Cars. They are everywhere and are like cigarettes. Addictive, bad for our environment and bad for ourselves.
And we even try to keep using them as long as possible by switching to an electric version, just like cigarettes. “But it’s electric, it can’t be that bad!”
Humanity is not running to its doom, it’s taking a car.
What would you use in place of cars?
Obviously just outlawing cars tomorrow would cause mass deaths around the world as society isn’t equipped to deal with it, so what could we transition to?
My assumption is that you’d suggest public transport for all? But that wouldn’t save us, as only about 1/4 of transport emissions come from cars, it’d just make us die a little slower.
Edit: if the next 5 people to downvote this could leave a reply it’d be appreciated. I try my best to do my bit for the environment but I depend on my car to participate in my local community given, and so I’d like to know what the ideal solution is? What should I be asking my representative to be voting for?
if you design a city with the assumption that people won’t have cars, you can make it easier to bike and walk to most of the things you need. This kind of urban design is superior to the car centered urban design in that it’s cheaper, healthier, safer, and more environmentaly friendly.
What if you don’t live in a city? We are country folk and operate a farm that feeds you city folks. Cities can’t exist with out us back woods country folk. Our “car” works every day.
So which city are we going to tear down and rebuild first? And we have to come up with some new laws, like you can only own a home that’s within walking/biking distance of your work.
We had a taste of a viable alternative, thanks to the pandemic. Remote work - it accomplishes most of what you propose without totally ditching private transportation. Maybe we should make that a law - business has to show that physical presence is required or they must allow employees to work remotely.
Saying it isnt worth up to a 25% reduction is a stupid argument in general.
Lets also not forget about all the money and resources spent on cars and their infrastructure.
Up to a 25% reduction in emissions at minimum is enough to be worthy of action.
That’s not what I said, it isn’t 25% of all emissions, and I didn’t say it wasn’t worth it. I pointed out that the deaths from lack of cars without a plan would outweigh the lives saved by removing cars.
It absolutely is worth finding a way to remove cars in their current form. There are also far more effective things we can do, like eat less meat.
LOL nobody said that tomorrow they would be outlawed. People are saying that we can undo the damage that was caused by 70 years of Boomers and their parents who destroyed the world in the name of the open road and “freedom”. It was an aberration and we’ll be returning back to how things were prior.
My comment wasn’t meant to suggest someone was making that argument - I was just setting the premise for my question.
I dont know why my genuine curiosity has triggered so many people…I was hoping for some rational suggestions that I could incorporate into my lifestyle.
As for going back to what it was like 70 years ago…I find it unlikely. There are a lot more people on the planet than there were back then and prosperity is broadly increasing…in reality we’ll transition to more sustainable and healthy living which I think entails better urban planning and greater government action on pollution.
Change “cars” to “personal vehicle” and you’ve got a winner. We still want delivery drivers and taxis and such. What we want to do is avoid the use of a car when it’s unnecessary, and that really leaves those who practice a trade/service and need to transport their tools. Heck, most could probably use a cargo bike.
The idea that kale is edible food.
It’s much more edible than a lot of other foods. You don’t even have to cook it!
I don’t get the appeal at all. Many other perfectly good leafy vegetables. Eating kale is like accidentally chewing on some flimsy decorative plastic that fell into your meal. No thanks.
billionaires
for profit access to the internet
fox news
the turtle mcconnell
hospital advertising departments
religion, any. lets not discriminate
Shares / Stock
So you’re saying every company should be owned by a single person? If two people want to start a company, it should only belong to one person? That doesnt sound right to me…
Maybe it’s more about the legal requirement for infinite profit due to being publicly traded. This has led to such fun things like, rising costs, planned obsolescence, the general enshitification of everything.
The laws says (indirectly) that management must work towards profit. It doesn’t specify long term or short term profit, though, and in many cases investors show up specifically for slow but steady returns. There’s plenty wrong with capitalism, but it’s not pure nonsense. If it was, it’d be really easy to get rid of.
Compassion. Its existence is most improbable.
That’s probably not how you meant the question, but it’s the meaning that comes to my mind.
There is a book named The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins that talks about this and how this can explain altruistic behaviour. Highly recommended.
Thank you. I know of it, but haven’t read it. I probably know a very superficial version of the argument, but I might find a full-length description of it more credible. Even so, it seems more fortunate than inevitable to me.
The book explains how genes are only ‘concern’ with their own replication and survival… Of course genes aren’t intelligent and have actual desires, but genes that are beneficial to their own survival and spread are going to be common in the gene pool, not based on the greater organism or the species.
Even with that, it creates a condition where these selfish genes benefit from cooperation… The critters who act altruistically in the right circumstances will benefit and increase the survivability of their genes.
Also what you mentioned about things being tough causing people to betray each other… This is also discussed both from a prisoner’s dilemma (multiple versions of it), and in biology and other game theory examples.
Highly recommended read, and if you do pick it up, I hope you read the latest edition of the book published in 2016, which has extra commentary from the author which is also interesting.
FYI: In this book, Richard Dawkins invented the word meme to rhyme with gene, describing the evolution and spread of ideas… Little did he know, back in the 70’s when he wrote the book, that the word he invented to describe the evolution of ideas would evolve into the memes we know today.
You saying that makes me think you either have never met true compassion or doubted every example of it whenever you did. Either way, it makes me regret your worldview. I hope you meet true compassion someday, the one which you’ll not be able to doubt. Love and peace to you.
Altruistic behavior in social creatures improves the fitness of the group, and has positive evolutionary pressure. Strong, cohesive groups pass on their genes, so actually pretty probable!
