Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page >

Cars are not People

Notices
Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

Cars are not People

Old 07-13-16, 06:23 AM
  #26  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Machka View Post
I expect that there will always be quick and convenient individual and personal modes of transportation. This method of transportation won't always be the motorised "car" as we know it today ... but something similar will continue to exist for the rest of our lives and decades/centuries beyond. As soon as mankind hitched a cart up to an animal, we saw the benefits of quick and convenient individual and personal modes of transportation ... we're not about to let that go.


A small number will continue to opt for walking, cycling and public transportation as their only or main method of transportation.

A slightly larger number will use those methods of transportation on occasion.

But most will continue to go for the quick and convenient individual and personal modes of transportation.
You live in Australia, where population density seems to be relatively low and not growing at a rate that threatens natural and rural land (too badly) with automotive sprawl expansion, so maybe Australia will be a place where ubiquitous driving stays tenable farthest into the future without having to take measures to reduce automotive 'overpopulation.' If this is the case, Australia may face more pressure than already exists for in-migration.

In-migration for 'automotive freedom' will be a migration of relatively affluent people who can afford to drive, but are increasingly limited to do so by changing laws and norms in other areas of the world. It seems a bit analogous to migration to the US from Europe during the mid 19th century when slavery was being abolished worldwide but not (yet) in the US. For this reason, there were economic opportunities for free whites in the US that were being challenged elsewhere.

I don't think Australia will be the only place people try to move to drive. I think it's already happen because of the desire for convenient motorized transportation that you mention. But I see it as a problem; more so than other forms of migration, because any area that has room to drive is under threat of infrastructure expansion that will result in further deforestation/development. So the question is what happens when we try to protect areas against automotive expansion, when there are migration pressures to get out of areas where driving is becoming too congested and/or limited by regulations designed to shift traffic away from driving-dependency.

Originally Posted by jon c. View Post
I understand you'd like to see this, but do you actually expect to see it?
Idk because I think it is entirely possible to just say F-you to sustainability and blame problems of automotive sprawl on population growth. Then, when recessions or other causes of social problems occur, people can just be impoverished and imprisoned to clear the roads; OR more and more roads can keep being built and those who don't want more and wider roads told to shut up and be realistic. This would be a sad future to me, but I don't exclude it as a possible future. Nevertheless, I hope for better and try to show that it is not only possible with more LCF, but also far more reasonable and ultimately desirable.

I certainly hope I don't live to see this as it would require a combination of severe economic collapse and an authoritarian government to make this happen. And that's certainly not something I'd care to experience.
It took severe economic collapse of the great depression and an authoritarian New Deal regime combined with Military-Industrial Complex to make the post WWII automotive-consumerist society happen.

Sure, much driving is unnecessary. A great deal of the activities human beings engage in is unnecessary. The level of housing many enjoy in the US is certainly unnecessary. For that matter the expenditure of resources that allow us to waste our time tapping out our opinions on laptops is hardly necessary. But few people are going to give up driving or anything else they wish to do simply because they realize it's unnecessary.
Awareness is growing of how our activities and lifestyles impact environment and resources. Wasting time on a laptop doesn't harm anything. If anything, it is a lower-impact activity than most, if not all, others that involve 'power tools.'

Originally Posted by andr0id View Post
About the only groups I find to be more annoying are vegans and Jehovah's Witnesses.
There are more annoying people. For one, those who stereotype 'groups' instead of regarding individuals individually. Second, those who are willfully ignorant to the point of pre-emptively hating people like vegans and Jehovah's Witnesses instead of making an effort to understand why these dedicated individuals are dedicated enough to their causes to put in effort that most people don't even put into useless hobbies like gaming.

And most of these advocates can't afford a car to start with.
Most people couldn't afford a car if governments allowed recessions to take their course and avoided stimulating artificial growth.

I could make the claim I'm living Living Lear Jet Free because I don't want a big carbon footprint, but I'd be just as disingenuous.
Even passenger jets aren't very fuel-efficient. Commercial passenger jets get about the same passenger mpg as driving. Buses and trains get much better fuel-efficiency per passenger.

Originally Posted by andr0id View Post
I have strong negative feeling when people try to tell me I don't need X just because they don't have and want X or when they tell me I MUST do Y just because they do Y.
You should do things that are better for yourself and others. Your right to do waste and harm for your own indulgence is a waste of your freedom and a waste of the lives that have been sacrificed for the freedom to responsibly self-govern.

Don't want an abortion, don't get one, don't tell me I shouldn't have one.
Don't like gay marriage, then don't marry your boyfriend, don't tell me who to marry.
Don't want a gun, don't buy one, don't tell me I shouldn't have one.
Don't want to eat meat, don't eat it, don't tell me I shouldn't eat it.
Don't want a car, don't buy one, don't tell me I shouldn't own one.
You want to praise Jesus, have fun, don't tell me I need your religion.
Do you understand the reason people see these things as important beyond personal choice? If not, you should put some effort into understanding them.

See how that works. Do whatever you like, just quit preaching about it.
Why are you preaching against preaching? If you're going to preach, wouldn't it make sense to preach about something less hypocritical?

When you try to tell others how to live and advocate that your way is better and that they don't know what is best for themselves, then I have a negative reaction.
That's because you haven't developed a strong-enough sense of right and wrong to go beyond protection of individual autonomy as an ethical mission.

Originally Posted by Rollfast View Post
Living Car Free is about finding ways to reduce your personal reliance on automobiles, not for shaming persons who do have cars, nor the elimination of cars from human society.
Pride and shame are ego trips. It is a huge obstacle to democratic discussion for the sake of promoting good self-governance when people exhibit emotional knee-jerk reactions against good ideas because they feel shame about the fact that they haven't come up with every good idea for themselves before hearing about it from someone else. Put pride aside, listen to others, and use/develop whatever intelligence you have to sort out what is reasonable and thus worth doing from what is unnecessary.

This thread makes little sense and isn't on topic.
Threads are the topics. Posts are the things that are on or off topic, depending on the thread.
tandempower is offline  
Old 07-13-16, 08:28 AM
  #27  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,141

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 889 Times in 590 Posts
Originally Posted by Rollfast View Post
I don't have a girlfriend or children and all my cats are fixed, no more when they die.


Living Car Free is about finding ways to reduce your personal reliance on automobiles, not for shaming persons who do have cars, nor the elimination of cars from human society.


GOT IT?


This thread makes little sense and isn't on topic.
Apparently the caretakers of this institution have taken leave and a couple of the residents are running amok posting on LCF their free-form thoughts on whatever Foo-ish political, economic, religious, sociological or imaginary subject strikes their fancy, with no concern about its relevance to Living Car Free, or to reality. Nor with any concern that the Foo-ish and P&R posts and threads will be moved to an appropriate list for Foo-ish and P&R posts.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 07-13-16 at 08:37 AM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 07-17-16, 08:01 PM
  #28  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 8,050

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 252 Posts
Originally Posted by andr0id View Post
I have strong negative feeling when people try to tell me I don't need X just because they don't have and want X or when they tell me I MUST do Y just because they do Y.

Don't want an abortion, don't get one, don't tell me I shouldn't have one.
Don't like gay marriage, then don't marry your boyfriend, don't tell me who to marry.
Don't want a gun, don't buy one, don't tell me I shouldn't have one.
Don't want to eat meat, don't eat it, don't tell me I shouldn't eat it.
Don't want a car, don't buy one, don't tell me I shouldn't own one.
You want to praise Jesus, have fun, don't tell me I need your religion.

See how that works. Do whatever you like, just quit preaching about it.

When you try to tell others how to live and advocate that your way is better and that they don't know what is best for themselves, then I have a negative reaction.

+2, more bacon.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 07-17-16, 08:03 PM
  #29  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 8,050

Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!

Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 252 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Apparently the caretakers of this institution have taken leave and a couple of the residents are running amok posting on LCF their free-form thoughts on whatever Foo-ish political, economic, religious, sociological or imaginary subject strikes their fancy, with no concern about its relevance to Living Car Free, or to reality. Nor with any concern that the Foo-ish and P&R posts and threads will be moved to an appropriate list for Foo-ish and P&R posts.


Those are the benefits of free thought. These things stimulate other things elsewhere and a MOVEMENT begins
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 07-18-16, 09:20 AM
  #30  
mconlonx 
Str*t*gic *quivoc*tor
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,552
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7070 Post(s)
Liked 87 Times in 62 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Is this the case?
No.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 07-18-16, 01:25 PM
  #31  
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,804

Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Are people offended by anti-automotive sentiments because they empathize directly with cars?
People don't need to get inventive with irrational reasons to find anti-automotive sentiments threatening. Being exposed to a variety of posts by you should be enough to generate much more basic reasons.

Or is it just that they so strongly believe in the right to drive as some kind of fundamental human right?
Maybe so. Or at least a right that's traditionally been granted in modern societies and for all of their lives. Whether it's "fundamental" isn't as important as the fact that it's assumed and expected and its revocation or significant limits will naturally be met with great resistance considering how much driving is integrated with most people's lives.

And if they feel it's a fundamental human right, why don't they care about everyone living around the world LCF as being deprived of driving?
Because foreigners and primitive/developing peoples need to climb out of the gutter like we did.
Walter S is offline  
Old 07-18-16, 02:33 PM
  #32  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,847

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3921 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 76 Posts
Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
it's one of the basic human rights to own and operate a vehicle and there is absolutely nothing immoral or evil about vehicle ownership.
LOL. It is not in any way a basic human right any more than owning a television is a basic human right. Of course, car ownership is for the moment a societal norm and both privately and government-funded infrastructure supports it, and, just like television seems to be going, cars may go out of fashion at some point and be replaced with other technology.

And you are right, there is nothing immoral about owning a car, even though cars have killed hundreds of millions of people, both directly and indirectly Cars are a systemic problem, not an individual one.

Last edited by cooker; 07-18-16 at 03:19 PM.
cooker is offline  
Old 07-18-16, 02:52 PM
  #33  
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,804

Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
And you are right, there is nothing immoral about owning a car, even though cars have killed hundreds of millions of people, both directly and indirectly Cars are a systemic problem, not an individual one.
Maybe cars are just what we need to combat the population problem. They just need to be more dangerous. Get rid of speed limits, air bags, safety belts. But keep traffic signals at intersections for the benefit of pedestrians.
Walter S is offline  
Old 07-24-16, 08:36 PM
  #34  
rossiny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 712

Bikes: Trek 970, Bianchi Volpe,Casati

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 62 Posts
our. god

Cars are are our gods. They give us jobs and sustain our souls.. But really they are just so intertwined with human life it is scarey. Driving is a way of life.. It is so involved with our economy, livelihood and way of being in this world . scarey. I have been able to reduce car and truck usage. My livelihood depends on my van and remodeling.. Luckily the jobs are close .
rossiny is offline  
Old 07-24-16, 08:44 PM
  #35  
rossiny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 712

Bikes: Trek 970, Bianchi Volpe,Casati

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 62 Posts
QUOTE: " Even passenger jets aren't very fuel-efficient. Commercial passenger jets get about the same passenger mpg as driving. Buses and trains get much better fuel-efficiency per passenger." According to google a 747 holds 48,000 gallons of jet fuel ,,,mind boggling to me we have not run out of oil yet, maybe the fire at the center of the earth produces unlimited oil??
rossiny is offline  
Old 07-25-16, 10:25 AM
  #36  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
And you are right, there is nothing immoral about owning a car, even though cars have killed hundreds of millions of people, both directly and indirectly Cars are a systemic problem, not an individual one.
Well put, except those drivers who can't drive safely or can't resist harassing other road-users.

Originally Posted by Walter S View Post
Maybe cars are just what we need to combat the population problem. They just need to be more dangerous. Get rid of speed limits, air bags, safety belts. But keep traffic signals at intersections for the benefit of pedestrians.
You could also make sprawl more of a hurdle to affording to live and do business. That way fewer jobs are created so people can make more money by sharing revenues among less employees/partners. That leaves people with more money each to spend on driving and patronizing businesses that afford their employees lots of driving and further patronizing of driving-dependent businesses. Those who stay unemployed won't be able to find a low-paying job close enough to bike/walk to and they'll end up expiring in a tent somewhere without income. Indeed, you could view driving and sprawl as 'helping' 'the population problem' in this way, disturbing as that may be.

Originally Posted by rossiny View Post
Cars are are our gods. They give us jobs and sustain our souls.. But really they are just so intertwined with human life it is scarey. Driving is a way of life.. It is so involved with our economy, livelihood and way of being in this world . scarey. I have been able to reduce car and truck usage. My livelihood depends on my van and remodeling.. Luckily the jobs are close .
This is why I think the term 'automotivism' makes sense beyond other expressions of automotive culture and driving-dependence, though it sounds rather dramatic to say it the way you do. Maybe we should start calling cars the "steel calves of modernity" in reference to the "golden calf" of antiquity.

Originally Posted by rossiny View Post
QUOTE: " Even passenger jets aren't very fuel-efficient. Commercial passenger jets get about the same passenger mpg as driving. Buses and trains get much better fuel-efficiency per passenger." According to google a 747 holds 48,000 gallons of jet fuel ,,,mind boggling to me we have not run out of oil yet, maybe the fire at the center of the earth produces unlimited oil??
It's a really good question to wonder how much core/mantle heat gets converted into fossil fuels. Right now, we are learning how neutrinos from the sun penetrate through the Earth and catalyze certain nuclear reactions. So the core/mantle may not be an insulated supply of ancient energy, but it may be absorbing energy from the sun all the time the way the day side of the planet does. On the other hand, though, trees absorb sunlight and grow roots underground that gradually get buried and form coal deposits, which gradually get buried deeper and deeper; so assuming not all of that energy gets released by volcanic eruptions and tectonic movements, it may also be helping heat the core.

So what I'm trying to explain is this complex idea that you might be right that the core/mantle is helping generate fossil fuels, but that radioactive elements in the core/mantle might also be at least partially due to fossilized energy delivered via solar neutrinos; and that would still not make it a good idea to mine these fuels and use them on the surface because doing so upsets the balance of energy, water, and CO2/oxygen/nitrogen that regulates planetary climates and supplies living ecosystems with the water and food they/we need to live sustainably.
tandempower is offline  
Old 07-25-16, 04:03 PM
  #37  
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,804

Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by rossiny View Post
QUOTE: " Even passenger jets aren't very fuel-efficient. Commercial passenger jets get about the same passenger mpg as driving. Buses and trains get much better fuel-efficiency per passenger." According to google a 747 holds 48,000 gallons of jet fuel ,,,mind boggling to me we have not run out of oil yet, maybe the fire at the center of the earth produces unlimited oil??
The heat from the earth is not what produced fossil fuels. And there's not more coming. We're using them up and then they'll be gone. Fossile fuels were formed in the Carboniferous Period and depended on the unique climate and species of life and swampy-layered decomposition, I believe in a way that was starved of oxygen as a result. We're essentially living off the remains of billions of dead creatures from the distant past.

Last edited by Walter S; 07-25-16 at 04:08 PM.
Walter S is offline  
Old 07-25-16, 10:13 PM
  #38  
rossiny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 712

Bikes: Trek 970, Bianchi Volpe,Casati

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 62 Posts
Okay I was kinda being silly about the earth core burning and churning all this stuff and makinf fuell... But man a jet pulls up to the gas station and pumps in 48000 gallons. And we still have not run out.. Consider a jet lands like what,, one a minute at O'hare airport? Amazing earth can still function with what we spew out at her on a daily basis?
rossiny is offline  
Old 07-25-16, 10:15 PM
  #39  
rossiny
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 712

Bikes: Trek 970, Bianchi Volpe,Casati

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 320 Post(s)
Liked 82 Times in 62 Posts
By the way amazed at the Einsteins who know all thesr theories and facts....
rossiny is offline  
Old 07-26-16, 02:37 AM
  #40  
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,804

Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
So what I'm trying to explain is this complex idea that you might be right that the core/mantle is helping generate fossil fuels
No, he would not be right about that. And your speculations are not right either. Physics is not one of those things you can make up by throwing together some stuff you've read and extending it with your own ideas about what seems reasonable.
Walter S is offline  
Old 07-26-16, 02:40 AM
  #41  
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,804

Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by rossiny View Post
Okay I was kinda being silly about the earth core burning and churning all this stuff and makinf fuell... But man a jet pulls up to the gas station and pumps in 48000 gallons. And we still have not run out.. Consider a jet lands like what,, one a minute at O'hare airport? Amazing earth can still function with what we spew out at her on a daily basis?
It is indeed amazing. Like you say it's not intuitive. The world is bigger than it seems from looking around in your own neck of the woods.
Walter S is offline  
Old 07-26-16, 07:21 AM
  #42  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Walter S View Post
No, he would not be right about that. And your speculations are not right either. Physics is not one of those things you can make up by throwing together some stuff you've read and extending it with your own ideas about what seems reasonable.
Physics is understanding the basic mechanics of energy and matter. Physics is understanding how forces like gravitational compression consolidate chemical energy into denser molecules, how radioactivity works, etc. Then there are all the scientific theories that attempt to make sense of larger scale processes in terms of what is known about the fundamental (physical) mechanics of the components. Yes, there is a traditional theory that fossil fuels are formed purely by eons of buried biomass sinking down from the surface. But it is not unimaginable that core/mantle heat/energy is also being converted into biomass, and being fossilized as well. Surely you have seen documentaries showing ocean life that lives under immense pressure and feeds on geothermally-generated nutrient chains? Life absorbs energy and grows biomass, and biomass gets fossilized and compressed. We're not making any claims about the relative quantity of fossil fuels generated from geothermal energy, just that it might be a factor in the process.

What I am saying is that even if this is the case, it doesn't support the notion that we should mine up fuels and their energy to the surface. My point is that there is an underground energy system that relies on BOTH sinking biomass from the surface AND neutrino penetration from the sun to maintain the molten core/mantle and thus the magnetic field that shields the planet from harmful solar wind. What you're calling speculation is just very general synthesis of basic scientific information that's coming out all the time. I'm not making any claims about how these processes work in detail, just noting that sunlight is a source of energy and so are neutrinos; that the light doesn't penetrate underground except by growing biomass that gets buried and sinks; but the neutrinos do penetrate underground - and we know from the detectors we build that at least some of that neutrino energy is interacting with other materials and thus getting deposited. You could speculate about the details of what's happening with that energy in the core/mantle, how much of it goes into plate tectonics, volcanic activity, etc. but it's not speculating to make simple summary conclusions about the fact that it is there and that biomass is growing from the energy and being fossilized.
tandempower is offline  
Old 07-26-16, 07:33 AM
  #43  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by rossiny View Post
By the way amazed at the Einsteins who know all thesr theories and facts....
Don't be amazed. Just keep paying attention, learning, and thinking critically. Come up with your own conclusions and then subject them to critical scrutiny to see what's wrong with them and why another theory might be better. People who just accept things they read because someone important published them are not getting the most out of science. It's only by thinking things through as thoroughly as you can that you arrive at a really robust and critical sense of what all is at stake in the theories.

Don't let your mind get discouraged by the idea that Einstein and other great minds are lightyears beyond your own. They aren't. They are just people who cared more about the scientific material they were thinking about than other things, so they devoted all their time to keep working through ideas to further refinement. They communicated fruitful thoughts with each other and helped each others' ideas and understandings evolve in this way. They weren't afraid to admit when they were wrong, and in fact they wanted to know asap when they were wrong and why so they could reform their thoughts to take account of new information and reasoning. They simply wanted to get things as right as possible and they knew that it would be a neverending process of refinement. There's nothing wrong with anyone devoting their minds to their own process of refinement. Intellectual honesty goes a long way, so as long as you are open to being wrong, and you stay tentative about your conclusions and extrapolations, you can formulate thoughts such as the one you had about fossil fuel bubbling up from the core.

The big caveat is not to get too romantic about ideas that can turn out to be wrong and/or misguided. Being tentative means being open to the fact that your working model will require revision sooner or later. What's more, be aware that much of what you read is propagated by people with underlying interests. E.g. there are plenty of people who jump on an idea like fossil fuel bubbling up from the core because they see it as a justification for liberalizing fossil fuel mining and usage. They are not so much interested in finding the truth or being tentative as they are in grabbing any theory that rationalizes what they want to do, which is use more energy to make more money and have a more convenient life. That's not science, it's rationalized indulgence.
tandempower is offline  
Old 07-27-16, 11:43 AM
  #44  
enigmaT120
Senior Member
 
enigmaT120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Falls City, OR
Posts: 1,965

Bikes: 2012 Salsa Fargo 2, Rocky Mountain Fusion, circa '93

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Walter S View Post
No, he would not be right about that. And your speculations are not right either. Physics is not one of those things you can make up by throwing together some stuff you've read and extending it with your own ideas about what seems reasonable.
Think you're hearing from liberal arts majors?
enigmaT120 is offline  
Old 07-27-16, 05:40 PM
  #45  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,141

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 889 Times in 590 Posts
Originally Posted by enigmaT120 View Post
Think you're hearing from liberal arts majors?
Possibly, more likely college as well as cultural dropouts.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 07-27-16, 05:52 PM
  #46  
RichSPK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Worcester, MA, USA
Posts: 650

Bikes: Dawes Lightning DLX, 1988 Klein Performance, 1985 Raleigh Alyeska, Carrera Phantom, 1973 Raleigh Record

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked 89 Times in 57 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Are people offended by anti-automotive sentiments because they empathize directly with cars? Or is it just that they so strongly believe in the right to drive as some kind of fundamental human right? And if they feel it's a fundamental human right, why don't they care about everyone living around the world LCF as being deprived of driving? Is there just a double-standard regarding human rights based on nationality and super-national discrimination between 'people like us' and 'people who are less like us?'
I don't know about all that. I suppose I could, on occasion, be offended by anti-auto sentiments. I like living car-free, but I also love cars, and most things with engines, motors, and/or wheels. I love the health benefits of living car-free, but it's mainly about saving money for me. Being out in the breeze, smelling your environment - that's all great, but I could get that on a motorcycle, too.

It's all good. I just don't see the need to attack cars because you like to live without them. Isn't there room for all of us?
RichSPK is offline  
Old 07-27-16, 07:28 PM
  #47  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,847

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3921 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 76 Posts
Originally Posted by RichSPK View Post
It's all good. I just don't see the need to attack cars because you like to live without them. Isn't there room for all of us?
People who "attack cars" aren't doing it because they "like to live without them", they're doing it because they think cars cause problems.
cooker is offline  
Old 07-27-16, 08:19 PM
  #48  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by RichSPK View Post
I don't know about all that. I suppose I could, on occasion, be offended by anti-auto sentiments. I like living car-free, but I also love cars, and most things with engines, motors, and/or wheels. I love the health benefits of living car-free, but it's mainly about saving money for me. Being out in the breeze, smelling your environment - that's all great, but I could get that on a motorcycle, too.

It's all good. I just don't see the need to attack cars because you like to live without them. Isn't there room for all of us?
There's really not room for everyone to drive if you consider the congestion and need to stop expanding pavement and reduce it and reforest it where possible. I have always been fascinated by the mechanics of motors and the industrial aspects of designing all these parts and having them fit together so well; but I get very irritated working on cars, all the grease and headaches and expensive specialized parts and tools. I don't like relying on shops, and the costs are always a trap, whether you DIY, take it to a shop, or spend more on a new(er) car so you can get better reliability and/or a warranty. Anyway, I'm done with motorized vehicles except transit, to the extent those are necessary. I have learned to appreciate natural sounds and motor noises drown those out and are generally obnoxious. Plus I've realized that every trip I take is time I have to choose spending on healthy exercise or sitting while a motor gets exercise; so I try to opt for the exercise if possible.

Anyway, the point of the thread isn't whether anti-automotivism is warranted or not, but why people react to it in defense of cars. Why, for example, if I would say there are problems with crime don't people rush to the defense of crime? Just because you like cars doesn't mean you have to attack people who dislike them or criticize them for other reasons. Also, just because you like cars doesn't mean it's good for them to be the primary form of transportation for everyone and all roads and developments should be oriented toward everyone driving and parking. Why don't car lovers realize that if LCF was more popular, the roads would be less crowded and driving would be much more fun and scenic for people who drive, when they drive? It's like we all have to drive and traffic has to keep growing or else everyone will be forced to LCF. That's a completely unrealistic scenario, but that's the level of antagonism some people have toward transportation-reformists; i.e. that they have to defend against the extinction of the automobile by extinguishing any thought that less cars, driving, and roads/highways/lanes/pavement would be better.
tandempower is offline  
Old 07-27-16, 10:57 PM
  #49  
RichSPK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Worcester, MA, USA
Posts: 650

Bikes: Dawes Lightning DLX, 1988 Klein Performance, 1985 Raleigh Alyeska, Carrera Phantom, 1973 Raleigh Record

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked 89 Times in 57 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Anyway, the point of the thread isn't whether anti-automotivism is warranted or not, but why people react to it in defense of cars. Why, for example, if I would say there are problems with crime don't people rush to the defense of crime? Just because you like cars doesn't mean you have to attack people who dislike them or criticize them for other reasons. Also, just because you like cars doesn't mean it's good for them to be the primary form of transportation for everyone and all roads and developments should be oriented toward everyone driving and parking. Why don't car lovers realize that if LCF was more popular, the roads would be less crowded and driving would be much more fun and scenic for people who drive, when they drive? It's like we all have to drive and traffic has to keep growing or else everyone will be forced to LCF. That's a completely unrealistic scenario, but that's the level of antagonism some people have toward transportation-reformists; i.e. that they have to defend against the extinction of the automobile by extinguishing any thought that less cars, driving, and roads/highways/lanes/pavement would be better.
There's a lot of ways to answer that question. I'm not particularly invested in the debate (and I don't want to be), so I'll keep it simple. I defend cars because I like them. I don't like crime, generally (everyone can probably think of a law they think is stupid), so I don't defend that.
RichSPK is offline  
Old 07-27-16, 11:45 PM
  #50  
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by RichSPK View Post
There's a lot of ways to answer that question. I'm not particularly invested in the debate (and I don't want to be), so I'll keep it simple. I defend cars because I like them. I don't like crime, generally (everyone can probably think of a law they think is stupid), so I don't defend that.
Things that people like can be unintentionally destructive. For example, 100 years ago, everybody heated their buildings with coal or wood. That seemed like a right, or it was believed to be the only practical way to make it through the winter. Certainly no harm was intended. But when there were thousands of coal fires burning in a big city, the result was disastrous.

Cars are a lot like that, IMO. They've gotten to be pretty destructive in cities. But at this point most people just can't imagine a way past them.
Roody is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.