[ericmay]

Ok that's fine, but then I may as well use as much resources as possible because fuck it?

Let's build lots of unsustainable suburbs - I mean literally unsustainable as in we won't be able to pave the roads or repair bridges and then when that happens we'll just build some more and keep doing that over and over and to what end?

I'm anti-communism because command economies suck. I'm capital C Capitalist. But what we're discussing here isn't an economic system, it's a public policy system. The government builds the roads, and creates the building standards, and creates zoning laws, and all of that. The military industrial complex (among other things) helps secure cheap oil to fuel this lifestyle - that costs money. This shit isn't cheap and that's not even taking into account the actual raw materials and resources.

It's absurd that we've intentionally built societies around "one person gets in this 2,000 pound machine and uses it to drive a mile down the road" - you could just build cities better and walk. Hell you can do this and keep your car for these inconsequential use cases. The problem is you're defending the enforcement of car use. That's stupid. Sorry.

The other 3bn people won't get to have the same living standards. The planet isn't big enough. We'll trend toward a median over time instead which will certainly lead to a quality of life change for the west. The question is do you want to be driving a car and paying $15/gallon for gas or would you rather spend $15/lb for a high-quality tuna steak from a local store you can walk to?

I don't view cars as necessary for people to live. There's no reason to design an entire society such that they are necessary, except of course government subsidies to the construction industry (jobs program) and the automobile industry. You complain about communism yet are happy with the government subsidizing unnecessary jobs and construction projects, propping up industries that would otherwise die, and using tools like minimum parking requirements and building new roads to do it.

You can call that ideological as if it's some sort of insult or bad thing. Doesn't really matter much. If I'm ideological and have a vision for how things could be, you're ideological and can't see past how things are today.

[EricE]

>Ok that's fine, but then I may as well use as much resources as possible because fuck it?

I grew up in the 70's with constant shrieking about "peak oil" and how we are all doomed. And 40 years later we have access to not only more oil but other forms of energy as well. Your obsessing about the planet not being big enough is freaking ludicrous yet after decades of such sentiments being THOROUGHLY beaten down by the real world, people like you cling to them like some intellectual security blanket.

I believe far more strongly in humans working independently, yet together, in solving tough problems. A 2,000 pound machine may be too expensive for you. Luckily it's not for me. Indeed I have three. And the world still exists, humming along quite happily.

And what makes this a practical reality despite your being convinced it's impossible? Capitalism. You mention it, yet apparently really don't appreciate it's true power. Capitalism single handedly spawned and lifted the vast majority of the world out of death and existence far worse than what we call poverty today that was the norm for 98% in a mere few hundred years - reversing literally thousands of years of oligarchies that dominated human existence until just a few generations ago. My paternal grandmother witnessed the change from horse power and candles to flying through the air in jets in her lifetime. Is it perfect? Nope - no system is. And yes, there are parts of the world where there is still substantial room for improvement - but laying that only at the feet of capitalism is moronically naive. The sad thing is, I fear most people today aren't going to really appreciate where we were until it's gone - and it's going to be a hell of a lot harder to put things back once lost then try to just keep them now.

>You complain about communism yet are happy with the government subsidizing unnecessary jobs and construction projects, propping up industries that would otherwise die, and using tools like minimum parking requirements and building new roads to do it.

A few public works projects are pretty far from fu*ing Communism. Good god what the hell passes for "education" these days if you can even consider yourself rational in making such a casual comparison.

[ericmay]

Hostile much? Jeez. Grab a coffee dude.

> I grew up in the 70's with constant shrieking about "peak oil" and how we are all doomed.

Well long-term we'll definitely run out of easy to get oil and have to create synthetics of some sort. But the oil is irrelevant. The infrastructure itself is the problem - designed for cars such that cars become necessary for people to function. That's a problem. It's not only a problem simply from an overall resource usage perspective or from a maintenance perspective, but it adversely affects those who are poor or maybe can't drive. The entire society is built such that you have to go buy a car in order to function. I don't see the reason or point in that. Walk down the street. Americans are fat asses anyway.

> A 2,000 pound machine may be too expensive for you. Luckily it's not for me

Very selfish attitude. If you want to buy a car that's fine - I'm suggesting we stop relying on it like some sort of prosthetic. For what it's worth my wife and I have a car. We actually recently sold one and condensed down to two so we can do some other things instead. But idk maybe I'm just too poor.

> And what makes this a practical reality despite your being convinced it's impossible? Capitalism. ...

No idea where you're going with this rant. Maybe you think I'm attacking capitalism? That's silly. I'm a big time free-market capitalist. I love it. I hate communists, actually - at least as government policy.

> A few public works projects are pretty far from fuing Communism.

You missed the point (and from your apparent attitude here maybe that's intentional) - but it wasn't to suggest that public works are communism, it's to suggest that public policy* is at play here - not free-market capitalism. It's public policy that allocates money for roads, or creates zoning rules (government - not the market). So to suggest that building differently or more thoughtfully is communism but people driving cars around on public roads is capitalism is, well, tastefully ironic.

Me saying "we shouldn't have as many cars, stop building dumb roads" isn't any more communist than you say "we need more roads and I have 3 cars". I really don't know where this communism stuff is coming from.

[EdwinLarkin]

I understand your viewpoint but you dont understand mine.And you probably never will.It's not your fault and I wont call you out on arrogance or ignorance or anything like that.It's impossible to re-live the experience.

You see I was born to an Eastern European country to a poor family.It was not anything like the US centric media portrays it to be.Definitely not africa or super exaggerated levels of poverty.

But we have not had the means to acquire wealth.My family did not have the opportunity to do so.My parents nor my grandparents or my grand-grand parents had that opportunity.

You on the other hand were born to a country with excess.Excess abundance of resources and wealth.

You have seen that excess yourself and it tainted you.It made you realize that you could live more sustainably.

You see I was born to such country were "sustainable" was the default mode of living.

You cant demand austerity from your experience of excess.

[ericmay]

I don't understand your argument. I grew up and realized the United States was doing something really dumb, but since I grew up in that environment I can't want things to be different?

You're having a strong reaction to this concept of sustainability. Austerity will come one way or another. Probably better to design and plan for it and build nice neighborhoods where you are not dependent on a large expense than not.

Anyway, what's so austere about walking to the grocery store nearby instead of driving a mile down the road? Why build so that you have to drive a car instead of making it optional?

Btw it would be awesome to buy you a beer if we ever met - nothing personal here. :)

[EdwinLarkin]

Nah you can want things to be different but the change can come at much higher cost than you can imagine.I am often thinking about this sustainable way of living and I always come to conclusion that we cant.

I am not sure how possible it is to retrofit adequate infrastructure into american cities but even then you will inevitably have to raise standards.Most people that want to stay in suburbs prefer it because of ... well a lot of reasons.

Apartment dwellers usually have an issue with noise coming from their neighbors and there does not seem to be a solution to this problem without raising costs astronomically.

I am not sure austerity will come...at least not for you ;-) in the US or other "resource rich" anglo countries.

>Anyway, what's so austere about walking to the grocery store nearby instead of driving a mile down the road? Why build so that you have to drive a car instead of making it optional?

I dont like to drive. I own a cheap car and use it to get from point A to point B in reasonable time.It gives me freedom no public transport can. I just dont trust the government to be there for me (it never was and I dont think it ever will be).

I'd rather support technical solution than ideological.

>Btw it would be awesome to buy you a beer if we ever met - nothing personal here. :)

I would gladly take it. I am a huge beer nerd.

[ericmay]

> I am often thinking about this sustainable way of living and I always come to conclusion that we can't.

Oh no doubt it's unlikely. Does that mean we should build suburbs instead of walkable neighborhoods? I'm not sure why it would.

> I am not sure how possible it is to retrofit adequate infrastructure into american cities

I'm not even arguing for that. I'm saying just stop building more suburbs. The cities will retrofit over time on their own as it starts to make economic sense.

> Most people that want to stay in suburbs prefer it because of ... well a lot of reasons.

I live in the suburbs. Most people have no choice in living in the suburbs or not. The suburbs are simply built, and then that's all the choice you have.

> Apartment dwellers usually have an issue with noise coming from their neighbors and there does not seem to be a solution to this problem without raising costs astronomically.

Yea... tell me about it as I have to close my windows because every day there is constant mowing, leaf blowing, and weed whacking and people driving loud cars and motorcycles. Oh and dogs barking. Though that's in the suburbs.

> It gives me freedom no public transport can

Why would you need public transportation to walk down the street? You'd just walk.

> I just dont trust the government to be there for me

Why would you then trust the government to build and maintain roads and highway infrastructure?

> I'd rather support technical solution than ideological.

I don't think technology can solve the problem. It's a public policy one. We need subtractive solutions, not additive ones, in my opinion.

[EdwinLarkin]

>Oh no doubt it's unlikely. Does that mean we should build suburbs instead of walkable neighborhoods? I'm not sure why it would.

I am not sure.Should we? I think living in the suburbs (and now I dont have a picture of american suburbs in mind) is something that a lot of people imagine as good life.Is it sustainable? Dont know. But is city life in mega cities sustainable? Also not.

>I'm not even arguing for that. I'm saying just stop building more suburbs. The cities will retrofit over time on their own as it starts to make economic sense.

Are cities better than suburbs? Asian megacities definitely are not solving the problem (although I am not arguing they should move to the suburbs :D).

>I live in the suburbs. Most people have no choice in living in the suburbs or not. The suburbs are simply built, and then that's all the choice you have.

I am not sure they are simply just built (maybe in the US?). Here in Europe suburbs are built because they provide better value for the price. Apts in cities are expensive and too small.

>Yea... tell me about it as I have to close my windows because every day there is constant mowing, leaf blowing, and weed whacking and people driving loud cars and motorcycles. Oh and dogs barking. Though that's in the suburbs.

Point taken. But you can definitely build a house / retrofit it that can mitigate the noise.That's much harder to do in a highrise building.

>Why would you need public transportation to walk down the street? You'd just walk.

I do that here in Europe.Cities are mostly walkable and yet most of the destinations that I want to go to are more reachable by car than by public transport.

>Why would you then trust the government to build and maintain roads and highway infrastructure?

Because they dont.They gain points by mismanaging public resources (building roads and highway infrastructure leading to nowhere (or very sparsely populated areas).

>I don't think technology can solve the problem. It's a public policy one. We need subtractive solutions, not additive ones, in my opinion.

You can live comfortably without being affected by these solutions.There's many more people that will having more tough because of that.