3 ms·

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 boo

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.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        But we're already seeing ecosystems collapse and infrastructure be overwhelmed across the globe.
  - manxman 3y ago
    I think there are very real dangers of assuming parents know what is right for their children or what their children will go on to value. I know we live in a very weird era where Operant Conditioning (if you don't know what that is look up B.F. Skinner and I strongly recommend reading his semi-fictional work "Walden 2") and behavioural psychology are being applied by parents upon their children to try to shape the world outside of due process and democracy. It will be interesting to see if future generations value the things that are being done for their supposed sakes or if they look upon the delusions of recent history with revulsion.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Kids don't seem to happy about all the pollution or unsustainable choices that have gotten us here. Of course there are plenty of apathetic and ignorant young people too. I think we should listen to the canaries before we all suffocate.
      - xyzelement 3y ago
        I would say there are kids whose parents etc riddled them with anxiety and that’s who you are talking about. And then there are kids going on with their happy hopefully lives.
        paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Personally knowing those I'm talking about, I can say most of their parents were more the isnt-it-nice-here-with-our-heads-in-the-sand types. And who can blame such parents for struggling to accept reality? It must be hard to admit being at least partially responsible for the state of the world they are passing on.
  - onthecanposting 3y ago
    So no roads? I don't normally think of mass famine as sustainable, but I suppose it is in a way. I'd like to opt out, personally.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Who is proposing no roads? We need more rail, more trolleys, more buses, lower speed limits, to close loopholes for polluting trucks, and mixed use roads built for pedestrians, bicycles, and smaller motorized vehicles. SUVs and trucks should be taxed so much they're impractical to own, apart from a legit business need. Not encouraged to proliferate through outdated regulatory loopholes. Roads should serve everyone, including those incapable of driving and those with respiratory challenges. They should not only serve the rich, deceived, and unimaginative who cannot stand the thought of any other solutions.
    - chongli 3y ago
      There are alternatives to roads for moving people and cargo. Railroads, for one. If we really wanted to minimize ecological disruption without shutting down the logistics network of the economy (taking the economy with it), we would build elevated rails across the landscape. Wildlife could safely traverse underneath them so there’d be a lot less interruption of territories and trails. The downside is cost. A more modest solution is wildlife tunnels and bridges [1]. These aren’t nearly as expensive as elevating a railroad for many miles, but they do allow wildlife to safely cross in some places. They help to reduce habitat fragmentation which is a huge challenge for migratory species and those with large territories. They don’t much for pollution, however. Electric cars might help with that somewhat, but the local issue around roads is pollution from tire and road wear, salt/de-icing, debris, litter, and runoff. All of these local pollution sources won’t be alleviated and some (tire/road wear) are exacerbated by EVs due the dramatic weight increase. Elevated rails would be amazing though. They could accommodate very high speed trains, allowing an even faster transportation network, while also cutting down on all of the issues listed above. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_crossing?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_crossing?wprov=sfti1

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.
      - AlecSchueler 3y ago
        But we're already seeing ecosystems collapse and infrastructure be overwhelmed across the globe.
- manxman 3y ago
  I think there are very real dangers of assuming parents know what is right for their children or what their children will go on to value. I know we live in a very weird era where Operant Conditioning (if you don't know what that is look up B.F. Skinner and I strongly recommend reading his semi-fictional work "Walden 2") and behavioural psychology are being applied by parents upon their children to try to shape the world outside of due process and democracy. It will be interesting to see if future generations value the things that are being done for their supposed sakes or if they look upon the delusions of recent history with revulsion.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Kids don't seem to happy about all the pollution or unsustainable choices that have gotten us here. Of course there are plenty of apathetic and ignorant young people too. I think we should listen to the canaries before we all suffocate.
    - xyzelement 3y ago
      I would say there are kids whose parents etc riddled them with anxiety and that’s who you are talking about. And then there are kids going on with their happy hopefully lives.
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Personally knowing those I'm talking about, I can say most of their parents were more the isnt-it-nice-here-with-our-heads-in-the-sand types. And who can blame such parents for struggling to accept reality? It must be hard to admit being at least partially responsible for the state of the world they are passing on.
- onthecanposting 3y ago
  So no roads? I don't normally think of mass famine as sustainable, but I suppose it is in a way. I'd like to opt out, personally.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Who is proposing no roads? We need more rail, more trolleys, more buses, lower speed limits, to close loopholes for polluting trucks, and mixed use roads built for pedestrians, bicycles, and smaller motorized vehicles. SUVs and trucks should be taxed so much they're impractical to own, apart from a legit business need. Not encouraged to proliferate through outdated regulatory loopholes. Roads should serve everyone, including those incapable of driving and those with respiratory challenges. They should not only serve the rich, deceived, and unimaginative who cannot stand the thought of any other solutions.
  - chongli 3y ago
    There are alternatives to roads for moving people and cargo. Railroads, for one. If we really wanted to minimize ecological disruption without shutting down the logistics network of the economy (taking the economy with it), we would build elevated rails across the landscape. Wildlife could safely traverse underneath them so there’d be a lot less interruption of territories and trails. The downside is cost. A more modest solution is wildlife tunnels and bridges [1]. These aren’t nearly as expensive as elevating a railroad for many miles, but they do allow wildlife to safely cross in some places. They help to reduce habitat fragmentation which is a huge challenge for migratory species and those with large territories. They don’t much for pollution, however. Electric cars might help with that somewhat, but the local issue around roads is pollution from tire and road wear, salt/de-icing, debris, litter, and runoff. All of these local pollution sources won’t be alleviated and some (tire/road wear) are exacerbated by EVs due the dramatic weight increase. Elevated rails would be amazing though. They could accommodate very high speed trains, allowing an even faster transportation network, while also cutting down on all of the issues listed above. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_crossing?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_crossing?wprov=sfti1