4 ms·

How about moving the working/middle class from single family homes to apartment complexes and starting using public transportation instead of cars? That would c

How about moving the working/middle class from single family homes to apartment complexes and starting using public transportation instead of cars? That would certainly be more energy efficient than cancelling a few private jet flights.

nxm 4y ago
So the lower class folks have to uproot their lives so that the rich can continue theirs?
baggy_trough 4y ago
How about letting people live like they want?
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  As long as they pay full cost that includes offsetting emissions, why not? How about offering them an affordable alternative to what’s considered luxury in many parts of the world?
slowmovintarget 4y ago
There is the instinct that must be contended against with all our might: Removing choice. "Make" everyone live in an apartment, because they shouldn't have the choice. "Make" everyone give up their personal transportation (mobility). "Make" everyone switch to solar or geothermal. Substitute "make" with "force" and you'll have the correct understanding of what kind of government mechanisms we'd be empowering to achieve these ends. Removing choice is the wrong instinct. Working to price external costs in, so they get factored in to choices, can sway the choices, but you're not forcing people, or making a way for one group of people to force some other group of people to certain actions.
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  Who’s removing choice? Do you have a lot of livable cities with a great public transportation system, where people don’t want to live in? Or you have a zoned suburbia with NIMBY lobby and gated communities, where people barely can afford to live in? When was the last time you took a bus or travelled by train?
  - jdenning 4y ago
    Banning gas furnaces for new construction is removing choice.
tablespoon 4y ago
> How about moving the working/middle class from single family homes to apartment complexes and starting using public transportation instead of cars? That would certainly be more energy efficient than cancelling a few private jet flights. How about we move healthtech CTOs into dungeons deep underground, where no climate control is neccessary; and provide them a single terminal to continue working and a diet of 2000 kcal/day of the cheapest, most climate friendly vegan food? No spices -- too many food miles. [The parent poster describes themselves as a "Healthtech CTO, entrepreneur, writing code since 1991, living in Berlin, Germany" (https://web.archive.org/web/20220906213159/https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ivan_gammel https://web.archive.org/web/20220906213159/https://news.ycom...)]
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  You are certainly overreacting to a proposal to live the same comfortable, affordable and energy-efficient lifestyle as the author. Why are you so triggered by that?
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > ...a proposal to live the same comfortable, affordable and energy-efficient lifestyle as the author. I figured I'd get a response like that. > Why are you so triggered by that? I'm not triggered. You were suggesting to coercively force major lifestyle choices (that just happen to be yours) onto other people (which "how about moving the the working/middle class..." clearly communicates). If you think that's fine, then you should give your empathy some exercise, and think about being treated similarly yourself.
    - ivan_gammel 4y ago
      So you do not understand the difference between oppression and regulation, do you? One thing is to lock up people in Auschwitz, another one is to require them to separate trash or to stop smoking in public places. Building livable cities where people could afford renting or buying a flat for less than $1000 is certainly not oppression. Yes, you cannot put a fancy big grill on a balcony to keep up with Joneses, sorry. But being able to pay the bills and contribute less to a climate change, would be worth it, right?
Turing_Machine 4y ago
How about we just move everybody into dormitories, feed them in institutional cafeterias, and hot-bunk the beds three shifts a day? There's such a thing as "quality of life", and no one put you in charge of making those decisions for other people.
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  I bet you haven’t read other comments in thus thread and have never lived in a modern city with decent public transportation and welfare. Quality of life in Berlin or some random small town in Germany is certainly better for people with low income than in American suburbia, yet the working class does not have this choice The elites have already decided on what American lifestyle should look like, with all those highways cutting off cities in halves, zoning rules etc. So, go on, tell me more about the “choice”.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    I bet you're wrong on both claims. Not everyone enjoys living in a human zoo, dude. Really. There are people who actually enjoy (e.g.) having a yard for the kids to play in that's not full of dog (or human) feces and used hypodermic needles.

nxm 4y ago

So the lower class folks have to uproot their lives so that the rich can continue theirs?

baggy_trough 4y ago

How about letting people live like they want?

ivan_gammel 4y ago
As long as they pay full cost that includes offsetting emissions, why not? How about offering them an affordable alternative to what’s considered luxury in many parts of the world?

slowmovintarget 4y ago

There is the instinct that must be contended against with all our might: Removing choice. "Make" everyone live in an apartment, because they shouldn't have the choice. "Make" everyone give up their personal transportation (mobility). "Make" everyone switch to solar or geothermal. Substitute "make" with "force" and you'll have the correct understanding of what kind of government mechanisms we'd be empowering to achieve these ends. Removing choice is the wrong instinct. Working to price external costs in, so they get factored in to choices, can sway the choices, but you're not forcing people, or making a way for one group of people to force some other group of people to certain actions.

ivan_gammel 4y ago
Who’s removing choice? Do you have a lot of livable cities with a great public transportation system, where people don’t want to live in? Or you have a zoned suburbia with NIMBY lobby and gated communities, where people barely can afford to live in? When was the last time you took a bus or travelled by train?
- jdenning 4y ago
  Banning gas furnaces for new construction is removing choice.

tablespoon 4y ago

> How about moving the working/middle class from single family homes to apartment complexes and starting using public transportation instead of cars? That would certainly be more energy efficient than cancelling a few private jet flights. How about we move healthtech CTOs into dungeons deep underground, where no climate control is neccessary; and provide them a single terminal to continue working and a diet of 2000 kcal/day of the cheapest, most climate friendly vegan food? No spices -- too many food miles. [The parent poster describes themselves as a "Healthtech CTO, entrepreneur, writing code since 1991, living in Berlin, Germany" (https://web.archive.org/web/20220906213159/https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ivan_gammel https://web.archive.org/web/20220906213159/https://news.ycom...)]

ivan_gammel 4y ago
You are certainly overreacting to a proposal to live the same comfortable, affordable and energy-efficient lifestyle as the author. Why are you so triggered by that?
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > ...a proposal to live the same comfortable, affordable and energy-efficient lifestyle as the author. I figured I'd get a response like that. > Why are you so triggered by that? I'm not triggered. You were suggesting to coercively force major lifestyle choices (that just happen to be yours) onto other people (which "how about moving the the working/middle class..." clearly communicates). If you think that's fine, then you should give your empathy some exercise, and think about being treated similarly yourself.
  - ivan_gammel 4y ago
    So you do not understand the difference between oppression and regulation, do you? One thing is to lock up people in Auschwitz, another one is to require them to separate trash or to stop smoking in public places. Building livable cities where people could afford renting or buying a flat for less than $1000 is certainly not oppression. Yes, you cannot put a fancy big grill on a balcony to keep up with Joneses, sorry. But being able to pay the bills and contribute less to a climate change, would be worth it, right?

Turing_Machine 4y ago

How about we just move everybody into dormitories, feed them in institutional cafeterias, and hot-bunk the beds three shifts a day? There's such a thing as "quality of life", and no one put you in charge of making those decisions for other people.

ivan_gammel 4y ago
I bet you haven’t read other comments in thus thread and have never lived in a modern city with decent public transportation and welfare. Quality of life in Berlin or some random small town in Germany is certainly better for people with low income than in American suburbia, yet the working class does not have this choice The elites have already decided on what American lifestyle should look like, with all those highways cutting off cities in halves, zoning rules etc. So, go on, tell me more about the “choice”.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  I bet you're wrong on both claims. Not everyone enjoys living in a human zoo, dude. Really. There are people who actually enjoy (e.g.) having a yard for the kids to play in that's not full of dog (or human) feces and used hypodermic needles.