Sure, but what about all those people who have a choice? Where is the Atlantic article excoriating Silicon Valley and companies like Facebook, Google, etc, for not moving out of the suburban wasteland to a place where it is possible to live a life that causes less violence to the environment?
I think you make a really great point here. And although I don't think buying diamonds and burning fossil fuels are equivalent evils, I do strongly believe that you always have a choice. I don't personally make a lot of money--and I have been financially supporting my boyfriend who's been working on a start-up for past last year--but leading a "green" urban lifestyle is extremely important to us. Yes, living in the city tends to be more expensive, but when you account for all the fuel you're not burning by not driving, it makes the lifestyle much more financially viable. We bike or walk absolutely everywhere we go, and although we don't have the ability to eat out all the time, we've managed to put a good amount of money into savings. My point is, if you're committed enough, there is ALWAYS a choice not to drive, not to buy diamonds, and to live a life that doesn't support things that hurt the environment and other people.
Absolutely I agree with you there. But you can't just excuse a wrong in one situation by saying that some injustice in some other unrelated situation exists... so there. And anyways, with cars you actually have a purpose... you use it to transport yourself. Sure we're burning fossil fuels, but at least there is some gray area here, there is some room for debate. There's an unquestionable utility there you have to account for -- not so with the ring, as we've discussed in another parent comment.
The Atlantic Cities is all about charting urban geography and lifestyles. They've covered tech private buses many times.