cooker

I was objecting to the word "many", as in "many of [us]" seem to want a Utopia where we can graze all day like cows, with the implication thay there are a bunch of us who are like-minded and don't want to work. Yet you were really addressing one person, tandempower. And even he isn't proposing not working. He does have an idealistic notion that people would be happier if they (or actually we) were less materialistic, although he also advocates for more manual labour, so he's not proposing we all go on permant vacation.

Mobile 155

cooker

So are we in agreement that you were addressing one utopian person, and not, as you said, "many of you"?

Mobile 155

cooker

Okay, I see now it was probably a typo in your post:" I read "Many you" as "many of you" when it was supposed to be "many of your"

tandempower

You're overcomplicating what I'm saying. All I said was that if there is some utopian situation that would be achieved in practice, where people were happy and everything was affordable or even free (let's assume), then there would still be those who prefer to have a dystopia where there is competition to escape misery by making and spending more money. E.g. if there was some kind of automotive society where cars and gas were free and no one had to work because everything was automated, there would still be people who preferred to have a rat race where some people had to work in the non-automated economy to buy their way into the automation-liberation society. They would withhold the free cars and make people sell the cars to make money to spend on housing in the liberated areas. This is because people just don't buy into the idea that they can have economic security with less spending and making of money. It just doesn't register that if there is total abundance and automation that people could be totally free from economic management and burden. Humans like controlling each other, having status hierarchies, etc.; even if they serve no practical purpose. If they were economically liberated from the need for them in some way, many people would still look for ways to get people to borrow and spend money so that they could use the money to control others who (believe) they need it. It's a very strange aspect of human nature/culture.

So you may be right that if these bikeable, diverse areas were abundant and therefore cheap, people would seek out areas where sprawl necessitates driving in order to make money so that they could have a way of competing economically and gaining social status for things like social standing, services, and other privileges. They might even call it utopia and call it dystopia to liberate everyone from the bondage of economic management/obligation. Humans are peculiar in this way. They often ignore how the privilege of some creates burden for others. They just hope to avoid the short end of the stick without wanting to alleviate that burden for others.

tandempower

I agree with you. Anytime there is something that seems potentially utopian, you should avoid accepting it uncritically because there is always some dystopian side-effect waiting down the line. This is as true of the automotive utopianism of the 20th century as it is for any other utopia, and we are currently gaining awareness of those negative byproducts of automotive culture. Obviously I wouldn't want to run ahead full-steam with some reform that would lead to worse consequences than the automotive culture itself. So far, I don't see the problem, however, because all I am really hoping for is less cars and driving by more people choosing alternative modes, more pavement being replaced with trees/ecology, etc. Basically I would just like to see the automotive population rolled back to the time when there was still hope for keeping suburbs green and walkable/bikeable because only some people drove and many if not most trips were taken by walking/bike/bus/train instead.

Obviously if I was talking about some kind of radical new society/economy the question would be what potential negative side effects would be. What you're doing, however, is to take the general fact that utopianism always has negative, unforeseen side-effects and applying that in an uncritical way to demonizing anything you dislike. You need to focus on more concrete analysis of specific effects that would be caused by specific projects. Your criticism of density is something I can validate, for example. When you put more people into a smaller area, they often interact more and get into more conflicts. But what you fail to do is go further and analyze how lower density areas avert those urban problems. If you did that, you could think about ways to make denser/urban areas better to live in. I do this by thinking about things like how people are more polite and religiosity is often stronger in rural areas, for example. I think that if urban people would value and respect religiosity more, for example, there would be less hostility and conflict. This is just an example, which is probably not good to discuss outside of P&R, but I say it to suggest to you that you should look at the things you think make certain areas better to live in and think of ways to transplant those cultural assets to the denser/urban areas you dislike. That doesn't mean you would necessarily want to live in denser areas, but at least you would be using your mind in a positive way instead of just reacting against density as some kind of cancer that must be stopped at all costs.

Mobile 155

I knew I was wasting my time. You don't understand a thing about human development and other peoples struggles to survive in a money-less or money limited barter economy. Even squirrels and ants know enough to work hard in time of plenty to have in times of need. And you can tell when you are in the woods which ones are successful and which ones are not. Action and reward seem to be one of the few things people understand. If I do A I will want to receive B for it.

What you posted as Utopia was tried. Here is a synapse of how our country started. See how it looks compared to your post. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybo.../#3a00df7a6dfe

Now look at countries where people live as you suggest and ask why aren't happy. They would be happy if they had enough to see their children live to adulthood.

By the way I have thought about why large populations of dense living humans tend to have more crime per capita. It is something Maeloch mentioned earlier that I wanted to explore. Tribalism, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland and even New Orleans can only seem to grow so large till a form of tribalism attaches itself to the population. When I first came to this forum it was expressed as a war between dense urban tribes and Suburban tribes. Ford was just elected in Toronto and there was a whole tirade on those evil Suburbanites voting him in and disturbing the advancement in cycling infrastructure for the urban dwellers. Today they count the Suburban people in their urban sphere but I am willing to bet there is still some tribalism there.

I-Like-To-Bike

You have been previously warned about wasting electrons. Not to worry though, sometimes I ignore my own advice and pick at the same scab, despite my knowledge that nothing useful would be the result.

Mobile 155

Mea Culpa

I have several scabs.

Rollfast

We can't waste electrons, electricity is our SERVANT.

cooker

Sorry to have misread your earlier post.

I think the data linking density to crime is sketchier than the data linking walkability/bikeability to wellbeing. Oakland has more murders than San Francisco, and New York is safer than Waco so there must be more powerful factors at work than density.

BTW, Rob's brother Doug Ford is now running for Ontario Premier (akin to Governor).

Walter S

I can see that you've evolved to focus on the more likely outcomes of our current challenges in managing the population of seven+ billion humans.

tandempower

Yes, squirrels bury nuts, some of which sprout into new trees (assuming the soil is healthy enough to support them and the new saplings don't get mowed). I've never said anything about limiting economics to bartering, etc. You misunderstand my simple view that bustle can be reduced without being eliminated, which is as true for economic bustle as automotive bustle.

Yes I understand that the pilgrims shifted from communal farming to trading their produce as commodities. I don't know why you think I'm against market economics. I think you accuse me of communism to discredit me. All I am for is simply being able to reduce economic burden to create more free time by doing things more efficiently. Riding a bike instead of driving means spending less time and money paying for your vehicle, using and shipping less parts, burning no fuel, using less pavement/lane-space, etc.. Biking is just more efficient in so many ways. LCF doesn't eliminate market economics; it just reduces the burden/pressure of making and spending more money/time/resources than necessary on transportation and infrastructure.

Now I ask you why you ignore the automotive utopianism of the 20th century and the negative side-effects that came from that? When you accuse me of utopianism, do you deny that automotive culture was a utopia that was blindly pursued to the point of sprawling cities, enormous highways, long commutes, massive congestion, pollution, dependency, etc. etc.? Do you think that the utopians who seeded the automotive culture expected it to grow out of control? Ford expected people to have more free time and freedom to pursue independent personal development as a result of industrial mass-production. Do you think industrialism has risen to that challenge of liberating people's time for other pursuits besides making and spending money?

Yes, it is counterintuitive that modernization would bring with it an intensification of collectivism in the form of tribalism, corporatism, etc. This is not just an urban problem, however. Homeowners' associations, for example, lord over residents in some suburban subdivisions, people conform to various types of cultural norms and standards instead of making independent choices free of concern for social-inclusion, etc. Automotive culture is a form of tribalism, where people choose a certain make and model of car as their 'economic war paint,' signifying their identity and their expectations about their ability to make payments.

tandempower

I've evolved to realizing it is important to see why there is a trend toward failure in order to evolve beyond that trend, if that's what you mean.

Mobile 155

cooker

I agree with a lot of what that article says. Policies shape urban form. Change the policies, change the form. The federal gov't essentially subsidize(d/s) suburban mortgages and freeways and not urban school and public transit, so you get sprawl as a result. The air can be bad in Manhattan because people outside Manhattan drive too much. etc.

Mobile 155

I-Like-To-Bike

You sure about the lack of Federal Government subsidies for urban schools and public transport?
Are you also sure that none of the traffic and/or "bad air" is the result of supporting the commerce, utilities, lifestyle, transit and activities of the people who live and work in Manhattan?

cooker

I wish that were true!

More responses to follow.

cooker

Take it up with the Brookings Institution - I was citing some of the stuff in that article.

I-Like-To-Bike

Care to provide a URL for the "stuff" you are "citing" or are you interpreting the "stuff" to fit your own beliefs?

tandempower

People realize that sprawl and environmental harm come from widespread personal automobile reliance and driving in general, but they are just too caught up in the immediacy of the rat race and the present moment to make the sacrifices required to LCF. Many if not most could visit an undeveloped area that is threatened with development and wish that less people drove if that would protect the area from development, but they don't want to take the initiative to be one of those people because they are afraid of falling behind in the rat race.

Plus, when you consider that the more people would give up driving, the better driving would become for the people who don't; there is an incentive to holding out and hoping others will give up driving before you do or so you don't have to.

cooker

From Mobile 155, post 91: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a...cities-better/

Mobile 155