more. (Or-- has an urgent need for something that can't be satisfied soon enough by e-commerce).
ikr678 4y ago
In isolation on one purchase, yes. But much like the introduction of credit cards, it's made consuption frictionless and so more purchases are being made than might otherwise would have been. Also, packaging from shipping, facilitating for returns (depending on retailer)