Quantcast

The futility of the Prius and the end of the world as we know it

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
45,632
11,248
Sleazattle
That's bullshit and you know it.
Really? Modern engines are powerful and efficient because of complex systems like direct injection, variable valve timing and a wazoo of sensors that ensure that perfect air fuel ration. There are complex plumbing systems to ensure the ideal engine temperature that makes lean combustion possible. Multiple cams allow a smaller lighter engine to pump more air making it more powerful, this requires complex timing chains or belts that need replacing.

That makes for a complex engine that is going to be difficult for a layman to troubleshoot. It also creates a lot of parts that may need replacing. Engines are built outside of the car and stuffed in leaving little room for access. You can improve access by making the engine bay bigger, but that will make for a larger, heavier and more expensive car. It will decrease performance, increase cost and apeal to less than 1% of consumers. You think auto companies install superfluous parts in cars for fun? those plastic engine covers that are about as difficult to remove as tupperware lids that people claim are there to prevent you from working on your engine is actually there to deaden valvetrain noise.

Now there are a bunch of complicated systems in cars that aren't necessary, navigation electric locks seats and windows, AWD, fancy touchscreens. Most manufactures offer simple stripped down version of their that may not have that stuff but they sell in very low numbers compared to higher trimmed models. People think they "need" AWD, navigation, engines with twice the head gaskets necessary and a bunch of doodads then complain when things are too complex when they break.

How many people buy Subarus because they need a vehicle that can drive in the snow, then they stay home the two times a year it actually snows?
 
Last edited:

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
30,011
6,147
The old timey times
everyone keeps going to engines only........I'm not lobbying for carburetors or anything. The durability of (some) engines over old stuff is awesome. The rest of the shit around them and attached to them is debatable.

There's a lot more than engines that constitute a car.

Although ABS can still eat my whole ass



Yeah - my point was that we need to use policy more to drive behavior. Warn everyone that we're *going* to do it, then gradually start doing it (increasing the gas tax) over a period of time that allow people to "adjust."
Agreed on policy but not that as an implementation if there's no way to fund greater distribution beyond just rich new car buyers. Even with fair warning, forcing someone into a 40k+ car is about equally as tone deaf. I can't really afford that now and i don't really see that changing.
 
Last edited:

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
45,632
11,248
Sleazattle
everyone keeps going to engines only........I'm not lobbying for carburetors or anything.


There's a lot more than engines that constitute a car.

Although ABS can still eat my whole ass

Yeah there is a lot of pointless complicated stuff in cars. You can blame the consumer more than anything. Just look at what trucks have become. When I graduated high school trucks were popular with kids because they were literally some of the simplest and cheapest vehicles you can buy, now more $80,000 Ultra-RAM Lariat King Ranch Limited Cowboy Spaceman editions roll off the lots. Manufacturers aren't making people buy those (they are however hooking them by their feelings of insecurity)
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
30,011
6,147
The old timey times
Yeah there is a lot of pointless complicated stuff in cars. You can blame the consumer more than anything. Just look at what trucks have become. When I graduated high school trucks were popular with kids because they were literally some of the simplest and cheapest vehicles you can buy, now more $80,000 Ultra-RAM Lariat King Ranch Limited Cowboy Spaceman editions roll off the lots. Manufacturers aren't making people buy those (they are however hooking them by their feelings of insecurity)
I don't see it as just a consumer thing. We already have very, very long lists of standards and laws and investment driven technology changes, I don't know why this would be any different.

The truck thing drives me nuts because people who actually use trucks for truck things would actually benefit the most from electric motors.

But I mean hey we're talking about not making the world uninhabitable. We killed smog, nitric and phosphoric acid falling out of the sky via catalytic converters. This country HAS the money to do it. We just don't. I only put part of that blame on the consumer.

Auto manufacturers aren't blameless just because they build bullshit and people buy it. That's like forgiving ratheon for baby killing technology just because our gov't buys it. Not making it IS an option if there's a better way to do it.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
45,632
11,248
Sleazattle
I don't see it as just a consumer thing. We already have very, very long lists of standards and laws and investment driven technology changes, I don't know why this would be any different.

The truck thing drives me nuts because people who actually use trucks for truck things would actually benefit the most from electric motors.

But I mean hey we're talking about not making the world uninhabitable. We killed smog, nitric and phosphoric acid falling out of the sky via catalytic converters. This country HAS the money to do it. We just don't. I only put part of that blame on the consumer.

Auto manufacturers aren't blameless just because they build bullshit and people buy it. That's like forgiving ratheon for baby killing technology just because our gov't buys it. Not making it IS an option if there's a better way to do it.

I get what you are saying but I don't understand how you expect to get what you want.

I like my old Volvo because of its simplicity durability and ease of maintenance. It was designed to be that way. And from what I understand that need was largely driven by economic an other factors in Sweden at the time. Incomes were low so auto loans terms were long, roads were shitty so people needed a very simple long lasting durable car. It was also very expensive for what you got. A small slow and crude car that cost as much as a decked out Mustang.
 

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
72,259
14,316
media blackout
Really? Modern engines are powerful and efficient because of complex systems like direct injection, variable valve timing and a wazoo of sensors that ensure that perfect air fuel ration. There are complex plumbing systems to ensure the ideal engine temperature that makes lean combustion possible. Multiple cams allow a smaller lighter engine to pump more air making it more powerful, this requires complex timing chains or belts that need replacing.

That makes for a complex engine that is going to be difficult for a layman to troubleshoot. It also creates a lot of parts that may need replacing. Engines are built outside of the car and stuffed in leaving little room for access. You can improve access by making the engine bay bigger, but that will make for a larger, heavier and more expensive car. It will decrease performance, increase cost and apeal to less than 1% of consumers. You think auto companies install superfluous parts in cars for fun? those plastic engine covers that are about as difficult to remove as tupperware lids that people claim are there to prevent you from working on your engine is actually there to deaden valvetrain noise.

Now there are a bunch of complicated systems in cars that aren't necessary, navigation electric locks seats and windows, AWD, fancy touchscreens. Most manufactures offer simple stripped down version of their that may not have that stuff but they sell in very low numbers compared to higher trimmed models. People think they "need" AWD, navigation, engines with twice the head gaskets necessary and a bunch of doodads then complain when things are too complex when they break.

How many people buy Subarus because they need a vehicle that can drive in the snow, then they stay home the two times a year it actually snows?
I'm not talking about abandoning advances in technology. I'm talking about bullshit like having to replace a headlight through the front wheel well.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
30,011
6,147
The old timey times
Heh plus that^

There's no reason JM should have to go through what he did just to put a fucking bike rack on.

I get what you are saying but I don't understand how you expect to get what you want.
This country has literally created from thin air, multiple industries. Trains, planes, aircraft carriers, electric utilities, almost the entire global oil industry, tesla......

People just don't know or forget how much of a role gov't subsidies had in those things.

Because that's where it chose to put money. That plus some of the dumb laws that california etc are doing regarding mandating electrifying cars is really all it would take.The investment PLUS mandates just seem to never happen together or concurrently. You can't just make (or allow) gas to shoot up without an investment strategy in alternatives to ICE cars. And you can't just demand everyone buy a more expensive alternative without making that easy to do (kinda like solar subsidies). Likewise you can't just sit there and build the most badass electric car out there and stand there with your dick in your hand because no one is buying it because the brodozer is still cheaper. Make the alternative cheaper. We've done it with milk, flour, gasoline, housing at times.......we can do this. Subsidize it like we did drilling. Don't just sit there and expect tesla to make an 18k truck. Make whatever works and subsidize it so people can afford it. An offer they can't refuse so to speak.

We're out here banning small combustion motors while simultaneously going through rolling blackouts because the state refuses to force power companies to put shit underground. So cutting power while making generators illegal. It's madness. It's 10 hands all working independently and in most cases at odds with what the other hands are doing. The same applies to vehicle/ICE evolution. There needs to be a cohesive, holistic approach that means really, only the federal gov't can do on any meaningful level.
 
Last edited:

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
45,632
11,248
Sleazattle

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
30,011
6,147
The old timey times
You know how people get air bags stolen from inside their steering wheel? Imagine how well an externally mounted expensive HID or LED light cluster wold work out.


Come on, much more expensive light bars exists everywhere and what happens in desperate southern california is not a cross section of the rest of the word.

There's no reason an LED headlight needs to be expensive (IE lucrative to steal) either. Betcha that stylized body matching shape has more to do with it than anything.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
45,632
11,248
Sleazattle
There's no reason an LED headlight needs to be expensive (IE lucrative to steal) either. Betcha that stylized body matching shape has more to do with it than anything.
Yeah the LED is the cheap part, optical grade injection molded parts are expensive, but all replacment parts are expensive.

I think I found the ideal car for you, even has a dirt bike engine

 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
30,011
6,147
The old timey times
Yeah the LED is the cheap part, optical grade injection molded parts are expensive, but all replacment parts are expensive.

I think I found the ideal car for you, even has a dirt bike engine

fuck you man :rofl:

2stroke.JPG


does look like a nice versitile headlight standard that could fit multiple models however.


"better things are not possible"


-the battle cry of kenda, imba, and vail owned bike parks everywhere......


I said it before but replacement costs are what they are for profit, not because that's what Hyundai pays for them in the assembly line.
 
Last edited:

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
45,632
11,248
Sleazattle
fuck you man :rofl:

View attachment 167584

does look like a nice versitile headlight standard that could fit multiple models however.


"better things are not possible"


-the battle cry of kenda, imba, and vail owned bike parks everywhere......


I said it before but replacement costs are what they are for profit, not because that's what Hyundai pays for them in the assembly line.
I believe spares are generally made at the same time as production parts so manufacturing costs are the same. But you have to package them, tie up cash into spares and then have the cost of warehousing them for 20 years with no guarantee they will ever sell. So costs are going to be higher than a production part, but at the end of the day once you bought the car you are a captive audience so they can apply a much larger margin on top of that increased cost.


Not the automotive market but when I worked at GE we sold spares for 2-3 times more than OEM cost. Margins on spares were only about 20% more. A lot of spares ended up getting disposed of or auctioned off to 3rd party suppliers for cents on the dollar when they became obsolete.
 

stevew

unique white person
Sep 21, 2001
36,408
6,283
I'm not talking about abandoning advances in technology. I'm talking about bullshit like having to replace a headlight through the front wheel well.
there is a light on the dash of the wagon saying i have a brake light out...i wonder how much of the interior of the rear cargo area i am going to have to pull apart to change that fucking bulb...

yeah....its going to the dealership...
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
30,011
6,147
The old timey times
I believe spares are generally made at the same time as production parts so manufacturing costs are the same.
They are which is why I mentioned it.

"we can't do this because of warehouse space" isn't an argument. And with what I'm talking about, the time at which something is obsolete by definition extends.

We have planned obsolescence in everything we build now. Cars are no different.
 
Last edited:

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
12,275
1,239
Hypernormality
Sorry I kinda missed that part of the conversation because I was y’know, working, but I just want to point out that for some inexplicable reason most western economies are still subsidising fossil fuels to a stupid degree. We could simply stop doing that for a fucking start.
 
... It's 10 hands all working independently and in most cases at odds with what the other hands are doing...
This applies to everything that humans do. We can note in passing that the rusty and defunct old Soviet Union tried to integrate all this shit, with ideal government controlled designs for everything, supposedly all ideal and integrated with everything else, and it was a miserable failure as is everything else we attempt as a species.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
30,011
6,147
The old timey times
ideal controlled govt designs....we have those too

we just use terms like "safety and manufacturing standards"
 
Last edited:

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
13,778
5,421
AK
Really? Modern engines are powerful and efficient because of complex systems like direct injection, variable valve timing and a wazoo of sensors that ensure that perfect air fuel ration. There are complex plumbing systems to ensure the ideal engine temperature that makes lean combustion possible. Multiple cams allow a smaller lighter engine to pump more air making it more powerful, this requires complex timing chains or belts that need replacing.

That makes for a complex engine that is going to be difficult for a layman to troubleshoot. It also creates a lot of parts that may need replacing. Engines are built outside of the car and stuffed in leaving little room for access. You can improve access by making the engine bay bigger, but that will make for a larger, heavier and more expensive car. It will decrease performance, increase cost and apeal to less than 1% of consumers. You think auto companies install superfluous parts in cars for fun? those plastic engine covers that are about as difficult to remove as tupperware lids that people claim are there to prevent you from working on your engine is actually there to deaden valvetrain noise.

Now there are a bunch of complicated systems in cars that aren't necessary, navigation electric locks seats and windows, AWD, fancy touchscreens. Most manufactures offer simple stripped down version of their that may not have that stuff but they sell in very low numbers compared to higher trimmed models. People think they "need" AWD, navigation, engines with twice the head gaskets necessary and a bunch of doodads then complain when things are too complex when they break.

How many people buy Subarus because they need a vehicle that can drive in the snow, then they stay home the two times a year it actually snows?
The direct injection is a good example. Intake manifolds gunk up because of it and the auto makers don’t put catch can assemblies on there that would actually prevent this because it’s not a problem within warranty period. It can be cleaned, expensively, having to take off the manifold, but over time it strangles then engine and the manufactures don’t really care, they got a little more power and efficiency up front when the car is new, at the expense of down the road.
 

CBJ

Turbo Monkey
Mar 19, 2002
11,760
1,918
Copenhagen, Denmark
Come on, much more expensive light bars exists everywhere and what happens in desperate southern california is not a cross section of the rest of the word.

There's no reason an LED headlight needs to be expensive (IE lucrative to steal) either. Betcha that stylized body matching shape has more to do with it than anything.
A lot of problems here with expensive headlights stolen and what else can be quickly removed. My brother had all lcd screens and buttons removed twice from his BMW.
The direct injection is a good example. Intake manifolds gunk up because of it and the auto makers don’t put catch can assemblies on there that would actually prevent this because it’s not a problem within warranty period. It can be cleaned, expensively, having to take off the manifold, but over time it strangles then engine and the manufactures don’t really care, they got a little more power and efficiency up front when the car is new, at the expense of down the road.
Their business has always been to sell as many cars as possible. They will not change unless they are forced to change.
 

slyfink

Turbo Monkey
Sep 16, 2008
7,517
3,291
Ottawa, Canada
While I agree with the point about planned obsolescence (it's bad), I'm inclined to believe the outrage over the increased cost of vehicles as an affront to the proletariat is perhaps a bit misguided. There's a belief in our societies that mobility is a fundamental human right. Over the last 100 years or so, we've built our communities around the personal automobile, so we can't imagine a world without them. The cost they impose (noise, pollution, sucking up all the common space) were largely ignored. Now, as we grapple with those costs and their ramifications, we have to weigh them against the benefits.

In my mind, personal automobiles are not a fundamental human right. They are a luxury item. The benefits to society of making them pollute less outweigh the fact that they will cost more as a result.

That doesn't mean I don't think something needs to be done to support those that can't afford them anymore. Denser cities, better transit, better access to alternative forms of transportation, alternative ownership models... are all potential solutions, none of which are perfect obviously. But I think we should focus our efforts and flex our collective creative muscle there rather than making a polluting disposable consumer good more affordable to the masses.

But yeah, this notion that access to a vehicle is a fundamental right is misguided in my opinion. When balancing the pros and cons, I think the cons of the pollution outweighs the pros of unlimited (unbridled?) personal mobility.

Also, before people go off on the "but what about people living in rural areas?!", I'll counter by saying that is a choice. You want no neighbours? You want a big house? You want fresh air? You want lots of toys? You pay for it. If you can't pay for it. Tough cookies.
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
32,117
4,018
The direct injection is a good example. Intake manifolds gunk up because of it and the auto makers don’t put catch can assemblies on there that would actually prevent this because it’s not a problem within warranty period. It can be cleaned, expensively, having to take off the manifold, but over time it strangles then engine and the manufactures don’t really care, they got a little more power and efficiency up front when the car is new, at the expense of down the road.
Note that Toyota foresaw this debacle and thus did both direct and port injection to stave it off.
 

stevew

unique white person
Sep 21, 2001
36,408
6,283
Also, before people go off on the "but what about people living in rural areas?!", I'll counter by saying that is a choice. You want no neighbours? You want a big house? You want fresh air? You want lots of toys? You pay for it. If you can't pay for it. Tough cookies.
please stay out of the mountains....
 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
3,730
1,561
Also, before people go off on the "but what about people living in rural areas?!", I'll counter by saying that is a choice. You want no neighbours? You want a big house? You want fresh air? You want lots of toys? You pay for it. If you can't pay for it. Tough cookies.
You misjudge this, it is the other way around. You need to be filthy rich to live downtown in a major city. Then you have to deal with all the noise and pollution because your filthy rich neighbors, like yourself, think they need a big SUV to drive around town. Public transport is for those peasants that clean your place or have to come to town to work.
 

slyfink

Turbo Monkey
Sep 16, 2008
7,517
3,291
Ottawa, Canada
please stay out of the mountains....
Doesn't matter where I live or recreate. We all share the same atmosphere and climate system. Your choices affect me, and everyone else on the planet. You should pay the full and true cost of your choices.
You misjudge this, it is the other way around. You need to be filthy rich to live downtown in a major city. Then you have to deal with all the noise and pollution because your filthy rich neighbors, like yourself, think they need a big SUV to drive around town. Public transport is for those peasants that clean your place or have to come to town to work.
you forgot to quote this part of my post:
That doesn't mean I don't think something needs to be done to support those that can't afford them anymore. Denser cities, better transit, better access to alternative forms of transportation, alternative ownership models... are all potential solutions, none of which are perfect obviously. But I think we should focus our efforts and flex our collective creative muscle there rather than making a polluting disposable consumer good more affordable to the masses.
Also, I think you're the one being naïve. urban centres are not all "filthy rich". there's plenty of middle class and even depressed areas in urban centres. For the middle class homes, the biggest difference with suburban, ex-urban, and rural houses is space, both indoor and out. I chose to live in a small home with no yard and access to transit because sustainable living is important to me. Other people choose to live in rural areas because they like the lifestyle, they want a big yard, they like being close to recreation... whatever. But my point is its a choice. And people have to come to terms with the impacts of their choices.

For over 100 years, we've been building the infrastructure that supports personal mobility. Now we're reaping the consequences of those choices. Coming to terms with that is hard. Finding solutions to it is even harder. Pointing fingers and name calling don't help. But we gotta start somewhere.

Re "public transit is for peasants". That is a value judgment that you are making. as I keep telling my son, I can't control what others think or feel. but that's on you. I don't see it, or feel that way.

Lastly, I don't own a "big SUV". I own a CUV (so a small SUV :D). I'll freely admit that I bought into (was duped by?) the marketing. I thought it was "safer" than a hatchback or station wagon and had more room for my growing family. I was wrong on both counts. It's a mistake I won't make again. (also, the only station wagon available on the market when I was looking for a new car was the VW Jetta wagon, and "Dieselgate" was still fresh on our minds... so VW was a hard pass at that point).
 

stevew

unique white person
Sep 21, 2001
36,408
6,283
Doesn't matter where I live or recreate. We all share the same atmosphere and climate system. Your choices affect me, and everyone else on the planet. You should pay the full and true cost of your choices.

you forgot to quote this part of my post:


Also, I think you're the one being naïve. urban centres are not all "filthy rich". there's plenty of middle class and even depressed areas in urban centres. For the middle class homes, the biggest difference with suburban, ex-urban, and rural houses is space, both indoor and out. I chose to live in a small home with no yard and access to transit because sustainable living is important to me. Other people choose to live in rural areas because they like the lifestyle, they want a big yard, they like being close to recreation... whatever. But my point is its a choice. And people have to come to terms with the impacts of their choices.

For over 100 years, we've been building the infrastructure that supports personal mobility. Now we're reaping the consequences of those choices. Coming to terms with that is hard. Finding solutions to it is even harder. Pointing fingers and name calling don't help. But we gotta start somewhere.

Re "public transit is for peasants". That is a value judgment that you are making. as I keep telling my son, I can't control what others think or feel. but that's on you. I don't see it, or feel that way.

Lastly, I don't own a "big SUV". I own a CUV (so a small SUV :D). I'll freely admit that I bought into (was duped by?) the marketing. I thought it was "safer" than a hatchback or station wagon and had more room for my growing family. I was wrong on both counts. It's a mistake I won't make again. (also, the only station wagon available on the market when I was looking for a new car was the VW Jetta wagon, and "Dieselgate" was still fresh on our minds... so VW was a hard pass at that point).
you have kid/kids....?

you are fucking up the planet more than i ever will...
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
32,117
4,018
But my point is its a choice. And people have to come to terms with the impacts of their choices.
Pigovian taxes for everything is what I've been saying.

I own a CUV (so a small SUV :D). I'll freely admit that I bought into (was duped by?) the marketing. I thought it was "safer" than a hatchback or station wagon and had more room for my growing family. I was wrong on both counts.
It most likely is safer unless you roll the thing. Higher beltline means others will hit you lower, and mass reigns supreme.

 

iRider

Turbo Monkey
Apr 5, 2008
3,730
1,561
Also, I think you're the one being naïve. urban centres are not all "filthy rich". there's plenty of middle class and even depressed areas in urban centres. For the middle class homes, the biggest difference with suburban, ex-urban, and rural houses is space, both indoor and out. I chose to live in a small home with no yard and access to transit because sustainable living is important to me.
It might not be as sustainable as you think. There is some good research on that.

Other people choose to live in rural areas because they like the lifestyle, they want a big yard, they like being close to recreation... whatever. But my point is its a choice. And people have to come to terms with the impacts of their choices.
Sure, it is a lifestyle choice. But, for example, for me 90% of my bike rides do not involve a car to get to the trailhead. At least my recreation is sustainable. :D

For over 100 years, we've been building the infrastructure that supports personal mobility. Now we're reaping the consequences of those choices. Coming to terms with that is hard. Finding solutions to it is even harder. Pointing fingers and name calling don't help. But we gotta start somewhere.
I am not arguing that things have to change. But from an ecology perspective the only thing that really helps would be to reduce the unsustainable large population. ;)
Regarding infrastructure/lifestyle choices: with the green transition we make the same mistake again. Now all is targeting this goal with no considerations for the environment or society. Instead of saving energy we build more wind turbines, instead of reducing our mobility we compensate with "net zero". Instead of reducing consumption we just paint it green. Instead of trying to squeeze longer life spans out of older products we buy new "green" products.
Same old shit just packaged in a new way.

Re "public transit is for peasants". That is a value judgment that you are making. as I keep telling my son, I can't control what others think or feel. but that's on you. I don't see it, or feel that way.
I don't think that way, I just characterized the feelings of the SUV city slickers crowd.

Lastly, I don't own a "big SUV". I own a CUV (so a small SUV :D). I'll freely admit that I bought into (was duped by?) the marketing. I thought it was "safer" than a hatchback or station wagon and had more room for my growing family. I was wrong on both counts. It's a mistake I won't make again. (also, the only station wagon available on the market when I was looking for a new car was the VW Jetta wagon, and "Dieselgate" was still fresh on our minds... so VW was a hard pass at that point).
All car companies cheat.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
30,011
6,147
The old timey times
"just move"

Not everyone has that luxury, JFC

The suburban sprawling wastelands we've created that often are the more affordable places to live pretty much require transportation, and are usually where the public version is useless. Just more "well too bad for the poors, doesn't affect me" BS.
 
Last edited:

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
30,011
6,147
The old timey times
A lot of problems here with expensive headlights stolen and what else can be quickly removed. My brother had all lcd screens and buttons removed twice from his BMW.
sorry but........... :rofl:


Their business has always been to sell as many cars as possible. They will not change unless they are forced to change.
They along with the oil industry have a solid half decade plus of lying, decieving and deliberately blocking technological development. If there's one industry it's hard to feel sorry for, this is up there.
 

slyfink

Turbo Monkey
Sep 16, 2008
7,517
3,291
Ottawa, Canada
"just move"

Not everyone has that luxury, JFC

The suburban sprawling wastelands we've created that often are the more affordable places to live pretty much require transportation, and are usually where the public version is useless. Just more "well too bad for the poors, doesn't affect me" BS.
I didn't say "just move". In fact, here's the same quote I shared with the unique white person (with different parts in bold):
That doesn't mean I don't think something needs to be done to support those that can't afford them anymore. Denser cities, better transit, better access to alternative forms of transportation, alternative ownership models... are all potential solutions, none of which are perfect obviously. But I think we should focus our efforts and flex our collective creative muscle there rather than making a polluting disposable consumer good more affordable to the masses.
I think it's a tragedy that small-scale family farms are not a sustainable model in this day and age. That in order to survive, farmers need to industrialize their operations and "optimize" their production. All this has done is make the banks richer, and made rural living excessively expensive. not to mention drained the nutritional value from the food chain.

I don't know what the answer is, but something has to be done. And it has to start somewhere.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
12,275
1,239
Hypernormality
irider said:
I am not arguing that things have to change. But from an ecology perspective the only thing that really helps would be to reduce the unsustainable large population. ;)
Stop with this overpopulation bullshit. Again: there is enough food, water, shelter and technology capability to give everyone on earth a decent life but we don’t do it.

In the west, and sorry but especially America, there is profligate waste. 1/3 of all food (upto 1/2 by some accounting) created is wasted. The average US carbon footprint (17 tonnes pa CO2 or 21 CO2e) is basically 3 times a French/German/NZ (6-8 tonnes) who have a statically better quality of life, and hugely more than an Indian at less than 2.

Crying about overpopulation is being the global one person in ten; an overfed, rich person belching emissions, with two huge cars, a big house, several TVs, lots of flights, eating lots of unsustainable food, whilst the other nine live relatively significantly impoverished lives. It’s a lazy, racist, borderline fascist talking point.

Be clear about whose carbon that is in the atmosphere. The US especially and UK (10 tonnes) and the developed west as a whole have a massively, massively outsized contribution to global warming vs.population size. When overpopulation is invoked in debate the unstated implication is all those millions of brown people in asia should die. Well fuck off. We all, especially Americans, have an outsized duty to fix our shit up, and we have zero right to invoke ‘overpopulation’ as a ‘solution’ until we do.
 

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
30,011
6,147
The old timey times
I thought the US still had Freedom? Or am I wrong there?
Geld macht frei

We're too tied up in medical costs and skyrocketing housing prices.

Seriously though, it's really hard to move somewhere without a good amount of fuckoff money. Talk to @Adventurous about finding places to live.

I had a job in Montana that I turned down because I couldn't keep up with the bidding wars going on with houses this summer and beyond. And this is to a theoretical "cheaper place to live". Rentals non-existent.


It's one of my favorite things to say to rabid right wingers here who always take vacations to revelstoke or other locales in BC for recreation, largely because there aren't huge swaths of closed off land there via wilderness: "isn't it nice to visit a country that is truly free?"
 
Last edited: