> To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development.
This sounds like an assumption without obvious proof.
This sounds like an assumption without obvious proof.
we can and should use our limited hydrocarbons to bootstrap our way to higher-potential energy sources. but "using less" is a misguided assumption
Walking is also good, and it would probably do us good to personally increase humans' basal metabolism.
Changing society is hard isn't an excuse to continue the status quo, nor some edge case you envisioned is an excuse to not encourage walking, cycling, or public transit whenever possible.
It's not automatically true that having cars increase the quality of life.
Sure some of our daily tasks would be easier, but we simply don't want to own or maintain a tractor and appreciate a hard day's work.
I can say first hand that my quality of life is greater by skipping the diesel-powered tool that most would consider a must, and I'm well aware that most in my position would consider having the tractor as a quality of life improvement. Neither view is wrong, they just require more context and a recognition that quality of life is relative.
Of course. If you ever drove downtown during rush hours, it is a miserable experience.
If you want to see people riding bike, see youtube videos about Finland. If you have the right clothes, or the right infrastructure and support, a lot of things are suddenly possible and easy.
But of course, noticed that I said reduction of cars, not a total elimination of cars.
We do not need a car for any and all activity. There will be a time and place when you need to haul large amount of materials, for example.
Vehicles are also expensive and can be stressful to maintain and pay for. Choosing to remove a cat from your life and finding a way to make that work can be a net positive long term. Obviously that wouldn't work for everyone, but if it works for some then we have to accept that more cars don't always equal higher standard of living.