Getting trapped in a building with a mass shooter is something very, very unlikely. On the other hand, I face the danger of death by automobile at least twice a day, on my ride to work, and my ride home. More, if I go other places. It may seem not that bad because it's so normalized. Dying in or under the wheels of a car is something that happens to people every single day, and it barely rates a mention in the local news. Sometimes the victim doesn't get even get a name. By contrast, the stochastic nature of mass shootings makes them scary, like plane crashes or terrorist attacks, the natural order of things is upended. Death is death, though, and I wouldn't be less dead if it were a texting driver rather than a gunman.
And the texting driver is a whole hell a of a lot more likely. So, yes, it's entirely logical that I'm afraid of that. Not being able to understand and denying that fear is exactly the kind of car-induced sociopathy that I'm talking about.
They're not the same. This is privilege speaking, I know, but gun violence mostly occurs between people who know each other. I'm not in those circles or neighborhoods, so only the occasional mass shooting might affect me.
But cars? They're omnipresent. There's a steady stream of them in front of my home, so I can't avoid the danger. My life is threatened by cars every damn day, and my quality of life degraded by them. And you can't tell me that driving a car around a city is anything but sociopathic disregard for the well-being of others, because that's what it amounts to.
An automobile, at the end of the day, is a luxury item. A toy. Humanity existed for most of its history without cars, and even today, you can get to work or the grocery store without one. (Granted, often not easily, but that's only because we've made it difficult to get there any other way. But making it difficult was a deliberate policy choice designed to exclude poor people.) One could argue that the automobile is an anti-tool, as its use is making our lives materially worse (traffic violence, health impacts, pollution, ecosystem destruction, climate change, the burden on government and personal budgets), but that ignores a car's major function as a cultural identity marker, and for wealth signaling. We humans value that a lot. Consider, as but one common example, the enormous pickup truck used as a commuter vehicle, known as a pavement princess, bro-dozer, or gender-affirming vehicle.
In that way, they're exactly the same as firearms, which are most often today used as a cultural identity marker. (Often by the same people who drive a pavement princess, and in support of the same cultural identity.) Firearms are also also luxury toys in that people enjoy going to the firing range and blasting away hundreds of dollars for the enjoyment of it. But beyond that, the gun people have a pretty legit argument, too, that their firearms are tools used for hunting and self-defense. They are undeniably useful in certain contexts, and no substitute will do. One certainly wouldn't send mounted cavalry with sabers into war today.
I appreciate the gamer aesthetic when scientists need to buy gear with the power to run scientific calculations for relatively cheap. The RGB lights under the case windows bring a bit of pizzazz to the laboratory.
Who set those rules? Is there standards body that promulgates them? I remember that social media emerged as a term to describe media on which the users provided the content, rather than traditional gatekeepers like newspapers and TV networks. Wikipedia agrees, using special jargon, distinguishing between monologic and dialogic media models.
That just makes it worse! (From my point of view here.) People behaving reprehensibly because an authority figure asked them to do it? That's just the Milgram experiment, but without any apparent hesitation!
It may not be the most poetic, but I'm partial to the word holdfast, which is a biological structure that anchors organisms to surfaces. "Hold fast" was an order given to sailors of yore, telling them to grab tightly onto the ship to avoid being washed overboard in storms. The word suggests images of kelp, mussels, or sponges doing the same, determinedly holding fast against the waves, figurative and literal.
The Milgram experiment. The Zimbardo prison experiment. The bystander effect. At the end of the day, humans are just monkeys with smart watches. As social primates, it's really hard to be the one to stand up against the crowd. Our brains decide how to act based largely on the reactions of other humans around us.
What the hell is it with the Sterling Archer window borders? Y'know, where the active window is black, and the inactive windows are slightly darker black?
Buildings plopped down in a rectangle with a standard layout—boxy building with door facing parking lot—with no ornamentation, no contextual clues about what's inside, and worst, no consideration or design dialogue whatsoever with the surroundings. It's like a city as Lego set, each building on its own bar plate, and they can be shuffled around in any order. Designers talk about design language, and this style says, "fuck you."
Food that just shows up at your door after ordering from an app, made by a "ghost kitchen." Possibly located in one of those boxes-with-a-parking-lot. No connection to other humans. (Or is that a tire distributor's headquarters? No way to tell.)
Company web sites with no information about who runs the company, or where it is, or much about its connection to the community. The product is probably made on spec by an anonymous Chinese factory, so even if you can talk to somebody, they're either in a contract call center serving hundreds of companies, or somebody not paid enough to care.
Speaking of low-paid lackeys, the fast food-ification of the landscape. They're getting rid of dining rooms, so your only human interaction is briefly through a window. If you're lucky. They're working on getting rid of that, too. Then, you're sealed behind a windshield, in cars that get more fortress-like every year, never seeing another human face.
A lot of people say that they're introverts and hate people and like it this way, but we also have a pandemic of loneliness and poor mental health , so...
EVs don't put out tailpipe emissions while in operation, sure, but that's an highly reductive view of the system. The latest numbers I've found show that an EV car has about 30% of the total lifecycle CO2 emissions as an ICE vehicle. That's production, operation, maintenance, and disposal. A lot better, so if we drastically cut back on the number of vehicle miles traveled, that'd be a win. But that's not what's happening. Instead, the profusion of cheap EVs in China means that more people can afford them, there will be more vehicles on the road, we double down on automobile infrastructure and lifestyles, and the environment, human health, and long-term sustainability will take a hit. It's the Jevons Paradox, which says that if we find a way to use a resource more efficiently, we use more of it.
What's more, the transition to EVs won't even stop the CO2 emissions. The emissions will just come from a new source. World-wide, we have a fully-functioning fossil fuel extraction industry. Petrochemicals are the energy and raw material input for so many industrial processes (including the production of EVs), it's not going to shut down. If we stop using it for fuel in our vehicles, the law of supply and demand means it'll get cheaper for other uses, which will ramp up. Indeed, our total global CO2 emissions keep rising.
What's necessary is to re-design our societal systems to solve a bunch of problems, like the ecological catastrophe of habitat destruction and collapsing insect and bird populations, or the looming fresh water shortages, which don't get much press because of the climate change issue. Drastically reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled to 10% of the current level would have a much greater impact, even if all of those miles were all done in ICE vehicles, compared to maintaining the current VMT but doing them in EVs. That's why I don't agree that EVs are necessary to lower CO2 emissions from ICE vehicles. It would be really great if we drastically reduced VMT, and did those miles in EVs, but that's not at all what's happening.
(I've ignored the last-mile logistics issue because it's small potatoes by comparison.)
It's a multi-generational problem, so we should start fixing it now. Why is it going to be easier to solve 30-50 years from now? Why should we wait until we've transitioned to EVs to start the process? What is it about EVs is going to make that easier?
Yeah, all those losers born in Soweto in 1971 who haven't used their enormous wealth to fund a bunch of different business ventures. What are they even doing?
No, I really don't agree. Like, at all. The problem is largely that geometry of vehicles creates those highly-destructive, resource-intensive, low-density population areas, and that's the problem that we need to address. In that respect, EVs are just like any other vehicle. Same streets, same highways, same parking lots, same garages, same bi-weekly grocery runs to the store 5 miles away. We can start to address those problems (zoning, building codes, environmental regulations, land-use, tax structures, and such) now, and it won't be any easier after 20 years of further automobile-oriented development while we transition the fleet to EVs. It'll just be 20 years more entrenched. Yeah, EVs help somewhat, but the way we're approaching them now, they're like treating 10% of your cancer.
(I take that back if the EVs we're talking about here are e-bikes and micromobility devices.)
Getting trapped in a building with a mass shooter is something very, very unlikely. On the other hand, I face the danger of death by automobile at least twice a day, on my ride to work, and my ride home. More, if I go other places. It may seem not that bad because it's so normalized. Dying in or under the wheels of a car is something that happens to people every single day, and it barely rates a mention in the local news. Sometimes the victim doesn't get even get a name. By contrast, the stochastic nature of mass shootings makes them scary, like plane crashes or terrorist attacks, the natural order of things is upended. Death is death, though, and I wouldn't be less dead if it were a texting driver rather than a gunman.
And the texting driver is a whole hell a of a lot more likely. So, yes, it's entirely logical that I'm afraid of that. Not being able to understand and denying that fear is exactly the kind of car-induced sociopathy that I'm talking about.
Throwing insults is not a discussion, by the way.