Oslo: The Journey to Car Free
#101
Senior Member
That is what a free market economy does and does well compared to the alternatives-- i.e., it provides for the most efficient allocation of scarce resources while maximizing net present wealth. When LCF makes sense is when it serves the purposes the individual, not the purposes of a dystopian anti-car political movement.
#102
Senior Member
The automobile has long been seen as a symbol of personal freedom and like the computer, a symbol of modernity; and, like other aspects of modernity, the automobile also has become the subject of the dogmatic prophecy from witchdoctors on the Left (typified by the LCF movement) who point to soccer moms as killing polar bears because of the CO2 that their SUVs emit.
#104
Senior Member
Of course they have... and in general that was a step ahead for their progeny. BUT Today, where the next 3 months "profit" for a company you work for controls where things are headed for the whole world, it becomes, a totally different outcome in the long run... as I see it....
#105
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,811
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1591 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,018 Times
in
571 Posts
Of course they have... and in general that was a step ahead for their progeny. BUT Today, where the next 3 months "profit" for a company you work for controls where things are headed for the whole world, it becomes, a totally different outcome in the long run... as I see it....
#106
Senior Member
Yes, it is. But, it is still connected... Why is the car culture king? Well there is/are a lot of reasons in the background, but Profit trumps most I suspect...
#107
Prefers Cicero
That is what a free market economy does and does well compared to the alternatives-- i.e., it provides for the most efficient allocation of scarce resources while maximizing net present wealth. When LCF makes sense is when it serves the purposes the individual, not the purposes of a dystopian anti-car political movement.
#108
Prefers Cicero
And yet this is your favorite subforum.
#109
Prefers Cicero
Your personal lifestyle may well be sustainable, and of course you are free to live it, but for many rural residents it's an illusion that country living is somehow greener than city living. They occupy more space, drive more, need more energy for home heating and other uses, it takes more energy to deliver mail and parcels to them, their malls and mall parking lots take up more space, and in those and many other ways, they strain nature in general far more than if the same number of people lived in a fairly compact neighbourhood; and most of them eat food produced some distance away by somebody else, just like city people.
#110
Senior Member
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,811
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1591 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,018 Times
in
571 Posts
Your personal lifestyle may well be sustainable, and of course you are free to live it, but for many rural residents it's an illusion that country living is somehow greener than city living. They occupy more space, drive more, need more energy for home heating and other uses, it takes more energy to deliver mail and parcels to them, their malls and mall parking lots take up more space, and in those and many other ways, they strain nature in general far more than if the same number of people lived in a fairly compact neighbourhood; and most of them eat food produced some distance away by somebody else, just like city people.
Generally speaking, malls are more a function of suburban living than rural living. I haven't been in a mall in years, but ironically the only mall that exists in the greater metro area I live near is located in the city.
Undoubtedly delivery of services is more efficient in densely populated areas. But there are downsides as well. Heat island effects and stormwater/wastewater concentration are two that spring to mind. Social issues also tend to increase in high density populations.
All human existence impacts the environment and regardless of where they live it is the increasing number of humans that will exacerbate these impacts. I'm not convinced the clustering more people closer together provides any great solution. I think the two most significant steps forward that we could make now in terms of lessening negative impact of humans on their environment would be to eliminate fossil fuels and control population growth. I have hope for the former.
#112
Prefers Cicero
I'm not convinced the clustering more people closer together provides any great solution. I think the two most significant steps forward that we could make now in terms of lessening negative impact of humans on their environment would be to eliminate fossil fuels and control population growth. I have hope for the former.
#113
Senior Member
It's definitely greener out here. Had our first spring rain the other day and you could smell the green. Delightful.
Generally speaking, malls are more a function of suburban living than rural living. I haven't been in a mall in years, but ironically the only mall that exists in the greater metro area I live near is located in the city.
Undoubtedly delivery of services is more efficient in densely populated areas. But there are downsides as well. Heat island effects and stormwater/wastewater concentration are two that spring to mind. Social issues also tend to increase in high density populations.
All human existence impacts the environment and regardless of where they live it is the increasing number of humans that will exacerbate these impacts. I'm not convinced the clustering more people closer together provides any great solution. I think the two most significant steps forward that we could make now in terms of lessening negative impact of humans on their environment would be to eliminate fossil fuels and control population growth. I have hope for the former.
Generally speaking, malls are more a function of suburban living than rural living. I haven't been in a mall in years, but ironically the only mall that exists in the greater metro area I live near is located in the city.
Undoubtedly delivery of services is more efficient in densely populated areas. But there are downsides as well. Heat island effects and stormwater/wastewater concentration are two that spring to mind. Social issues also tend to increase in high density populations.
All human existence impacts the environment and regardless of where they live it is the increasing number of humans that will exacerbate these impacts. I'm not convinced the clustering more people closer together provides any great solution. I think the two most significant steps forward that we could make now in terms of lessening negative impact of humans on their environment would be to eliminate fossil fuels and control population growth. I have hope for the former.
Last edited by 350htrr; 05-04-17 at 10:32 PM.
#114
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
The automobile has long been seen as a symbol of personal freedom and like the computer, a symbol of modernity; and, like other aspects of modernity, the automobile also has become the subject of the dogmatic prophecy from witchdoctors on the Left (typified by the LCF movement) who point to soccer moms as killing polar bears because of the CO2 that their SUVs emit.
Are you also implying that it's stupid to care about polar bears, or all non-human life in general? What about human life? Is it stupid to care about that? What exactly is not stupid to care about, iyo?
And when you talk about symbolism, do you not consider symbolic thinking dogmatic? What exactly do you think 'dogma' means? Does it have an actual meaning to you or is it just a word you like using as ammunition in your vitriolic rhetoric?
#115
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,811
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1591 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,018 Times
in
571 Posts
Consider the opposite. What happens if most of the rural population moves to the city. This tends to happen when rural economies collapse and the results are not pretty. I think in a moderately well functioning society, human population distribution works itself out pretty well.
#116
Prefers Cicero
Consider the opposite. What happens if most of the rural population moves to the city. This tends to happen when rural economies collapse and the results are not pretty. I think in a moderately well functioning society, human population distribution works itself out pretty well.
What I meant is that if your region had evolved differently so that all of the 200,000 or whatever people living in Tallahassee instead lived on rural lots, they would need a lot more resources than they do now. They would need a lot more buildings - a separate house for every family with no apartment blocks or row houses to reduce land or materials. They'd need a lot more roads - instead of 10 houses sharing 300 feet of frontage, each house might have 300 feet of frontage. They'd need a lot of schoolbuses. They'd have to use a lot more of the existing farm or wildlands. None of them would walk to work or the store and fewer would bike, and those who already drive would drive farther. They'd need to own more cars. You'd have a lot more neighbours and would have a harder time finding a place where you didn't have to see them or deal with them, if that is what you like about your current location, and the spring air would smell a tiny bit less fresh.
Now apply the same logic to the millions currently packed into Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. That's a lot of lost idyllic rural solitude.
Last edited by cooker; 05-05-17 at 07:04 AM.
#117
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of considering people and/or communities to be a inherent problem that needs to be solved biased on a theoretical and subjective sustainability index. It's too judgmental.
#118
Prefers Cicero
You mentioned that we needed "solutions". What do you think needs to be solved?
Last edited by cooker; 05-05-17 at 09:08 AM.
#119
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
#120
Prefers Cicero
Last edited by cooker; 05-05-17 at 10:11 AM.
#121
Senior Member
So your point is that soccer moms aren't contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, or that their contribution isn't significant because it is one small demographic among all the other demographics that cause CO2 emissions?
Are you also implying that it's stupid to care about polar bears, or all non-human life in general? What about human life? Is it stupid to care about that? What exactly is not stupid to care about, iyo?
And when you talk about symbolism, do you not consider symbolic thinking dogmatic? What exactly do you think 'dogma' means? Does it have an actual meaning to you or is it just a word you like using as ammunition in your vitriolic rhetoric?
Are you also implying that it's stupid to care about polar bears, or all non-human life in general? What about human life? Is it stupid to care about that? What exactly is not stupid to care about, iyo?
And when you talk about symbolism, do you not consider symbolic thinking dogmatic? What exactly do you think 'dogma' means? Does it have an actual meaning to you or is it just a word you like using as ammunition in your vitriolic rhetoric?
Belief that global warming during the last half of the 20th century is caused by humanity's release of CO2 -- and by extension, is caused by soccer moms driving SUVs instead of LCF, which in turn is killing polar bears is an example of dogma --i.e., belief based on emotions that must be taken on faith, like religious beliefs that cannot be verified by the scientific method.
#122
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
Harm is going on all the time. Limiting or reversing it is already in order. We're just debating how to do it. Oslo thinks the way to do it is to have more cycling and public transit downtown, and fewer cars. That's a great idea. However you said you are also in favour of
and you also saidFine - how are you going to make rural living more sustainable, for the majority of rural residents who aren't actually farmers or whatever? Not all of them are going to have nearby rural jobs they can bike to like you.
and you also saidFine - how are you going to make rural living more sustainable, for the majority of rural residents who aren't actually farmers or whatever? Not all of them are going to have nearby rural jobs they can bike to like you.
The other part of that is simply accepting that every community and lifestyle can't match the sustainability of ideal communities and lifestyles.
#123
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Kent Wa.
Posts: 5,332
Bikes: 2005 Gazelle Golfo, 1935 Raleigh Sport, 1970 Robin Hood sport, 1974 Schwinn Continental, 1984 Ross MTB/porteur, 2013 Flying Piegon path racer, 2014 Gazelle Toer Populair T8
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
7 Posts
It's kinda sad LCF is like today's politics which has degraded into one side against the other, rather than trying to identify what each has in common and concentrating on that.
Two glasses half empty equals an empty glass.
Two glasses half empty equals an empty glass.
#124
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Belief that global warming during the last half of the 20th century is caused by humanity's release of CO2 -- and by extension, is caused by soccer moms driving SUVs instead of LCF, which in turn is killing polar bears is an example of dogma --i.e., belief based on emotions that must be taken on faith, like religious beliefs that cannot be verified by the scientific method.
In reality, it is perfectly logical to look at the amount of fossil fuel burned throughout the 20th century for all sorts of reasons, and believe that polar ice melting is at least partially caused by that. What's more, it is perfectly reasonable to break down large-scale phenomena, such as 'fossil-fuel burning,' into narrower categories, such as soccer moms, who burn relatively large amount of fuel if they drive around a lot to shuttle kids to all sorts of different activities.
So, no, claiming that soccer moms are contributing to polar bear habitat loss is not dogmatic unless you don't understand the logic behind the claim. What is dogmatic is believing that driving is a necessary fact of life when you've never actually considered what it would take to LCF. In many ways dogmatism is nothing more than just 'going with the flows' of culture without critically thinking about why culture is the way it is, how it could be different, and/or what freedom you have as an individual to make your own choices independently of cultural norms and prescriptions.
#125
Senior Member
First of all, dogma isn't directly defined by emotions but by rhetorical/superficial knowledge divorced from deeper understanding. It is possible to believe the things you're saying in a dogmatic way, which is what you and others like you promote by talking about these things as if they're random events that otherwise have nothing to do with each other.
In reality, it is perfectly logical to look at the amount of fossil fuel burned throughout the 20th century for all sorts of reasons, and believe that polar ice melting is at least partially caused by that. What's more, it is perfectly reasonable to break down large-scale phenomena, such as 'fossil-fuel burning,' into narrower categories, such as soccer moms, who burn relatively large amount of fuel if they drive around a lot to shuttle kids to all sorts of different activities.
So, no, claiming that soccer moms are contributing to polar bear habitat loss is not dogmatic unless you don't understand the logic behind the claim. What is dogmatic is believing that driving is a necessary fact of life when you've never actually considered what it would take to LCF. In many ways dogmatism is nothing more than just 'going with the flows' of culture without critically thinking about why culture is the way it is, how it could be different, and/or what freedom you have as an individual to make your own choices independently of cultural norms and prescriptions.
In reality, it is perfectly logical to look at the amount of fossil fuel burned throughout the 20th century for all sorts of reasons, and believe that polar ice melting is at least partially caused by that. What's more, it is perfectly reasonable to break down large-scale phenomena, such as 'fossil-fuel burning,' into narrower categories, such as soccer moms, who burn relatively large amount of fuel if they drive around a lot to shuttle kids to all sorts of different activities.
So, no, claiming that soccer moms are contributing to polar bear habitat loss is not dogmatic unless you don't understand the logic behind the claim. What is dogmatic is believing that driving is a necessary fact of life when you've never actually considered what it would take to LCF. In many ways dogmatism is nothing more than just 'going with the flows' of culture without critically thinking about why culture is the way it is, how it could be different, and/or what freedom you have as an individual to make your own choices independently of cultural norms and prescriptions.