this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
103 points (86.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43894 readers
903 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok.... Let me try.
Cars suck. Rural people who don't work on a farm should move to a city where they don't need a car. If they won't move, then they better get used to biking or walking.
Horses would be better for the environment because they are a sustainable solar organic ecosystem
Cars are better for the environment than horses (I say this as so.done who's family has a lot of horses lol)
If cow farts are bad then horse farts are bad, also it takes a lot of diesel to harvest the feed necessary for horses scale that up to the size needed for modern day populations and horses are way worse for the environment than cars.
Ps. I appreciate you humoring me lol
The USA sustained a huge horse population pre-engine. While quality of life was lower, the horse energy cycle was totally renewable.
The issue of industrial farming using oil, is a separate problem, and one that eventually will have to get addressed. Either through some innovative battery technology, or alternative fuel like hydrogen.
But even in pre-engine United States, horses weren't one for every person, they're relatively rare, because they're expensive to maintain, they eat a lot of food right, they require daily upkeep, veterinary care etc huge capital investment.
I think in the right green sustainable system, people would live close enough to where they work, where they wouldn't need to travel vast distances every day. So in the infotech economy, that means people work from home, no commute needed. Just food delivery which could be batched, buses, or even the rare horse-drawn cart for a neighborhood.
The rural population that commutes a distance to work, factories, manufacturing, those would be the hardest to adapt to a non-vehicle lifestyle. I'm not sure how you could do that without moving a lot of people.
One possible reason people don't like rural living, is if you got all the rural people to live in a city, it would raise city housing prices, and if they were invested in property that might be to their advantage.
This isn't co.etely inaccurate however the popation of the US has gone up dramatically and requires a different scale of horse feed production because we would have dramatically more horses for example
in 1910 which is when peak of horse population happened there where 27 million horses the works out to about 1horse per 4 people which would mean almost 100 million horses today
That is huge. But we can ignore the people living in urban areas, because they have the public transportation everybody so hot about.
So we're only looking at double the horses. I personally don't think horses are the solution here.
I've been to parts of the world where vehicles aren't common, and there is a rural population, and the way they deal with it is their life just sucks and they don't go anyplace and they just get by. Seems like a rude thing to force on people living in your own country.
end devil's advocating
I genuinely believe people are adaptable, and no matter what happens they're going to make a way to live. So if combustion engines go out of favor, we'll figure something out, if vehicles themselves are become impossible we'll figure something out. It's just going to be very painful process.
I think public transportation makes sense with high population densities, but when you're talking about very rarefied densities it actually makes sense to give the few people vehicles. I understand there's a lot of sentiment in the " f*** cars " community, but if you actually talk to them, and narrow it down, it turns out they like ambulances too. So there is a space between nobody can have a vehicle, and everybody has a vehicle.
But online, people get caught up in the rhetoric, the anger, and they just downvote without nuance.
People are crazy, but, I agree entirely, I also think that the government shouldn't make car owning illegal for anyone but, it should be up to individuals to figure out what to do with it. If a guy living downtown new York wants a car he should be able to buy it but, its up to him to figure out parking