Thanks for assuming there are no other possible alternatives.

By car: 30 mins. Public transport: 1 hour 30 mins. I'm not wasting 2 extra hours each day.

It's not like society without cars would be the exact same just without cars. People would live closer to where they need to be. It would be more public transport. More 15-minute cities etc.

It's a bit dishonest to argue for continued car dominance just because it's already status quo.

This is why there's such a disconnect between people who have to commute to work and people advocating for your policies. You flippantly suggest something that would make another person's life much more miserable, and then when he protests, you handwave it away by saying that society will just be better and he'll live closer to his job.

Oh you’re right. Sorry. Let’s never change anything.

No, that's not what I said. I said others things would accommodate the new status quo, hence it's not fair to compare it to "exactly as today, but without cars". Like, you pose that it would be much more miserable. I don't think it would be.

Ok, but that's not the world we live in right now. Where my job is, is also in a quite boring area, almost rural. I don't want to move there.

Me: the world would change to accommodate

You: it's not the world we live in right now

Which is a useless retort.

> People would live closer to where they need to be.

And work the first 25 days out of each month month to pay for it, LOL.

Oooor perhaps it could be the opposite, that things move closer to where people are. Instead of living in dead suburbia, there actually would be stores, cafes etc in those areas, instead of people having to take a car for every little thing they want to do in their life.

Non-remote work cannot be closer to everyone, if every employee of the company lives in a different suburb, on opposite ends of town.

As for stores, suburbanites will still go to the a cheaper, larger store with more selection. That's usually in the same suburb, but still a good drive.

People aren't obligated to live where you think they ought to live, and no one put you in charge of using social control mechanisms to force them to conform to your opinions.

Way to miss the point, and please f off with your statements about me wanting to force people to do anything. What a shitty way to adress someone you disagree with. We do better here on HN, as a long term member I'm disappointed in your behavior.

If better options were available, people would choose those. When we don't make better options because people are stuck in a local optima of car culture, there is no change. My point was what I wrote: you can't make a comparison with less cars as if everything else in society would have remained equal. Of course there would be secondary effects to handle the fact that people would have to live and travel differently.

Please "f off" with your "dishonest" and "f off" statements.

You don't get to call people "dishonest", tell them to "f off", call them "shitty", then get pious and offended when someone takes exception to that.

> We do better here on HN, as a long term member I'm disappointed in your behavior.

You've been here since 2013. I've been using this account since 2010 so you can "f off" with that, too.

> If better options were available, people would choose those.

"Better" according to who? You?

If people can't get food, they start eating rats and shoe leather. It doesn't make it "better".

> I've been using this account since 2010 so you can "f off" with that, too.

The point was that I expected better from _you_, a long standing member here. But your response again shows I need to adjust that expectation.