4 ms·

The standard of living is something very dynamic though. It's more about perception than anything. It's normal that people want "better" than what their parent

by vladms 2y ago

The standard of living is something very dynamic though. It's more about perception than anything. It's normal that people want "better" than what their parents had, question is what is "better". If lots of people would see "better" (for example) as "less polluted town, where you enjoy walking" and NOT "more place to be in your car", things would fix themselves given some time. My favorite example: why did Netherlands adopted bikes? Because there were killing too many children with cars (ref: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...) Nowadays there are many opportunities (high speed trains to replace some flights, e-bikes to allow bikes in non-flat cities, insulation to reduce heating, rather cheap renewable energy), so it's not all lost UNLESS people want specifically something very bad (exaggerating: "I love my coal plan!")

xethos 2y ago
Respectfully, your favourite example depresses me. Pre-2013 or so I would have agreed, but North America, when faced with "Too many parents are accidentally running over their children in driveways and parking lots", chose to mandate backup cameras instead.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  I'm not from the US and may be missing some context, but in what way mandating backup cameras makes a society less open for mass and light transit?
  - colpabar 2y ago
    The mandate didn't make the US less open to that, it's just that the US is so in love with cars that we don't seriously consider alternatives to driving as solutions to anything. If there was a meeting and the topic was "what to do about the gigantic number of car-related deaths every year", and someone said "maybe we stop driving so much and give people other options of getting around?" they would be laughed out of the room.
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      The people that make rules about car design have no relation at all with the ones that make rules about urban transportation.
    - NikkiA 2y ago
      > and someone said "maybe we stop driving so much and give people other options of getting around?" they would be laughed out of the room. not in an open-carry state they wouldn't.
      - xethos 2y ago
        Shooting someone, lethally or otherwise, for laughing at you, is seen as an appropriate response in open-carry states? If it is, maybe the people pushing for such laws should drop the "Snowflake" line and take a look in the mirror, because this shit is not normal. And if it's not, what's the point of this comment? To look tough online?
- vladms 2y ago
  Different times, different solutions. Backup cameras were not a solution in 1970's Netherlands otherwise maybe it would have been considered. Idea was that things are not set into stone and change faster than we realize. And there will always be good and bad examples (and if I think about it, probably the backup cameras solution nowadays is not that bad anyhow).
FanaHOVA 2y ago
Passenger road transport amounts for <10% of global emissions. Going on another tirade about using bikes instead of cars is just a waste of time.
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  "X" amounts for <10% of global emissions. Going on another tirade about "doing Y" is just a waste of time. No surer way to continue climate change.
  - FanaHOVA 2y ago
    The problem is that you cannot bring it to 0%. It's impossible to have people not use cars in many parts of the world due to adverse weather, physical limitations, etc. there's already a large transition to EVs happening so the actual engine emissions are going down. Other things like coal burning factories can be actually brought to 0. Same with electrifying homes and connecting them to renewable energy for 0 perceived change (if the grid supported it). That will also help making EVs actual net zero. Lots of other opportunities that can drive people away from emissions without meaningfully asking them to change their lives or to completely rebuild civil infrastructure.
    - reducesuffering 2y ago
      No one but extremists say it must be brought to 0% immediately. It's that removing all but the most necessary ICE burning, bringing it from 10% emissions to 1% would do a lot! Lots of people actually want more pedestrian friendly places to live. Let's do more to make this plentiful and affordable to the people that do want them. We'll get a lot more bicycles than cars. Most people would rather live and bike around Amsterdam than drive their ICE around parking lots in a typical American suburb. America got short-sighted and into long term infra debt by prioritizing cars everywhere instead of pedestrian / public-transit cores like many places in the world. Individuals can selfishly want it to keep going longer, but it's only going to be worse for everyone and their children as it creaks under the bad infra we've set up.
- 2y ago

by vladms 2y ago

xethos 2y ago

Respectfully, your favourite example depresses me. Pre-2013 or so I would have agreed, but North America, when faced with "Too many parents are accidentally running over their children in driveways and parking lots", chose to mandate backup cameras instead.

marcosdumay 2y ago
I'm not from the US and may be missing some context, but in what way mandating backup cameras makes a society less open for mass and light transit?
- colpabar 2y ago
  The mandate didn't make the US less open to that, it's just that the US is so in love with cars that we don't seriously consider alternatives to driving as solutions to anything. If there was a meeting and the topic was "what to do about the gigantic number of car-related deaths every year", and someone said "maybe we stop driving so much and give people other options of getting around?" they would be laughed out of the room.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    The people that make rules about car design have no relation at all with the ones that make rules about urban transportation.
  - NikkiA 2y ago
    > and someone said "maybe we stop driving so much and give people other options of getting around?" they would be laughed out of the room. not in an open-carry state they wouldn't.
    - xethos 2y ago
      Shooting someone, lethally or otherwise, for laughing at you, is seen as an appropriate response in open-carry states? If it is, maybe the people pushing for such laws should drop the "Snowflake" line and take a look in the mirror, because this shit is not normal. And if it's not, what's the point of this comment? To look tough online?
vladms 2y ago
Different times, different solutions. Backup cameras were not a solution in 1970's Netherlands otherwise maybe it would have been considered. Idea was that things are not set into stone and change faster than we realize. And there will always be good and bad examples (and if I think about it, probably the backup cameras solution nowadays is not that bad anyhow).

FanaHOVA 2y ago

Passenger road transport amounts for <10% of global emissions. Going on another tirade about using bikes instead of cars is just a waste of time.

reducesuffering 2y ago
"X" amounts for <10% of global emissions. Going on another tirade about "doing Y" is just a waste of time. No surer way to continue climate change.
- FanaHOVA 2y ago
  The problem is that you cannot bring it to 0%. It's impossible to have people not use cars in many parts of the world due to adverse weather, physical limitations, etc. there's already a large transition to EVs happening so the actual engine emissions are going down. Other things like coal burning factories can be actually brought to 0. Same with electrifying homes and connecting them to renewable energy for 0 perceived change (if the grid supported it). That will also help making EVs actual net zero. Lots of other opportunities that can drive people away from emissions without meaningfully asking them to change their lives or to completely rebuild civil infrastructure.
  - reducesuffering 2y ago
    No one but extremists say it must be brought to 0% immediately. It's that removing all but the most necessary ICE burning, bringing it from 10% emissions to 1% would do a lot! Lots of people actually want more pedestrian friendly places to live. Let's do more to make this plentiful and affordable to the people that do want them. We'll get a lot more bicycles than cars. Most people would rather live and bike around Amsterdam than drive their ICE around parking lots in a typical American suburb. America got short-sighted and into long term infra debt by prioritizing cars everywhere instead of pedestrian / public-transit cores like many places in the world. Individuals can selfishly want it to keep going longer, but it's only going to be worse for everyone and their children as it creaks under the bad infra we've set up.
2y ago