Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
I still think your approach misses addressing a very important point.
The earliest and crudest cars, in the small number they were at first, were far more safer to people and the world in general than today's safer cars as they are spread and multiplied into the thickness they are in now. Perhaps they were less safe to the individuals driving them; but those aspects of danger were not extended and fixed as a general condition over other people and the city as a whole and the world. The individuals themselves enjoyed them, and whatever risk and danger was in using the car itself was mostly only upon themselves. It was not a condition that really overwhelmed whole cities, threatened people and their health, threatened the balance of nature and fulfilled those threats with much deterioration, damage and death. There are the immediate and more obvious harms, and there are also less obvious and more gradual harms that decrease quality in urban life, and decrease rural life. And it is not more the excess of populations, but the excess of their choice for and their method of moving, cars, that is to blame. It makes the effect of a form of "pollution" in themselves and their condition right here on our level, apart from the pollution it sends above or below, that hinders our ability to live socially, healthily and beautifully on the very surface of the world. But it also has symptoms of an addiction, because people keep on pursuing more and more, and seem unwilling to admit the problem, or consider freeing themselves from it. It seems people think more or less "we are locked into this condition, and there's no way out." I simply can't accept that.
Therefore if you see that we need much better, you must bow to this truth too: we also need much less.
[This message has been edited by Essorant (09-14-2005 03:13 PM).]