You will own nothing and like it

[Jim147]

Get rid of car ownership to save the planet.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/world-economic-forum-calls-reduce-private-vehicles-by-eliminating-ownership

Of course, this won't affect them or their jets and motorcades.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Next will be removing ownership of shoes and sandals to curb foot traffic... 

Woody

[Bogie]

The model that they are following involves the peasants happily marching to do the state's labor, as they sing valiant songs of productivity... You can't have the marching if people have the choice of where to work.

[French G.]

Next will be removing ownership of shoes and sandals to curb foot traffic... 

Woody

No, there you remove the owners, less to inventory later.

[lee n. field]

The model that they are following involves the peasants happily marching to do the state's labor, as they sing valiant songs of productivity... You can't have the marching if people have the choice of where to work.

Apropos of marching and collectivism, a couple or three months back I listened, as long as I could stand it, to a a couple leftist academics on a podcast defending Stalin and the Soviet Union for the Holodomor.

[bedlamite]

Next will be removing ownership of shoes and sandals to curb foot traffic... 

Woody

Update; you will need a subscription for those.

https://www.on-running.com/en-us/collection/cyclon

[WLJ]

Update; you will need a subscription for those.

https://www.on-running.com/en-us/collection/cyclon

I don't often use this word but that's retarded.

[RoadKingLarry]

I don't often use this word but that's retarded.

That is so disrespectful of developmentally challenged people.
The correct term is fucktarded.
 

[zahc]

Makes sense to me. This represents the gaia worshippers realizing that EVs aren't actually the great panacea that will usher in the era of low impact... just swapping one problem (burning dinosaur fuel) for another (heavy metal mining plus burning gas in power plants). I'm actually glad they might be having a moment of clarity and/or letting slip that the EV push is not a real environment movement but just a car company marketing ploy.

Cars are terribly under utilized at the best of times and it would be great if every single person didn't need a $50,000+ rapidly depreciating machine, or more, with which to sit in traffic just to go to the store. "Ride sharing" was supposed to exploit that inefficiency and I think it has a little bit. Turo is out there too but the friction seems to be just a little too much to make a dent.

[AZRedhawk44]

The report also pointed out that most people around the world already have personal phones or computers but 39% of global workers are also provided laptops and mobile phones.
rare earth mine


"This is not at all resource efficient," the report said. "Keeping a smartphone for five years instead of three reduces the phone’s annual carbon footprint by 31%."

But if we're not buying the latest iPhone and computer every 2-3 years then the world will go into recession, and consumers haven't been properly trained to replace!replace!replace!

Add to that the cell companies carrier protocols tend to change every 3-5 years, and a new advancement in wifi comes out every 3-5 years... 5 years is a long time to keep a phone if you're in the wrong technology window when you buy one.


I'm also rather taken aback at the claim that "39% of global workers" are given a laptop and mobile phone.  I guess it depends on what is considered a global worker.  I would think it's a person on the globe, somewhere, who works... but I kinda doubt that is what the author means.  Not seeing a lot of those cobalt mining children or Uighur laborers and Indian rice farmers getting work laptops.  Under the assumed author's definition, I wouldn't consider myself a "global worker" if we're talking about first world economies only, since my work is not global and only serves customers inside my own country (though I do get a work laptop).

All in all, I think the article is a macroauthoritarian wet dream.  Full of all the contradiction and befuddlement inherent to such goals of central planning.

[K Frame]

Next will be removing ownership of shoes and sandals to curb foot traffic... 

Woody

Foot traffic is a major cause of erosion, don't you know.

[WLJ]

Did you know that 99.9% of people who committed a mass shooting were wearing shoes? True story. Ban assault shoes, it's for the children.

[Ben]

But if we're not buying the latest iPhone and computer every 2-3 years then the world will go into recession, and consumers haven't been properly trained to replace!replace!replace!

Add to that the cell companies carrier protocols tend to change every 3-5 years, and a new advancement in wifi comes out every 3-5 years... 5 years is a long time to keep a phone if you're in the wrong technology window when you buy one.

I've had an S9 since 2018, and would like to keep using it, since it does everything I want, just like the S5(?) I had previous to it. However, everytime I see a security alert article on the interwebz about a critical issue and "Samsung is pushing security updates", I go to my phone and see that I haven't had a security update in nearly a year, and none are available when I check. I guess maybe they want to force me into a new phone.

[MechAg94]

Makes sense to me. This represents the gaia worshippers realizing that EVs aren't actually the great panacea that will usher in the era of low impact... just swapping one problem (burning dinosaur fuel) for another (heavy metal mining plus burning gas in power plants). I'm actually glad they might be having a moment of clarity and/or letting slip that the EV push is not a real environment movement but just a car company marketing ploy.

Cars are terribly under utilized at the best of times and it would be great if every single person didn't need a $50,000+ rapidly depreciating machine, or more, with which to sit in traffic just to go to the store. "Ride sharing" was supposed to exploit that inefficiency and I think it has a little bit. Turo is out there too but the friction seems to be just a little too much to make a dent.

But it would have the "benefit" (in their eyes) of forcing all the workers into higher density central housing closer to work locations and/or public transit.  The rich folks would still be allowed their cars to visit their country estates of course.  Rural people (trash) would just have to make due with bicycles and might be allowed a tractor if they tow the line. 

It is one of those ideas that might initially sound good to someone not used to thinking, but you can see the authoritarian horror of it pretty easily with just a small amount of analysis. 

[Nick1911]

Cars aren't going anywhere IMO.  Personal transportation on the road network is a pretty fundamental pillar of how things happen in the US.  Practical alternatives don't exist.  In addition, there's a substantial amount of industry around cars - their production, maintenance, fuel, etc.  All of these industries have economic power and will resist their market being destroyed.

[RoadKingLarry]

But it would have the "benefit" (in their eyes) of forcing all the workers into higher density central housing closer to work locations and/or public transit.  The rich folks would still be allowed their cars to visit their country estates of course. Rural people (trash) would just have to make due with bicycles and might be allowed a tractor if they tow the line. 

It is one of those ideas that might initially sound good to someone not used to thinking, but you can see the authoritarian horror of it pretty easily with just a small amount of analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06_ZkPZ8wPY

[zahc]

Actually in most European cities, it's the rich people without cars. Google "bakfietsmoeder", a phenomenon where cargo bikes popping up is a harbinger of gentrification.

The current party in the Netherlands ran on a promise to remove 10,000 parking spaces from Amsterdam. It's what people wanted, because they figured out cars are a menace. American cities will figure it out too, but only after exhausting all other possibilities and going broke.

Paris in particular, having a car is not a privilege for the rich. It's now a signal that you must be poor and live in the outskirts with all the immigrants and can't afford a place in the city. The mayor Ann Hidalgo is doubling down on this by continuing to ban cars from more places, and most of the opposition to it is people saying it's not equitable against those who are so poor they need to drive.

Personally I'm generally a fan of reducing or banning cars from city centers. There used to be a multilane highway running under the Eiffel tower, and multilane highways on each side of the river. I can't imagine the noise and chaos and pollution, and all for what. I don't know anyone who wants to go back to that. But there's probably a balance where you can depriorotize cars too much, and maybe Paris will find it. Meanwhile in the US we can spend tens of billions on highways that we can't and never plan to maintain, but can't seem to build literally anything else.

[dogmush]

Actually in most European cities, it's the rich people without cars. Google "bakfietsmoeder", a phenomenon where cargo bikes popping up is a harbinger of gentrification.

The current party in the Netherlands ran on a promise to remove 10,000 parking spaces from Amsterdam. It's what people wanted, because they figured out cars are a menace. American cities will figure it out too, but only after exhausting all other possibilities and going broke.

Paris in particular, having a car is not a privilege for the rich. It's now a signal that you must be poor and live in the outskirts with all the immigrants and can't afford a place in the city. The mayor Ann Hidalgo is doubling down on this by continuing to ban cars from more places, and most of the opposition to it is people saying it's not equitable against those who are so poor they need to drive.

Personally I'm generally a fan of reducing or banning cars from city centers. There used to be a multilane highway running under the Eiffel tower, and multilane highways on each side of the river. I can't imagine the noise and chaos and pollution, and all for what. I don't know anyone who wants to go back to that. But there's probably a balance where you can depriorotize cars too much, and maybe Paris will find it. Meanwhile in the US we can spend tens of billions on highways that we can't and never plan to maintain, but can't seem to build literally anything else.

Paris: 70.7 Square Miles
Amsterdam: 84.68 square Miles
New York: 302.6 Square Miles
Los Angeles: 502 Square Miles

[cordex]

Personally I'm generally a fan of reducing or banning cars from city centers.

What about vans?

[lee n. field]

But it would have the "benefit" (in their eyes) of forcing all the workers into higher density central housing closer to work locations and/or public transit.  The rich folks would still be allowed their cars to visit their country estates of course.  Rural people (trash) would just have to make due with bicycles and might be allowed a tractor if they tow the line. 

"Sustainable agriculture" == ag work being done by muscle power, on plantations, by gangs of men with hand implements and horse drawn equipment.  Boss man lives in the Great House.

It is one of those ideas that might initially sound good to someone not used to thinking, but you can see the authoritarian horror of it pretty easily with just a small amount of analysis.

[230RN]

Reply #6 on: April 18, 2023, 07:47:35 PM »
Quote from: bedlamite on April 18, 2023, 07:41:06 PM

    Update; you will need a subscription for those.

    https://www.on-running.com/en-us/collection/cyclon

I don't often use this word but that's retarded.

Agreed.  Advertisers ought to monitor their advertising agencyies' activities better.  "Hey !  Is that supposed to make it sell, or is it just an exercise in artsy-fartsy?"
....

This thread reminds me of the old "down east" adage:

Must be recited aloud with a heavy New England accent...

              Buy it cheap.

              Make it do.

              Use it up.

              Do without.

              Ayup.

Terry, 230RN

[Pb]

Large cities are overwhelmingly leftist.  If you can't have a car, it is easier to force people to live together in crowded cities, where left wing pols can more easily control your life.

[zahc]

Some people like cities. Not everyone who live there are "forced". I would say the vast majority are not.

There is nothing inherently leftist about living in a city. Or walking. Conversely nothing turns otherwise conservative or libertarian people into raving statists like discussing transportation policy and city planning.

It IS true that most cities are majority Democrat, but it's a mistake not to consider why that is the case. In fact it is the dominant strategic blunder of the republican party, since to a first approximation, all people live in cities, and cities are the only thing that matters in terms of getting elected. It would be great if the republican party would remove their heads from their rears and stop pushing policies and candidates that city dwellers basically can't get behind. It seems the republican party has chosen the rural side of the rural-urban divide, and that's obviously the short end of the stick. I reject the idea that policies have to be either/or or zero sum, and I think the urban/rural divide is a smokescreen. But I guess it's what you get with our two-party, winner take all system. The chips would fall between ketchup and mayo if there were nothing else to choose sides over.

[Pb]

It would be great if the republican party would remove their heads from their rears and stop pushing policies and candidates that city dwellers basically can't get behind.

What policies should Republicans push to get city dwellers to vote for them?  Honest question.

[MechAg94]

Actually in most European cities, it's the rich people without cars. Google "bakfietsmoeder", a phenomenon where cargo bikes popping up is a harbinger of gentrification.

The current party in the Netherlands ran on a promise to remove 10,000 parking spaces from Amsterdam. It's what people wanted, because they figured out cars are a menace. American cities will figure it out too, but only after exhausting all other possibilities and going broke.

Paris in particular, having a car is not a privilege for the rich. It's now a signal that you must be poor and live in the outskirts with all the immigrants and can't afford a place in the city. The mayor Ann Hidalgo is doubling down on this by continuing to ban cars from more places, and most of the opposition to it is people saying it's not equitable against those who are so poor they need to drive.

Personally I'm generally a fan of reducing or banning cars from city centers. There used to be a multilane highway running under the Eiffel tower, and multilane highways on each side of the river. I can't imagine the noise and chaos and pollution, and all for what. I don't know anyone who wants to go back to that. But there's probably a balance where you can depriorotize cars too much, and maybe Paris will find it. Meanwhile in the US we can spend tens of billions on highways that we can't and never plan to maintain, but can't seem to build literally anything else.

At core of all of that is cities where zoning and other restrictions drive everything else.  Poor people can't live in the city center because they don't let new housing get built.  Same thing happens in LA and San Francisco.  The car issue is only a small piece. 

As far as I see, I don't think we have an issue maintaining the highways in my area.  They do just fine.  And I would point out it isn't the cars that cause most of the road damange.  It is the big heavy trucks passing through that do most of the damage over time.  Even if you restrict cars, you aren't going to eliminate trucks delivering supplies. 

As we have said other times I think, if I choose to go without a car/truck, that is my choice if I can make it work.  I definitely don't want some elitist scumbag in govt telling me I have to go without my car/truck.