3 ms·

Imagine how much better for the environment it'd be if your delivery was brought to you via a human-powered bicycle. Or as an in-between: e-bikes and e-mopeds.

• mmooss 11mo ago
  Why are you comparing them to cars, rather than the (e-)bikes used in most cities?
• climb_stealth 11mo ago
  God forbid someone would use their own two legs to walk and eat that burrito at the restaurant /s The extend to which some people get food delivered is absurd. I'm sure there exceptions and reasons and everything, but seriously.
  • smelendez 11mo ago
    It’s a vicious cycle. I’m not a big delivery fan myself but you go into some small casual restaurants now and everyone else in there is a delivery driver.
  • array_key_first 11mo ago
    I think it's a symptom of our work culture and lifestyle. When people are spending anywhere between 1-2 hours a day in a car going to a job that sucks the life out of them, I'm not surprised they don't have the energy to get food for themselves. Convenience services thrive in America because it's the only way the working class can claw back a teensy bit of time and energy. We could have had hybrid or even remote work, but that dream is dead. Traffic sucks, outside is loud and stinky, and you're in the office minimum 9 hours a day, 5 days a week. Minimum. I actually don't know anyone who works that little.
  • BLKNSLVR 11mo ago
    Yep, if you think you're too busy to go out to get food yourself, then you've definitely been breathing in your own farts for too long.
  • JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > extend to which some people get food delivered is absurd More than getting uppity online about others' personal dining choices?
• whyenot 11mo ago
  Why are you assuming that a human would be more efficient and better for the environment than an electrically powered robot? It is very inefficient (approx 25%) to use food as an energy source, and humans are always burning energy. They can't turn off at night or when they are idle. I think it is very likely that the robot would be better for the environment than the person.
  • recursive 11mo ago
    What does "good" for the environment even mean? I always assumed it means "good" for human purposes. But if we replace humans with robots, then the goodness of the environment seems somewhat moot. Oceans filled with plastic would be "good" for something. Just probably not us. Maybe robots?
  • dweinus 11mo ago
    ...so, are assuming that the humans stop eating/existing after you replace them with a robot?
    • AmbroseBierce 11mo ago
      UBI maybe? I'm joking, at least when talking about America, because maybe at least one of those Nordic countries will figure it out.
      • dweinus 11mo ago
        Sweet, let's do that, but it still will be more environmentally friendly to bike the burrito down the block than to build & maintain a robot.
      • ipaddr 11mo ago
        UBI. $500 per adult per month (~$1.4T) - existing welfare. for $1000 per month it would cost $3.1T. What about the children? $1,200 for every adult + $400 for every child 4.1 trillion/year The federal budget is 6 trillion/year. There would need to be deflation for 1,200 a month to have the buying power of the average income now. Right now that's minimum wage.