| You might have a point. The article was written to be thought provocative, to make people consider what they are doing. The actual underlying issue however is that finding and identifying problems to be solved is _hard_. It's much easier to focus on something concrete like a piece of technology. An example is, well, your example. The problem "How do we build car free cities?" is already much better than "How do we avoid traffic jams". But it's simple to solve that problem, for example by banning all cars; that doesn't solve the actual problem though (and is a bit silly). The actual problem (I think) is not that there are cars, the problem is that there are too many traffic movements necessary over a physically too limited space to get everyone's needs satisfied. Rephrasing the problem like that allows you to consider the various aspects of the problem; how can we reduce traffic movements (public transport, carpooling)? How can we more optimally use our limited space (smaller cars, stimulate bike usage and bike lanes)? And what are the needs that are being solved by traffic movements, and could we satisfy those without them (working remotely, grocery deliveries)? And what would it be worth to us to reach these goals, compared to the problem we are solving? Perhaps I'll write an article on this specific mode of thinking. If I can actually find a way to get it on paper of course. |