7 ms·

We could use cars a bit less. Moving to better mass transit systems, walkable environments, remote working, etc means we might be able to cope with just using l

We could use cars a bit less. Moving to better mass transit systems, walkable environments, remote working, etc means we might be able to cope with just using less lithium, and then we'd be able to mine less. Suggesting that we have to mine lithium because the alternative is fossil fuels shows a belief that we should be continuing our current lifestyle and making it a little greener rather than modifying our lifestyle and making it radically greener.

stickfigure 4y ago
Option A) Develop a more environmentally friendly technology Option B) Fundamentally reorganize human society -- Option B has a poor track record.
- onion2k 4y ago
  You only need to look at the history of society at times in the past 150 years to see that's not true. People fundamentally reorganised around working in factories, owning cars, women going out to work, television, the adoption of IT, the internet, smart phones, and probably many more things within a few decades as soon as each thing was first introduced. Humans are amazing at adapting to rapid changes when we want to.
  - speedgoose 4y ago
    But why would they want to give up their cars? The average human doesn’t value protecting the environment more than maintaining their lifestyle.
    - 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
      i thought my wife and i would always have our own cars. could never imagine making do with 1. but now i can walk to work so we don't need 2. and if we happen to need to go separate ways, i can uber. make transportation easy, and people will adapt/embrace even if they don't currently like the idea.
      - speedgoose 4y ago
        Not needing a car is great, but this apply mostly to people living in cities. I would love to walk to work, I would only need to triple my income or downgrade a lot my quality of life by living in a bad small apartment.
        8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
        Right, definitely not everyone can do it. My point is only that opinions can change if circumstances change.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    And 0 of those examples involve people being told to give up things they wanted.
    - VBprogrammer 4y ago
      It's not so much about giving up something they want but about giving up something that is fundamentally better than the alternatives (except of course for the externalities). It would be like getting people to go back to going to communal laundry facilities or washboards.
  - theshrike79 4y ago
    Humans are amazing at adapting to things that give them more of something. What we need as a civilisation is people wanting less of everything, but that's really hard. People take things as given and if you even suggest taking away those things they get irrationally angry and dig down even harder.
    - avgcorrection 4y ago
      Consumer-capitalism is an economic system which depends on consumption from the working- and middle-class. It is not merely a lifestyle which is opted into. But this always gets framed as changing the hearts and minds of regular people. Well my own prime minister was a bit upset that people were consuming less during the height of the pandemic. They wanted people to get back to “supporting small businesses” ASAP.
      - imtringued 4y ago
        In my opinion people are working backwards. They are taking properties of money and project them onto humans rather than doing the opposite. Economists say people have infinite wants and needs but really, in practice it boils down to a desire to constantly learn new things. The only reason why people may want an infinitely high amount of money ie. infinite wants is because there is no opportunity cost to holding money, humans really love having infinite free things and hate things that cost them something.
    - bluefirebrand 4y ago
      > People take things as given and if you even suggest taking away those things they get irrationally angry and dig down even harder. What's irrational about it? Especially in this case. People are being asked to drive less, when driving is currently a necessity in their daily lives. Meanwhile the upper class is flying private jets around. Being asked to accept less in that situation should make you angry. And it isn't irrational.
    - braindead_in 4y ago
      > What we need as a civilisation is people wanting less of everything, but that's really hard. Not very hard; there are several spiritual traditions which emphasize detachment from objects, e.g. Buddhism. But unfortunately, Buddhist countries don't generally do well militarily because of the focus on monasticism/pacifism. India was majority Buddhist in 6-7th century and arguably that made them vulnerable to the Arab invasions. Similar case can be made for Tibbet.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  Like when we chose B) and made our current consumer-capitalist society?
- timeon 4y ago
  > Option B has a poor track record. They both have.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Our current tech is way greener than what we had 100 years ago.
    - TedShiller 4y ago
      You seem to forget that 100 years ago it was also used much less. billions of light polluters today is much worse than a couple of heavy polluters 100 years ago.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        That is a different issue that doesn't have to do with tech itself. But I will also note that our population growth trajectory 100 years ago looked much more pessimistic than the one today. Now I don't think any of this will be enough to avoid a major catastrophe due to AGW. But it's also clear from experience that, between tech advances and social self-control, the former is far more likely to happen at scale, and thus have any meaningful effect.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > Fundamentally reorganize human society American and maybe Canadian society. There is nothing particular to humans that makes them car dependent, urban design, education and other such circumstances make them so. In some countries car dependency is the exception due to good public transit coverage (for commuting or longer distances with high speed rail). Of course there's no silver bullet that will make everyone abandon their car tomorrow morning, but a lot of car trips can be cut with good urban design (including walkability, cycling, public transit), and for the rest that remain for whatever reason, EVs are a better choice, obviously. However focusing only on EVs and ignoring the rest is only opening another can of worms to replace the current one.
  - someweirdperson 4y ago
    > There is nothing particular to humans that makes them car dependent [...] Not dependent in the practical sense, but I think we are somewhat genetically wired for something related to long distance travel and/or the means to do so, or at least to move at higher speeds than we can on foot. There's the love for horses in (mostly female) humans, and the way car purchases are made is not at all driven by practical considerations only. Transformation can make us less dependent on cars and reduce their use. It won't remove the desire to own and fully control means of transportation.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Luckily, the two options are not in any way mutually exclusive. Lithium for e-bikes, golf-carts, trams and busses, taxis, ferries etc. are needed for the non-car-based city vision too, and the reduction in ICE pollution actually makes cities a nicer place to live.
guerby 4y ago
EV are at least currently more expensive upfront to buy than ICE cars so we'll naturally get less of them. We'll also probably get a lot more of small EV (especially in cities) than we got small ICE cars. I really wish people in favor of non car transit would spend less than 100% of their time criticizing people owning/looking for an EV and never say a word on fossil cars that people continue buying. Their time would be much better spent on promoting mass transit (with electric bus/whatever), walkable and cyclist friendly development and telling people about health, atmospheric pollution and noise issues around fossil cars. To fight climate change we need both EV and more mass transit/walking/cycling, and less ICE car and buses. And timing is critical so all at the same time.
billythemaniam 4y ago
Abstinence has never worked at a societal level for alcohol, drugs, sex, nor environmental issues so far either. Why do we keep thinking that is going to start working any day now? Why do we keep thinking that fighting human nature head-on is the best course of action?
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > Why do we keep thinking that fighting human nature head-on is the best course of action? Assume /u/onion2k was referring to the US, many countries successfully push public transport more than the US. So human nature certainly isn't the blocker here, but the current culture of the US.
  - billythemaniam 4y ago
    Public transportation alone cannot solve the problem in the US. It can't even make a large enough dent to really make a difference. Most of those other countries are like a small US state, but the US is much, much larger. Even a medium sized US state is larger than most of those countries. There is a massive scale difference that needs to be taken into account. Because of that scale difference, it is hard for public transportation in the US to appeal to our innate desire for convenience. That's why public transportation works so well in small countries, that transportation can take most people to most places cost effectively. In other words, it is convenient for them.
    - orn688 4y ago
      Certainly it might not make sense to build extensive public transit in or between every tiny town in Wyoming. But within individual cities, or areas like the Northeast Corridor, the density is comparable to areas of Europe with fantastic public transit. The issue is car-centric policy and culture, not lack of potential demand.
      - billythemaniam 4y ago
        Fighting against human nature is the hardest. You know what is next hardest? Fighting culture. Even if culture can be changed, it takes a least one generation or ~30 years and often longer. I'm really not that interested in what the problem is theoretically. I'm interested in effectiveness. Ramping up of mining to build batteries to put a huge dent in CO2 emissions at the expense of localized environmental damage? That's effective. Not perfect or ideal, but it is effective because it is the path of least resistance.

stickfigure 4y ago

Option A) Develop a more environmentally friendly technology Option B) Fundamentally reorganize human society -- Option B has a poor track record.

onion2k 4y ago
You only need to look at the history of society at times in the past 150 years to see that's not true. People fundamentally reorganised around working in factories, owning cars, women going out to work, television, the adoption of IT, the internet, smart phones, and probably many more things within a few decades as soon as each thing was first introduced. Humans are amazing at adapting to rapid changes when we want to.
- speedgoose 4y ago
  But why would they want to give up their cars? The average human doesn’t value protecting the environment more than maintaining their lifestyle.
  - 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
    i thought my wife and i would always have our own cars. could never imagine making do with 1. but now i can walk to work so we don't need 2. and if we happen to need to go separate ways, i can uber. make transportation easy, and people will adapt/embrace even if they don't currently like the idea.
    - speedgoose 4y ago
      Not needing a car is great, but this apply mostly to people living in cities. I would love to walk to work, I would only need to triple my income or downgrade a lot my quality of life by living in a bad small apartment.
      - 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
        Right, definitely not everyone can do it. My point is only that opinions can change if circumstances change.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  And 0 of those examples involve people being told to give up things they wanted.
  - VBprogrammer 4y ago
    It's not so much about giving up something they want but about giving up something that is fundamentally better than the alternatives (except of course for the externalities). It would be like getting people to go back to going to communal laundry facilities or washboards.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  Humans are amazing at adapting to things that give them more of something. What we need as a civilisation is people wanting less of everything, but that's really hard. People take things as given and if you even suggest taking away those things they get irrationally angry and dig down even harder.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    Consumer-capitalism is an economic system which depends on consumption from the working- and middle-class. It is not merely a lifestyle which is opted into. But this always gets framed as changing the hearts and minds of regular people. Well my own prime minister was a bit upset that people were consuming less during the height of the pandemic. They wanted people to get back to “supporting small businesses” ASAP.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      In my opinion people are working backwards. They are taking properties of money and project them onto humans rather than doing the opposite. Economists say people have infinite wants and needs but really, in practice it boils down to a desire to constantly learn new things. The only reason why people may want an infinitely high amount of money ie. infinite wants is because there is no opportunity cost to holding money, humans really love having infinite free things and hate things that cost them something.
  - bluefirebrand 4y ago
    > People take things as given and if you even suggest taking away those things they get irrationally angry and dig down even harder. What's irrational about it? Especially in this case. People are being asked to drive less, when driving is currently a necessity in their daily lives. Meanwhile the upper class is flying private jets around. Being asked to accept less in that situation should make you angry. And it isn't irrational.
  - braindead_in 4y ago
    > What we need as a civilisation is people wanting less of everything, but that's really hard. Not very hard; there are several spiritual traditions which emphasize detachment from objects, e.g. Buddhism. But unfortunately, Buddhist countries don't generally do well militarily because of the focus on monasticism/pacifism. India was majority Buddhist in 6-7th century and arguably that made them vulnerable to the Arab invasions. Similar case can be made for Tibbet.
avgcorrection 4y ago
Like when we chose B) and made our current consumer-capitalist society?
timeon 4y ago
> Option B has a poor track record. They both have.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Our current tech is way greener than what we had 100 years ago.
  - TedShiller 4y ago
    You seem to forget that 100 years ago it was also used much less. billions of light polluters today is much worse than a couple of heavy polluters 100 years ago.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      That is a different issue that doesn't have to do with tech itself. But I will also note that our population growth trajectory 100 years ago looked much more pessimistic than the one today. Now I don't think any of this will be enough to avoid a major catastrophe due to AGW. But it's also clear from experience that, between tech advances and social self-control, the former is far more likely to happen at scale, and thus have any meaningful effect.
sofixa 4y ago
> Fundamentally reorganize human society American and maybe Canadian society. There is nothing particular to humans that makes them car dependent, urban design, education and other such circumstances make them so. In some countries car dependency is the exception due to good public transit coverage (for commuting or longer distances with high speed rail). Of course there's no silver bullet that will make everyone abandon their car tomorrow morning, but a lot of car trips can be cut with good urban design (including walkability, cycling, public transit), and for the rest that remain for whatever reason, EVs are a better choice, obviously. However focusing only on EVs and ignoring the rest is only opening another can of worms to replace the current one.
- someweirdperson 4y ago
  > There is nothing particular to humans that makes them car dependent [...] Not dependent in the practical sense, but I think we are somewhat genetically wired for something related to long distance travel and/or the means to do so, or at least to move at higher speeds than we can on foot. There's the love for horses in (mostly female) humans, and the way car purchases are made is not at all driven by practical considerations only. Transformation can make us less dependent on cars and reduce their use. It won't remove the desire to own and fully control means of transportation.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Luckily, the two options are not in any way mutually exclusive. Lithium for e-bikes, golf-carts, trams and busses, taxis, ferries etc. are needed for the non-car-based city vision too, and the reduction in ICE pollution actually makes cities a nicer place to live.

guerby 4y ago

EV are at least currently more expensive upfront to buy than ICE cars so we'll naturally get less of them. We'll also probably get a lot more of small EV (especially in cities) than we got small ICE cars. I really wish people in favor of non car transit would spend less than 100% of their time criticizing people owning/looking for an EV and never say a word on fossil cars that people continue buying. Their time would be much better spent on promoting mass transit (with electric bus/whatever), walkable and cyclist friendly development and telling people about health, atmospheric pollution and noise issues around fossil cars. To fight climate change we need both EV and more mass transit/walking/cycling, and less ICE car and buses. And timing is critical so all at the same time.

billythemaniam 4y ago

Abstinence has never worked at a societal level for alcohol, drugs, sex, nor environmental issues so far either. Why do we keep thinking that is going to start working any day now? Why do we keep thinking that fighting human nature head-on is the best course of action?

CogitoCogito 4y ago
> Why do we keep thinking that fighting human nature head-on is the best course of action? Assume /u/onion2k was referring to the US, many countries successfully push public transport more than the US. So human nature certainly isn't the blocker here, but the current culture of the US.
- billythemaniam 4y ago
  Public transportation alone cannot solve the problem in the US. It can't even make a large enough dent to really make a difference. Most of those other countries are like a small US state, but the US is much, much larger. Even a medium sized US state is larger than most of those countries. There is a massive scale difference that needs to be taken into account. Because of that scale difference, it is hard for public transportation in the US to appeal to our innate desire for convenience. That's why public transportation works so well in small countries, that transportation can take most people to most places cost effectively. In other words, it is convenient for them.
  - orn688 4y ago
    Certainly it might not make sense to build extensive public transit in or between every tiny town in Wyoming. But within individual cities, or areas like the Northeast Corridor, the density is comparable to areas of Europe with fantastic public transit. The issue is car-centric policy and culture, not lack of potential demand.
    - billythemaniam 4y ago
      Fighting against human nature is the hardest. You know what is next hardest? Fighting culture. Even if culture can be changed, it takes a least one generation or ~30 years and often longer. I'm really not that interested in what the problem is theoretically. I'm interested in effectiveness. Ramping up of mining to build batteries to put a huge dent in CO2 emissions at the expense of localized environmental damage? That's effective. Not perfect or ideal, but it is effective because it is the path of least resistance.