While the first part is borne out by statistics, the second is not.
To make a professionals-only drivng regimen feasible, you’d need a massive reorganization of urbanities. Suburbs would no longer be quite so desirable, etc etc.
Take your politics out of rationality.
Yikes! can you explain how something that’s a good idea for rationalists on lesswrong is bad for society? Should we keep our good ideas secret because if everyone did it the suburbs would be undesirable?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt but so far this seems more like denial than reason.
Well it certainly isn’t denial. As proof I’d offer up my lack of any kind of driving license or vehincle ownership throughout my life.
The idea itself is not what is bad for society. The badness here is the political-ish applying of an idea without thinking through the consequences and dealing with them.
I would certainly not encourage keeping any ideas secret, for then how would the corollaries be resolved?
Suburbs are the scum of the earth. It is an infeasible extrapolation of the american dream, it uses up good agricultural soil and it is quantifiably more awesome to live in highrise buildings in the city.
This comment seems to have suddenly go at lot of attention, despite the fact that I am reasonably sure this thread is about semi-offensive/semi-joking comments and that my past self posted it in that spirit.
Man, sometimes your mental state moves so fast you can look a month back and thing “What an idiot.”
I do still hold the opinion that suburban housing is ecologically and economically unsustainable, taking up potential farmland and forcing large parts of the population to acquire automobiles that pollute and require large amounts of raw materials to construct.
EDIT: Maybe I should just make it a habit to retract stuff I said when I disagree with my past self.
I always thought that “mold” was the spelling for that meaning and “mould” was the spelling for the other one, but [googles] it looks like “mold” is the American spelling for both and “mould” is the British spelling for both. Where the hell did I get that wrong impression from?
While the first part is borne out by statistics, the second is not.
To make a professionals-only drivng regimen feasible, you’d need a massive reorganization of urbanities. Suburbs would no longer be quite so desirable, etc etc. Take your politics out of rationality.
Take your politics out of rationality.
Yikes! can you explain how something that’s a good idea for rationalists on lesswrong is bad for society? Should we keep our good ideas secret because if everyone did it the suburbs would be undesirable?
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt but so far this seems more like denial than reason.
Well it certainly isn’t denial. As proof I’d offer up my lack of any kind of driving license or vehincle ownership throughout my life.
The idea itself is not what is bad for society. The badness here is the political-ish applying of an idea without thinking through the consequences and dealing with them.
I would certainly not encourage keeping any ideas secret, for then how would the corollaries be resolved?
Suburbs are the scum of the earth. It is an infeasible extrapolation of the american dream, it uses up good agricultural soil and it is quantifiably more awesome to live in highrise buildings in the city.
This comment seems to have suddenly go at lot of attention, despite the fact that I am reasonably sure this thread is about semi-offensive/semi-joking comments and that my past self posted it in that spirit.
Man, sometimes your mental state moves so fast you can look a month back and thing “What an idiot.”
I do still hold the opinion that suburban housing is ecologically and economically unsustainable, taking up potential farmland and forcing large parts of the population to acquire automobiles that pollute and require large amounts of raw materials to construct.
EDIT: Maybe I should just make it a habit to retract stuff I said when I disagree with my past self.
Value systems differ.
Clichés are the mould of the mind.
ETA: I just noticed that “mould” has two meanings. I meant the nasty stuff that grows in unattended, dark, damp places.
Yes, but the arguments are mostly correct—except maybe the “quantifiably more awesome” part. I wouldn’t know.
I always thought that “mold” was the spelling for that meaning and “mould” was the spelling for the other one, but [googles] it looks like “mold” is the American spelling for both and “mould” is the British spelling for both. Where the hell did I get that wrong impression from?