Importance of carfree lifestyle

[gerv]

It is well known that technologies or capabilities that used to exist can often be forgotten by a society. For example, most member of the First World would not have the wherewithal to survive a typical MidWest pioneer's lifestyle of, say, 150 years ago.

Likewise, capabilities that *could* exist... like using the bicycle for transportation... is a skillset that doesn't come to mind easily for most First World residents. That's odd... because you hear so many environmentalists assume that we have to replace the automobile with a new, more technologically savvy vehicle to survive Peak Oil/climate change/urban clutter. It's like they just don't get it or the knowledge has somehow been lost. It's like they just don't see that this technology already exists!!!

That's why resources like this subforum are so valuable at this time, as we discuss alternatives to gas guzzling vehicles. Much of the know-how to use the bicycle through summer and winter transportation is kept here.... almost like the ancient Irish monks held on to the literature of Europe during the Dark Ages.

Do you think the carfree lifestyle will ever be widely accepted? Or has society degenerated to the point where viable, healthy solutions like cycling will never work for the masses?

[Cyclaholic]

...so we're the monks keeping the cycling knowledge alive during the dark ages of motorised transport!:D

[Platy]

...so we're the monks keeping the cycling knowledge alive during the dark ages of motorised transport!:D
Maybe. Or like the obscure but energetic & quick witted mammals in a world dominated by dinosaurs, the day before the meteor hits.

[pranavnegandhi]

Maybe. Or like the obscure but energetic & quick witted mammals in a world dominated by dinosaurs, the day before the meteor hits.

A day towards which we seem to be hurtling at breakneck speed. :)

Seriously though, I feel that motorized vehicles do have their place. It's only their mindless usage that turns me off, like the neighbour who rides a scooter to her workplace less than 500 metres away.

[kjohnnytarr]

kinda like not everyone that uses/benefits from airplanes has to own/use on on a daily basis.

[Newspaperguy]

Do you think the carfree lifestyle will ever be widely accepted? Or has society degenerated to the point where viable, healthy solutions like cycling will never work for the masses?
If we're going to look back, let's consider what was available in the past, before the rise of car culture.

Where I live, we had passenger and freight rail service starting around 1915. The passenger service was discontinued about 50 years later and the last freight train went through around 1975.

We once had sternwheeler boats on Okanagan Lake, again providing passenger and freight service up and down the valley. The last of the sternwheelers plied the lake in the 1950s.

Horse-drawn wagons were once used to haul people and goods. Today, the only horse-drawn wagons we have are tourist attractions.

We once had transportation options other than cars. We need options once again. But the transportation options of an earlier era probably won't return.

The Kettle Valley Railway line only made money in one year. The rest of the time, it operated at a loss. Sternwheelers were abandoned when the demand dropped. Horse-drawn wagons and the horses that pull them require a lot more attention than the typical owner will give his or her car.

As a society, we need to identify our transportation needs and consider the various ways to meet those needs. And we need to learn from our history to understand why some options have been abandoned.

This isn't nearly as dramatic as advocating an end to car use, but it's much more important.

[spinninwheels]

...so we're the monks keeping the cycling knowledge alive during the dark ages of motorised transport!:D

It's a good thing I wasn't drinking coffee while I read that.:D

Though that is a funny way of looking at it, I think we may have our eye on the bigger picture. And in that picture, one learns to accept what will work and what won't, in each of our respective lives.

From my perspective, I think it's imperative that I lead by example. Even if no one is watching. Because ultimately, it matters to me. What about you?

[wahoonc]

It is a proven fact that we lose some technology as we supposedly "advance". My brother works in the IT field, he was moaning at Christmas that he was in desperate need of a couple of programmers that could handle Fortran, seems they were migrating someone's system that had quite a bit of information still stored on it in that particular programing language. I consider myself fortunate to be old enough and poor enough;) to have had the pleasure of having lived on a working farm, where many things were still done manually. We are currently active in bringing the old family farm we live on back to life, on thing we discovered and are supporting whole heartedly is the conservation of older breeds of poultry. And old seed stocks. Many people don't realize that the chicken they are buying today is unable to survive outside of an intensive production environment, many of the seeds you buy to grow in the garden cannot be reproduced...

Aaron:)

[gerv]

It is a proven fact that we lose some technology as we supposedly "advance".

Aaron:)
Just read a book that touched on this very topic regarding technology. (Dark Age Ahead (http://books.google.com/books?id=oiVdAAAACAAJ&dq=Dark+age+ahead) by Jane Jacobs.) Jacobs talks about how in the early 20th century, a great number of streetcar companies were bought up by the big car companies. As soon as these were bought, the streetcar companies were mysteriously shut down. The end result was that customers soon forgot the convenience of the streetcar, as they learned to struggle through car traffic to move around.

In the same way, many environmentalists, politicians and even urban/transportation planners do not see the bicycle as a viable means of transportation. Reason is that any knowledge of moving around seriously by bike went out after about 1890. The bicycle became marginalized and nowadays no one even considers the possibility of traveling by bike -- particularly at this time of the year.... though the truth is you CAN bike in winter, in rain, in all kinds of conditions. In fact, the experience isn't that bad... The only problem is that a large swath of our society DOES NOT KNOW THIS!

[Newspaperguy]

The bicycle became marginalized and nowadays no one even considers the possibility of traveling by bike -- particularly at this time of the year.... though the truth is you CAN bike in winter, in rain, in all kinds of conditions. In fact, the experience isn't that bad... The only problem is that a large swath of our society DOES NOT KNOW THIS!

I'm hoping they'll begin to realize it as they see us pedaling in the rain, snow and cold.

[rockmom]

Fortran is the devil. I do not admit to any knowledge of Fortran.

[JeffS]

It is a proven fact that we lose some technology as we supposedly "advance". My brother works in the IT field, he was moaning at Christmas that he was in desperate need of a couple of programmers that could handle Fortran, seems they were migrating someone's system that had quite a bit of information still stored on it in that particular programing language. I consider myself fortunate to be old enough and poor enough;) to have had the pleasure of having lived on a working farm, where many things were still done manually. We are currently active in bringing the old family farm we live on back to life, on thing we discovered and are supporting whole heartedly is the conservation of older breeds of poultry. And old seed stocks. Many people don't realize that the chicken they are buying today is unable to survive outside of an intensive production environment, many of the seeds you buy to grow in the garden cannot be reproduced...

Aaron:)

While I'm not necessarily envious of where you live, I am always impressed with the things you mention doing down "on the farm".

I really wish I had the knowledge and/or motivation to do this. I have come to despise my suburban lifestyle. I'm on the fence about whether I need/want to go to an urban/walking-distance situation, or rural/farming one.

[swwhite]

I am amused by the idea I have heard, that "technology" will solve our transportation problems. That seems to be code words for a pollution-free automobile. I think that "technology" already has solved the problem, and people have ignored the solution. The solution is (among other things)...the bicycle.

(The other things are walkable communities, buses, trains, streetcars, telecommuting, changes of zoning requirements, all that stuff we have heard of.)

[wahoonc]

While I'm not necessarily envious of where you live, I am always impressed with the things you mention doing down "on the farm".

I really wish I had the knowledge and/or motivation to do this. I have come to despise my suburban lifestyle. I'm on the fence about whether I need/want to go to an urban/walking-distance situation, or rural/farming one.

I have lived in various situations over the years, with the true suburban being my least favorite. To me the absolute best situation for me is to be living on an acre or so on the edge of a small town (think Dunn, NC) where I can have gardens and small livestock (which are usually outlawed within city limits) and still have only a 20-30 minute ride into the town center, where hopefully there will be libraries and shops. My second choice would be living in the older neighborhoods of a larger city, usually first or second tier suburbs will fill the need, with a nod to those that still have shopping that is easily accessible by bike or foot.

Most of my motivation comes from love of the out doors and just general curiosity and doing different things.

Aaron:)

[Hobartlemagne]

Do you think the carfree lifestyle will ever be widely accepted? Or has society degenerated to the point where viable, healthy solutions like cycling will never work for the masses?

No. I think too many people have priorities higher to them than environmentally responsible transportiation.

[Lamplight]

One problem I see is that nearly all of America seems to think that low-tech is bad and high-tech is good, no matter what. They also seem to believe that old things can never be as good as new things. Interestingly, I've found that many old or low-tech designs work better than new ones, many old things last longer than new, and much of the past saw more ingenious designs than many things modern. But Americans are so in love with all things high-tech that they would be utterly humiliated if they were ever seen using a product that is considered out of date or old. Of course a bicycle is considered a children's toy or a piece of exercise equipment, to be used only in the designated nature areas (bike paths). It's amazing that one of our most clever inventions has been reduced to such.

[wahoonc]

Just read a book that touched on this very topic regarding technology. (Dark Age Ahead (http://books.google.com/books?id=oiVdAAAACAAJ&dq=Dark+age+ahead) by Jane Jacobs.) Jacobs talks about how in the early 20th century, a great number of streetcar companies were bought up by the big car companies. As soon as these were bought, the streetcar companies were mysteriously shut down. The end result was that customers soon forgot the convenience of the streetcar, as they learned to struggle through car traffic to move around.

In the same way, many environmentalists, politicians and even urban/transportation planners do not see the bicycle as a viable means of transportation. Reason is that any knowledge of moving around seriously by bike went out after about 1890. The bicycle became marginalized and nowadays no one even considers the possibility of traveling by bike -- particularly at this time of the year.... though the truth is you CAN bike in winter, in rain, in all kinds of conditions. In fact, the experience isn't that bad... The only problem is that a large swath of our society DOES NOT KNOW THIS!

Thanks for the link on the book...now to run down a copy:rolleyes:

From what I have observed most of the people that you mentioned all have a fairly myopic view of transportation in general. The car as a personal form of transport is so ingrained into the American (and many others) way of life that people can only see a form of motorized personal transport as the only solution. It is going to take a long time to rid people of that way of thinking. It only takes 2 days to learn a new habit but something like 3 weeks to get rid of and old one.;) I am constantly warping people's minds by showing up places on a bicycle they would never expect to see me; church, grocery store, dinner/sales meetings in "remote" towns, etc. We need mass transit, but it is in gross need of an overhaul, we don't "need" the automobile to the extent that it is currently used.

The only way out I can see is to keep plugging away at it, showing people what can be done and working on a local level.

Aaron:)

[thelung]

The cult of science always hunts for a new more advanced technology to solve the problems they created with their current technologies. Then in the future they will have to invent an even newer even more advanced technology to solve the problems of the stuff they make now. So much bullsh!t.

[aMull]

No. I think too many people have priorities higher to them than environmentally responsible transportiation.
Yes, being lazy and selfish for one.

[syn0n]

One problem I see is that nearly all of America seems to think that low-tech is bad and high-tech is good, no matter what. They also seem to believe that old things can never be as good as new things. Interestingly, I've found that many old or low-tech designs work better than new ones, many old things last longer than new, and much of the past saw more ingenious designs than many things modern. But Americans are so in love with all things high-tech that they would be utterly humiliated if they were ever seen using a product that is considered out of date or old. Of course a bicycle is considered a children's toy or a piece of exercise equipment, to be used only in the designated nature areas (bike paths). It's amazing that one of our most clever inventions has been reduced to such.
I agree with this in general. My friends often think it's strange that the camera I rely on isn't a sleek, modern digital camera. It's a chunky old Pentax K1000, that's 27 years old, which isn't really that much but it has 8 years on me. It's solid and reliable. As are many things that are older - they seem to come from a time when stuff wasn't viewed as being so disposable, and therefore they're engineered to last, and they are more artfully crafted.

[urban rider]

The few times I have driven a car I am usually caught up in the busyness of life. I would imagine most people who drive are caught up in trying to get to one spot in a hurry. When you ride a bike or walk you appreciate what you have around you. You see your neighbor and the neighborhood. You don't buy as much junk because you can not fit it all on your bike. Your food products are perhaps fesher because you may visit your local store more often.
Instead of focusing on the price of gas and whether or not it will force more people on their bikes as a primary means of transportation focus on the benefits of appreciating the people and the environment you live in because you ride a bike.

Gas, .69 cents, the price of a can of beans.

[cerewa]

Yes, being lazy and selfish for one.

Laziness and selfishness definitely enters into the equation. But there are a lot of other factors, so let's not get too "holier-than-thou" here.

If you could take away the downsides of cars (and you can't) there are a lot of things that are really nice about em. You can live far from work. You can live with your spouse and still live far from your spouse's work. You can change jobs/choose from jobs in a radius of many miles without having to move house. You can travel without getting hypothermia/frostbite/heatstroke even though you aren't dressed for the weather. You can travel quickly, spending less time per day away from your family. You have a ton of steel between you and anything you crash into.

Humans got along fine for countless millenia without gigantic rolling hunks of steel, but you can see why people who don't mind the pollution and cost of a car would love their car.

[wahoonc]

One problem I see is that nearly all of America seems to think that low-tech is bad and high-tech is good, no matter what. They also seem to believe that old things can never be as good as new things. Interestingly, I've found that many old or low-tech designs work better than new ones, many old things last longer than new, and much of the past saw more ingenious designs than many things modern. But Americans are so in love with all things high-tech that they would be utterly humiliated if they were ever seen using a product that is considered out of date or old. Of course a bicycle is considered a children's toy or a piece of exercise equipment, to be used only in the designated nature areas (bike paths). It's amazing that one of our most clever inventions has been reduced to such.

Agreed! I have guys at work that always grab for the power tools first, most of the time the task at hand can be completed with hand tools before they can drag out all the necessary cords and attachments:p I can appreciate technology and some of the things it has done for us, but we should never forget history and old technology. I much prefer the older, repairable equipment. Most of the things I own are older and much more durable than things on the market today. Planned obsolescence and marketing are what drive the "need/wants" of today, very little of it is design or durability. When we make many of our purchases the questions always ask of ourselves are: Do we really need it? Do we have something else already that can do the job? Can it be repaired and are repair parts available? Do we really need all the features or will a simpler less expensive model do? And which is the best value for the dollar? We have avoided many, many purchases of things we wanted but did not really need to have cluttering up our lives. My weakness is gadgets of all types, but I usually stay pretty well reigned in:o

Aaron:)

[peace_piper]

I agree with this in general. My friends often think it's strange that the camera I rely on isn't a sleek, modern digital camera. It's a chunky old Pentax K1000, that's 27 years old, which isn't really that much but it has 8 years on me. It's solid and reliable. As are many things that are older - they seem to come from a time when stuff wasn't viewed as being so disposable, and therefore they're engineered to last, and they are more artfully crafted.

I also have to agree entirely. My Pentax is almost as old as I am (I'm 26) and I've dropped it, banged it, got sand it, dropped it in puddles, lost it, manhandled it, and it still works as good as ever! I do have a digital camera, and I doubt it could survive even one of the previous incidents of my Pentax.

[gerv]

And old seed stocks. Many people don't realize that the chicken they are buying today is unable to survive outside of an intensive production environment, many of the seeds you buy to grow in the garden cannot be reproduced...

Aaron:)

The seed thing is a really good example of a lost technology. I bet 99% of people in the US would not understand anything about the concept of saving seeds. Although at one point it was a very necessary part of being a farmer. Right now, seed stocks are almost all controlled by major corporations and ...yes... quite a few of these seeds cannot be saved and reused.

[JusticeZero]

Jacobs talks about how in the early 20th century, a great number of streetcar companies were bought up by the big car companies. As soon as these were bought, the streetcar companies were mysteriously shut down.

This is actually one of the myths that has been soundly debunked in planning. The actual problem is that highways are and have always been federally funded, while railways were privately funded, possibly with funds from the city. Also, by law, many streetcars had a fixed $0.05 fare which was not adjusted for inflation. As inflation ran prices up, the railways deteriorated, and the rail companies tried to get money. The structure of the city governments though ment that such funding could be blocked by neighborhoods not being served by the existing system. As the railways rusted away, the rail company itself switched to buses, and what was sold to GM was primarily a bus system with a handful of dilapidated railways.

Still plenty of value in knowing this, especially as one reflects on the mindblowing levels of subsidy given to highways in this day and age. If you treated bus and train lines in the way you treated roads and abandon this silly double standard notion of making them "pay for themself" then we'd have a great public transit network.

[Artkansas]

Fortran is the devil. I do not admit to any knowledge of Fortran.

It's not as bad as Applesoft Basic or Cobol.

[Platy]

Ah, Fortran. Last time I looked maybe 5 years ago, it was still unsurpassed for hardcore number crunching. Horrible for almost anything else. Thanks for bringing it up, I have fond recollections of the days when bits were square and made of cardboard.

[wheel]

road deaths = * kill 43,000 people a year.
injuring 2.8 million people *
every year *
only 9 percent of households don't own a car.
Murder is accidental
McKinney: "My opinion is that he did not see anything until it hit him. He felt as though it was a deer."
http://www.goedwardsville.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19228267&BRD=2291&PAG=461&dept_id=473648&rfi=6

This is after 70 years of motors.

[Newspaperguy]

only 9 percent of households don't own a car.
Imagine how different our society would be if that figure were doubled to 18 per cent. And imagine how our economy would be different if 60 or 70 per cent of households didn't own cars.

[JeffS]

Imagine how different our society would be if that figure were doubled to 18 per cent. And imagine how our economy would be different if 60 or 70 per cent of households didn't own cars.

It depends on where you got your 9% from.

Take the richest 9% and huge changes to society could be seen. Take the poorest 9% and I would be surprised if much of anything changed.

[Roody]

It depends on where you got your 9% from.

Take the richest 9% and huge changes to society could be seen. Take the poorest 9% and I would be surprised if much of anything changed.

I don't understand your reasoning on this.

[Artkansas]

It depends on where you got your 9% from.

Take the richest 9% and huge changes to society could be seen. Take the poorest 9% and I would be surprised if much of anything changed.


Inciteful reasoning. If it's just the poorest 9%, then there is no change in premiere lifestyles, however if the richest 9% were car-free, then the other 91% would want to emulate them.

[East Hill]

Inciteful reasoning. If it's just the poorest 9%, then there is no change in premiere lifestyles, however if the richest 9% were car-free, then the other 91% would want to emulate them.


So, if we could just get Bill Gates on a bike, it'd be good.

Although he has at least given up his wild and reckless days of speeding about :) .

That would be nice to see him commuting along the I-90 bike lane :D .

East Hill

[Newspaperguy]

If nine per cent of households are car-free, it's a relatively small number. If 18 per cent of households are car-free, that's now close to one in five. That's a large enough number to make a difference, no matter where they are in the economic strata. It could result in changes to transit services or it could result in discount retailers locating throughout the cities, not just in large malls at the outskirts.

If car-free living is limited to those on the lower income levels, cars become even more of a status symbol than they are today. But if some middle- and upper-income families also go car-free, the perception will change and car-free/car-light living could eventually be seen as a reasonable transportation alternative.

[Roody]

This is actually one of the myths that has been soundly debunked in planning. The actual problem is that highways are and have always been federally funded, while railways were privately funded, possibly with funds from the city. Also, by law, many streetcars had a fixed $0.05 fare which was not adjusted for inflation. As inflation ran prices up, the railways deteriorated, and the rail companies tried to get money. The structure of the city governments though ment that such funding could be blocked by neighborhoods not being served by the existing system. As the railways rusted away, the rail company itself switched to buses, and what was sold to GM was primarily a bus system with a handful of dilapidated railways.

Still plenty of value in knowing this, especially as one reflects on the mindblowing levels of subsidy given to highways in this day and age. If you treated bus and train lines in the way you treated roads and abandon this silly double standard notion of making them "pay for themself" then we'd have a great public transit network.

Don't forget that the auto companies used a lot of influence to make sure that streetcars couldn't raise fares, roads were subsidized by governments while rails were not, and other laws benefited the cars and buses. Also, the auto companies didn't want to run streetcars out of business so they could sell more cars--it was so they could sell more buses. GM in particular built a lot of buses at the time.

The streetcar systems were not "primarily a bus system with a handful of dilapidated railways" until after GM bought them, not before. The point is not that GM used dirty tricks to put streetcars out of business. Companies use dirty tricks all the time. The point is that the reason streetcars failed is not because there's something inherently wrong with streetcars. Streetcars lost out to buses--not cars. Only a few years later, buses in turn lost out to cars.

[gerv]

So, if we could just get Bill Gates on a bike, it'd be good.

Although he has at least given up his wild and reckless days of speeding about :) .

That would be nice to see him commuting along the I-90 bike lane :D .

East Hill

I think that would be really great, but... I would also be thrilled to see my next door neighbor heading off for work on his bike instead of the 4-wheeler.

I don't think it matters whether they are rich or poor, just that they share the same community. Probably most ideal would be all those between the top 9% and bottom 9%.

[aMull]

If you could take away the downsides of cars (and you can't) there are a lot of things that are really nice about em. You can live far from work. You can live with your spouse and still live far from your spouse's work. You can change jobs/choose from jobs in a radius of many miles without having to move house. You can travel without getting hypothermia/frostbite/heatstroke even though you aren't dressed for the weather. You can travel quickly, spending less time per day away from your family. You have a ton of steel between you and anything you crash into.

No question about cars being nice, but they are given such a high priority and so ridiculously overused. Why would i want to spend one hour driving 80 miles to work when i can spend one hour riding 15 miles? But anyway, until cities start getting built for walking and cycling in mind nothing will change.

[alhanson]

Fortran is the devil. I do not admit to any knowledge of Fortran.

+1

Forced servitude during the undergrad engineering years

[wahoonc]

No question about cars being nice, but they are given such a high priority and so ridiculously overused. Why would i want to spend one hour driving 80 miles to work when i can spend one hour riding 15 miles? But anyway, until cities start getting built for walking and cycling in mind nothing will change.

Around here that would take more like 2.5-3 hours...you must live in some serious wide open spaces.:D

Aaron:)

[alhanson]

One problem I see is that nearly all of America seems to think that low-tech is bad and high-tech is good, no matter what. They also seem to believe that old things can never be as good as new things. Interestingly, I've found that many old or low-tech designs work better than new ones, many old things last longer than new, and much of the past saw more ingenious designs than many things modern. But Americans are so in love with all things high-tech that they would be utterly humiliated if they were ever seen using a product that is considered out of date or old. Of course a bicycle is considered a children's toy or a piece of exercise equipment, to be used only in the designated nature areas (bike paths). It's amazing that one of our most clever inventions has been reduced to such.


Have to agree. I shave with a straight razor! Only cause I have sensitive skin and get no ingrown problems. Sort of like the bike... little harder at first but ultimately the best option.

[JusticeZero]

The streetcar systems were not "primarily a bus system with a handful of dilapidated railways" until after GM bought them, not before.
Streetcars lost out to buses--not cars. Only a few years later, buses in turn lost out to cars.
Gonna have to disagree with you here; one of the professors I studied with did his Ph.D on the subject, and i've looked over at least some of his work on the topic. They were selling railways off and changing them into buses decades before GM ever entered the picture.
Also need to point something out: Rail and public transit isn't an analogue to a car, it's an analogue to a road. Streetcars didn't lose out to buses so much as the rails they ran on lost out to highways. The reason was in part because people think of rail as having to "pay for itself" with fares from the stuff rolling on it, but they don't mind sinking funds into highways that DO NOT pay for themselves.

[JeffS]

I don't understand your reasoning on this.

Granted, I'm using extreme cases to make a point, but picture it like this...

If you took cars away from the poorest 9%, very little would change. Buses would become a little more crowded and maybe a few more lines would be put in. Providing services to these people would be considered a burden and a type of welfare.

If you took the cars away from the richest 9% they would take action that would change the entire community. They would move into, or construct mixed-use developments, and mass transit options would be improved - because they would be capable of initiating the change. Additionally, I suspect you would see changes in areas such as road construction, taxation and zoning as well.


------------

Regarding the old trains... I agree that they were already in trouble before GM came in and finished them off.

[Roody]

Gonna have to disagree with you here; one of the professors I studied with did his Ph.D on the subject, and i've looked over at least some of his work on the topic. They were selling railways off and changing them into buses decades before GM ever entered the picture.
Also need to point something out: Rail and public transit isn't an analogue to a car, it's an analogue to a road. Streetcars didn't lose out to buses so much as the rails they ran on lost out to highways. The reason was in part because people think of rail as having to "pay for itself" with fares from the stuff rolling on it, but they don't mind sinking funds into highways that DO NOT pay for themselves.

Are you sure that you understand what streetcars were?

Another word for them is trolleys. They were NOT railways as you keep saying. They were more like buses that ran on rails, and were powered by overhead electrical wires. The rails were directly on the streets. Cars, bikes and pedestrians all shared space with streetcars, just like they do with buses. Streetcars didn't have a special right of way like trains do. They have much more in common with buses than with trains. They stopped for you at the curb, you got on and paid a nickel to the driver. When you were ready to get off, you rang a bell and got off at the next stop. Just like a bus. Not at all like a train, which stops at stations.

The streetcar companies didn't all disappear. Many became bus companies. When I was a kid, the Detroit bus company was still called the DSR for Detroit Street Railway. The trolleys were gone, replaced by GM buses, but the tracks were still there, right in the middle of the streets.

[Curious LeTour]

I consider myself fortunate to be old enough and poor enough;) to have had the pleasure of having lived on a working farm, where many things were still done manually. We are currently active in bringing the old family farm we live on back to life, on thing we discovered and are supporting whole heartedly is the conservation of older breeds of poultry. And old seed stocks. Many people don't realize that the chicken they are buying today is unable to survive outside of an intensive production environment, many of the seeds you buy to grow in the garden cannot be reproduced...

Aaron:)

I strongly believe that breed conservation and heirloom seed preservation is important. I'm working towards pruchasing some acreage within 25 miles from a small city to run a human powered organic farm. Ok, permaculture methods will make it easier after a few years of establishment, but it will still be manual. I'd like to transport my produce by bike, so I may have to be closer than 20 miles. I'm looking into it. A life of voluntary simplicity is what I seek.

[JusticeZero]

The streetcar systems were not "primarily a bus system with a handful of dilapidated railways" until after GM bought them, not before.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I've looked at the research, i've looked at the dates, i've spent time talking to at least one of the people who devoted several years of his life to studying that claim. The rail company had increasing problems with rail lines - yes because the government subsidized roads and they couldn't get any funding for rail maintenance - and switched over to buses in an increasingly intensive process. YEARS AFTER it had already replaced the majority of it's rail infrastructure with bus lines, it began negotiations with GM.

[gerv]

I strongly believe that breed conservation and heirloom seed preservation is important. I'm working towards pruchasing some acreage within 25 miles from a small city to run a human powered organic farm. Ok, permaculture methods will make it easier after a few years of establishment, but it will still be manual. I'd like to transport my produce by bike, so I may have to be closer than 20 miles. I'm looking into it. A life of voluntary simplicity is what I seek.

The preservation of seed varieties that can survive from generation to generation should be a big concern for modern society. Basically, our entire seed lines are now in the hands of a very few corporations. I wish you luck with your goal! And I hope there are more out there who can continue saving seed from one crop and using it next year.

[xafofo]

Likewise, capabilities that *could* exist... like using the bicycle for transportation... is a skillset that doesn't come to mind easily for most First World residents. That's odd... because you hear so many environmentalists assume that we have to replace the automobile with a new, more technologically savvy vehicle to survive Peak Oil/climate change/urban clutter. It's like they just don't get it or the knowledge has somehow been lost. It's like they just don't see that this technology already exists!!!

of course people would never consider a bicycle, people are LAZY and would only consider something that would allow them to maintain or surpass their present laziness. also, if you think about it, advanced technology is synonymous with more convenience and thus more laziness

[Platy]

...people are LAZY and would only consider something that would allow them to maintain or surpass their present laziness...
Indeed. The real breakthrough for car free living would be "Convenience City", where genius architecture and inspired urban planning put everything a person needs right at hand, no need for physically going anywhere except for pleasure. The details of how that could be achieved though are, umm, still unclear.