I want to live in a world without cars

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

stroopwafel:

Motorcycles are scary. One small mistake and you're a clump of red meat. I agree driving is potentially dangerous as well but I still feel safer in that little box. :p

Arguably it's more dangerous in total if you include other people's safety. Arguably being a motorcyclist wouldbe safer if everybody else were motorcyclists.

9 times out of 10 accidents involving motorcyclists and car drivers, it's going to be the car drivers' fault. Now I know; "Every accident involves some degree of culpability, you need to be aware of your surroundings so you don't pay for other's mistakes..." yadda-yadda-yadda.It's probably the only time when potential victimblamingis actually adequate. Because car drvers are horrendous murder machines who lose half their sensory awareness as soon as they get behind a wheel. When you jump on a bike, just assume car drivers(and truckies, etc) are going to get you killed. It's good advice, don't get me wrong ... but when you tally up total culpability car drivers are mostly at fault.

So you might feel 'safe' in that little box, but everyone (including you) are a little less safe by others being in their little boxes.

I mean cars have super comfy seats that you can fall asleep in, air conditioned cabins which can also lead to drowsiness, loud music that blunts their hearing and actively narrows even your visual awareness of stuff around you, massive blindspots in car designs, low maneuverability....

Sure you're safer in your little box, but everyone else is unsafer for you and your little box... including you and other people's little boxes.

And while people can make the argument that 'one mistake' on a motorcycle, I know I personally have evaded serious accidents from happening by being far more alert and quicker than a car driver could ever be, that would end up going underneath truck tyres.

I will say this ... being a motorcyclist you suddenly understand why dolphins love to swim right behind ferries and other fast moving, deep hull vessels. There is this sweet spot behind a truck's air displacement wake that is fun to play with.

In the end it's about what you're willing to risk to enjoy things. I know smokers who smoke because they enjoy it ... now you can argue that maybe that's merely to excuse their addiction, or turn it into something it's not. But in a way youcan say that about being a foodie, an adrenaline junkie (dumb term ... I feel like anyone that uses it unironically is merely a glum, depressed person)...

That being said I'll never go base jumping ... because the ridiculous odds of dying. Idon'tseethe thrill to danger ratio being worth it. But someone will tell me the danger is part of the thrill... and I'd be a hypocrite to disagree with them. I enjoyed free climbing for a while back when I was in selection... but even back in that peak of physical training, I wouldn't go free climbing the Rockies in the U.S. out of pocket for shits and giggles. I had to do it a couple of times during training, but that doesn't mean I want to make it a persistent lifestyle choice.

Still not going to dismiss people who do, however. They're living life, and I can't think of a better and more life-affirming choice than poiningt at a mountain range and telling people they're going to fuck off for two weeks while they go conquer it with scant supplies and only their gloves and boots.

Ezekiel:
No cars = Everything closer together.

Geography isn't going to shrink just because cars are gone.

Victim of Progress:
Perhaps this just in the UK, but a lot of the roads would be efficient if roadside parking was removed. Which would significantly reduce car usage and speed up the lanes.

Whilst I agree; where would the cars park?

Loop Stricken:

Ezekiel:
No cars = Everything closer together.

Geography isn't going to shrink just because cars are gone.

Honestly I think the problem is worse than that. People's interpersonal geography will shrink. Basically you're going to have to give preferential housing to people who work within aset radius to their location of labour. So HD housing + some nigh inscrutable bureaucratic process that determines eligibility of housing based on needs toget someplace.

Agriculture is a thorn because much of agricultural industry is itinerant work. Shearers aren't shearers all year long, and while pre-car Australia's colonial frontiers worked around that by expecting station masters to provide temporary housing and multifaceted work duties over the year (fencing, etc), that's not really applicable for the type of industry you'll need to facilitate a personal transport-less future. Namely small farmholds on the outskirts of cities, dedicated to scaled mass supply.

Basically if a farm can't get their produce on a railyard for transport that day to make it to the ports by tomorrow morning for processing and dispatch, then you're going to have problems. And it is bloody expensive to justify a railyard within all agricultural centers of trade.

And that's not even covering the idea of fisheries where rail options might even be more limited.

Moreover, it does lead to questions of personal liberty as well. I think it's necessary for personal liberty that people canreasonably find means to travel alone. You want people who can explore, and it's human impulse to experience the world ... and I honestly think that it's a moral duty of people to want to experience the natural world and realize why it's important ...

I would love to see more kids experience the exposed chill of mountain air without having a space heater or air conditioning. It's important for kids to know how to swim, experience hiking thrrough mud, dealing with callouses and blisters and learning how to start a fire. Basic survival techniques that give them the means to understand they can do it if they need to. Too many kids lead lives of sanitized introspection ... left to themselves in sterile corners of the world without developing a core idea of their power to accomplish things like climbing a mountain and how to gut and descale fish. Then we wonder why they end up depressed and as hollow and lifeless as the city terrains they meander about. Left only to the devices of imagination rather than real-time reality testing of pitting themselves against the cruel majesty of the natural world.

Homo sapiens spent 99% of its existence traversing on foot ridiculous distances over extended journeys. Cities as we know them are like the ring fingernail on the extended arm of human existence. I'm not entirely convinced cities (as much as I love them as a concept and proof of humanity's capacity to live in benign extended communes of labour and society) ... are all that healthy a structure for humans to begin with.

Not saying humans should carve out a niche for themselves in the wild ... that's another extreme that I don't think wouldbe healthy, either ... but it does mean we should balance cities with naturalco-existence and interrelations. Hence whyI think it's a moral duty to pursue environmentalism because I'm not convinced that humans can be healthy living in a manufactured bubble of civilization. You need the great outdoors to provide the romance of humans being a living creature in a living world.

Not saying this is somehow impossible through only public transport, but it's going to be a hell of a lot more expensive and you will run the risk of turning whatever terminus points of public trannsport to accommodate this into justas sterile, meaningless tourist locations that will leave them wanting.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

9 times out of 10 accidents involving motorcyclists and car drivers, it's going to be the car drivers' fault.

I'm not sure I agree with this (by which I mean 'I do not agree with this'). I've got a bike licence, though I haven't ridden in about five years, but some of the truly dumb shit I see people do on bikes makes me doubt that it's as high as 9 in 10. Yes, some drivers are shockingly bad (though in the UK a bike licence is easy to obtain, it's a weekend course), and while I see plenty of crappy Subaru drivers (a shame, because I really like the Impreza), I have yet to see one do a wheelie along Front Street. Or overtake between two lorries. Etc.

Some car drivers are just plain dickheaded when it comes to bikes (like deliberately making the gap too small to pass on a dual carriageway in traffic, just because they have to wait in the traffic) but I'd not put it as high as 9 in 10.

Baffle2:

I'm not sure I agree with this (by which I mean 'I do not agree with this'). I've got a bike licence, though I haven't ridden in about five years, but some of the truly dumb shit I see people do on bikes makes me doubt that it's as high as 9 in 10. Yes, some drivers are shockingly bad (though in the UK a bike licence is easy to obtain, it's a weekend course), and while I see plenty of crappy Subaru drivers (a shame, because I really like the Impreza), I have yet to see one do a wheelie along Front Street. Or overtake between two lorries. Etc.

Some car drivers are just plain dickheaded when it comes to bikes (like deliberately making the gap too small to pass on a dual carriageway in traffic, just because they have to wait in the traffic) but I'd not put it as high as 9 in 10.

I admit that my statistics might be skewed in the idea that ... well Australia is nowhere near as packed full of humans, and many bike riders I know (incl. myself) who live in places like Sydney city proper merely walk to work or shopping, or take public transport. When travelling outside the city is when I get on my bike, and when you have open road or flowing/partial congestion which you're more likely to experience in Australia.

Australia is incredibly urbanized despite basically having a continent all too ourselves. Somewhere in the league of 91% urbanization. Something ridiculous. It rivals or beats places like Malaysia who have a higher population and a miniscule amount of land. But at the same time we're a commuter heavy population ... with many people spending upwards of an hour anda half just to get to work each morning, because they want thaat outskirts of Sydney living (where you can actually own a house) ... even if they have to work in the city proper ....

Now unless all motorcyclists is going to do a sustained wheelie for one and a half hours, or across open road or partialcongested traffic conditions relative to the number oftimescars will justcut lanes because they think it's clear what do you think is going to cause more accidents? Or the number of times when police have to get called in because of a simple fenderbender between cars becomes a potential bike wreck with serious injuries at a set of lights when stuff like this actually gets properly tallied?

It may also have something to do with the hardship involved in getting a motorcycle licence in Australia and the rigourous limitations on allowing riders to begin with. Even when I was a kid getting my bike livcence, you had to do a two day, 8 hour/day rider training course to get your learners at 16 ... then within 6 months, you had to do a 10 hour one day riding test, with 3hour longpractical riding test .... if you fail, or you go past the time period, you have to do the learner's training course again.

Now the first time I went through it, about 50% of people failed. They did something illegal, or they simply didn't have the prerequisite skills to be considered 'safe'. Compare that to car drivers who when I was going for it as a kid, you erely sat down to do a 20 question multiple choice test ... you could even fail one or two questions and that would be 'okay'.

Loop Stricken:

Ezekiel:
No cars = Everything closer together.

Geography isn't going to shrink just because cars are gone.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Loop Stricken:

Ezekiel:
No cars = Everything closer together.

Geography isn't going to shrink just because cars are gone.

Honestly I think the problem is worse than that. People's interpersonal geography will shrink. Basically you're going to have to give preferential housing to people who work within aset radius to their location of labour. So HD housing + some nigh inscrutable bureaucratic process that determines eligibility of housing based on needs toget someplace.

Well hey, shoving tens of thousands of people into a city the size of a lunchbox has never been a problem in the past...

shrekfan246:

Well hey, shoving tens of thousands of people into a city the size of a lunchbox has never been a problem in the past...

Heh... I'm adyed in the wool believer that HD housing is te way of thefuture. Also underground construction techniques to increase land use efficiency. When people have this cyberpunk ideaof living in the mid to late 21st century they envision fuck-you sized skyscrapers, but I think it will more be what we have now ... only converting underground parking into basically underground living complexes.

Which I'm honesty all for, actually. Even in Sydney you can spend an entire day shopping, eating and moving about underground, and I spent time in a converted mineshaft home in the Australian interior where living conditions above ground are too hot that it is inimical to human health. That underground living, with rooms chiseled out of the rock and sand from converted mineshafts, and fortified against earth movement with cement render and steel. It works well ... regardless of how deadly hot and swiftly cold surface temperatures can be, these underground living complexes maintaina steady 22 degrees C.

I'm a big fan of the idea of underground cities. Save a shit load on heating/aircon. Course you'd need to pump fresh air from above so how cheap it might be when it gets as congested as aboveground is a question. Also the question of geological stability, I imagine. It's all well and good inAustralia which is geologically stable/ Underground cities in San Francisco might pose a different question as to potential death toll from emergencies. Also a question of how much future governments might give a shit about that threat assessment.

Underground HD housing and living ... gets a thumbs up from me. The Walled City is, however, a towering reminder that there is such a thing as 'too many humans and buildings' in one place.

It's also a question of 'heat islands'. In Sydney you have heat islands due to poor planning of construction in prior generations, because it's a bit hard to envision over a quarter of all Australians choosing to live and crowd about one city when they have a continent to play on. Basically Australia is already a warning to other countries that think theycan justpackso many people into one small area. The necessary frameworks to allow for the transport of people through it create heat sinks that have no easy way to be ventilated. And some of it is huge ... 3/4 degrees and upwards hotter than would otherwise be felt without the urbanization. Basically it's the doomsday idea of climate change due and felt solely to human crowding.

It's especially bad when you consider it's a coastal city that should already have better than average ventilation than would otherwise be afforded of inland cities like Paris.

You can make the argument that Sydney gets pretty bloody warm, but when you consider that how hot these islands get now doesn't take into account the potential global warming conditions of human industry on the rest of the planet you'll probably start seeing these heat islands even in more temperate cities.

Packing shit loads of humans into one area also affects rainfall conditions. The waste heat actually changes meteorological effects thataffect hundreds of miles around it ... so any drastic population density changes and changes to the natural environment through skyscraper construction and paving of what would be heat dispersing grass, trees and soil into heat sinks of tiles, bitumen, and cement need to be accommodated for.

So another tick for underground cities if they can guarantee far more temperate living conditions.

With some hard work, New York will be one. That's all of the world that matters anyways.

If you live outside of a city, most of this thread becomes absurd magical thinking. I live 30 minutes away from any store that isn't a convenience store, due to living in an agricultural community. Are we supposed to live as hermits, making everything that we use ourselves? Or should we tear up the farms and build them around planned urban centers? Is everyone who lives there doomed to the farmer caste since they're too far away from any other place to commute and seek other jobs?

As for the described cities, they sound like nightmarish soviet-esque hellscapes where all green and open areas are replaced by identical blocks of concrete brutalist housing and everyone lives only within small, insular communities. A community planned like this is the kind of environment that usually only shows up in young adult dystopia novels.

I drove two and a half hours to visit a good friend who lives in a very similar environment. This would not be possible without cars, even with amazing public transportation. Cars need to be made more environmentally friendly, and public transportation needs to expand, and wasteful uses of a car should be curbed by better alternatives. But cars are, ultimately, a very good thing.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

It may also have something to do with the hardship involved in getting a motorcycle licence in Australia and the rigourous limitations on allowing riders to begin with. Even when I was a kid getting my bike livcence, you had to do a two day, 8 hour/day rider training course to get your learners at 16 ... then within 6 months, you had to do a 10 hour one day riding test, with 3hour longpractical riding test .... if you fail, or you go past the time period, you have to do the learner's training course again.

Now the first time I went through it, about 50% of people failed. They did something illegal, or they simply didn't have the prerequisite skills to be considered 'safe'. Compare that to car drivers who when I was going for it as a kid, you erely sat down to do a 20 question multiple choice test ... you could even fail one or two questions and that would be 'okay'.

I think the system in the UK has changed since I got my licences (for cars, at least), but here getting a bike licence is fairly easy. You do the CBT (compulsory basic training; 1 day training) so you can go on the road on a 125CC bike (50CC if under 17), then you have two years to do the proper test which gives you access to any size bike you want (though the are still some restrictions if you're under 21; engines restricted to 33bhp). It's a long time since I did my test, but I think it was only about half-hour and wasn't very difficult. I don't think you even have to do the CBT bit if you have a car licence.

Getting a driving licence is still quite easy considering what you're being put in charge of, but takes a lot more effort and time (and is a lot more expensive in terms of lessons, etc.). It also feels much more officially regulated though that's possibly my perception - we have official testing centres for drivers, but my bike test was overseen by the same private company that I did my two-day course with (direct access I think it is called).

Ezekiel:
No cars = Everything closer together. Cities are more village-like. No streets and parking lots wasting HUGE spaces. Practically anything you would need is within walking distance. No noise 24/7. No crosswalks. Clean air.

Listen to this lady who's lived in the wilderness for seventy years talk about smog.

Begins at 20 minutes: https://youtu.be/tt2AYafET68?t=20m23s

My society would have only public transports, making the streets thinner and less numerous. Taxis would only be available for situations in which they're absolutely necessary.

Look, if that's a lifestyle you want to lead then go bananas mate. But don't sit there and think that basically cutting the most basic form of personal logistics out of our life would be anything other than a massive pain in the fucking arse.

I live in a smallish city where i can reach most things by walking and already public transport is a nigtmare even though busses come every 10 mins or so, i can only imagine what it would look like without cars..

I share that sentiment, OP:
image

But i'm afraid people are to used to them, so it'll be easier to adapt yourself to the enviroment, than adapt enviroment to you. Looks like all that's left is to become an elderly woman living in the middle of Siberia.

As someone who has lived in London where everything you need is in walking distance and public transportation can get you everywhere that isn't, I have three words for OP.

HELL.
FUCKING.
NO.

You want to be crammed into a tiny place filled with people who don't know what the phrase personal hygiene means, reliant on a system not fucking up, and then needing to be reliant on the backups not fucking up when the system does fuck up? Be my guest. Just don't make the rest of us suffer for your utopia.

Have you heard of those Amish chappies? They seemed to be on a similar wavelength.

Speaking as someone who lived seven miles from school (and did sometimes walk it, so I do know what a colossal pain that would be daily), and who migrated for work, that seems to be an absurd idea in every possible way. Less mobility makes the world further apart not smaller, because you can't even go to that shop in the next town without it being a mission, for example.

I want to live in a world where Christina Hendricks wakes me up with milk and cookies every morning, you don't see me making a thread about it.

Really, Christina Hendricks every morning and the best you could come up with was milk and cookies?

I notice no one has asked the obvious question, does the OP currently use or intend to use a car in the future because if the answer is anything other than NO then this entire topic is absurd.

Time to pick holes in this Utopian stuidity

No noise 24/7. No crosswalks. Clean air.

My society would have only public transports, making the streets thinner and less numerous. Taxis would only be available for situations in which they're absolutely necessary.

Because those taxis, and public transport would run on magic fairy dust and hover an inch of the road releasing no noise or pollution what so ever and just for the sake of curiosity who gets to rule over what constitutes a necessary situation for the need of a taxi? I am also assuming that these taxis and public transport are some magical new vehicle that runs on your magical smaller roads. The last bus I saw couldn't get down the street I live in.

People in the middle of nowhere can have permits, since they're not polluting the air with congested CO2, creating so much noise pollution and using up big parking lots.

So the guys who HAVE to use the cars get a permit allowing them to use a car because they don't create as much CO2, noise pollution and don't require big car parks. You do see how stupid that statement is? In your Utopian city THEY are the only ones using cars so logically THEY are the only ones creating CO2, noise pollution and will require somewhere to park when they get where they are going. In fact some might say that your solution is kind of what already happens it's called owning a car and having a driving license with the added benefit that you don't have to live in the arse end of no where to be allowed to own a car.

As for ambulances, well, the pedestrian streets would be just wide enough for them to drive through. People would be required to step aside when they hear the siren, just like drivers. If they don't, they get a ticket.

Wow, well let assume that firstly you never have a situation that requires more than one ambblance because frankly you're fucked if the streets are JUST wide enough for one vehicle to get through, now lets move on to the idea of a street packed full of walking people (because of course they aren't in their cars) trying to get out of the way of a high speed box of white metal coming down the street that is JUST big enough to accommodate it. I assume these ambulances will be three or four times bigger than current ambulances and be staffed by six or seven doctors because that's what it will need to deal with the number of pedestrians that will get taken out while it is trying to reach the patient.

image

This...is a joke, right? This thread HAS to be a joke. There's no way OP actually thinks we can have the sort of world, the sort of society, we have today without cars and other transport vehicles, right? Right?

But sure. Let's get rid of cars. And while we're at it we can get rid of the internet, mass telecommunication, electricity, and virtually every other modern convenience we have. Let's just all go back to living in small, closed-off communities, isolated from the outside world, and drag technological and societal progression to a fucking halt.

This isn't a game of SimCity, OP. The world doesn't work like that.

Seriously, OP...the solution to virtually all of the problems you've listed isn't to 'get rid of cars', it's to make better cars. To make them more fuel efficient. To build better electric cars. To make them more reliable, less prone to failure. To make them safer. To build more self-driving vehicles.

And while you're at it, build better roads. Build more sound barriers. Find better materials for tires, so you can reduce road noise. Construct new and redesign old roads and highways so that they can handle vehicle flow more efficiently and provide more direct pathways to and between higher population centers. Build roads to be more environmentally friendly.

Getting rid of cars is just the worst idea.

Canadamus Prime:
The thought of having everything so jam packed together doesn't sound at all appealing to me.

On top of that, it would likely worsen the pollution problem.

Compacting everything a community needs into a small space would drastically increase the 'density' of pollutants pumped into the environment at one time, probably making it less likely for them to dilute and thus causing them to have a stronger adverse effect on the surrounding environs.

And this isn't even touching on other things OP's idea would affect, like population growth and genetic diversity.

Laughing Man:

I want to live in a world where Christina Hendricks wakes me up with milk and cookies every morning, you don't see me making a thread about it.

Really, Christina Hendricks every morning and the best you could come up with was milk and cookies?.

Yeah I'm with you. I can think of like ten different things I'd rather have her do for me every morning.

I'm a college student, and normally live in a dorm building on campus. When I'm not there, such as right now during the summer, I'm living with my family. We live out in the country, about a 10 minute drive from a small town, and about an hour drive away from Spokane (Large city in Washington). I personally do not own a car, nor a driver's license, due to a bit of a phobia on driving.

Without my own car, my schedule is entirely 100 percent dependent on my mother. I can't get a job during the summer because I have no way to reliably get to work. When I do have spending money, I have no way to do anything for fun because I have no way to get there. It would take quite a good part of the day just to walk into town. I honestly have not even been able to go to the local library for a few years, because of no way to reliably get there to return books even remotely close to the due date. The distance into town is far enough that I don't feel comfortable asking for a ride from my mother, because then she has to plan her entire day around me and my desires, and with four younger siblings, that's not really fair.

Living in the city is not an option because of our animals. My family used to run an animal rescue, mainly llamas and alpacas. Those would not work well in the city as you described it. We no longer have those animals, but we currently raise chickens for eggs, along with some ducks and a couple geese. Those would also not be welcome in a packed city. As far as house-pets go, we happen to own a half-dozen or so cats. Each of my siblings have their own pet, and they roam our property freely, coming in and out of the house as they wish. Do you honestly believe that having that many animals would be welcome in an apartment building, or that all of those animals would be comfortable cooped up inside of a small apartment with no freedom to go outside short of limited walks spent crowded on leashes?

Of course, this is all to prevent there from being as many cars. We don't own a special business that requires transporting materials, so we wouldn't really qualify for your emergency-qualification vehicles. My family treats our pets as family. Just the other day, we spent several hundred dollars on emergency care for our Pomeranian after she got a horrible infection that would have killed her. Go ahead, and tell my siblings that they have to pick which family members have to be gotten rid of so that we can move from a nice space in the country into a crowded apartment building.

Just popping in to represent the gear heads and say that cars are awesome. I love driving, learning about cars, watching car shows/videos/etc.

I can't wait to head back to Vegas in September to get behind the wheel of something nice again. Last time I went to one of those exotic car tracks and did 5 laps in a 458 Italia. Truly unforgettable.

Come live in mainland Europe. Especially The Netherlands and Belgium. Our cities are getting more and more wary of cars, and they're all delightfully cosy and clumped together so that biking everywhere is a fine option.

JUMBO PALACE:
Just popping in to represent the gear heads and say that cars are awesome. I love driving, learning about cars, watching car shows/videos/etc.

I can't wait to head back to Vegas in September to get behind the wheel of something nice again. Last time I went to one of those exotic car tracks and did 5 laps in a 458 Italia. Truly unforgettable.

They're awesome on tracks. In a city center, especially one with a Medieval center made for horse-drawn carts and foot traffic, they're decidedly less awesome.

I've been to Amsterdam, only place I've ever seen mail delivered by canal boat.

I live in the City of Utrecht. It's the 4th largest city of the netherlands and it's very bike friendly. Everything is within 30 minutes of cycling. That doesn't mean that the city is free of cars, however, you are not reliant on it. A bicycle is a very nice alternative to your traveling. There is a tiny island called Schiermonninkoog where there are no cars allowed from outside.

The urban sprawl of most US cities is a civil engineering issue, not a technology issue.

I don't much like the thought of walking to and from work in -40 degree weather.

I need cars and vans to transport the things that make my career possible. So I need a world that has cars.

Can we power them more intelligently? Hell yes. But to abandon the concept is something I will resist.

Yes, yes, yes, yes. I'd LOVE that. I have always hated cars. If only....

shrekfan246:

Loop Stricken:

Ezekiel:
No cars = Everything closer together.

Geography isn't going to shrink just because cars are gone.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Loop Stricken:

Geography isn't going to shrink just because cars are gone.

Honestly I think the problem is worse than that. People's interpersonal geography will shrink. Basically you're going to have to give preferential housing to people who work within aset radius to their location of labour. So HD housing + some nigh inscrutable bureaucratic process that determines eligibility of housing based on needs toget someplace.

Well hey, shoving tens of thousands of people into a city the size of a lunchbox has never been a problem in the past...

You beat me to it. That is exactly what I thought about when I read this description. The thought of living in some place like that is horrifying to me. I have a problem living in a city as it currently is. Less green space, things even closer together and I could not stand to be there at all, not even for work. I feel like I can hardly even breathe in cities, and not just from cars, but the smells from the buildings are even far worse.

Let's be honest here, people stink and you cannot control what other people do just a wall apart from you. They leave food out, filthy clothes, not washing towels and sheets and wiping sweat, mildew and bacteria all over them. Their stinky socks, underwear, rodents, and the worst is ROACHES. How people can stand to live with those things in their homes is beyond my understanding. Even seeing one Roach would be enough to make me move immediately. All of these things smell and the city stink overwhelms me when I am there. Because this isn't just a few stinky people, it is MILLIONS of stinky people with all their disgusting habits all crammed together in one place. Working in the hospital and Clinic are bad enough, even though we try to keep a sterile environment. Still you can smell the people, sometimes it overwhelms me. You can smell if they have roaches or rats as it has a distinct smell. I have lived in the city, suburbs and country and I think I am not really cut out for living in a city. I tolerate working there, but cannot relax there at all. I am unable to truly relax until I am back at home in the country in my flower garden. I have a need to be surrounded by nature. Less buildings, more plants and wildlife. People have more needs than just work, home and shopping. Some with sensitivities and allergies are not even capable of living in some environments. I have difficulty even eating in the city frequently due to the smells there making me too nauseated to eat. I do have above average sense of smell and taste, I have more fungiform papillae as I am A "supertaster":
http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/30/are-you-a-supertaster/

so what makes these smells even worse is I actually taste them. The tastes and smells in the city makes me physically ill.

I too want to rid the world of pollution, and we should strive to accomplish those goals. Though we should ALSO keep in mind that there is more to pollution than just cars. The buildings and much of what is in them is pollution as well. Some are just more sensitive to different types of pollution than others. We will always need some form of individual transportation in addition to mas transport, we just need to try and keep that transportation from being damaging as well. I do not think insanely densly populated regions are the answer, as I would like to ADD green space to existing cities, not reduce it.

Redlin5:
I need cars and vans to transport the things that make my career possible. So I need a world that has cars.

Can we power them more intelligently? Hell yes. But to abandon the concept is something I will resist.

Yea, I would not be able to function without my own transportation. How would I lug my wood, sheet metal and other materials for my home projects about every week without it? I do not use it for work, but I like to build my own furniture and many other things so I am not sure how that would work. I am constantly hauling things around. You cannot exactly carry 8ftx4ft metal sheets around with you on public transportation.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here