Driverless cars and electric cars being displayed as the pinnacle of future transportation engineering is just… wrong. Car-based infrastructure is inefficient, bad for the environment and we already have better technologies in other fields that could help more. An in depth analysis

Submitted by mocha_sweetheart t3_zw253n in singularity

  1. Car based infrastructure as a whole is terrible for the environment, due to environmental impact of cars and roads + it having lead to wide-spread suburbs in America which contributed to awful deforestation and many other such issues. spreading people out actually increases how much they affect the environment. A study came out a while back where Manhattan is actually environmentally better compared to the neighboring suburbs.

  2. The actual futuristic thing compared to "driverless cars" is walkable cities and public transport. That's true freedom. Cities built around humans instead of 5000-pound death-machines that kill tens of thousands of both pedestrians and drivers a year and guzzle hundreds of dollars of income per month per person. Maybe we could even use trains for logistics and transport between cities (This last one is done in some areas in Japan where they travel at extremely fast speeds etc.); America was literally built on the railroad etc.

  3. It’s silly that driverless cars are portrayed as the pinnacle of future engineering achievement when we are already capable of driverless trains.

  4. Electric cars aren't here to save the environment, they are here to save the car industry.

  5. A transport system where everyone needs their own vehicle is just expensive for everyone, takes many resources, provides a bar to entry for poorer people etc.

  6. With new advances in things like hydroponics and so on I think cities could be compressed a lot, take a lot less farmland etc.

Yes I realize this was quite an America-Centric post. My point was more I like the design of the Netherlands and areas of Europe like Amsterdam that’s minimally car-dependent.

How to fix it: Stop building new cities and suburbs with inefficient car-based transit. Yes it won’t fix the issues we already have but at least it won’t keep building on the same inefficiencies. And slowly then repair everything else we already have; there was a post with WAY more details on how exactly would be done but I can’t find it right now, I can look later. It’ll take decades, it won’t be overnight. But it’ll help us environmentally and economically a lot in the long term. 

Thoughts on this?

116

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

666vampiric t1_j1sm2ma wrote

I agree that public transport in the US sucks.

But even countries with the best transport in the world Japan, China have mass car use. What do anti-car people propose to seriously end cars for end to end transport?

In the meantime, lets have autonomous cars and save thousands of lives per year, and electric cars to have clean air in cities.

56

Tencreed t1_j1tusv4 wrote

It's not about ending car. It's about minimising its use. There will always be cases where cars will be more efficient. But building cities around the need to drive 40+ minutes from home to get groceries or go to work is stupid. It cost you money, pollutes, takes room from other infrastructures, and that's time of your life you'll never get back.

24

Surur t1_j1u1wty wrote

PT is slower, so you dont save any time and increase your inconvenience by using PT compared to a car.

> and that's time of your life you'll never get back

It makes more sense to build a city around personal transport.

−7

Tencreed t1_j1u2q9h wrote

Dunno, I don't see a lot of trains and subways stuck in traffic jams. I leave around Paris, and used to get home quicker by tram than my colleagues living in the same area, using their cars. Now I use a bicycle, and I'm even a bit quicker, while they're still as slow as usual.

9

Clarkeprops t1_j1uxrg5 wrote

It’s been pretty bad in toronto lately…

Also, a bike isn’t public transport

5

Tencreed t1_j1v3hnf wrote

Yup, this one is mine. And it's assumed as an even worse mean of transportation than public transport by people commuting by car. But we got public bicycles available for cheap both where I live and next to the office.

2

Clarkeprops t1_j1vm6wq wrote

I’ve been a cyclist since I could ride, and I ride whenever I can. Personal cars can’t ever be replaced unless we have robot Rideshares that just make personal ownership financially stupid for most

2

Surur t1_j1u3g9d wrote

Sorry, research shows your personal assessment is wrong in most cases.

> Our results suggest that using PT takes on average 1.4–2.6 times longer than driving a car. The share of area where travel time favours PT over car use is very small: 0.62% (0.65%), 0.44% (0.48%), 1.10% (1.22%) and 1.16% (1.19%) for the daily average (and during peak hours) for São Paulo, Sydney, Stockholm, and Amsterdam, respectively.

It's also trivial to show this on google maps.

I just generated two random addresses in France.

Random address in France

Street: 1 rue du Château

City: Saint-germain-en-laye

State/province/area: Île-de-France

Phone number 01.70.25.38.45

Zip code 78100

Country calling code +33

Country France Street: 29 boulevard Albin Durand

City: Cergy

State/province/area: Île-de-France

Phone number 01.20.32.88.77

Zip code 95000

Country calling code +33

Country France

By car it takes 28 minutes, by PT it takes 1 hr.

1

Tencreed t1_j1u5bo4 wrote

Then I must live in one of these few areas they describe where public transportation is quicker than cars, cause I definitely checked my personal case, several times, with hard data, since people tend to be quite skeptic when I tell them that. While GPS is good quality data, I would have liked to see transportation segregated between road-based and specific infradtructures. Of course public buses will be impacted by rush hour, while trains and subways much less so.

Edit : I see you exemple, and public transportation from suburbs to suburbs is notoriously inefficient, caus everything needs to go through the center. A peripheric line is being built to improve that.

7

Surur t1_j1u5zku wrote

> since people tend to be quite skeptic when I tell them that.

So you should be aware already that your experience is an exception, and can not be generalized to the majority as a solution.

For the majority, cars work much better. 81% of families have cars in France and 69% commute by car.

Of course in Paris most people commute by PT, but people hate it.

> A survey, carried out by French jobs website RegionsJob, has revealed that a whopping 76 percent of Parisians and people living in the Paris region are willing to take a pay cut to avoid the hassle of their daily commute.

3

Tencreed t1_j1u6hpr wrote

Of course, my case is an exception, France is an ultra-centralized country, with Paris reaching population densities way higher than anywhere else. The thing is I live there, people I talk to live there, so yeah, we're in an exceptional situation, where the most straightforward solution used everywhere else might not apply here. As I wrote before, cars will always be in need in some areas. Some others can do better with less of them.

1

IonizingKoala t1_j1wjqyf wrote

And how much more expensive is it to drive in Paris than take public transit?

The goal isn't for public transit to be lightning fast, though that would be great. The goal is for public transit to be easy, economical, and effective enough that we reduce the number of cars on the road to the essential amount, making everything more efficient.

Cars will be faster mode of transportation for decades. This is a totally normal side effect. It means those who actually need a car (ambulances, police, handicapped, running late to meetings) benefit more.

This tradeoff is fine because you can read on a train/tram/bus, you can't while driving. And if you have a chauffeur, I don't think this subject is too relevant anyways.

2

Surur t1_j1wlsbe wrote

> And how much more expensive is it to drive in Paris than take public transit?

Why would you assume it is more expensive to drive than to use PT.

An All Zones ticket in Paris is 17 euro. If you drive an EV your fuel costs would be much less than that.

> The goal isn't for public transit to be lightning fast, though that would be great.

I like how you casually deem people's free time valueless, despite people only having a limited number of hours to live, which should not be wasted on slow transport. An extra hour per day is 20 hours per month, wasted for nothing, that could have been spent with friends and family.

> The goal is for public transit to be easy, economical, and effective enough that we reduce the number of cars on the road to the essential amount, making everything more efficient.

That is a bit of a nonsense, isn't it? Unless you ban cars (which would make PT worse) people will always prefer the better option. People do not use PT by choice, they use it because the authorities made car travel impractical in some way.

To give you a real example - Germany recently had a 9 euro per month train ticket. It massively increased train usage, but reduced car usage by only 4%. Even if you made PT free, people would still prefer their cars.

> This tradeoff is fine because you can read on a train/tram/bus, you can't while driving. And if you have a chauffeur, I don't think this subject is too relevant anyways.

Kind of ignoring the fact that the thread is about self-driving cars, right? Are you a brigader from fuckcars?

1

IonizingKoala t1_j1xlgm1 wrote

-The cost of using a car is way beyond the fuel cost, it's insurance, cost of the car itself, maintenance, taxes (registration), parking, and depreciation. It's way more than the 75 euros for a monthly pass in Paris.

-Free time has value. So does working more hours to afford that car.

-Self driving cars won't come free. Tesla FSD is 15k USD and counting and that's the minimum sophistication level needed for true self driving. Stuff like Waymo is nice, though it would be way too expensive if the actual cost of mapping streets and r&d is factored in (like Tesla)

-It takes more than a year for the "invisible hand" to materialize. 4% is also pretty consequential, especially from a congestion perspective.

I'm not against cars at all; in my college town, I drive practically everywhere even though my public transportation is free. But that's because the latter is very limited in scope and reliability. In the main city I live in, I take public transit within the urban areas and only drive when going out to the suburbs.

I'm not saying to ditch cars obviously, but shaving off 30 minutes doesn't really mean that much for the average person. Money is just a way to value time, and even if you're an out of touch multimillionaire, it's easy to understand why people want a more stress-free transportation matrix.

1

Surur t1_j1y95m6 wrote

The average person, not millionaire, owns a car, and for the average person having a personal vehicle at their beck and call is worth much more than a few hundred euro per month extra, and enables further savings such as living further from the city where housing is cheaper.

> -Self driving cars won't come free.

This is completely irrelevant.

> -It takes more than a year for the "invisible hand" to materialize. 4% is also pretty consequential, especially from a congestion perspective.

4% is irrelevant to congestion, as quieter roads will induce more people to drive, and congested trains due to free travel will cause people to return to their own cars.

> Money is just a way to value time, and even if you're an out of touch multimillionaire, it's easy to understand why people want a more stress-free transportation matrix.

PT is a source of stress and people are willing to give up money to escape it.

> A survey, carried out by French jobs website RegionsJob, has revealed that a whopping 76 percent of Parisians and people living in the Paris region are willing to take a pay cut to avoid the hassle of their daily commute.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20180312/most-parisians-would-take-pay-cut-to-shorten-their-commute/

1

Tencreed t1_j1yi1ui wrote

>A survey, carried out by French jobs website RegionsJob, has revealed that a whopping 76 percent of Parisians and people living in the Paris region are willing to take a pay cut to avoid the hassle of their daily commute.

Taking a pay cut and avoid the hassle of their daily commute is simple, they just have to leave the Paris area.

Yet it's still one of the most attractive area in the whole country, even with all of its shortfalls. Go figure.

2

Surur t1_j1yjycv wrote

It's a zoning issue. They need to move the businesses out of the centre of the town. Obviously. Decentralize business and the people will follow.

Laying on PT into town is just feeding the cancer. The surrounding regions are the ones which need the support, but Paris is clearly greedy.

1

IonizingKoala t1_j1zod6i wrote

Because driving doesn't count as commuting; it's driving, the best joy ever!

Let's assume owning and using a car only costs a few hundred euros a month. Let's assume that parking/traffic is hassle-free (nevermind in Paris, lightly hitting another car's bumper while parking is considered routine as everyone parks in neutral).

I still don't understand what point you're trying to make. I recognize car commuting to be perfectly normal. I'm just under no illusions that it's somehow an efficient and effective commute method for everybody in a dense city like Manhattan/Paris/Tokyo. Tragedy of the commons will occur, and it seems you recognize that too: "quieter roads will induce more people to drive."

Also the cost of self-driving cars is relevant, because that was your response to the whole working-while-commuting point.

1

Surur t1_j1zszbi wrote

> Also the cost of self-driving cars is relevant, because that was your response to the whole working-while-commuting point.

Are you forgetting which sub you are on? Why is the current price of self-driving, which is not practically available yet, relevant?

> I'm just under no illusions that it's somehow an efficient and effective commute method for everybody in a dense city like Manhattan/Paris/Tokyo.

The issue is not driving, it's the density of the city. The solution is not promoting even greater and greater density by laying on denser and denser transport. It is promoting development outside of the city, so people can travel in security and comfort using personal transport. Why put people through commuter hell so they can promote the growth of Paris?

And people love driving btw (and if you think this is a biased source, read a paper all about why people love car culture here).

1

IonizingKoala t1_j20owrn wrote

Lower density is expensive. You're spreading out infrastructure costs to less households and businesses, increasing commute times (sure, cars are faster than the bus, but in urban areas is usually the same speed as the subway and walking and cycling), and generally taking up a larger environmental footprint.

Of course I don't want to live in Hong Kong or Singapore core, that's way too crammed. But if we look at Tokyo, which is second in urban development size only to NYC, and is the same size as the state of Connecticut, their population density is not high at all. 200-400 US cities would have higher population density than the Greater Tokyo Area.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you want is a medium density, larger urban area kinda like Greater Tokyo or NYC, with everyone free to drive wherever they want with manageable traffic.

This exists in reality, except car ownership is pretty low for Tokyo, and in NYC's car ownership is mostly centred in the suburbs. https://edc.nyc/article/new-yorkers-and-their-cars

So when people are free to choose, only 10-40% of households in your ideal metro area (can't say city cause it's too sparse) choose car ownership. That's not out of poverty, Tokyo and NYC are among the highest earning cities in the world.

What makes those two cities livable and world-class is the public transit that connects the various boroughs together. NYC needs to improve in this regard because they don't have a ring line yet, but Tokyo is pretty good at it. I also picked two random spots in Tokyo, and though car is faster by 10 minutes when it's quiet, it's an hour slower if there's traffic.

The Greater Toronto Area is an example of what happens when you have a medium density, large metro area without good inter-borough public transit (and mediocre intra-borough PT outside of Toronto proper). You have all the high costs of urban living (you gotta pay for each borough's budgets as a separate city, as well as the huge road infrastructure costs) with few of the benefits (suburbs are isolated, you get this very Americanized feel of restrictive zoning and stroads, etc).

You can't pick and choose what aspects of our reality to address; the current price of Self-Driving (nevermind it's not SAE Level 5 yet) matters because it's real life. Just because the topic is Singularitarianism doesn't mean we are allowed to toss money and resource scarcity out the window. Or else I can say hey, singularity, cities won't be necessary anymore because we can live in underground pods and interact in Web 5.0.

1

Surur t1_j217966 wrote

> Or else I can say hey, singularity, cities won't be necessary anymore because we can live in underground pods and interact in Web 5.0.

Obviously - the person who brought this topic here was an idiot obviously.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you want is a medium density, larger urban area kinda like Greater Tokyo or NYC, with everyone free to drive wherever they want with manageable traffic.

No one would call Tokyo on NYC medium density. NYC has the highest PT use in USA. Its obviously a terrible example of a livable city, as is Tokyo, famous for its PT crush.

Polycentric development is what's needed to give people the room they need to breathe.

In the future we will need less farmland, and we should reclaim that for living space.

1

Talkat t1_j1tagjy wrote

And also autonomous vehicles so you can just rent the car when you need it

6

civilrunner t1_j1v8xlo wrote

I also believe that autonomous vehicles will enable hub to hub mass transit by providing an ideal solution for last mile transport even for people who live far from a center hub. The main issue in the USA is that most of us don't live within walking distance to a central huh and taking an uber that far is even too expensive and unreliable.

Autonomous vehicles can really be a massive improvement over driven vehicles. The other issue is that trains are simply way too expensive and too slow in the United States.

3

fitandhealthyguy t1_j1v8laz wrote

This is true even though most of the people in those countries actually live within the cities. When you consider that in most US cities, most workers live outside of the city, you realize that this take is one of a city dweller who doesn’t consider non-city dwellers in their “plans”.

2

nate1212 t1_j1td54w wrote

It’s not the pinnacle… it’s literally just the next step.

14

Good_Mention_8872 t1_j1tiqdo wrote

With a car you can go anywhere

11

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1tjc2s wrote

Yeah but with walkable cities you can go anywhere without having to buy a vehicle for thousands of dollars, you can just use your feet.

−4

VitiateKorriban t1_j1twt2y wrote

Not everyone wants to live in cities. It’s actually a slight minority.

The vision of walkable and compressed cities is a dead end pipe dream.

11

The_Real_RM t1_j1tnrn2 wrote

I don't think you get it, with a car you can go away from the other people, that's the most importation thing

8

fitandhealthyguy t1_j1v9prn wrote

Do me a favor and walk from Chinatown to West Philly.

3

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1w7tei wrote

I already mentioned about using trains and other similar methods for travel across long distances

0

BlueShipman t1_j1w9kfg wrote

Tell me you don't live in a city without telling me you don't live in a city.

Cities are DANGEROUS in the US. That is why public transport doesn't work, because people don't want to get mugged, groped, raped or killed just trying to get around the city. Yes, a car is a 5,000 pound death machine, it protects you from people trying to hurt you in the city.

1

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1wd11d wrote

  1. Cars are arguably far more dangerous, the NHTSA says that 42,915 people died from motor vehicles in 2021 alone
  2. To make healthy communities you need to give everyone better opportunities and equality, and give mental healthcare to those who need it, that’s why people are going into crime because of the lack of such things, try solving the root causes to things
0

BlueShipman t1_j1zcqlr wrote

>To make healthy communities you need to give everyone better opportunities and equality, and give mental healthcare to those who need it, that’s why people are going into crime because of the lack of such things, try solving the root causes to things

WOW That's so simple. I think you might be a genius. Have you contacted the nobel prize committee? I think we might have a winner on our hands.

Now do violent crime stats. I'm much safer in my car than walking around in the city. Getting brain damage from getting punched in the head and getting my wallet stolen isn't on my things to do list.

2

Longjumping_Pilgirm t1_j1tmg1i wrote

Have fun walking for 10+ miles just to get to the nearest store. Unless you somehow can make rural areas easily accessible without a car and also affordable. This is not easy. You should go and take a vacation in the US midwestern countryside for a few weeks then say this again. I triple dog dare you to do this in northern Michigan without a car. Enjoy.

−1

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1ts0ic wrote

See, this actually directly proves my point. I think you're missing that the reason everything is built so freaking far away in the US is exactly because they're built for cars which makes us dependent on them. The car industry lobbied for these things decades ago in most of the US. In walkable places like NYC, Amsterdam, etc. everything is far more compact and close together.

14

Tencreed t1_j1tuks6 wrote

European here. Cars are a necessity in rural areas, stuff being built afar is just how rural areas are. On the other hand, this is not in rural areas that cars cause traffic issues, air pollution or noise nuisances. Yes, cars will still be needed in some areas. These areas still existing is no good basis to keep building high density area around car as the default choice.

9

Cryptizard t1_j1tut1b wrote

It seems like you have never lived outside of a city? And I’m not talking about a suburb, I mean a rural area. You can’t make those “walkable”. And you can’t just force people to move to cities.

9

Kinexity t1_j1uzgax wrote

Most people already live in cities

−1

Cryptizard t1_j1vnuzo wrote

Cool so just fuck all the people that don’t, right?

1

Kinexity t1_j1voi2i wrote

It's a common strawman on the part of carbrains to say that banning cars means complete ban on cars. Nobody says that. Cars are to be banned from cities. No one is going to take away cars from people living in rural areas.

0

Cryptizard t1_j1vt2dv wrote

Lol okay how do you get to a rural area from the city then, like I dunno, if you have a job there? Not everyone can work right where they live.

1

Kinexity t1_j1vtkzz wrote

Car sharing

−1

Cryptizard t1_j1vv5n3 wrote

You have a rent a car every day to commute. Right. Great solution.

0

Kinexity t1_j1vwokv wrote

If you really need one you can buy but you won't be able to enter denser parts of the city (or it will cost you). You are trying to undermine the whole concept by bringing edge cases which have nothing to do with what most people need. Those who live in the city mostly work in the city. Those who NEED a car regardless of public transportation available are a cery small subset of those who have a car.

2

Cryptizard t1_j1vx20n wrote

The average American commutes 41 miles per day so you are just wrong about that. Maybe in your imaginary world people work where they live.

1

Kinexity t1_j1vypul wrote

>The average American commutes 41 miles per day

And that's the problem. That's way too much. Problem of cars isn't simply about cars but about all of the infrastructure that is built around them. You could fill those huge parking lots in the city centers with housing and cut down distance from work place by a lot. Those huge highways in the city centers also take a lot of space which could be better utilised. It's not about just about banning cars and saying "fuck everyone who needs them". It's about making sure that as little people as possible actually need them.

1

Cryptizard t1_j1vyzpu wrote

But you can’t make people move, I don’t understand what you are suggesting at this point. A lot of people don’t want to live in the city center. Or they do but their work is outside of the city. It is just how it is, no addition of public transit or regulations is going to make people do what you want.

1

Kinexity t1_j1w01nc wrote

You assume that people don't want to live in the city centers while also assuming they have a choice. They don't. You guys there cannot try out how it is to not have to have a car because most of your cities are hard to get around without one. If someone wants to live in the suburbs - ok, but make them pay according to the costs they generate. You'll see how quickly shit changes. Also "you can't people do x" - we have to make people do stuff because we have to unfuck the natural enviroment. The changes will take time but they are needed. Obviously best way would be to incentivize people instead of forcing them.

2

Cryptizard t1_j1w2xwl wrote

The best way to save the planet is for all of us to live in self-sustaining communes in rural areas. You going to volunteer to do that? Or are you just trying to force your lifestyle on others because it costs you nothing?

0

Kinexity t1_j1w7spi wrote

>The best way to save the planet is for all of us to live in self-sustaining communes in rural areas. You going to volunteer to do that?

I never proposed or supported that solution. What I propose is the middle ground between not fucking the planet anymore and not hindering our civilisation.

>Or are you just trying to force your lifestyle on others because it costs you nothing?

If choices of other people endanger my safety, safety of others or the enviroment I live in I have the right to demand them change their lifestyle because your freedom ends where my freedom starts. Cars don't have some God-given space in the city - they were allowed in and now they should be expelled out. People having freedom to choose isn't a good argument against this because people aren't known for choosing what's good for them and the fact that the pandemics has been going for almost 3 years is a good testament to this.

Edit: if someone gets here at some point - he blocked me.

1

Cryptizard t1_j1wlxvc wrote

Lol you literally just say you won't do the real solution because its too hard but you want other to give up things for your benefit. Nice, what a great person you are.

1

adamsky1997 t1_j1ttca3 wrote

Dude take a vacation to Barcelona, London, Berlin... you will see for yourself.

8

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1tu7wa wrote

Yeah, it’s extremely US-centric and acts like we haven’t had solutions for these things in other places

5

enilea t1_j1tvmcd wrote

I live in one of those cities and still rely on cars to take me to work because it's in another city and the nearest train station is still too far away. Plus having to take a combination of bus, metro and train ends up taking two and a half hours vs less than an hour on car. Around the city I use public transportation everywhere, but I'd rather have my own private space to transport myself, it's annoying being closely sorrounded by strangers and having to wear a mask inside.

A network of connected public self driving cars would be a good solution, just hop in any any of the empty cars and hop off when you arrive at your destination, leaving it available for someone else.

5

adamsky1997 t1_j1txt3f wrote

Yeah thats because you probably live in Croydon, not London proper lol

1

enilea t1_j1tzlq0 wrote

Opposite, I live in the city center and the offices are in some industrial area in the middle of nowhere.

2

adamsky1997 t1_j1ukiar wrote

If we're talking singularity offices will be obsolete to start with...

5

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1u4ra3 wrote

That's just bad car-based city planning which is exactly what I'm complaining about

1

Longjumping_Pilgirm t1_j27ncj7 wrote

I am not talking about the big cities. Setting up a alternative transportation system in the more sparsely populated areas of the US is what I am talking about. I have been to Paris and rode their subway everywhere and rode the train out to Versailles and the Musee De La Grande Guerre so I do see that a good train infrastructure could help because I could literally go anywhere I need to go using the train and my own two legs but most of the track and infrastructure to make that work in the US has long since been removed. A great many rail lines would need to be rebuilt and then expanded. This is a map of railroads in my current state in 1920, which is I think the height of railroads in Michigan. This is a map of railroads now, and most of those are freight only also - as far as I know, the only passenger lines left in Michigan are the Amtrak lines I just linked. It is clear to see that using, say, highspeed electric railroads, at the very least would require HUGE investment.

1

Surur t1_j1u0mdj wrote

This is an incredibly stupid take and wrong at all points, and does not belong in /r/singularity .

In the post-scarcity future, why would we want to WALK or CYCLE anywhere, except for fun? Why would we care about saving the environment or energy or money are any of the pre-singularity stuff? Accidents would be a thing of the past.

Go back to r/fuckcars where other stupid people hang out.

11

fitandhealthyguy t1_j1v9l5v wrote

It’s an anti-suburbanite take - somehow the only people that deserve to “use” the city are the people who live there. Doesn’t seem very equitable or inclusive.

1

NewCenturyNarratives t1_j1vaiwh wrote

People live in the city though. If you want to visit NYC take the train or bus, it doesn’t make sense to drive, and you add to the traffic of the city

1

Surur t1_j1vap0a wrote

I have a strong feeling the anti-car movement is being driven by impoverished young adults who were forced to live with their parents (50% of young adults in USA these days) and who can't afford a car.

Now they resent that the bus does not stop at their neighbourhood and they still have to bum a ride from their parents to do anything.

1

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1w84ki wrote

Doesn’t people being dependent on cars prove the point though? They don’t want to be dependent on cars anymore.

0

Surur t1_j1wc39m wrote

Sure, but its a minority of people, and what they really resent is being poor.

The r/fuckcars movement is part of the general anti-capitalist movement, pushed by young, idealistic, poor people who feel they have less opportunities than their parents.

It's full of rage but little thought, very unfocused and unpractical. Like tantrums by toddlers really.

4

KingRamesesII t1_j1unp6c wrote

I completely agree with you. Trains are the most efficient mode of transportation humans have invented, but unfortunately an electric train company can never make as much money as Tesla because cars (and roads) represent “freedom.”

Also, despite the risk, people like the privacy of cars. You can fart and sing loud and lots of things you can’t do on a train.

People will take out debt to buy a car. Nobody takes a loan and pays it off over 5 years just to ride a train. So the banking industry heavily finances the auto industry.

So there’s money in trains, but there’s stupid money in cars. Companies follow the money, and there’s just too much money to be made in cars.

8

Surur t1_j1uret7 wrote

> Trains are the most efficient mode of transportation humans have invented

A family driving to the beach by EV is actually more energy efficient than the same family taking an electric train, and massively more efficient than if they were to take a diesel train.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

1

WikiSummarizerBot t1_j1urgjl wrote

Energy efficiency in transport

>The energy efficiency in transport is the useful travelled distance, of passengers, goods or any type of load; divided by the total energy put into the transport propulsion means. The energy input might be rendered in several different types depending on the type of propulsion, and normally such energy is presented in liquid fuels, electrical energy or food energy. The energy efficiency is also occasionally known as energy intensity. The inverse of the energy efficiency in transport, is the energy consumption in transport.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

2

Lawjarp2 t1_j1t1vty wrote

Hell is other people. Public transport sucks. Earth does not need your saving. Nature will kill you if it had the chance to, it's not your saviour. We keep the environment safe enough for us to thrive not the other way around.

6

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1t2f3q wrote

  1. Fine. How about walkable cities? Besides, you’re stuck in traffic with others in this situation anyway.
  2. We are part of the environment that we are killing which we rely on.
6

Lawjarp2 t1_j1t4ygz wrote

Walkable cities are fine, preferable even.

As long as one understands that environment is kept safe for ourselves to have better lives and not for some puritanical purpose of saving it, it's fine and again preferable.

0

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1t5z1i wrote

Genuine question, what exactly do you think makes humans better and more deserving than the environment around them? I genuinely want to see the kind of reasoning as to why someone would think like this.

Edit: surprised I’m being downvoted for asking this.

1

Surur t1_j1v79t8 wrote

Do you think termites ask this question of themselves when they munch on your house?

There is no such thing as "deserving" in nature.

2

Surur t1_j1u0qza wrote

Thank you for saying this. I dont know how this redditor got lost here, but she clearly belongs somewhere else.

6

iSpatha t1_j1thqof wrote

Public transportation(at least in the US) sucks mostly due to lack of funding. As for the common pushback I hear from people against public transportation in regards to homeless and/or drug addicts causing issues, I propose we also fight our rampant homelessness and drug crises. Not only will we have better public transportation, we'll also have way, way less people shitting on the seats or causing problems for others.

2

Cr4zko t1_j1tafmo wrote

Cars are cool though. Self-expression.

5

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1tuacu wrote

Cars sure are cool, but forcing people to be dependent on cars for travel like most of the US? Absolutely not cool.

2

apinkphoenix t1_j1u474y wrote

The infrastructure for self driving cars already exists and doesn’t have to be created. Nor is ripping it all up to be repurposed a good use of time and money.

There’s also generally a trend that newer cities are designed to be more pedestrian, cyclist, and public transport friendly. At least more so than in the past.

Given that, I’m not really sure what the point of this post is.

5

NewCenturyNarratives t1_j1vbfv4 wrote

I personally hate cars. I’ve lived in a few car dependent places in the US and it takes hours to walk or bus to anything. Especially with situations where there aren’t sidewalks or can be incredibly dangerous. It sucks that there are entire states that are dead zones for me but if you don’t drive most of America might as well be an ocean

5

Rezeno56 t1_j1t8sr6 wrote

If your idea gets put into practice, watch them go berzerk then says that it takes away their freedom, and allows big communist government to control the masses.

Yeah, I feel like that is going to happen, when country is infused with car-culture.

4

gskrypka t1_j1ud11v wrote

I generally agree. In short-mid term it is much better to build cities around “walking” and public transportation. It is just much more economic, effective and generally pleasant way.

There probably still should exist some “taxi” service for “quick” transport if needed.

However I believe this works great for big cities. Things becomes much worse in smaller cities as well as areas outside of city where cars are just much more comfortable.

I’m living in Poland, Warsaw. Most parts of city are build with this idea in mind and it is great. You basically have all basic services in a walking distance or like 20 min in a bus. Transportation is awesome, you can get everywhere in public transport in decent time. Many people with cars still use public transport esp. in center where is difficult to find parking. The only downside is that in popular hours there are too many people in public transport.

However if you get into sub urban environment - car is must have, even just to get to the city. It will be difficult and expensive to organize public transport there in a way it is done in a city. However there are trains that can get you to the center of the city in like 20-30 minutes so it is still pretty decent.

Now on autonomous driving. It is still a pinnacle of tech advancements for near future because of many reasons such as:

  • it is hard
  • it will be much more effective
  • it will be just comfortable
  • it could be implemented in public transport as well
  • probably safer (in terms of scale, there are still cyber security issues).

From my perspective self-driving car could go on par with urban development in a way it is done here in Europe.

I believe for us in EU it is always strange to see those two things (cars and urban environment) collide in US.

3

OptimisticSkeleton t1_j1uylxv wrote

I can feel you passion for this subject. I would say the r/singularity approach to this problem would be having AI find a way out of this mess for us so we can get to AGI faster (I think we are a way off but seeing the first hints of it over the horizon i.e. the chat and art AI that have been popularized recently.)

The walkable, ecologically friendly city is the way of the future. The problem is we have a lot invested in infrastructure built around automobiles. There are so many considerations for changing the entire way we build that it’s almost if not completely impossible for humans alone. Perhaps AI could pave a path to a semi-ecotopia and that might be the final societal efficiency push we need to finally get to AGI and the singularity.

3

Surur t1_j1v9qei wrote

If we use AI to optimise our impact we would end up in the matrix.

Not everything needs to be optimised. Solve the externalities instead.

1

Scarlet_pot2 t1_j1sm17d wrote

You're correct... but more efficient forms of transportation (like bullet trains) rely on community support, which could cause a slight bump in taxes. This would benefit most people, but 5% in taxes to the rich is a LOT of money. So it doesn't happen. Cars rely on a single person buying and owning them, so it's the go to choice for hard capitalist countries, like the US.

I'm not defending, just stating how it is. The rich set the rules here, so the rules are what benefits them.

2

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1snz3k wrote

I think post-singularity society shouldn’t be capitalist anyway, capitalism relies on the rich taking the value of the working class’s efforts and on artificial scarcity etc. removing that would solve those issues. Check out the Venus Project for more info on how this would be different; a resource based economy. For example we absolutely have enough resources for things like bullet trains, shelter for everyone (there are 30x more empty homes than homeless people in the US), etc. it’s just that capitalism is inefficient)

4

UnloadTheBacon t1_j1tunxc wrote

> Cars rely on a single person buying and owning them

And the roads magically build and maintain themselves?

1

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1u49xy wrote

That's a good point, the exact same people are paying before and after, they're just gonna be able to enjoy their city more

0

Surur t1_j1v7x2q wrote

> the exact same people are paying before and after

This is obviously not true. For one, building rail is much more expensive than building roads, and buses destroy roads much more than cars.

In addition, especially in Europe, PT is heavily subsidized while cars pay much more than they consume. Per user, rail users get 8x as many subsidies as car users.

Lastly, PT is much more likely than cars to be used by those on low income.

So, in reality, the people who pay for PT and the people who use it are not actually the "exact same people".

2

Idrialite t1_j1xfq9i wrote

Poor people create rich people's wealth. The tax subsidies used for public transit may not come directly from poor bank accounts, but it is the result of their labor.

0

Surur t1_j1y88t8 wrote

Sorry, Marx, we are talking about reality, not your communist manifesto.

2

Idrialite t1_j1zeqhk wrote

Try running a multi-billion dollar business without janitors. Or cashiers. Or stockers. See how that goes in reality.

This isn't even entirely Marxist yet. I haven't stated an opinion on who should own the results of labor. But the labor of poor people is worth far more than they receive in income. It's just undeniable.

1

Surur t1_j1zj49u wrote

> Try running a multi-billion dollar business without janitors. Or cashiers. Or stockers. See how that goes in reality.

There are probably plenty of businesses which run like that, especially with work from home these days.

And as automation increases, are you just going to attribute more of the revenue to the remaining workers, or will you admit the capital can create money without workers?

1

adamsky1997 t1_j1tg9xt wrote

Tbh whatever we have now is definitely not capitalism but some weird mercantilism based techno post-feudalism with old school clientilism and nepotism. Basically entire world is slowly turning into something between Chinese and Gulf-states model.

Capitalism, based on competition and free market is dead

0

UnloadTheBacon t1_j1tv883 wrote

Totally agree with this. Especially in urban areas, cars shouldn't be necessary. It's easy to design transport infrastructure that improves on the current car-centric model.

I've spent time in the Netherlands and the way their towns and cities are designed makes them much nicer places to live than in other countries. Segregated bike paths and quiet streets give kids the freedom to safely explore. Shops and cafes adorn street corners. Little parks are everywhere. Plenty of people still drive, but it's rare that it's the optimal choice and even rarer that it's outright necessary.

I'd also love it if we were able to cut down on farmland and grow food in cities, and let the former farms return to their natural state. Huge national parks everywhere!

2

rogless t1_j1uiilr wrote

I hate to say it, but the car culture genie is out of the bottle and putting it back might be impossible. EVs and self-driving cars at least mitigate the environmental damage and inefficiency somewhat.

That said, a simultaneous push for PT (possibly even self-driving PT!) needs to happen. Compulsory auto ownership and its attendant costs represent a significant financial burden to the average person. Giving people options other than the car can open the door to walkable districts, at least, if not entire cities.

2

purple_hamster66 t1_j1umff3 wrote

What this fails to consider is that auto-driving cars are reused throughout the day. They might take the main bread-winner to work, then return home (on their own) to take the spouse food shopping and kids to soccer, then take an unrelated person on their chores, then back to pick up the bread-winner from work, and finally off to the cleaning location where the car is sanitized, refueled (electric or gas or hydrogen — don’t matter), and maintained. There’s very little inner-city parking needed since the car is almost always in motion. Passengers will end up waiting for the next available car, but that’s easily fixed if neighbors share cars (a “pool of cars”) or share rides (a “car pool”). A self-driving car can take the dog to the vet, pick-up groceries or dry-cleaning, or return drunk people safely home. Since electric cars are so cheap to run, I expect people will not think twice about sending cars on more errands, and have physical ports built into their residences (like mail boxes but standardized and for larger boxes) where the car can safely deposit deliveries without human interaction.

Note that splitting a large market (that everyone has to drive to) with multiple smaller markets only reduces the mileage of the shoppers. The delivery trucks would travel far more miles, and with more stops, over smaller roads, and these diesel 18-wheeler trucks are more far polluting than electric cars. Those who suggest walking/biking to the market may never have bought frozen food or had to tug a case of beer or 2 gallons of milk home, and don’t have a solution for the disabled, elderly, or single mom with 3 young kids scenarios.

2

HandleShoddy t1_j1umi52 wrote

Going on a public transportation is irksome when alone (because other people), worse if you are two adults, highly vexing with a small child and hell on Earth with an entire carriage filled with screaming goblins.

2

NewCenturyNarratives t1_j1vavcc wrote

I grew up taking public transportation and have been taking my son with me on the bus since he was six months old

1

HandleShoddy t1_j1veg61 wrote

Yeah, I take my kids on PT often too. The point is that if everybody does it all the time PT will suck that much harder. All those screaming babies. It's annoying now when baby carriages are limited to four or five per bus, imagine how bad it will be then. Ever see pictures of those Indian trains where people are literally hanging from the sides? Kinda like that, only with more soiled diapers and incessant wailing.

2

rippierippo t1_j1ut784 wrote

I agree. US suburbs are abomination. Every activity in usa requires a freaking car ride. It is not friendly to elders. It is not friendly to children. Everyone has to learn to drive. Whoever designed these cities are bought by car lobby.

Livable cities should be dense and walkable. It is efficient. It is people friendly.

2

DBKautz t1_j1uuvoz wrote

Flexible point-to-point travel will in many settings always be faster than being dependent on fixed-schedule, fixed route travel (and - in case of personal cars - has the upside of being able to chose whom you travel with).

2

Clarkeprops t1_j1uxjvh wrote

Lots of people don’t want your alternatives. It’s not happening.

2

NewCenturyNarratives t1_j1vcmov wrote

There are many spread out burbs that are adopting bike lanes and starting to build condos (thank goodness). Housing stock still isn’t catching up to demand but there are changes happening for sure

0

Clarkeprops t1_j1vim78 wrote

There will always be dentist dad on a $10,000 bike in tights, but he drives his Range Rover everywhere else, and always will. Bikes lanes aren’t bad where they will fit, but a lot of the pushback is because in a city they slow traffic and remove parking. And in Canada, people only use them 6-7 months of the year

2

NewCenturyNarratives t1_j1vmzbp wrote

Over the pandemic our family vehicle was a bike. Recently my partner got a car for work, but I don’t drive so my mode of transportation is either walk, bike, or bus.

It obviously makes leaving our town to go to suburban spots tricky, but at least I don’t feel like I’m drowning from isolation living in the middle of nowhere

1

Clarkeprops t1_j1vsi5c wrote

Valid points. But the personal vehicle is built into society. “Personal vehicles” don’t even need to be personal for people to count them as such. All police cars are built on a personal vehicle chassis.

All cabs, Ubers, & Lyfts are personal vehicles.

In rural areas over half of destinations are entirely unreachable by anything other than personal vehicles. Lots of highways don’t allow bikes on them.

These facts being overlooked are why conservatives HATE it when liberals say “just take a bike”

2

NewCenturyNarratives t1_j1vunbq wrote

I don’t think that trains and bikes would work out in the middle of nowhere, obviously. I just don’t understand why places like LA, Houston, and Denver lack all of the infrastructure that would make it count as a city

1

Surur t1_j1vy562 wrote

Imagine you start a new city. You could either built a road network for $1 million a mile, or a train network for $150 million per mile, and still built a road network.

Imagine your city is expanding, and you are adding new suburbs. You can either extend your roads for $1 million per mile or extend the rail for $150 million.

Imagine you have to run your rail network at a loss, and few people use it, as they already have cars and you have a very good road network already that is more convenient.

Imagine your taxpayers do not use the rail in any case, and vote against rail extensions, since they don't plan to use it.

Still don't understand?

1

Clarkeprops t1_j1vykgk wrote

I’ve played sim city. I get it. Toronto is not a new city. You can’t expand the streets. None of those things can be added without taking away from others. It’s taken 10 years and 12.5 billion just to put in a crosstown light rail and has colossally fucked traffic in that area 24/7 for over a decade now. It doesn’t always work the same as it does on paper.

3

Ortus12 t1_j1vc6ff wrote

Trains are cost effective in and between densely populated cities. Not as a massive grid through less populated areas.

Not every one can live in cities, you still need farming and manufacturing which are more cost effective away from cities.

This is why we see trains in some areas of the world and not in other places, as well as other economic factors.

2

Artanthos t1_j1vda0n wrote

Your post is very city specific.

What is your solution for everyone else?

2

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1w7esn wrote

Very good question, I was initially coming at it with the angle of growing food inside of cities like hydroponics etc. and most of the rest of the land would be nature reserves, natural parks and so on, I’ll think about that

2

Meta_Archon t1_j1w5my3 wrote

I am from the automotive industry, founded some start ups based in the transportation sector. The level of bureaucracy, politics and regulation is a huge monopoly.

The whole environment argument is heavily flawed in each sector, from energy, design & engineering, manufacturing and the heavy reliance in the global supply chain. One fundamental issue as you quite right pointed out is the existing requirement to the reformation of the transportation infrastructure, road networks and so on, it’s simply a mammoth task that extends way beyond the narrative of “EV vehicles” and “self driving”

What was once an opportunistic investment landscape has now shifted global interests elsewhere focusing on building the “meta” world and expanding on consumables such “digital” goods over physical items. In the next decade we will see extraordinary changes to the way of life “as we currently know it” Ai is just the beginning and we are witnessing the birth of the 5 Industrial Revolution going into the year 2030.

2

commandersprocket t1_j1w8yxj wrote

Thanks for the pro-train perspective.

  1. agreed
  2. America was built on the railroad because cars didn't exist. Changing cities from un-walkable to walkble is infeasible, cities are not readily re-configurable.
  3. No it's not silly, trains have much simpler steering, stopping and starting requirements, they travel along pre-determined paths only. Cars are substantially limited to roads, but the construction of those roads can be relatively scant.
  4. Most of the car industry will be dead before the decade, they're badly in debt and won't make the transition to EVs. EVs are a substantial step forward for the environment vs ICE cars. Cars provide time-freedom while trains constrain travel to predetermined schedules.
  5. With self-driving cars vehicles can be shared as a service that doesn't provide a barrier to entry for poor folks. This is a predictable outcome of moving from a car-ownership model to a transportation as a service model.
  6. Yes, hydroponics/aeroponics/precision fermentation will enable urban compression (and free up enormous previous agricultural land)... but MOST people want more space not less. I expect that the transition to a transportation as a service model will displace 2/3 of all car ownership along with 90% of urban parking spaces, this will free up about 1/3 of urban areas (where parking takes 1/3 of available space.

Suburbs don't exist without cars. Turning existing cities into walk-able cities is a non-starter...cities are not re-configurable. European cities that leverage public transportation well are dense. European cities have a density greater than about 5k per square km and are closer together than American cities. There is a population density threshold for trains becoming reasonably efficient. In the 1950s, when Americans moved from cities to suburbs that population density went away... and so did trains. In the US there 14-16 million people living in dense (>4k per square km) urban areas, that's about 4-5% of the US population. For the rest of the US trains are not cost/time effective.

When I have vacationed in Japan and Europe trains work GREAT (it was as faster than driving). When I've experimented with rail transport in the US outside of a handful of dense corridors (DC, NYC, next to BART lines in SF area), it sucks. The US does not have the geographic constraints that require Japan and Europe to have dense urban areas.

2

World_May_Wobble t1_j1wbu2i wrote

  1. Sure, but it doesn't need to be environmentally friendly to be the pinnacle of engineering. Nothing's less environmental than a Dyson sphere, and that'd be pretty impressive.

  2. I don't want to have to walk in the rain or heat to a bus stop, hauling my stuff, wait for the bus, sit on a circuitous route, stopping at places I don't want to stop at, get off the bus, and walk through the rain or heat, again hauling my stuff, just to meet up at a friend's house for some board games. THEN DO IT AGAIN ON THE WAY HOME! That's not freedom. No. I did that until I was 30. Never again. Absolutely not.

  1. Trains have pre-determined destinations. They don't go where you want to go. You know that. They cannot solve the problems that a driverless car can.

  2. Yes, and?

  3. So put the vehicles on a subscription service and run them like Uber.

  4. We're not going to Replan, tear down, and rebuild Houston and Chicago as part of some kind of top-down initiative. If you want more compressed cities, you can either take this to Mars or wait for additional growth to fill in the empty space.

2

tjr5zz t1_j1wn6pk wrote

No, that's just propaganda. You give up your car, you give up any semblance of getting out of where those in charge want you to be.

Nope.

Bring on the downvotes by those that preach the gospel of the elites.

I'm seeing this bs, give up your car crapola everywhere now--a nice top down push. No thanks WEF members. You give up your cars first.

Good luck shaping that public opinion though.

2

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1wq7un wrote

If you're actually interested in learning about a system where there would be no such elites while innovation moves forward and often even better without them, I've linked a youtube series and a few sites and reddit threads below that explain in far more detail than one single comment can. At a high level, communism is a classless stateless system which falls closely in line with anarchism in which there are no unjust hierarchies; Anarchism is a pretty sophisticated philosophy. Anarchism just means "no rulers", not "no rules." Arguably this gives MORE liberty than a democratic republic because communes can form under and make their own rules which prevents the majority from oppressing the minority. Anarchocommunist theory has been explained a LOT already, so how about I link you to examples of people who actually do better than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3nxK-0CTY0&list=PLVlCbf75cne_jbxwHwSaPdT65npiGhQrr

https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/jthelv/ancoms_please_explain_how_anarchocommunism_works/

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/ee7bmv/what_stops_anarchocommunism_from_devolving_into/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/gb1yz1/would_anarcho_communism_work_on_large_scale/

0

tjr5zz t1_j1wrozb wrote

Communism is fake. It never works. It's a trick by the elites. Nope.

There is no anarchy. Those that create the money, create the rules AND enforce them. You want real change, start using bitcoin--not investing--USING. You don't want real change though.

1

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1wwu5e wrote

Yeah, bitcoin is not very decentralized https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/sxy32g/crypto_is_not_decentralized/

Did you even watch the first few minutes of the videos?

1

tjr5zz t1_j1xc03s wrote

So far your suggestions are to submit to the elites and give up your cars AND submit to the elites and move to some fantasy of anarcho communism or something that the elites will instantly control and no one will ever do willingly.

If you aren't getting paid by elite bankers, you should be!

2

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1xp1v3 wrote

No, the suggestion is to directly change the system so there are no elites and that everything is ruled from the ground up by us the people instead of the top down. Again, you didn’t watch anything I sent. Clearly you are not capable of honest debate or discussion.

0

tjr5zz t1_j1xs2o1 wrote

I watched the first video. It's nonsense. It will never work. There is no incentive to make it work and it's flawed from the start. Sorry. Keep dreaming though. The rest of us will just use bitcoin to change things.

2

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1xsote wrote

Can you exactly point out any flaws of it please? The “incentive to make it work” is a better life for everyone.

2

tjr5zz t1_j1xu8dr wrote

No one will do it. Best I can tell they aren't using money. No one can just start from money and go to that. It's literally impossible. You're asking the elite to just please stop. They aren't going to. There is no competition for them and no incentive for people to just magically stop existing the way they are. That's why you're begging people to look at it.

Let's say I agree. It's the bees knees. Let's do it. I still have to pay my bills. I still have to eat. Nothing changes.

With bitcoin, you can immediately begin exchanging with people, stop using their money as much AND there is a profit potential as the price long term rises.

I'm not being mean but you need to be smacked in the face with reality on this. No one is going to do this.

1

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1xw07d wrote

I think you're the one that needs to be smacked in the face with reality on this. Let's say, fine, everyone adopts crypto. With crypto what exactly is stopping the elites from buying a bunch of it and a ton of supercomputer-level miners and stopping everyone from getting anything more than marginal sums? BTW, you can find examples of anarchist societies throughout history and more about why it works I think even in the same playlist.

1

tjr5zz t1_j1xx37b wrote

Using bitcoin as an example, you can only mine 6.25 coins per block--roughly every 10 minutes. It wouldn't matter if they had all the computing power in the universe. That's it. Also, and here's the kicker, once they spend it, it's gone. Most will NEVER understand that as they don't even know only banks create us dollars. They think the govt. creates dollars. No, the banking elite create your dollars and they can KEEP GIVING THEMSELVES LOANS FOREVER.

THAT is the problem. Bitcoin is fair money. They spend it, it's gone. They have to earn more in some way. No more cheating.

I wish you luck with your endeavor. I was young and optimistic once too. I'll tell you truthfully what I think will happen regardless of bitcoin or whatever. Whoever gets to superAI first is going to do whatever they like forever. I think it's only a couple years away at most. Let's both hope whoever it is, is nice to us or at least indifferent.

Take care.

1

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1y1p9i wrote

>Using bitcoin as an example, you can only mine 6.25 coins per block--roughly every 10 minutes.

Who, exactly, is stopping the rich from just opening multiple accounts and multiple miners for each one? They have the money, they have the resources, they have the land, and there sure as hell isn't stopping from just making bot bitcoin wallets etc.?!

1

tjr5zz t1_j1y6hiw wrote

You misunderstand the protocol. They have as much mining power as the universe allows, they can only mine at most 6.25 coins per block.

In a year and half, that will be reduced to 3.125 bitcoins per block.

1

tjr5zz t1_j1y7omf wrote

My answer sounded condescending upon review. Sorry. I'll tell you a tale of a man who found out about bitcoin in 2010. This man thought it was impossible to have a decentralized currency because any digital thing can be duplicated. He had made thousands of copies of digital files before so how could this be any different. Yeah, that was me. I was ignorant. Eventually I learned.

The reason they can have as much mining power as they like is because as the hash rate increases, something called the difficulty increases along with it. In fact, the hash rate HAS steadily increased over time, yet the bitcoin protocol and rules are steadfast. The hashrate increases, it becomes more difficult to perform the hash. It's baked in.

If they tried to cheat and not abide by the difficulty, all the non-mining nodes would reject the blocks. They would fork off into their own chain that is no longer bitcoin and nobody would care or accept their transactions/blocks.

If you google the whitepaper, you can read how that works.

1

tjr5zz t1_j1y7wqa wrote

If you decide to start with bitcoin, I suggest not having an investing mentality but rather a using it mentality. I mean if you choose to invest that's fine but use it first and understand the hype cycles at least.

I recommend getting Phoenix Wallet and Muun for your phone and Sparrow for your pc. Just start right out using the lightning network with Phoenix and Muun.

1

tjr5zz t1_j1xbj3g wrote

/r/cryptocurrencies is a captured sub. Let me guess, they are talking about pools. Pools aren't miners and miners aren't nodes. Bitcoin is the most decentralized man-made thing on the planet. It's also capped in supply.

Bitcoin is it. That's it. That's your shot. Nothing else except one thing and it's luck. No one is going to just switch to some fantasy. They have bills to pay and a money creator to pay them to. So we all either move to bitcoin over time or we just get ruled by the elites however they like.

The only other hope is some geek gets to superAI first, has a good heart and does right by mankind.

Why don't you go to /r/futurology and pedal that stuff. It's also a captured sub. Why come here? This place must be getting more popular.

1

sneakpeekbot t1_j1xbk3s wrote

Here's a sneak peek of /r/CryptoCurrencies using the top posts of the year!

#1: Elon Musk Says FTX CEO Did Not Come Under Scrutiny As He Was Major Democratic Donor | 267 comments
#2: Russia Attacked Ukraine, Ethereum Founder Vitalik Buterin Says In Russian: "Very upset by Putin’s decision, This Is A Crime Against Ukrainian and Russian people" | 151 comments
#3: US Officials Owning Crypto Banned From Working On Crypto Regulations | 98 comments

^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^Contact ^^| ^^Info ^^| ^^Opt-out ^^| ^^GitHub

1

ebolathrowawayy t1_j1zukx7 wrote

A fleet of driverless cars solves 2 (less parking space needed, less congestion due to increased driving ability), 4 (less car ownership, lower number of total cars), 5, (less cars needed). Point #3 isn't really saying anything.

A fleet of driverless cars allows people to have the comfort they're not willing to give up while allowing them to no longer need to own a car. As soon as a reliable driverless fleet exists, I would ditch my car forever. Current limitations of uber are 1) there's a driver which makes everything awkward, 2) waiting too long for arrival, 3) cost, 4) range. A driverless fleet would fix all of those problems.

Frankly, people are not going to give up their car to sit next to smelly strangers in public transport until driverless is ubiquitous.

Your number 6 is completely true. To fix #1, we need massive fission rollout while transitioning to fusion. Doesn't fix everything irt to #1, but it helps.

2

adamsky1997 t1_j1tgh41 wrote

Agree 100%, cars, even EVs are very detrimental to public health (noise pollution, air pollution from brake pads and tyre wear) and these externalities cannot be removed.

1

code_factory t1_j1uwltf wrote

the technology could be apropriated for mass transportation (places not practical for trains). but yeah cars should be the last resort

1

ChalkAndIce t1_j1ux286 wrote

Various industries are so entrenched in established interests that it's no wonder we only even take ultimately worthless half measures forward, call it progress, only to stagnate in reality. Electric cars and Wind/Solar farms are another great example where instead of just jumping over the intermediary technologies, we have to stop and pause for a decade because some stands to make a lot of money by having the industry not go directly to more efficient options.

1

Working_Ideal3808 t1_j1vh3mz wrote

100%! problem is the us is all-in on cars. will take many years for this to change sadly.

1

MurkDiesel t1_j1vim5l wrote

i agree 100%

cars kill more than cocaine

1

rixtil41 t1_j1vs19v wrote

I have a better solution why not just force everyone to live in cities with high density?

1

Idrialite t1_j201kty wrote

Ultimately all wealth can be traced to labor. Even in twenty thousand years, when the galaxy is being turned into computing power by swarms of automated robots, you will be able to trace a line back to the labor of humans. Without low level workers, production would not be possible.

Again, I'm not even putting forward the claim that they're deserved that wealth. But denying that they're responsible for it is stupid.

1

Surur t1_j20b5st wrote

If you are going to go off the deep end, you could as easily say all wealth is the result of the person telling them what to do.

It's much more sensible to recognize the system inherent in the labels - labourer implies boss and vice versa.

1

Idrialite t1_j20le6o wrote

Organizing work is a type of labor, yes. Not sure why you think that's a gotcha.

1

Surur t1_j20m1y6 wrote

So in the end, work is irrelevant as a measure of who deserves wealth, since everyone works.

So you know, maybe rail users should stop feeling entitled to subsidized travel.

1

Idrialite t1_j20tgtz wrote

Accepting the premise that wealth generated by a company is attributable to all of its laborers does not lead to the conclusion that work is irrelevant. That just doesn't follow at all.

The relevant conclusion is that the wealth that pays for public transit is attributable to all laborers, of which bosses are a minority.

1

Surur t1_j215sg9 wrote

> The relevant conclusion is that the wealth that pays for public transit is attributable to all laborers, of which bosses are a minority.

I mean, since your method of attributing value appears to be useless, maybe that conclusion is also severely flawed.

1

TheDavidMichaels t1_j1sufq4 wrote

Truly mind-numbing take. It's like you purposely form an argument out of false premises and bad opinions. Stunning!

0

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1sx10s wrote

Any interest in actually responding please instead of thought-stopping dismissal?

12

iSpatha t1_j1thdsx wrote

What is false here?

2

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1tje5q wrote

Yeah, it’s interesting how people say these things to sound smart but don’t actually respond to what’s being said.

6

TheDavidMichaels t1_j1vv9d2 wrote

I respond enough to you . the world suck , i am sad shit. Boring!! bounce!!

2

TheDavidMichaels t1_j1vvgdp wrote

nothing she is saying is correct, there bad takes and opinions of a clinically sad person

2

AzerFox t1_j1u0cq7 wrote

Electric cars are not made to save the Earth, they're made to save the car industry.

0

jjhart827 t1_j1ucklb wrote

Klaus, is that you?

0

Jakeattack77 t1_j1ttr89 wrote

I agree with your points absolutely but at the end of the day 50 years of car culture eroded the walkable cities and made it so that speawl makes transit not economically as viable. Not enough people per train track mile etc. We can fix this and we absolutely 100% should. Trains don't need batteries lithium etc like cars, and busses could easily use hydrogen fuel cell, my town is switching. But we need to defeat nimbyism and change the infrastructure. We absolutely 100 should and I love living in my small micro urban midwest town of 200K where (in the summer,) it's a 10 min walk to an international grocery store or a bank or the downtown bars pharmacy several friends apartments etc.

But please remember in the mid west that intra city transit is so few and far between. And that's how a lot of the country is. We totally could and should rebuild the massive amount of train lines that used to connect these small cities but it will be an uphill challenge requiring buying huge plots of land. I don't think it will happen under capitalism.

So that leaves us with electric cars. Personally I used to be a massive simp for them even convincing others to get them. But they are becoming disposable like the iphone and not like the 25 year old Hondas still kicking. Hybrids are a good alternative tho. All of these are harm reduction we can and should change to public transit. But we will not be able to do so before climate keyhole disasters so we need to simultaneously build electric cars, nuclear fission gen 5 plants and then still work on transit.

Also you need to consider so much of the west cost is territory that is rigged roads. Buling 5trsins would be insanely expensive, when I wat to be able to get away from society sometimes. Same in the city, not have had great experiences with people on public transit. Drivers suck but at least I don't have to be in and enclosed space with them, I can drive and get away. I can pull over somewhere and now without the threat of Traffic the car is my safe space. Plus the weather. No way in hell I'm waiting 10, min for a bus in this weather. Or willing to walk more than a few blocks

Anyways one final point, that Car go Vroom and I like it 😎

−1

SnoozeDoggyDog t1_j1tjjvi wrote

Exactly how could places like New York be turned into 'walkable cities'?

EDIT: Also, how would this benefit the disabled and infirm in terms of mobility?

−2

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1trs58 wrote

  1. Uh, I don't know if you've heard, but everyone from Manhattan calls it an EXTREMELY walkable community... Tons of people in more compact cities talk about how they can often get away with not needing a car to get to work etc.
  2. I think you're taking "walkable" too literally, it just means a community where stuff like motor vehicles aren't needed, which is actually way better for the disabled; currently it's a lot harder for people who are disabled to drive and as a result get a good job in America outside of tightly-knit cities, source on this below. It's even harder for them to travel long distances in non-walkable communities because of easier risk of things like being run over. Contrast to walkable cities where everything is far more compacted together and easier to access.

Only one-fifth of people age 18 to 64 work full- or part-time if they have travel-limiting disabilities. This percentage declined from previous years. In contrast, over three-quarters of people without disabilities age 18 to 64 work.Slightly over half of people age 18 to 64 with disabilities live in households with annual household incomes under $25,000 versus 15 percent of people without disabilities.Over one-fifth of non-workers and 12 percent of workers age 18 to 64 with disabilities live in zero-vehicle households. Source: https://www.bts.gov/travel-patterns-with-disabilities

4

genericrich t1_j1sg3po wrote

But, but, but...Elon makes cars!

−3

mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1sgl5m wrote

You joke but there are people who actually act like this as if he’s doing a lot of the work. No, the system around him lets him hoard the wealth which then he can pay back into the industry to take credit and get more money out of it. Billionaires don’t make or even design the cars, the laborers do! The artists, scientists, the factory workers, etc. Capitalism doesn’t fuel innovation, it’s just piggybacking off the work of others and often the public sector.

−1

Scarlet_pot2 t1_j1sm6tr wrote

capitalism is exploitation of workers labor for the benefit of the owner class, like elon musk and the rest of the 1%

0

Rezeno56 t1_j1t8bi5 wrote

It is really sad that right-wing capitalism supporters, will not like your view, and think your a communist. Capitalism might soon fade, like Fuedalism, Mercantilism, and etc.

0