• downpunxx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    alternate take: personal freedom of movement, whether bidedal, or automated, is a thing of value, as is electricity, clean running water, and a majority of what modern technology provides. it, like most everything else can be done better, and cleaner. not the same argument as smoking, which was always an “entertainment”, as apposed to transportation and perambulation which are a necessity. thank you for coming to my ted talk.

    • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly right. We should celebrate the possibilities and freedom that modern technology gives us. EVs are an amazing invention and nitpicking for tiny issues that they don’t solve is a level beyond First World Problems.

      • Michal@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only things EV’s solve is emissions. They reduce emissions in cities which is great, and thanks to clean power plants (renewable and nuclear) help reduce overall emissions. But they are still cars, still take up space, they are heavier so cause more wear on the road surfaces and emit tire particles. I wouldn’t say these are tiny issues.

        If we have to use cars then yes, electric are better, but it’s not the solution. The solution should aim at reducing use of the inefficient forms of transport in favor of mass transit or micro mobility.

        • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Better urban planning, as well. We can’t do anything about cars as long as we build entire communities to accommodate cars. We’ve gone from people owning cars to cars owning society.

  • guyrocket@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was surprised when I was quitting smoking that my friend (who also smoked) was advocating vaping instead. I asked: Why not just quit completely?

    I do think vaping is less dangerous than actually smoking but not doing either one is best for your health. Even getting “hooked” on nicotine gum or similar is better than smoking or vaping. But again, best to just quit nicotine / smoking / vaping completely.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      nicotine gum is probably as bad or nearly as bad as vaping since nicotine is the aspect of it that is proven to be especially bad for you.

  • DasherPack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, I can imagine that. Tobacco companies have been selling better smoking (first, electric cigarettes, then vapes) for decades.

    Without control, companies will always want to sell more

    • ElleChaise@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      First the cigarette itself was marketed as better than rolling your own. Next came filters, so called “light” and “ultralight” versions of existing products, electric cigs, then finally vapes.

    • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine if we ran out of war. All those jobs in the military and the military industrial complex!

  • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Regardless of how you power it, bringing thousands of pounds of steel with you to get to work or buy grocceries is inefficient. Cities really need to rethink the way they build and zone to promote higher densities and encourage walkability.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not even the energy that’s really the issue; it’s the space. Cars ruin cities by physically forcing origins and destinations to be far apart with wastelands of pavement in between. It destroys the viability of transit, makes it both laborious and downright unpleasant to walk, and even screws cities over financially because worthless pavement doesn’t generate tax revenue, but costs a lot to maintain.

    • Redrum714@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why the fuck would you want to walk to the grocery store and back?

      Pretending people would rather do that than use a car makes you straight up delusional

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I really enjoy walking to my grocer instead of driving. I walk through a quiet neighbourhood with some large trees. Theres a hill with a nice view midway.

        • Redrum714@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hauling 50 pounds of groceries a couple miles is not enjoyable for the vast majority of people.

          • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You need to rethink how cities are designed for walking to grocery stores to work. It won’t in the US, because everything is designed for cars. But if a city is designed right, you won’t need to go miles before finding a grocery store. You can take a cargo bike to haul more things at a time. You can stop by shops on your way home from work to pick up a couple things and stick them in a backpack.

            Cities designed correctly reduce the burden on those walking or biking between points of interest that are no more than 1 or 2 miles away.