<story><title>The case for energy optimism</title><url>https://syncretica.substack.com/p/the-case-for-energy-optimism</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>nightski</author><text>I think this is backwards.  Everyone assumes people are lazy because of the cars.  I propose that cars were made because people are lazy (or, in reality, have no time in this dual income era we live in - walking takes a lot of time, even if it is very enjoyable).&lt;p&gt;If you make walk-able, mixed-use neighborhoods there is no guarantee people will use them.&lt;p&gt;In contrast, I bike over 1000 miles a year and walk several times a week.  Yet I am not in a walk-able mixed use neighborhood nor have any interest in living in one.</text></item><item><author>DoreenMichele</author><text>The things that seem largely missing from such articles:&lt;p&gt;1. Walkable,  mixed-use neighborhoods.&lt;p&gt;2. Passive solar design.&lt;p&gt;We have created a world highly dependent on various energy inputs. It has gone a long way towards killing off walking, cycling and vernacular architecture (where passive solar is a historic default).&lt;p&gt;Those technologies still exist. They can be brought back into more mainstream use.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>lmm</author><text>&amp;gt; I think this is backwards. Everyone assumes people are lazy because of the cars. I propose that cars were made because people are lazy (or, in reality, have no time in this dual income era we live in - walking takes a lot of time, even if it is very enjoyable).&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; If you make walk-able, mixed-use neighborhoods there is no guarantee people will use them.&lt;p&gt;This isn&amp;#x27;t supported by the evidence. We see huge increases in the numbers of people walking and cycling when the infrastructure is adjusted to support them.</text></comment>
<story><title>The case for energy optimism</title><url>https://syncretica.substack.com/p/the-case-for-energy-optimism</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>nightski</author><text>I think this is backwards.  Everyone assumes people are lazy because of the cars.  I propose that cars were made because people are lazy (or, in reality, have no time in this dual income era we live in - walking takes a lot of time, even if it is very enjoyable).&lt;p&gt;If you make walk-able, mixed-use neighborhoods there is no guarantee people will use them.&lt;p&gt;In contrast, I bike over 1000 miles a year and walk several times a week.  Yet I am not in a walk-able mixed use neighborhood nor have any interest in living in one.</text></item><item><author>DoreenMichele</author><text>The things that seem largely missing from such articles:&lt;p&gt;1. Walkable,  mixed-use neighborhoods.&lt;p&gt;2. Passive solar design.&lt;p&gt;We have created a world highly dependent on various energy inputs. It has gone a long way towards killing off walking, cycling and vernacular architecture (where passive solar is a historic default).&lt;p&gt;Those technologies still exist. They can be brought back into more mainstream use.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>adrianN</author><text>Cars were made for game theoretic reasons: As long as few people drive, cars give drivers extreme advantages. When a critical mass of drivers exist, the advantages deminish, but infrastructure investements (now politically viable!) can delay the process. As soon as most people drive most of these advantages disappear regardless of further infrastructure investments, but people who &lt;i&gt;don&amp;#x27;t&lt;/i&gt; drive now suffer from extreme disadvantages that didn&amp;#x27;t exist before car-centric infrastructure.</text></comment>