3 ms·

Global population wasn't at the scale we have right now either. However, London had several million inhabitants in the late nineteenth century, before any cars

Global population wasn't at the scale we have right now either. However, London had several million inhabitants in the late nineteenth century, before any cars were around.

lelanthran 3y ago
> Global population wasn't at the scale we have right now either. Yes. Because technology like the automobile was not around to support the high-density living that we enjoy now. > However, London had several million inhabitants in the late nineteenth century, before any cars were around. Nowhere nearly as dense as we want to live now. And that wasn't thousands of years ago either. My point is that, without the automobile, high density populations could not be supported.
- adrianN 3y ago
  You're moving goalposts across continents if a car free city with several million inhabitants doesn't qualify as dense car-free living.
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    I don't think so. I started the thread with: >>>> We all benefited, yourself included, from having those early laws on the books. then reinforced with >>> The high-density car-free life you dream of would never have been possible then reinforced, again, with >> Because technology like the automobile was not around to support the high-density living that we enjoy now. I thought I was being clear that I was referring to the dense car-free cities we now enjoy, or we expect to have, not overcrowded and unsanitary slums[1]. So you claiming that a dense car-free city is possible is irrelevant to "the car free city we now enjoy", because the car-free cities we now enjoy does not have millions of people living in overcrowded and unsanitary slums. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London#19th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London#19th_century: > While the city grew wealthy as Britain's holdings expanded, 19th-century London was also a city of poverty, where millions lived in overcrowded and unsanitary slums.
    - adrianN 3y ago
      Overcrowding and sanitation are orthogonal problems to delivering goods to millions of people in a city. London for example was unsanitary because we didn't even have an understanding of germ theory at the time. People however didn't starve because no trucks where around to stock the shelves.

Global population wasn't at the scale we have right now either. However, London had several million inhabitants in the late nineteenth century, before any cars were around.

lelanthran 3y ago

> Global population wasn't at the scale we have right now either. Yes. Because technology like the automobile was not around to support the high-density living that we enjoy now. > However, London had several million inhabitants in the late nineteenth century, before any cars were around. Nowhere nearly as dense as we want to live now. And that wasn't thousands of years ago either. My point is that, without the automobile, high density populations could not be supported.

adrianN 3y ago
You're moving goalposts across continents if a car free city with several million inhabitants doesn't qualify as dense car-free living.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  I don't think so. I started the thread with: >>>> We all benefited, yourself included, from having those early laws on the books. then reinforced with >>> The high-density car-free life you dream of would never have been possible then reinforced, again, with >> Because technology like the automobile was not around to support the high-density living that we enjoy now. I thought I was being clear that I was referring to the dense car-free cities we now enjoy, or we expect to have, not overcrowded and unsanitary slums[1]. So you claiming that a dense car-free city is possible is irrelevant to "the car free city we now enjoy", because the car-free cities we now enjoy does not have millions of people living in overcrowded and unsanitary slums. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London#19th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London#19th_century: > While the city grew wealthy as Britain's holdings expanded, 19th-century London was also a city of poverty, where millions lived in overcrowded and unsanitary slums.
  - adrianN 3y ago
    Overcrowding and sanitation are orthogonal problems to delivering goods to millions of people in a city. London for example was unsanitary because we didn't even have an understanding of germ theory at the time. People however didn't starve because no trucks where around to stock the shelves.