Living with/without a car
03-01-18, 03:14 PM
#251
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
03-01-18, 04:35 PM
#252
Prefers Cicero
03-01-18, 05:02 PM
#253
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,539
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,537 Times
in
1,859 Posts
03-01-18, 07:01 PM
#255
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
:d
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
03-01-18, 07:06 PM
#256
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
But here's a thought ... maybe this forum needs an "Addiction" thread. A thread where people can talk about whatever. Keep it all in one thread rather than in every thread.
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
03-01-18, 08:21 PM
#257
Prefers Cicero
No.
I admit I'm just joshing around, but in fact you made a general statement that certain people need to make better arguments, suggesting that you believe that there is an objective standard where one thing is better than another. So perhaps some people also believe there is an objective standard where some mode of transport or some lifestyle is fundamentally better than another. You may not agree with their evaluation, but I don't think you have grounds to say they have shouldn't even attempt an evaluation. In fact I think we could probably find situations where even you might think, let's say, that a solar powered car is perhaps better than a coal powered one in enough ways that it is just generally better, or a vegetarian diet is better than a coca-cola and cat hair diet and so on, not just for you but overall.
I admit I'm just joshing around, but in fact you made a general statement that certain people need to make better arguments, suggesting that you believe that there is an objective standard where one thing is better than another. So perhaps some people also believe there is an objective standard where some mode of transport or some lifestyle is fundamentally better than another. You may not agree with their evaluation, but I don't think you have grounds to say they have shouldn't even attempt an evaluation. In fact I think we could probably find situations where even you might think, let's say, that a solar powered car is perhaps better than a coal powered one in enough ways that it is just generally better, or a vegetarian diet is better than a coca-cola and cat hair diet and so on, not just for you but overall.
Last edited by cooker; 03-01-18 at 08:30 PM.
03-01-18, 09:56 PM
#258
Senior Member
...and, forbid any talk about commuting because there already is a Commuting forum and perhaps rename this forum something like, "Paddling, Rowing, Walking, Running, Swimming, Cycling, Busing, Rafting, Call Uber or a Neighbor (or, your spouse)... Anything but Drive Yourself." And, work from home.
03-02-18, 04:22 AM
#259
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,539
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,537 Times
in
1,859 Posts
.... but in fact you made a general statement that certain people need to make better arguments, suggesting that you believe that there is an objective standard where one thing is better than another. So perhaps some people also believe there is an objective standard where some mode of transport or some lifestyle is fundamentally better than another.
I did not say Anything was "objectively" better, and in fact,t eh quote from Walter S I used to clarify said SPECIFICALLY that the only "better" was subjective.
What I said was that some here think LCF is objectively better, better not on a personal but on a universal level, and that that is stupid.
03-02-18, 06:17 AM
#260
Prefers Cicero
Got that, but then you said people needed better arguments. So I jokingly questioned if you think 'better' is not subjective when it comes to assessing arguments.
Last edited by cooker; 03-02-18 at 06:21 AM.
03-02-18, 06:49 AM
#261
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,539
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,537 Times
in
1,859 Posts
Everything is subjective, even though I believe (subjectively) in an objective shared reality, even though we all perceive it subjectively.
Hey, the Flat Earthers convince themselves and each other. Have they convinced you?
So ... to convince you they would need 'better" arguments.
03-02-18, 07:50 AM
#262
Prefers Cicero
Yes, "better". Ultimately we're all arguing with quotes. But still, I do tend to think you were wrong that there are so many people here making absolutist or extreme claims. I think that impression comes from all the strawman responses, where somebody argues a moderate position like "the world would be better with fewer cars" and somebody counters by imputing a more extreme stance: "Oh yeah? Well I bet you'd be sorry if your house burned down because you banned all firetrucks!"
Last edited by cooker; 03-02-18 at 08:27 AM.
03-02-18, 01:35 PM
#263
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
Yes, "better". Ultimately we're all arguing with quotes. But still, I do tend to think you were wrong that there are so many people here making absolutist or extreme claims. I think that impression comes from all the strawman responses, where somebody argues a moderate position like "the world would be better with fewer cars" and somebody counters by imputing a more extreme stance: "Oh yeah? Well I bet you'd be sorry if your house burned down because you banned all firetrucks!"
03-02-18, 01:37 PM
#264
Prefers Cicero
03-02-18, 02:33 PM
#265
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,539
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,537 Times
in
1,859 Posts
03-02-18, 03:09 PM
#266
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Follow your desires then But sure, I accept that parasites generally have a bad rap.
The fact remains though that the definition of the word says nothing about the parasite other than it lives at the expense of its host. The definition does NOT say that the host experiences any negative consequence. IMO it is defined that way to fully allow for a relationship in which the host derives benefits from supporting the parasite.
par·a·site
ˈperəˌsīt/Submit
noun
an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
But sure, I accept that parasites generally have a bad rap. The fact remains though that the definition of the word says nothing about the parasite other than it lives at the expense of its host. The definition does NOT say that the host experiences any negative consequence. IMO it is defined that way to fully allow for a relationship in which the host derives benefits from supporting the parasite.
par·a·site
ˈperəˌsīt/Submit
noun
an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.
03-02-18, 03:14 PM
#267
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
If you read the wiki article on symbiosis, you can see a barrage of different terms regarding cooperative interactions/relationships between organisms. Though it's been a long time since I heard it discussed, I believe parasitism can be divided into two types: 1) the parasite kills the host in the process of utilizing it and 2) the parasite doesn't kill the host but weakens it or impairs it in some way. It is different than mutualism/symbiosis where both organisms are better off with each other than without.
04-01-18, 06:08 PM
#269
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 775
Bikes: Trek 970, Bianchi Volpe,Casati
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 359 Post(s)
Liked 122 Times
in
87 Posts
While ILTB has a good point about a clock there has to be a truth that is more relevant for the rest of the 24 hour time period. You say you are interested in the Truth how about this??
The problem when one person believes they know the truth and 350 million others do not is it is highly unlikely to be true. The truth as seen by someone that believes not driving cars will solve the problems of the world flies in the face of the truth by people close to the climate and sustainability debate. There are people that actually study these things like The Center for Biological diversity rather than sit in their living room and “just think about LCF.” To them this is truth and LCF will not solve the problem.
“A 2009 study of the relationship between population growth and global warming determined that the “carbon legacy” of just one child can produce 20 times more greenhouse gas than a person will save by driving a high-mileage car, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, etc. Each child born in the United States will add about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent. The study concludes, “Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle.”
Who’s truth is more likely?
Think that through. If all we do is start depriving ourselves of comforts now so that future generations can live uncomfortable what kind of life is that anyway?
LCF is a personal choice but it doesn't seem to be a solution.
The problem when one person believes they know the truth and 350 million others do not is it is highly unlikely to be true. The truth as seen by someone that believes not driving cars will solve the problems of the world flies in the face of the truth by people close to the climate and sustainability debate. There are people that actually study these things like The Center for Biological diversity rather than sit in their living room and “just think about LCF.” To them this is truth and LCF will not solve the problem.
“A 2009 study of the relationship between population growth and global warming determined that the “carbon legacy” of just one child can produce 20 times more greenhouse gas than a person will save by driving a high-mileage car, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, etc. Each child born in the United States will add about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent. The study concludes, “Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle.”
Who’s truth is more likely?
Think that through. If all we do is start depriving ourselves of comforts now so that future generations can live uncomfortable what kind of life is that anyway?
LCF is a personal choice but it doesn't seem to be a solution.
Last edited by rossiny; 04-01-18 at 06:12 PM.
04-01-18, 07:31 PM
#270
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
the only reason humans make so much pollution is not because we are born ..but because to live in current civilization, jobs are needed, jobs available are created mostly by production and manufacture of goods . When these goods are not mass produced and mass consumed, the jobs we so depend on for money comes to a screeching halt. No jobs , no money, no mass production, no mass consumption , no jobs , no money , no livelihood.. Also we now need war to jump start the economy , kill off a few million men and create worker shortages and hire wages then all is good for about 30 years.. Then a major war is needed.. Sound pessimistic? Well think about history...then comment.
True to a point. You can accomplish the same reduction with mass starvation once everything comes to a halt. A pandemic because society breaks down. But I think you will find that even animals that are not working to pay can destroy habitat because of overpopulation. Too many deer in one area will eat all of the available food and deer start dying off.
Nature often takes a hand in reduction, like the black plague. About 60 percent of Europe's population died. It is estimate that once we reach 11 billion people starvation and water will start killing us off with or without one single car. According to the studies I have read only first world societies are working towards ZPG. Many western countries no longer have a reproductive rate that will replace the population they have. The hope of the WHO is that somehow population will top off before it gets to 11 billion.
Think about it. The undeveloped world may seem more sustainable but they have no way of feeding themselves. The first world has the technology and infrastructure and isn't sustainable. How do you win in that situation?
04-02-18, 01:59 PM
#271
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
You always make technology and infrastructure out to be a unified package instead of just being a collection of various technologies. You can have cell-phones and pharmaceuticals and internet and agricultural efficiency while reducing car ownership and usage. Culture/society isn't a unified whole.
04-02-18, 02:29 PM
#272
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,539
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,537 Times
in
1,859 Posts
The idea that if we didn't produce wasteful amounts of useless disposable items would result in joblessness and poverty is equally ridiculous.
We used to do it different ways, and there are a lot of different ways we could do it in the future.
In fact ... we Will do it better in the future because if we don't billions will die and a lot of systems will have to adapt anyway.
We used to do it different ways, and there are a lot of different ways we could do it in the future.
In fact ... we Will do it better in the future because if we don't billions will die and a lot of systems will have to adapt anyway.
04-02-18, 03:39 PM
#273
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
You always make technology and infrastructure out to be a unified package instead of just being a collection of various technologies. You can have cell-phones and pharmaceuticals and internet and agricultural efficiency while reducing car ownership and usage. Culture/society isn't a unified whole.
Read and see what science or at least some scientists think about over population. Cars didn't start world famines but over population and bad infrastructure have. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.38c229dc484e
Now show me something from a trusted source that says LCF will solve population problems and feed the people who are starving. Or do you deny the population problem? That might be the most important part.
04-02-18, 05:02 PM
#274
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,539
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7666 Post(s)
Liked 3,537 Times
in
1,859 Posts
We don't have an overpopulation problem.
We have a food- and energy-distribution problem, we have a greed problem, a xenophobia problem, a callousness problem .... a huge selfishness problem.
We have a food- and energy-distribution problem, we have a greed problem, a xenophobia problem, a callousness problem .... a huge selfishness problem.
04-02-18, 06:29 PM
#275
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
LCF is just good because it requires less pavement and land area the more we bike and walk, which means more land for living soil and whatever grows on it. It also means less fuel burnt, CO2, etc. It means less animals and people becoming roadkill.
We can't get into P&R territory too much here, but LCF does no harm so how can you say that it is somehow undermining any other aspect of modern technological culture, including the automobile for those who continue to drive?