4 ms·

I appreciate novel and thought provoking critiques like this, and also can keep in mind that roads are amazing and make the world better in a million ways. The

I appreciate novel and thought provoking critiques like this, and also can keep in mind that roads are amazing and make the world better in a million ways. There’s a big difference between internalizing something like this as a non obvious cost of something positive - and positive on the net despite the cost - vs reading this and deciding that roads should be removed or something like that.

HPsquared 3y ago
Balanced discussions don't get at much engagement.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > Balanced discussions don't get at much engagement. Agreed. Controversy sells, which is a shorter and more accurate way of saying "If it bleeds, it leads" I've been looking at how much a quality PR firm costs (nothing less than $10k/m, all the way up to $100k/m for more exposure). I've half a mind to cultivate an incredibly controversial position before launching my startup's product. The media coverage of "lelanthran, founder and CEO or $COMPANY, producing $PRODUCT, had this to say about the round-earth conspiracy!" is bound to be worth a few $100k at least in publicity, at least.
cowsandmilk 3y ago
As the article states, the book gives positive examples where roads are providing critical habitat to some species. Your comment assumes an imbalance to the book which may not be there.
- xyzelement 3y ago
  I think my point is that evaluating roads primarily on their impact on species - even the positive impacts you mention - isn’t the main thing we should be doing
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    If roads don't serve a sustainable future then what is their purpose? Is destroying the habitat of our children worth it to make ourselves a little more comfortable? We can't just print more habitat, so I don't see the point of giving other factors more weight.
    - xyzelement 3y ago
      I would argue that roads obviously make our lives more sustainable in ways that actually matter. An obvious example is that humanity would not be able to sustain its current size and quality of life without roads.
      - AlecSchueler 3y ago
        But our current lifestyle and population is unsustainable.
        xyzelement 3y ago
        That’s an oft repeated thing, but far from accepted as rigorous. Malthusian anxiety is always a thing for some percentage of population and they will find something to worry about.
        paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Malthus being wrong about the exact tipping point and timing doesn't mean that the limits of fundamental physics somehow don't exist. Innovations are unpredictable and likely easier when discovering the lower hanging fruit. So if we are increasingly unlikely to invent our way out of mounting problems they are likely to get worse. Based on current pollution and resource consumption alone we already know our time is running out. At best we've got a century or two before there is massive upheaval. And the resulting world is very likely to be a hellscape of microplastics, ubiquitius forever chemicals, depleted soils, and unexploded munitions. Then again, it's far easier to stick ones head in the sand and carry on like nothing is wrong. Yet don't worry about such folks, they'll continue on until we all suffer or they're constrained.
Podgajski 3y ago
[dead]

HPsquared 3y ago

Balanced discussions don't get at much engagement.

lelanthran 3y ago
> Balanced discussions don't get at much engagement. Agreed. Controversy sells, which is a shorter and more accurate way of saying "If it bleeds, it leads" I've been looking at how much a quality PR firm costs (nothing less than $10k/m, all the way up to $100k/m for more exposure). I've half a mind to cultivate an incredibly controversial position before launching my startup's product. The media coverage of "lelanthran, founder and CEO or $COMPANY, producing $PRODUCT, had this to say about the round-earth conspiracy!" is bound to be worth a few $100k at least in publicity, at least.

cowsandmilk 3y ago

As the article states, the book gives positive examples where roads are providing critical habitat to some species. Your comment assumes an imbalance to the book which may not be there.

xyzelement 3y ago
I think my point is that evaluating roads primarily on their impact on species - even the positive impacts you mention - isn’t the main thing we should be doing
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  If roads don't serve a sustainable future then what is their purpose? Is destroying the habitat of our children worth it to make ourselves a little more comfortable? We can't just print more habitat, so I don't see the point of giving other factors more weight.
  - xyzelement 3y ago
    I would argue that roads obviously make our lives more sustainable in ways that actually matter. An obvious example is that humanity would not be able to sustain its current size and quality of life without roads.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      But our current lifestyle and population is unsustainable.
      - xyzelement 3y ago
        That’s an oft repeated thing, but far from accepted as rigorous. Malthusian anxiety is always a thing for some percentage of population and they will find something to worry about.
        paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Malthus being wrong about the exact tipping point and timing doesn't mean that the limits of fundamental physics somehow don't exist. Innovations are unpredictable and likely easier when discovering the lower hanging fruit. So if we are increasingly unlikely to invent our way out of mounting problems they are likely to get worse. Based on current pollution and resource consumption alone we already know our time is running out. At best we've got a century or two before there is massive upheaval. And the resulting world is very likely to be a hellscape of microplastics, ubiquitius forever chemicals, depleted soils, and unexploded munitions. Then again, it's far easier to stick ones head in the sand and carry on like nothing is wrong. Yet don't worry about such folks, they'll continue on until we all suffer or they're constrained.

Podgajski 3y ago

[dead]