Comment on Resources
Genius@lemmy.zip 3 days agoThe paper assumes all the world shifting to vegetarian diet, everyone living on multiresidential buildings, somehow wood as the main building material (I don’t know how they even reconcile that with multiresidential buildings…). And half of cars usage shifting to public transport How to achieve this in rural areas it’s not mentioned at all).
Yeah, that’s totally unrealistic. We could get rid of 90% of cars and only keep ambulances and fire trucks, and most people would be happier. Also we should get everyone on a vegan diet. Vegetarian is okay, but still enslaves animals. We can do much better.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
What about people not living in cities?
Public transport for low density areas is terrible. So or you are forcing people to live in cities (where public transport can be good) or you are forcing people to endure terrible public transport.
Also forcing dietary changes on people…
I just don’t think forcing that on people would be clever. I know how I would react if anyone were to impose that way of living to me, and I can only assume that many people would react the same way.
Genius@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
I have some information that’s gonna blow your mind: people lived in rural areas for many thousands of years and cars were only invented a hundred years ago.
They lived self sufficient lives and walked to town once a month for essentials. If they were lucky, they had a mule and a wagon.
I’m guessing you live in a rural area and you think you need your car, because you’ve gotten used to driving into town every few days for fresh groceries and haircuts? Yeah, so that’s arrogant decadence. You live a cosmopolitan lifestyle with inner city conveniences, despite being out in a rural area with plenty of space and low land values, and this is made possible by your poison death machine.
The poison death machines are not sustainable. Go back to living how your ancestors did. Take the mule into town once a month for soap and molasses, or move to the city. You don’t get to have it both ways
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
I don’t want to live like people lived two thousands years ago, thanks.
Genius@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Tough shit. Your poison death machine is killing people on the other side of the world, and the only way to have a clean conscience is to get rid of it
squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yeah, there’s a bit of a conflict here: People want to live in rural areas with large plots of land and nature everywhere but want to have the comforts and amenities of living in a city center.
Before the car this was a choice that people had to make: move to the city where everything is available or to the countryside where countryside is available and hardly anything else.
The car allowed to bridge this gap to the detriment of the climate and the sustainability of life on this planet.
And now we have another conflict: luxurity for people in rural areas vs survival of the human race.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
Surely there’s a way of having people living rural, a totally valid life choice and also must needed for agriculture, having a good life, and not having a planet wide global extinction.
I get that in the US and some other countries one of the biggest divisions in voting is rural/urban, thus some people really feel vindicated on hating people that live rural and wanting to impose some penalties on them.
But if we cannot find an economic system that would lead to every person having a good life, regardless on where they live… Do we really want to have a future as a species?
astutemural@midwest.social 3 days ago
Whether ‘a good life’ is possible in rural areas depends on your definition.
Is it living like the Amish? In that case, yes.