Guest

What your saying is good on paper, but has no application to us.

Name a first world country that is truly sustainable. And then while you're at it, tell us why any of what you said applies to us?

Sure, we're all dependant on cars in some way- but I think you misinterpret the idea of the car free forum. Car free simply means you ride a bike. There aren't hidden meanings. When I talked to Joe about having this forum, we didn't ask for third world living, bike riding, pedestrian walking people only- we just wanted a place where people who didn't drive could come to talk about their issues (ie: how to do a normal amount of grocery shopping and still get everything home in one shot, what kind of tires work well for winter cycling, etc.). I think you're overreaching and expecting way too much out of what we're doing here.

I'm sorry if you misunderstand the point of this forum. Perhaps you need some direction? I've got a few ideas for you, so you don't have to be so insulted by coming to a forum that really you don't have a lot to identify with. Try out these places instead: https://www.simpleliving.net/main/, https://www.planetfriendly.net/, and https://mlmgorilla.com/sustainableliving/

Fortunately, we are in a country that allows us to give up our cars and contribute to helping the environment by bike riding instead. We do what we can in the world that surrounds us. But it is very unrealistic to ask us to get every person around us to give up their motorized dependency. In a perfect world, we would set the example and everyone would follow- but this just ain't gonna happen. But to penalize us and get on your high holy horse and look down on the rest of us is pompous. Not one of us claims to be 100% utilitarian, totally sustainable. We just aren't. Our world simply doesn't allow for it.

Pollyana your way through life in the UK- here in the USA, we can only do as much as we can and hope in the long run that the collective of our small efforts can make some kind of disernable difference.

Koffee

bragi

The concepts of guilt & punishment, right vs. wrong, etc. don't really apply to the decision to go without a car. Of COURSE Americans, most of them, love their cars. So do Germans and Australians. It's human nature. Ask a person in India or Zimbabwe if they'd like to have a car, too, and they'd probably say yes without hesitation. Americans are neither angels nor demons; they're just lucky enough to live in a country that's had a lot of money lying around.

The question to ask isn't, is this right or wrong, but rather, will this continue to work? Is it physically possible for everyone to have their own car and a mini-mansion in the 'burbs, given the constraints of a rapidly growing population, potentially catastrophic climate change, and finite resources? It's not liberal vs. conservative. It's life vs. death. (Not for everyone. Just everyone who's unlucky enough to be young.) Ultimately, it's not a moral issue at all; it's a practical one.

gruppo

I'm laughing so hard I've got tears in my eyes and am barely able to type this reply. I've not visited this forum before but the responses suggest it has provided the defunct "Politics & Religion" folks a new place to hang out!? This thread makes a good case for giving up both cars and bikes, and just sticking to walking, barefoot of course.

dsm iv tr

A lot of this thread is irrelevant. Perfect sustainability is an ideal. In most modern situations , working towards this ideal means *reducing* the impact we create on the environment, while at the same time recognizing that we cannot eliminate it (for the time being -- if not ever).

As to "bragging", I think that's a bit of a contextual word. All the bickering and insulting others' choices -- including the OP's original sentiments, not-as-thinly-veiled as they are -- won't get us anything except ill-informed argument, and comments like "pickled testicles" there at the top of this thread.

Peace,
dsm (thinking this thread needs a little dab of "threadlocker")

Roody

No thread can officially be locked until some lurker outsmugs the rest of us by pointing out how irrelevant the other posts are, only he's so freekin superior to everybody else that he can't be bothered to contribute his divine wisdom, beyond exposing everybody else's stupiditity. Thank god this DSM-IV joker declared the thread dead so he doesn't have to read any more stupid posts.

Cosmoline

Barefoot over COALS.

Oh wait, coals produce CO2. Wait, I produce CO2!

Where's my hairshirt! I feel so unclean being American.

Alekhine

Hehe, it's okay. The plants like your breathed CO2 - it makes them feel fuzzy inside. It's the steroidal injections of CO we produce that's not so hot.

https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/co2.html

Roody

You're in Alaska? How do you like the glaciers disappearing? Will it hurt your state to lose all those tourist dollars? Are you sad that the polar bears will soon be unable to live on the ice? Does it make you mad that northern areas are the first to suffer from global warming? Do you wish people would do something to make it stop?

Alekhine

Thoughtful post.

I think another thing that would help is some simple re-education/socialization/popularization about the status of the bicycle in America as regards utility usage*. It seems to me that bikes are thought of in 3 ways here, (speaking generally):

1. Locomotion for children before they're old enough to drive a car.
2. Training vehicles for type-A riders and would-be Lance Armstrongs to get fit.
3. The camel of the poor.

Outside of these paradigms, I'm not sure most Americans realize what a wonderful machine the bicycle is. Even otherwise successful-in-life bike commuters are often thought of as eccentrics. Granted, I'm only speaking of bikes here, not all the other possibilities with being "car-free," such as buses, walking, car-pooling, rapid transit, etcetera.

*EDIT: One of the reasons for this is that I've felt for some time now that it is far more constructive to appeal to the 'centrist' view: We who have given up cars totally really are in a way extremist (in a relative sense). I personally would rather see 10 people be convinced of the efficacy of "car-lite" than 1 person made a convert to the "car-free" ideal.

Roody

Interesting post. I remember the frustration of dealing with mechanical problems and car repair facilities. Unfortunately, there are times when dealing with bike shops is equally frustrating, although the money involved is a lot less, and there is a slightly more realistic chance that someday I will learn to do the repairs myself, and also find the time to do them. And the financial nightmare of car ownership undoubtedly drives more people to carfree living than does concern for the environment. Even with gas prices at their current highs, other auto expenses are even more onerous for many people.

I agree with you that not everybody can be carfree at this time. I imagine rural areas will be the last places to support large numbers of carfree people, although we do have some souls on this board who live in the boonies. It is difficult to establish public transportation in rural areas, but not impossible. They are usually set up on a county-wide basis, and do not involve fixed routes. They are typically on-demand services--you call for a ride hours ahead of time, and a van picks you up at your house and delivers you to your destination. This isn't a great system, but better than nothing in many areas. You might think about supporting local politicians who are at least willing to keep an open mind about public transit.

I know that I, and a few other regulars here, sometimes sound as if we think carfree living is the only solution to the world's problems. Of course that isn't really the case. But it does get rather frustrating when people are always telling us that not only is it not the solution, it's a foolish waste of time, and it doesn't even work. Well, obviously we know it does work for ourselves, and we hope or believe that it can also work for a lot of other people too, although obviously not everybody.

You mentioned the movie "What About Bob." Another thing I remember about that movie is the protagonist (Bill Murray, I believe) saying, "Baby steps, baby steps." So take baby steps to reduce your dependence on that frustrating and expensive machine, and consider that the whole concept of carfree living is itself just a baby step toward making a saner and more sustainable society.

Roody

This makes a lot of sense. But I believe that it is practical to consider the moral issues, and all practical choices have moral consequences. Yes, we are lucky to have money lying around. Morality helps us to spend that money on things that won't harm others or ourselves. Morality is about considering the long-term costs as well as the immediate benefits.

mister

If you detest "The Problem" so much, I'll be glad to pack you bags and send you to the Sahara.

blknwhtfoto

After all this pissing and moaning guys, do any of you use "green" electricity? In the Eugene Oregon area EWEB(the power company) offers wind power. At the end of the day, I know that I am doing everything I possibly can to be sustainable, wind power and locally grown food carried home on my bike. I don't know if it will save the world or not, but I don't have much to be *****ed about when it comes to sustainability jerks.

Artkansas 

So you are the MIGHTY SCIENTEST and we are the lab rats? B.S.

Pinky: Gee, Brain. What are we going to do tonight?
The Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world.

krazygluon

I'm not about to say that being car-free or car-lite is sustainable...but if a lifestyle that uses zero nonrenewable energy and zero nonrenewable resources is our operational definition of sustainability...can't we live with saying that car-free or car-lite is MORE sustainable. personally, I think anyone trying to be MORE sustainable than the american status-quo deserves commendation. this is a country of resource-hogs, and yes, compared to other countries, even car-free americans are still resource-hogs, but they are less and less resource hogs by choice and moreso resource hogs by virtue of the infrastructure they live under.

The problem is the OP, like many others throws up a "You don't conform to the final state of the solution, so you suck!" argument. I have not doubt that there are people in the world living sustainably. I have no doubt that its possible to transition more and more people in that direction. but in the countries w/ the highest resource and energy consumption, nobody's going to make a quantum leap from their current way of life to sustainability.

Car-free/Car-lite living is one of the many near-term solutions. people have to start somewhere and these people are doing something pretty drastic before the infrastructure even changes to reflect a move toward sustainability.

Hopefully this isn't trollfood, more hopefully the OP doesn't support hydrogen...(PM me for why I laugh when people say the h-word)

dsm iv tr

Constructive criticism about why you don't agree with me would be far better than an insecure, sarcastic rant about how I'm wrong, and how you assume that I think all of these posts (and apparently everyone in this thread) are "stupid". Little melodramatic, no?

I wished for it to get back on track or be locked as it would only encourage further argument about whose lifestyle is more sustainable, and some ridiculous notion about what sustainability actually IS.

The problem is as krazygluon says -- someone claims "you don't act this way, so you suck". To my perception, a lot of this has been people complaining and whining and but a small portion (up 'till a little while ago) has been thoughtful, substantiating my claim about much of it being irrelevant.

There is only one agreed-upon definition of what sustainability is -- using a resource so that it isn't damaged or entirely used up. To restate my earlier point, this isn't possible right now, by the mere fact that we exist as a species and must consume to live. If we can't agree upon the basic fact of the matter -- that we're all doing a part to move toward a *semblance* of sustainability, and it doesn't matter how much we each contribute as long as we're all working towards the same end -- then discussion might never go anywhere of value.

Cosmoline

I am doing something. What makes me mad is the yammering of hollier than thou environmental CULTISTS who turn what should be a matter of science and logic into a religious doctrine. So I may be living car free, but I'm still "not sustainable" (whatever the hell that means) and unless I repent of my American sins and live without a single petro-based product I'm still impure. If you try to change people through guilt you'll only convert those who are prone to guilt. Lapsed Catholics and sundry freaks. A much better approach is to emphasize the enormous practical savings and advantages of changing your lifestyle. A lot of people making basic practical changes (moving closer to work, changing town development and zoning laws, commuting more by bicycle or mass transit, etc) will have a far, far greater net impact than a handful of purists trying to cut themselves off from every modern convenience in some bizarre religious effort to prove their superiority to the mass of humanity (esp. *shudder* those AMERICANS).

I lived off grid for several years in rural Alaska. I have decided I like power and I really really like hot and cold running water. So sue me.

velotimbe

Hmm, guess we all gotta work on some reading comprehension here....

I came to this forum because in previous posts, certain users were claiming that their lifestyles were "sustainable" simply because they ride a bike. I decided to stir up discussion and point out that riding a bike does not make you sustainable.

Riding a bike is a good thin. Duh. I do it too. But I never claim to be sustainable and my point is that nobody should. Being sustainable is an ideal that is not truly attainable in developed countries.

One poster pointed out that some places lasted up to (gasp) 400 years with industrial societies. 400 years isnt even close to sustainable. Sustainable means you can repeat the lifestyle for eternity with no reduction in natural resources. So yes, it does mean back to stone-age.

Do any of us want to do that? Hell no. That is why you will never hear me claim to be sustainable. yet some people make that claim. My point is to get a discussion going about how people making that claim are bogus. And to hear your thoughts on being sustainable. And your thoughts are intriguing.

I never, in any of my posts, said that we should not be car-free. I never said to stop riding bikes. Why do people think I said that? Reading comprehension. I said that riding a bike only reduced a fraction of our environmental impact. Which is good, but not enough to be sustainable.

Keep arguing, I like it.

bragi

You know, I can't agree that it is impossible for humans, because of our very nature, to live sustainably. We're not necessarily pre-set on "destroy." If we used resources in a way that they could be replenished, or slowly enough so that they would effectively last forever on a human time scale, then our civilization would indeed be sustainable. (Of course, we'd have to ditch the high-consumption lifestyle. Goodbye Mall of America.) Some cultures on this planet, such as the people in highland New Guinea, a few parts of Polynesia, pre-opium China, or the Iroquois alliance near the Great Lakes, did, in fact, last for thousands of years without destroying their environment. We're obviously not doing a good job with sustainability right now, but I agree with Jared Diamond, EF Schumacher and Tim Flannery that it is, in theory at least, entirely possible for humans to maintain a decent level of civilization and still not destroy the planet. (And I remain convinced that bikes are a very sensible, and enjoyable, first step; switching to a Prius probably isn't going to be enough.)

smellygary

I think that many people do have good reading comprehension, but maybe read between the lines.

I think the point that a lot of people tried to make was that many of us are striving for the ideal. Without that effort, we won't make it very far. With the effort, who knows?

Roody

Well I'm glad you like it. It is an interesting topic, but your whole attitude is rather tiresome. Why don't you try approaching us as equals rather than trained animals who will jump through hoops for your amusement? Like, you could start with an honest statement of your own opinions and definitions of terms which you use in a non-standard way.

OK, spleen vented, I'm back on topic:

What is your definition, or THE definition of sustainability? It sounds like you are saying any use of resources is unsustainable. If so, this seems like an extreme view, and probably not a very useful construct. BTW, 400 years (industrial age) of sustained dense population does seem like a long time, and 4000 years (intensive agriculture) seems even longer. What were they doing successfully that we are no longer doing?

badhat

whadda jackass

cooker

It certainly doesn't. Sustainable means sustainable, not primitive. It's true we're burning through our non-renewable resources at an unsustainable rate, and the end of that will be forced on us, but the earth also has plenty of renewable resources. Stone age people didn't have solar panels or tidal generators or the technology to build 100m tall windmills. They didn't understand the scientific principles underlying organic agriculture and crop and field rotation, and practised them by default, not design. We can do a lot to harness renewable energy and protect our biosphere using skills that they had no knowledge of. The challenge is putting our technology and science to work to protect vital resources instead of exploit them. It will require a global effort at scaling down our ridiculously expensive lifestyles, and it will happen because we have no choice. The only question is whether it will be a hard transition, or an apocalyptic one.

marcm

Another reason why the goal of absolute (rather than relative) "sustainability" may be misguided has occured to me. The tendency to think in terms of discrete entities, or even discrete cycles, is a strong one, and I doubt any of us are above it. Consequently, I think it's common to think of sustainability as a particular lifestyle that is fairly consistent over time, and that has no need to change, because it doesn't exhaust any resources. But if there's anything which characterizes modern industrial civilization -- that which is most often accused of being "unsustainable" -- it's change. In the developed (and developing) world, most people's lifestyles are in a constant state of change, at least on the scale of generations, and not infrequently within a single generation. Furthermore, the resources we depend on have changed quite a bit in the last several centuries. Coal power, steam power, hydroelectric power, natural gas, gasoline, et cetera. When one resource becomes scarce or expensive, another one gains popularity. And technological changes greatly alter the accessibility of, and the need or demand for, these various resources.

I'm not suggesting we can go on forever discovering and depleting new and different nonrenewable resources, and certainly some resources (like air and water) are less interchangable than others. But the goal of a sustainable lifestyle is elusive partly because ongoing technological innovation and social change makes the future so unpredictable that we can't know with a reasonable degree of certainty what will be possible 20, 50, or even 100 years down the road, much less "indefinitely". Nor can we practically carve out an oasis of land for sustainable living and protect it from the tides of change. At best, we can aim to increase the likely ability of future generations to survive and thrive based on speculations as to what the future will hold in terms of population, resources, technology, social structure, climate, and so on.

So sustainability is not only relative in the sense of a lifestyle being "more or less" sustainable rather than "sustainable or not", it's also relative to future conditions which we can predict with only a limited degree of confidence. The literal definition of sustainability as the ability of a particular lifestyle to be sustained into the indefinite future, strikes me as academic and impractical for the real world, in which change is an inescapable fact of life. Perhaps there's another word more suited to real-world usage in the sense I'm suggesting above (and more precise than "green" or "environmentally friendly"), but I can't think of one.

KrisPistofferson

I'm glad somebody said it in plain English. Some of these guys consider anything less than reverting back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle as "non-sustainable." By the way, you're not sustainable.