[Raphael_Amiard]

I'm used to the conversation in here being extremely US-centric, but realize that this is much less true for European cities with good public transportation. I haven't ever used a car to go to work in my life.

I'm also very concerned about this better world where people stay home to save the planet. The common level of social interactions in the modern world is already low enough in my opinion.

EDIT: It rarely happens this way but in retrospect I feel my comment is way too tame. You think your problem is going to work. The problem is the whole american lifestyle where you live in an individual house and need a car to do anything, your house is an ecological disaster in terms of how much energy you need to keep it warm/cold, and even bringing food to your house will incur a large carbon footprint.

I know the system is hard to changes, but some people need to see the bigger picture, even if you can't do anything about it yet.

[mumblemumble]

In the case of the USA, people staying home to work might have a positive impact on social interaction in the long run.

I'm pretty sure a large part of the reason why Americans are so lonely compared to the rest of the world is that the suburban bedroom community model physically divides us and makes it much more difficult to get to know one's neighbors. By the time you get home from work at 6:30 in the evening, it's time to cook dinner, and, once you're done cleaning up, there's not much time for anything aside from watching a bit of TV before you go to bed.

And then the weekend rolls around, and your time is dominated by catching up on all the housework and errands you didn't have time to do during the week because of your long commute. So you're not really getting to know your neighbors then, either.

[Raphael_Amiard]

Interesting. I'm symmetrically not used to think about those problems from an american perspective. Thanks for the insight.

I can indeed see a world where working from home might in the short term infuse some life in local life, from neighbors to associations etc.. So maybe it's actually a positive change!

[jethro_tell]

I know that in my city, some restaurants closed in the downtown core but out in the population centers new restaurants open, a few friends in the business said revenue went up mostly in lunch service and afternoon happy hour time frame. That's after having 50% less tables because inside dining was closed.

The shift from doing lunch with your coworkers to doing lunch around your neighbors seems really positive to me.

[jaredmosley]

It's definitely true for me. Working from home, I see my neighbors before work, during lunch, and after work much more than when they were going to the office. Especially, during lunch time, I see a lot more people that actually live near me out and about instead of people that happen to work in my general area that I'd typically never see after work or on the weekend since they'd go back to their own neighborhoods.

[lanstin]

Yeah I have gotten to know my neighbors a lot better during COVID. And it is nice. And when I change jobs I won’t loose them.

[jethro_tell]

I'm old, I don't really make friends with work people. I seem to be in the minority now and maybe that's because everyone I work with moved here as soon as they were done with school.

It's really strange and I sometimes feel like an outsider. But everyone's going on hikes on the weekend and going to movies together. I'm not going back into the office at this point and one thing that appeals to me about remote distributed work is that it's separate from the rest of my life. When I walk away from my laptop, it's just gone.

[arsome]

Interesting, the opposite has been my experience, friends keep talking about how they can now move farther out of town and not have to deal with neighbours anymore. I'm considering similar.

Ultimately, people are more of a pain to deal with than a pleasure until you really get to know them. I suspect this is the same reason suburbs seem to be more appealing and costly than condos.

[ed_balls]

I only know my neighbours, because of a dog.

[macksd]

I see a lot of "this is a US-only problem" comments here lately on many topics and I just don't get it because it's usually just not remotely correct at all, nevermind relevant if most of the discussion IS based in the US, like for a US-based company. I lived in 3 different countries growing up, mostly with far more European influence than the US has now, and never at any time did most people I saw live in anything but individual houses that needed to be heated in the winter, and never at any time did my Dad not spend 1-2 hours commuting in a car every day. Yesterday someone was claiming MTV was a US-only thing. Sure, it's not universal, but claiming that it's US-only says more about their world view than any American IMO.

But aside from that, when I started being remote my social interactions went way up in terms of quantity and quality. I was free to choose where I lived, had lower cost of living, and had more time and less stress and other factors that would put me in a bad mood. Consequently, I spent more time with extended family members on both sides of my family. I played more with my children. I picked up healthier hobbies, including one where I train with a team at the gym. My social circle is far more diverse, more distinct from work. As others have experienced during COVID: I got to know my neighbors better, and we look out for each other. Having your social interaction primarily at work is very far from ideal, and in my experience and from many anecdotes here, cutting down the work interaction helps most others.

[dagw]

much less true for European cities with good public transportation.

I live in a "European city with good public transportation" and looking out my living room window I can see the main motorway into town, and it is bumper to bumper to traffic every single morning and evening. So obviously someone here is using their cars to get to and from work.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I'm a big fan of mass transit. I live in the US, but traveled regularly to Tokyo for over 20 years. Their mass transit system is awesome.

The social interaction thing is a big deal, but I don't think remote work will be the coffin nail, there. In fact, it could improve social interactions between neighbors.

There's a school of thought, that the air conditioner has been the true bane of social interaction, as everyone used to hang outside, and now, they don't.

That said, a whole lot of places are gonna have to get used to using air conditioners, and that won't be good for the environment.

I remember being in a town in Northern Germany, when a summer heat wave hit. It was awful. No one had air conditioning, and there were no fans to be found, in any stores.

[wongarsu]

In Germany we used to have unbearably hot weather for maybe a week a year. You just suffered through it, coping with going to the swimming pool or going to the ice cream parlour. All very social activities.

Now we are slowly getting used to the new reality of hot weather for weeks or months each year, and getting air conditioning is something many people think about (but most still put off because electricity is expensive).

I think in general warm weather is conductive to social activities (just look at Southern Italy vs Norway, or basically any place in Northern Europe vs any place in Southern Europe), but air conditioning drives people to just stay at home. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Robotbeat]

IMHO it’s a policy failure (for climate, economics, and equality) to make electricity so expensive people are less likely to electrify things like their car and heating.

The ratio of gasoline to electricity price in Germany is slightly smaller than that in the US, so the incentive to electrify is proportionally smaller. This is bad. We shouldn’t be paying for renewable energy subsidies via consumer electricity prices; the US does this right by funding it from the general budget instead, which encourages electrification.

[radicalbyte]

It was the same here in NL. I'm thinking of doubling the solar panels and getting airco - at least then the environmental cost is relatively low.

[lwn]

Interesting hypothesis about airconditioning being the reason for staying indoors. I always assumed TV was the main cause.

[boplicity]

The European vision of living in dense, walkable neighborhoods, with easy access to quality amenities without the need to drive makes sense, to me at least, as the answer to this problem.

I'm not advocating for staying home; I'm advocating for less driving. It may not make as much of a difference in the E.U., but if we're aiming to be carbon neutral, less driving will be necessary, or, at least, extremely helpful in achieving that goal.

[vp8989]

"The European vision of living in dense, walkable neighborhoods, with easy access to quality amenities without the need to drive makes sense, to me at least, as the answer to this problem."

What vision? People in Europe drive cars. The cars are smaller and things are less sprawled out than in the US, but people still drive. Europe is not just central London or Barcelona.

[rtlfe]

> People in Europe drive cars.

Of course some do, but far fewer than in the US. France and UK have roughly half the number of cars per capita compared to the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_...

[Raphael_Amiard]

Ok! Sorry about the violent agreement message then. Yes, there is definitely a balance to be found between individual freedom and collective well being here.

I guess what I'm getting at is that if people drive less, they'll realize that their car-centered lifestyles don't work anymore, and will have to find alternatives. Let's hope that's easier than what I envision :)

[barrenko]

EU vision is never EU reality.

[nend]

I agree with your overall point, but as a (nearly middle aged) American, I've almost never commuted by car or lived in a single family house as an adult.

And frankly I'm sick of being lumped in to large generalizations of America that simply don't apply to me or millions of other people living here.

The media (including social media, and the internet) largely consists of the most divisive and stereotyped parts of life. America doesn't consist solely of highways and single family communities. There isn't just one "American lifestyle."

[Igelau]

It's as annoying as the popular misconception that we have any real choices regarding our elected officials and their policies. Uhh, yeah, let me just build a whole slew of candidates from scratch who actually want to do anything about real root cause issues.

Racism is another one. I don't have any fscks left to give for anyone who wants to lecture me on racism in America. Our racial tensions are only visible because we aren't totally marginalizing (or cleansing for that matter) our minority populations.

[Raphael_Amiard]

Of course! But there are some tendencies, or else OP's comment wouldn't have made sense even in the context of the US.

My first few times in the US were in NYC, where I found a way of life that is very close to what I know as a Parisian. Imagine my surprise discovering basically any other city in the US.

You might not be part of that population, but the US problem goes way beyond a problem of perception, and there are numbers to confirm it.

[nend]

Agreed, I was mostly complaining about using the phrase "the American Lifestyle" as if there was one lifestyle we all follow. There isn't, and the casual generalization of millions of people is inaccurate.

[barrenko]

This is also narrowminded as much of Europe (even just EU for that matter) does not live in such idealized environment. We don't all live in Amsterdam.

[mvanbaak]

I've only lived in Amsterdam the last decade, the 3 decades before that in the 'rural' parts of .nl

I would say this idealized environment is not really present in Amsterdam, but it surely is in the rest of .nl

[_fizz_buzz_]

Lots of people in Europe also take the car to work. At my work I would say definitely more than 50%.

[maweki]

As other people pointed out: this varies wildly by city or region. In urban areas cars are really not incredibly common. In Berlin you'll find that only 1/3 of people even own a car. Of course, even fewer go to work by car.

In Munich, you'll find 1/2 of people owning a car.

[rjmunro]

I think it's far more localised than "city" or "region". It depends on where in the city the place of work is and if there is a car park.

E.g. the 2 biggest employers in Oxford UK are the University, where almost no one would commute by car, and the MINI car factory, where almost everyone would. That's because the University is in the historic part of town, with good bus service, near the main train station, easy cycling and no parking, but the car factory is at the edge of town, with good access to the road network and lots of parking.

[mrweasel]

Yep, even larger cities may not have public infrastruture that matches the requirement of all. I’ve had all kinds of jobs in the same area. One job was perfect for bus, another had biking as the fastest option. Current job and geography means that I can drive 15 - 20min, bike 60min or bus for 90min.

[bosie]

given that munich isn't a small city either, what's the reason for more people owning a car?

[glenneroo]

To contribute to the anecdotal evidences, at our company I would guess 25% and AFAIK they all live in the suburbs and drive to the nearest subway station in the city and use public transit the rest of the journey because traffic at start/end workday hours is a nightmare.

[porknubbins]

I don't think its necessarily US centric to live in a spread out way. Pretty much anywhere you have the combination of wealth + open space + uncomfortable weather you will see people spread out and drive places- ie Australia, Canada, parts of the Middle East. I personally have been happier living smaller human scale environments but Europe has a lot of natural advantages like milder climate and better social fabric/less crime that lets people live like this. When I lived in Japan people do actually commute in suits in the summer but enduring suffering is kind of a cultural norm there. Where I live people are not willing to be drenched in sweat walking to/from train stations which is what would happen.

[mytailorisrich]

The majority of people do need a car even in Europe.

In France, unless you live in central Paris you do. In the UK, unless you live in central London yo do. Now, if you live around Paris or London you may be able to commute to work by public transport, and many people do, indeed, but many also commute by car, and the vast majority do outside of these areas. I'm sure the same applies to many other countries.

Edit: By the way I am French and living in England, so I know full well from experience how important cars are for the majority despite small islands of some town centres where people can do without.

> you live in an individual house

On the other hand, living in an individual house with a garden is much nicer than living in a flat and many people (including in Europe) either do that or aspire to that.

I'm usually getting a lot of flack here for saying this, but if preserving the environment means severe constraints on people's lives (housing, diet, transport, etc) then perhaps the way forward is to reduce the global population to a point where that everyone can enjoy life while still preserving the environment.

My vision of an ideal future is everyone able to live in nature, in a house with a large garden, rather than in tower blocks, in pods, only eating what's allowed.

[cycomanic]

>The majority of people do need a car even in Europe.

>In France, unless you live in central Paris you do. In the UK, unless you live in central London yo do. Now, if you live around Paris or London you may be able to commute to work by public transport, and many people do, indeed, but many also commute by car, and the vast majority do outside of these areas. I'm sure the same applies to many other countries.

Actually in France it's much more than Paris, living in Bordeaux, Lyon, Toulouse, Besancon to name just some cities I'm familiar with, you can live without a car. Similarly in a lot of German cities even down to population levels of 50,000 people you can often live perfectly fine without a car.

>> you live in an individual house

>On the other hand, living in an individual house with a garden is much nicer than living in a flat and many people (including in Europe) either do that or aspire to that.

And a lot of people at the same time want those houses to be right in the city centre as well, and can't afford it. Also I think the flat vs house trade-off is a huge function of type and quality of flats and the city planning.

>I'm usually getting a lot of flack here for saying this, but if preserving the environment means severe constraints on people's lives (housing, diet, transport, etc) then perhaps the way forward is to reduce the global population to a point where that everyone can enjoy life while still preserving the environment.

Sounds like a great idea. It's funny how people regard reducing carbon emissions by changing behaviour (e.g. moving to flats, using less cars ...) unrealistic, but then put suggestions like this forward. How would you reduce earths population by a factor 2 in the next 100 years? Even if you could somehow do this, there would be huge economic implications (much bigger than going to a zero carbon economy in the same time).

> My vision of an ideal future is everyone able to live in nature, in a house with a large garden, rather than in tower blocks, in pods, only eating what's allowed.

What are you willing to give up for that future, because the reduction in population that would make this possible doesn't come for free.

[mytailorisrich]

> It's funny how people regard reducing carbon emissions by changing behaviour (e.g. moving to flats, using less cars ...) unrealistic, but then put suggestions like this forward.

I'm not suggesting that this is unrealistic or that we should not reduce emissions.

However, my view is that we live and work to make our lives more interesting and enjoyable, not to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of squeezing ever more of us on the planet.

The end of population growth, and even more population reduction, are massive changes to the way society and our economy work, I fully agree.

But ultimately this is unavoidable if we accept that population cannot grow forever on a finite planet (and it is already expected that it will stabilise of even decrease by the end of the century). I'm suggesting that we should therefore embrace this and see it as a positive rather than a negative (which is the usual view) because it has tremendous potential for making quality of life better for all humans in a sustainable way.

[bovine3dom]

Transport options available to me living in mid-sized European city:

- Tram

- Train

- Electric bicycle hire

- Electric moped hire

- Bicycle hire

- Foot

- Taxi

- Bus

- Own bicycle / ebike / electric scooter / moped

- Aeroplane

- Own car (if you can afford ~€40k to buy a parking space)

- Ferry

Transport options available in American suburbs:

- Own car

It seems to me that most Americans are already living under severe restrictions : )

[vel0city]

I'm in an American suburb. Transport options available to me:

- Lightrail

- Train (Amtrack station downtown, accessible from lightrail)

- Bus (w/bike rack, bus stop 100ft from my front door)

- Electric bicycle hire

- Electric scooter hire

- Foot (nearest grocery is 1.2mi, nearest restaurants are 0.8mi)

- Taxi

- Own bicycle (bike trail from neighborhood to the office park where I work)

- Aeroplane (lightrail goes to one of the largest international airports)

- Own Car (large driveway, two car garage w/ electric vehicle charging)

- Own bicycle

- Own Motorcycle

[bovine3dom]

That sounds great, why aren't there more places like that in the US or why don't I hear about them? Do you find you have to use your car often?

(Although living 2km away from a supermarket is an alien concept to me. I have three within a hundred metres.)

[vel0city]

You might not hear about it as much because sadly the mass transit is underutilized by a lot of my neighbors. Also, people usually really prefer the freedom of having private transportation. Like, just riding a bicycle so max of ~5mi or so, I have maybe an option of three different supermarkets (six if you include pharmacies, which usually do stock some groceries). If you add a simple bus route, that adds maybe another two. If you choose to take a car, its literally more than dozen different super markets within a 10 minute drive which would have been an unrealistic bike ride or a complex bus path, which is not something you want to do with a week's worth of a family's amount of food you're carrying.

Its then the same thing when it comes to going to restaurants. I can easily walk to three or four restaurants. Bike, add another handful. Bus, add another dozen. A 10min drive? Literally a dozen options of practically any kind of food you could possibly imagine.

So you get less choices for more time if you ride a bike or take the bus. This is the math that most Americans do. Since its somewhat cheap to own a car for most of the US, they don't even stop to think of the cost of driving versus the cost of riding a bike or walking or taking the bus.

As to having a supermarket close by, the supermarkets near me as absolutely massive. The Kroger near me has at least 30 aisles, a full deli, full bakery, full butcher stand, full florist, fresh sushi station, massive produce section, and a hot and ready to go meal area. And its only about average sized for the area. If you've never seen them, modern American supermarkets are incredibly massive, larger than what I've seen of most European groceries. There's usually a bit of distance between them because they're such massive places. Its often not just a small hole in the wall grocer with a dozen or so aisles and a produce section.

[bovine3dom]

Thanks for replying, it's really fascinating.

I think part of the difference is density - my city is only about 3km x 3km. If I cycled 5 miles I'd end up in the next town along. I just looked on TripAdvisor to see how many restaurants were within that range but it maxxed out at 1,000+.

We do have big supermarkets too, at the edge of the city - about 75,000 sqft eyeballing it on Google Earth, apparently only a bit smaller than the average Walmart. I've never really seen why I would go there, except perhaps for ease of parking if I was going to buy a huge amount of food with a car. And this is France so even the tiny supermarkets make room for a bakery : )

So the maths here is mostly that cars are just negative. I'm very optimistic that electric bikes will begin to dominate transport in European cities - we just need to build the infrastructure to make sure that they're safe to ride.

[tialaramex]

It's not just London. I live in a city on the UK's south coast, I can drive but I don't, and I have never owned a car. Many people I know here also don't own cars, some of them can't drive. I've worked for outfits in London, in Nottingham (visiting about once a fortnight, train, hotel, train back) and here in Southampton, not a problem.

London is better because the Tories weren't able to abolish its public transport network and sell it off piecemeal - because the government's own workforce lives there and can't get anything done without that transport system, but even in a city with a dysfunctional semi-privatised mess of a transport system it's still just better than trying to turn everything into highways stacked upon highways forever so everybody can use private cars. There's actually a 70s-80s division of my city that was built with that approach, over the river, and it's awful there. But it's nice here and further into the city.

> perhaps the way forward is to reduce the global population to a point where that everyone can enjoy life

I definitely think people who believe this should agree which of you will die so that the others can "enjoy life". Are you volunteering? Because if not you don't have an actual proposal here, just ordinary selfishness.

[mytailorisrich]

> I definitely think people who believe this should agree which of you will die so that the others can "enjoy life". Are you volunteering? Because if not you don't have an actual proposal here, just ordinary selfishness.

Why do people feel the need to always make this sort of ridiculous comment?

Population cannot keep growing forever but it is still seen as positive and needed. First step would be to remove all incentive to have more children and to prioritise education and family planning worldwide. Then, we can think of how to adapt society to the consequences (which are coming anyway because that's already starting to happen). I'm only suggesting that we should embrace the trend instead of trying to delay it.

[samatman]

There has been a long and mostly fruitful conversation between the 'bright greens' and the 'crunchy greens', but it's time to resolve the difference.

The difference, briefly: bright greens (I prefer Viridian†) support a high-technology road to sustainability, while crunchy greens are about bringing our carbon footprint down to sane parameters through traditional lifeways and reduction in energy use.

† https://www.viridiandesign.org

Simply, we don't have time to indulge the crunchies any longer. Carbon zero isn't going to cut it, we need to remove carbon from the atmosphere and that calls for substantial additional energy.

Either we get everyone up to a nearly-American energy budget, with plenty left over for carbon capture, or we reduce everyone's standard to that of an Indian peasant and still roast.

There are Americans living in big houses, with good insulation and heat pumps, solar, and a battery bank, whose homes are net exporters of energy. This is not a total accounting due to embodied energy, but it points the way.

To me the solution has always been simple: tax carbon and apply the proceeds directly to subsidizing replacements for polluting technology. If you ask people to give up their lifestyle to 'save the planet' they're just going to ignore you, and if you try and force them, expect violent resistance.

The hard truth is that America has already flattened carbon emissions, and given our great wealth we're uniquely positioned to pay the new-technology premium to fund the transition to a sustainable technology stack. Most of us are willing, some of us are stubborn, but insisting that everyone live in a pod and eat bugs isn't a winning move. We're wealthy, relatively far north, and well armed: why should we?

[ekianjo]

> good public transportation.

Public transportation has a higher environment cost than staying at home to work. That should be fairly obvious.

[JohnJamesRambo]

Heating and cooling lots of individual homes isn't as efficient as office buildings. I'd love to see math on which one is better for the environment.

[yholio]

Buildings generally lose or gain heat throughout the day, proportional to the indoor-outdoor temperature differential. So a building that maintains livable temperatures for say, 12h a day, will still have those energy leaks when the owner is out, and they would have to compensate in the evening the exact amount of energy lost or gained to get back to comfortable temperatures.

So unless your home has such ridiculously bad insulation that it quickly approaches outside temperature after turning off heating/cooling, you won't see significant energy savings by going outside of the house half the time. Never mind multiple occupants, kids and the elderly, pets, diverging working hours etc.

[CydeWeys]

A home that has AC running half of the day will use a lot less energy in total than one running all day long. There are substantial efficiency losses from heat leaking in, which will be exacerbated by trying to maintain a larger temperature delta 24 hours of each day. A house is not a perfect temperature battery on the scale of hours, far from it.

[zajio1am]

Depends on house type. For american-style wooden houses that might be true, but where buildings are built primarily using concrete with outer insulation, their thermal mass and inertia is much bigger.

[cycomanic]

Maybe the solution is not having the AC running the whole time? I mean why do you need your house cooled to 19 degC?

[DharmaPolice]

It's going to vary entirely depending on your dwelling type. But that's a red herring I think. We need to make homes energy efficient anyway (regardless where people work) and once you've insulated/moved to more efficient heating/cooling then the cost of keeping your dwelling running for the hours you're personally out should be pretty low. Not to mention however many households have to be kept warm/cool because there are other household members home.

[easytiger]

This reductive argument is rather tiresome. All human activity has a cost. Humans are social beings. HN may want to shill for being cooped up but that doesn't represent how most of the world live or want to live

[DharmaPolice]

Isn't this story about people who want to work from home?

[easytiger]

I'm sorry, I don't see how your point relates to mine, nor why it is a question?

[NhanH]

Public transportation doesn't do autoscaling.

[rjmunro]

It can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0ddExZbKD8

Usually it needs to be done by predicting ahead, e.g. so you put on more busses when there is a football game, or when it's School or University term time.

[justwanttolearn]

I've had better level of social interactions since I started staying home and the quality of my relationships are much better than the surface ones I have with my coworkers.

[tener]

While good public transport helps to cut the carbon emissions, it also isn't free and can only be established above certain population density. This creates pressure for people to live in a big cities and that causes a lot of problems.

[mvanbaak]

or, get a bike. healthy, no emissions, and on top of that, cheap.

[reidjs]

True, but not everyone lives close enough to work or is in physical shape to bike. Most people should, though :)

[tener]

The bikes are nice idea, but hardly panacea. You need to design the city around it (costly, conflicts with other usages), isn't possible for variety of people (age, disability, distance).

I used to drive 40km to work every day in single direction. Not gonna happen with a bike.

[mvanbaak]

Electric bikes are a thing ;P

[physicsguy]

> I haven't ever used a car to go to work in my life.

Think that depends a lot on where you live. When I was a student, I didn't use a car at all, but my wife did during my PhD to get to work, and now we both have to have cars because our commutes are not practical by public transport. This is living in the Midlands in the UK.

[heipei]

It's less true, but still very much true. In Germany for example, commuting via car unlocks tax incentives per extra kilometer traveled.

[_fizz_buzz_]

The "Entfernungspauschale" is not tied to the mode of transportation. You get a tax write off for the distance that you commute (regardless if you walk, drive a car, take a bike or ride a train). But I do believe it's the wrong incentive.

[blueclue78]

Whenever this topic comes up people present being social at work like a good thing. Everyone in all the jobs I've had were big drinkers, some of them probably used drugs, and some of them even used to boast about cheating on their wife. Not having to deal with these people any more than necessary is a blessing.

[AlbertCory]

"The problem is the whole american lifestyle"

We're not Europeans here, Raphael. We don't want to be.

Secondly, I've been on business trips to the UK, and the motorways are jammed in the morning, as someone else said here.

Maybe 20-somethings live in apartments and take the bus, but even in your country, home ownership is high and many people drive their cars.

[rtlfe]

> We're not Europeans here, Raphael. We don't want to be.

Speak for yourself. Almost everybody I know would be thrilled to see better transit, walking, and bicycle options even if it means getting rid of their car and yard.

[AlbertCory]

"Almost everybody I know" is the key phrase there. Does that include anyone over 40, or anyone living in a rural or semi-rural community?