To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars • Hacker News Board

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#341

Post by JDiculous » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 2:01 PM UTC

0xffff2 wrote: post #242

JDiculous wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subways are underground

Is this meant to contribute in some way? I honestly have no idea what this seemingly random phrase is supposed to convey.

I was replying specifically to the "in another you hear BUMP BUMP BUMP every 2 minutes" comment which seems to imply that trains must be above ground. In Manhattan, NYC you can hear the subway from the street and the noise pollution is awful (eg. ear-piercing sirens and traffic noise at all times), but it's not like that everywhere else.

I'm writing this from the 11th floor apartment in an apartment town suburb 30 minutes by subway from Seoul. It is dead silent. Very little traffic, and everything is walking distance. From above ground you don't hear the subway at all. Sound insulation in this apartment is pretty good so I never hear my neighbors (actually there's only 2 apartment units on each floor).

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#342

Post by kortilla » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 4:22 PM UTC

francisofascii wrote: post #234

kortilla wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The green new deal comes from a place completely detached from reality rather than anything remotely feasible. Remember, the green new deal not only included destruction of all fossil fuel industries (aviation, non electric cars, trucks, trains, etc) but it also included provisions for people who weren’t willing to work (used to be in the FAQ). It started as a plan to completely restructure the US into the most socia…

So you don't think 100% from renewable energy is feasible? If not, then, shouldn't we be creating policies to preserve more fossil fuel to give us more time? It is finite, after all. What exactly is your plan?

Nuclear is the only answer that works based on existing technology. Build it, subsidize it, whatever.

It’s a trivial solution that doesn’t require a fundamental restructure of the economy. It’s just not popular with the left precisely because it is too compatible with our current economic structure.

Australia alone has enough coal under it to burn for a hundred years+. Any policy that doesn’t include nuclear for base load is a policy to burn that coal.

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#343

Post by magduf » Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 6:40 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #223

magduf wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and in a democratic nation, anyone who tries to add high taxes causing their large cars to be much more expensive to own and operate will be voted out, so the only thing that can really stop them is when the price of fuel is forced up by sheer lack of supply.

Lack of supply is not sufficient to raise the price enough. To keep climate change below a 2 degree rise, we must leave 4/5ths of our current oil reserves in the ground. And not only that, once oil reaches ~$80 / bbl, vast amounts of tar sands become viable, increasing our oil reserves massively.

So I guess that means that they won't be stopped until some other external force I didn't account for stops them.

Re: To build the cities of the future, we must get out of our cars

#344

Post by Kaiyou » Mon, Apr 01, 2019, 3:15 PM UTC

dkural wrote: post #302

Kaiyou wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would not wanting to share your life with them be racist? Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. It has nothing to do with who you want and don't want to have in your neighborhood. And people should be allowed to choose whom to associate with.

Imagine not wanting to have someone in your neighborhood only because that person is black, without you needing to know anything else. That sole fact of their skin color makes up your mind that you don't want them in your neighborhood, without asking if they're a good person, an honest person, a friendly person.. they're simply disqualified without you asking any additional question. You can imagine if someone doesn'…

I don't see anything wrong with that. If I move out to a place without blacks, because it's a place without blacks and I am the one that moved, why should I have to accept them following me? That's not racism. That's wanting to be left alone. It's also not unfair. Forcing someone to move is unfair. Moving out on your own and preventing people you don't like from moving in isn't unfair.