[NKZZ]

> it's a heck more convenient to have a car when you are regularly going to costco, ikea, trying out a new local bakery or restaurant,

The idea of going to physical stores to browse articles has become mind numbing to me. 'Regularly going to costco, ikea' when I can just order on amazon, get ikea to deliver to my home, get non-perishable/fresh food online from supermarkets that do home deliveries, have 5 bakeries that I can get to in 5 minutes of bicycling and more restaurants than I could care for (European cities are nice like that).

> We could still do many of those things when we didn't have a car, but it's far more boring

Maybe for you.

> far more exhausting

Getting things delivered to your home is far less exhausting than going through the mad labyrinth of Ikea that was built to keep you in the store for the longest time possible. Just the thought of having to find the exit again makes me feel hypertension.

[lhorie]

> Getting things delivered to your home is far less exhausting

Fair. But on the other hand, having ice cream and meatballs at Ikea is a thing. You also need to account for cost of delivery and for returning things. And that's just ikea-related things we do.

> 5 bakeries that I can get to in 5 minutes of bicycling and more restaurants than I could care for

That describes downtown of any half decent metropolitan city anywhere, not just europe. I already mentioned the issue with that though: you can't do "5 minutes of bycicling" when you have 2 toddlers. Nor are your family going to have easy access to the multitude of other things I didn't mention: fishing, strawberry picking, corn mazes, safari, skiing, lift lock tour, trips of various lengths are just _some_ of the many many things we did last year. Driving three towns over to ride in a carousel one afternoon "because my wife heard it was a nice one" is the sort of thing we've done just for the heck of it.

Could I do the instagramming-yet-another-fusion-sushi-roll metrosexual lifestyle? Sure. But I think having a car opens a wider breadth of experiences.

[NKZZ]

> you can't do "5 minutes of bycicling" when you have 2 toddlers

With two, that would be complicated. It's really not that uncommon to see parents ride with one though, with that sort of equipment : https://www.twowheelingtots.com/childbabybikeseatbuyingguide...

> Nor are your family going to have easy access to the multitude of other things I didn't mention: fishing, strawberry picking, corn mazes, safari, skiing, trips of various lengths, lift lock tour are just _some_ of the many many things we did last year.

That really depends on location. Living in a southern French town that has public transportation (bus and tramway) that leads to nice beach towns in 20 to 30 min, fishing is not an activity we lack. Leaving the city to get to the bordering countryside for activities like picking fruits, nuts and wild vegetables also takes about 30 min. When I was a kid I didn't need for my father to be home and drive me around if I wanted to go out and have fun eating wild nuts and berries.

France has a powerful train network and no matter where you live here, you're always close to a ski station, kinda.

> Drive three towns over one afternoon to ride in a carousel "because my wife heard it was a nice one" is the sort of thing we've done for the heck of it.

And the sort of attitude your grand-children will rightly judge you for considering the horrible impact your vacuous consumerism you're calling 'breadth' of experiences is having on this world. I would have abstained from this remark were it not for this latter quip :

> Could I do the instagramming-yet-another-crepe metrosexual lifestyle?

So, if we're not proudly rolling coal we are instagramming metrosexuals, probably wearing fedoras and tipping it at m'lady? have you gone and looked at a mirror yet?

This thread in general was one of the most revealing thing I've ever read about Americans and their view of the world. Particularly the guy who wouldn't even walk one kilometer :

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16162504

And the other one to comment on wutaboutwinter.

Maybe it's time we hit the reset button on civilization.

[lhorie]

> That really depends on location

True. Where I grew up, the closest beach was an hour and a half drive away. Closest ski station was in a different country. Wasn't exactly safe to step out of the house to begin with though, being close to slums and all. I consider myself lucky to be able to share different kinds of experiences with my kids now even though the public transport system in north america doesn't help me.

> the sort of attitude your grand-children will rightly judge you for considering the horrible impact your vacuous consumerism you're calling 'breadth' of experiences is having on this world

You're right, I should just throw my car in the sea. If I also throw out my computer, my grandchildren will be proud that I tried to help bankrupt the ecology-destroying companies that mine rare metals for these gadgets you and I use to waste time online. OR I could just be honest with myself and acknowledge that I'm selfish despite knowing that merely existing is a huge burden on the planet.

> So, if we're not proudly rolling coal we are instagramming metrosexuals

I dunno what you do or didn't do with your life, or why you're acting defensive, and frankly I don't care. I literally said I could do that lifestyle, stereotypical as it may be, but that it would eventually feel somewhat monotonous to me now that I've had different experiences.

I say this as someone who was extremely anti-car-ownership and changed minds once I had kids. Maybe you had it easy with safe ubiquitous public transportation and you're just trying to pull the tired europe-is-superior thing on me, but I've no allegiances in that game and I'm just talking about my experience with what I can pragmatically do for my kids with a car vs without. You do you.

[lmm]

> You're right, I should just throw my car in the sea. If I also throw out my computer, my grandchildren will be proud that I tried to help bankrupt the ecology-destroying companies that mine rare metals for these gadgets you and I use to waste time online. OR I could just be honest with myself and acknowledge that I'm selfish despite knowing that merely existing is a huge burden on the planet.

You can have a sense of proportion about the fun:ecological impact ratio of the activities you do, and make choices in the light of that. My instinct is that "driving three towns over to ride in a carousel ... just for the heck of it" is in the same category as "tossed all our rubbish in a nearby field": the cost to other people is all out of whack with the benefit to you. I don't know whether that's actually true or not, but going on a long drive for something frivolous triggers the same skin-crawling reaction in me that tossing litter out of a window would.

(My preferred solution would be carbon cap-and-trade (and land value taxes that would translate into road use fees and parking charges) so that car users bore the full costs of the externalities they were imposing, and then if you want to spend your discretionary income on frivolous car journeys that's up to you. But in the current regime I'd say there's a moral duty to minimize car travel or offset it somehow, because by taking a car journey you're imposing a cost on others, much more than just using a rare metal for a time)

[lhorie]

> you can have sense of proportion

Driving three towns over isn't actually that long of a drive, compared to, say, driving downtown from uptown. The sense of proportion comes from the length of the drive. Sure the carousel was nice, but going to the library or the swimming pool is muuuch more appealing on any given weekend.

In any case, how far does one take the fun-vs-impact dilemma? Is using a couple of dollars worth of gas worse than killing a 7 yr old top-of-food-chain wild predator so we can have a fresh tuna sushi roll? Does it make sense to keep thousands of buses running at 10% capacity 7 days a week when we could all just stay home watching youtube and eating delivered food? One can draw an arbitrary line anywhere but unless they're either an ecological saint or admittedly selfish, there's going to be some amount of hypocrisy in that line.

Wrt taxes, taxing suburb living costs seems totally arbitrary. Even the current income/sales tax system makes more sense imho: spend less == less ecological impact

[lmm]

> In any case, how far does one take the fun-vs-impact dilemma? Is using a couple of dollars worth of gas worse than killing a 7 yr old top-of-food-chain wild predator so we can have a fresh tuna sushi roll? Does it make sense to keep thousands of buses running at 10% capacity 7 days a week when we could all just stay home watching youtube and eating delivered food? One can draw an arbitrary line anywhere but unless they're either an ecological saint or admittedly selfish, there's going to be some amount of hypocrisy in that line.

There are degrees of selfishness; "everyone's somewhat selfish therefore being arbitrarily selfish is fine" is a fallacy. How much ecological impact you consider acceptable is a matter of personal conscience just like how much money you consider it acceptable to spend on personal amusement rather than worthwhile causes, and in the same way there's no clear bright line; rather there's a spectrum from saintdom to niceness to decency to nastiness to evil.

> Wrt taxes, taxing suburb living costs seems totally arbitrary. Even the current income/sales tax system makes more sense imho: spend less == less ecological impact

Pigovian taxes on pollution are mainstream economics orthodoxy. That Georgist land value taxes are optimal and would therefore be better for the economy than income/sales taxes is only slightly less so. It's not about suburbs specifically and it's far from arbitrary.

[jrobn]

Do you eat meat? Because if you do, the meat and dairy industry has a much bigger impact ecologically than a car does, at least in the USA. Raising beef or dairy cows requires orders of magnitude more water, land, corn feed (or even grass feed) for less calories than growing plant based sources of food would. Not to mention the conditions these animals are raised in (USA being the worst affender). So next time you take a bite of your steak, think how much ecologically impact that bite cost the world.

[lmm]

I eat meat on occasion, but not "just for the heck of it", certainly not in the case of beef (you're misleadingly equivocating between "meat" and beef in your post when their ecological impact is very different).

Back-of-the-envelope numbers from a quick search suggest that a day's eating beef is equivalent to driving maybe 15 miles in terms of climatic impact, a day's chicken equivalent to ~1 mile. So "only drive when you're getting at least 1 steak/15 miles worth of fun out of it", and conversely "only eat steak when you're getting at least a 15 mile drive's worth of fun out of it", seem like good principles to live by.

[praneshp]

> Could I do the instagramming-yet-another-fusion-sushi-roll metrosexual lifestyle? Sure. But I think having a car opens a wider breadth of experiences.

Looks like your car hasn't given you any breadth in experiences.

[cr1895]

>you can't do "5 minutes of bycicling" when you have 2 toddlers.

I just want to say: come visit the Netherlands sometime. It will surprise you.

(granted, the cycling infra is far superior than most other places in the world)

[lhorie]

Ah, yeah, I've heard wonders about it. Would love to come visit. But yeah, you're right. When I was in Toronto, cycling from my apartment to work was just a 15 min ride, but it's definitely not something I would've felt safe doing w/ kids on the bike.