3 ms·

> Now, apparently there are people who consider abandoning plastic straws absolutely hands-down unthinkable sacrilege. It's not an "unthinkable sacrilege", it'

> Now, apparently there are people who consider abandoning plastic straws absolutely hands-down unthinkable sacrilege. It's not an "unthinkable sacrilege", it's a fart in the wind. It's something that politicians and trendy restaurant owners do to make themselves feel like they're solving a problem while making zero effort. The reality is that it doesn't make the tiniest dent in the problem. Classic slacktivism. > The arguments I heard so far are mostly misguided (no forests nearby!), refer to problems not specific to high density living (nosy neighbors!), and such. Maybe I want to live in the forest. Yes I know, that's terrible because I and the rest of humanity are a blight upon the earth that must be contained, right? Here are just a few problems that are definitely more prevalent in high-density areas: piss-soaked front steps on my building, high traffic (yes, I'm sure you have a "car free" solution to this, which is undoubtedly just as unappealing as the rest of your cosmopolitan utopia), neighbors pounding on my walls, and being accosted for money every time I walk outside. I could go on. > the technology to live comfortably with little footprint is here In another comment you explain that "comfort" means to you "suitable temperature and humidity, clean air, soft bed, clean water and so on". If your mindset is such that you think that's what people like me are worried about, then I'm not sure you're even capable of understanding what we're actually worried about. Suffice it to say that I am not interested in being an interchangeable unit of economic production to be kept in a neat little pod by my technocratic betters. Yes, even if it has "suitable temperature and humidity" LMAO. Do you actually think that the only thing humans want out of life is for their physical needs to be met? > such areas are simply not built. Exactly, so you don't even know if they would have all the wonderful attributes you extol. How about you go build one, and we'll see? Prove your idea and watch people come, instead of herding all of humanity into an experiment. > Did you ever have an issue with... No, I actually haven't. But like I said, it doesn't matter. I don't doubt that other people have these negative experiences, and they're free to go somewhere that they would be happier. Remember, I'm not the one trying to dictate where people can live. If you prefer cities, then by all means, live in one! I'll stay in my small town. Win-win. I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to convince people of the benefits of city life. It's clear that if you had the authority, you'd herd them all into your skyscrapers whether they like it or not. Why waste your energy pretending that you care what people want or have any respect for their autonomy?

strogonoff 4y ago
> I and the rest of humanity are a blight upon the earth that must be contained, right? This is about sustainability—i.e., the opposite of what you wrote. “Unsustainable” means “bad later”. The point is that sprawl is bad for the humanity, but if you see humanity as blight then letting it sprawl is probably the faster way to exterminate it. > How about you go build one, and we'll see? They already exist, go to Singapore or a few other places and see. > Maybe I want to live in the forest. The fact that you want to buy a gun and walk around with it shooting people wouldn’t make it an OK thing to do, and doesn’t mean it suddenly falls within the accepted meaning of the word “comfort” (though admittedly it is an analogy, which based on your first paragraph you may have trouble understanding). > But like I said, it doesn't matter. And like I said, it actually does. Not to you, of course, but to your children and grandchildren. Shutting your ears and shouting doesn’t make this issue go away, sorry.
- roarcher 4y ago
  > The point is that sprawl is bad for the humanity, but if you see humanity as blight then letting it sprawl is probably the faster way to exterminate it. Where is your evidence for this? This is nothing but a supposition. > They already exist, go to Singapore or a few other places and see. Ah yes, the country that maintains the peace by handing out the death penalty for 30 grams of cocaine. Truly a model society. On a side note, you should make up your mind about whether these places exist or not. > The fact that you want to buy a gun and walk around with it shooting people wouldn’t make it an OK thing to do, and doesn’t mean it suddenly falls within the accepted meaning of the word “comfort” (though admittedly it is an analogy, which based on your first paragraph you may have trouble understanding). LMAO. This deliberately emotionally charged "analogy" is only relevant if you've bothered to first establish that rural living is harmful to others, which you haven't even attempted to do. You expect me to take it for granted that a cabin in the woods spells Armageddon, and that the only remedy is for all of humanity to hand over their autonomy to people like you. Thankfully you're a nobody, and I can go happily about my day knowing you'll never be entrusted with the tiniest fraction of the authority necessary to carry out this disgusting plan :)
  - 4y ago

strogonoff 4y ago

> I and the rest of humanity are a blight upon the earth that must be contained, right? This is about sustainability—i.e., the opposite of what you wrote. “Unsustainable” means “bad later”. The point is that sprawl is bad for the humanity, but if you see humanity as blight then letting it sprawl is probably the faster way to exterminate it. > How about you go build one, and we'll see? They already exist, go to Singapore or a few other places and see. > Maybe I want to live in the forest. The fact that you want to buy a gun and walk around with it shooting people wouldn’t make it an OK thing to do, and doesn’t mean it suddenly falls within the accepted meaning of the word “comfort” (though admittedly it is an analogy, which based on your first paragraph you may have trouble understanding). > But like I said, it doesn't matter. And like I said, it actually does. Not to you, of course, but to your children and grandchildren. Shutting your ears and shouting doesn’t make this issue go away, sorry.

roarcher 4y ago
> The point is that sprawl is bad for the humanity, but if you see humanity as blight then letting it sprawl is probably the faster way to exterminate it. Where is your evidence for this? This is nothing but a supposition. > They already exist, go to Singapore or a few other places and see. Ah yes, the country that maintains the peace by handing out the death penalty for 30 grams of cocaine. Truly a model society. On a side note, you should make up your mind about whether these places exist or not. > The fact that you want to buy a gun and walk around with it shooting people wouldn’t make it an OK thing to do, and doesn’t mean it suddenly falls within the accepted meaning of the word “comfort” (though admittedly it is an analogy, which based on your first paragraph you may have trouble understanding). LMAO. This deliberately emotionally charged "analogy" is only relevant if you've bothered to first establish that rural living is harmful to others, which you haven't even attempted to do. You expect me to take it for granted that a cabin in the woods spells Armageddon, and that the only remedy is for all of humanity to hand over their autonomy to people like you. Thankfully you're a nobody, and I can go happily about my day knowing you'll never be entrusted with the tiniest fraction of the authority necessary to carry out this disgusting plan :)
- 4y ago