What is something that definitely should not exist?

You're viewing a single thread.

220 comments

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.
- As a person that hates cars, I still have to disagree. For transportation of goods (like building materials) and in remote areas, they are sometimes the only efficient form of transport.
  Obviously: fuck cars.
- 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.
- Name one car-addicted person. Like, someone who has withdrawal symptoms.
  
  Addiction can be psychological.
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  So which city are we going to tear down and rebuild first?
  It's not a good idea to tear down a city and build a new one centraly planned. Don't be Bob Moses. We want gradual, community directed, increases to the density of cities, and we want to stop building new stroads.
  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.
  That's a bad idea. We should just tweak the existing zoning laws to allow high density everywhere, and mandate it in some places.
  [Remote work] accomplishes most of what you propose
  I strongly disagree. The commute to and from work should not be the only transportation need in a healthy life. People should also visit shops, visit friends, and visit parks. These trips should not require a personal car. Not to mention the large (majority?) number of jobs that absolutely cannot be done remotely.
  The pandemic did not cause large changes in uban design, and absolutely did not make streets safer for pedestrians, so I disagree that remote work accomplishes most of my goals.
  
  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.
  
  I'm talking about urban design. If you live on a farm, this doesn't apply to you. However, it does apply to the 98% of people in America who don't live on farms.
  
  Actual country folk are less then 15% of the US. You are probably talking about Suburbs or Exurb dwellers, and those shouldn't exit.
  
  If you want to say something shouldn't exist, you have to account for 100% of the people who rely on it.
  
  Nobody is suggesting that you put a light rail out to the local farm. The urban area will be urban and the rural area will be rural. Where work is needed is connecting up the suburbs and ensuring that you can get to your places of work/school/etc without driving. Some cities never deconstructed themselves for cars (see SF/NYC) and are doing well. Other cities (see Cincinnati, OKC, etc) have room to grow.
  
  So we just have to replace all the cities? Sounds easy enough.
  
  Cities change over time. We should make sure those changes improve the city.
  
  singapore is doing this kind of city design already why can't others follow
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  Read more carefully. They didn't say 25% of all emissions.
  
  Thank you. The reading comprehension on this thread has been worrying...
  
  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.

220 comments