Transportation of goods is mostly a capitalist issue. You don’t need to cover a cucumber with plastic and ship it half way across the world, while selling the local ones to richer countries. The same goes for the vast majority of “goods”. Remove all of that greedy, superfluous shit, and you’re left with minimal shipping needs.
Edit: Beyond that, have you talked to anyone performative driving one of those child-killing tall pickups? We are a people that lost their shit about straws, and the kind of changes being talked about here are just… [waves arms at all of this]
It’s wild that many people on Lemmy dont understand that many things, while completely and absolutely unnecessary, also bring a lot of joy to people.
Cracking a bottle of beaujolais alongside a dish made from Chinese and Korean ingredients while listening to South American vinyl on my Japanese speakers is part of the spice of life.
I get that I could live like a 12th century peasant, only consume things I grow myself and use clothing I can make by hand, but Jesus christ, that’s fucking insane.
Living isnt just about living, its about knowing and enjoying other cultures and the world itself. This study sound like they’d have you live in a cave with no ac while only eating flavorless locally sourced paste.
Most of what the study is proposing would be a modest decrease in living standards in developed countries, for a drastic increase in living standards everywhere else. It’s not asking you to give up luxury, only for the rate of new luxury to decrease slightly as surplus is more evenly distributed.
I mean, I get that you don’t like how they talk on Lemmy about it, but the quote from the study even talks about how the surplus could be used for additional consumption and everything.
Study is here
I think we all have different things we want in life and with such a big surplus there is room for most of us to regularly enjoy that. I do not believe that they argue that we will NEVER be able to enjoy different food. That is as you have mentioned not functional or good for people to work together and live together. Disregarding the many people with different cultures that have moved somewhere else.
I think the study more clearly argues that we can afford to take care of everyone on the world if we wanted to. That there is a viable way and that that way is not as you are implying necessarily a deprived space with tight margins. Because living is about more than slaving away like a 12th century peasant to accumulate more wealth for a king somewhere far off.
You know global trade would still exist, a lot of treats would be much more expensive though.
People have an unrealstic expectation of what that would imply. Although most of the typical suburban american lifestyle would be gone and no more labubu dubai chocolate macha crumble cookies.
And bunch of other sacrifices. One of the points was also about everyone living in a city close by. The study is not applicable to real life, it’s utopia scenario. One of the biggest problems isn’t even resources, but co2 production.
And honestly, I could see this sort of systems being handy - having raillines between the big and mid-sized cities, and bus services for the aforementioned + small cities and towns, and (electric) bicycles for the rest.
Does this assume instant, frictionless transportation of goods?
Transportation of goods is mostly a capitalist issue. You don’t need to cover a cucumber with plastic and ship it half way across the world, while selling the local ones to richer countries. The same goes for the vast majority of “goods”. Remove all of that greedy, superfluous shit, and you’re left with minimal shipping needs.
Not everyone has equally arable land.
Edit: Beyond that, have you talked to anyone performative driving one of those child-killing tall pickups? We are a people that lost their shit about straws, and the kind of changes being talked about here are just… [waves arms at all of this]
It’s wild that many people on Lemmy dont understand that many things, while completely and absolutely unnecessary, also bring a lot of joy to people.
Cracking a bottle of beaujolais alongside a dish made from Chinese and Korean ingredients while listening to South American vinyl on my Japanese speakers is part of the spice of life.
I get that I could live like a 12th century peasant, only consume things I grow myself and use clothing I can make by hand, but Jesus christ, that’s fucking insane.
Living isnt just about living, its about knowing and enjoying other cultures and the world itself. This study sound like they’d have you live in a cave with no ac while only eating flavorless locally sourced paste.
How boring and repulsive.
It’s wild how you went from shipping plastic wrapped cucumbers across the world while exporting local ones, to your bougie bs…
We get it, you’re a spoiled first worlder
Most of what the study is proposing would be a modest decrease in living standards in developed countries, for a drastic increase in living standards everywhere else. It’s not asking you to give up luxury, only for the rate of new luxury to decrease slightly as surplus is more evenly distributed.
I mean, I get that you don’t like how they talk on Lemmy about it, but the quote from the study even talks about how the surplus could be used for additional consumption and everything. Study is here
I think we all have different things we want in life and with such a big surplus there is room for most of us to regularly enjoy that. I do not believe that they argue that we will NEVER be able to enjoy different food. That is as you have mentioned not functional or good for people to work together and live together. Disregarding the many people with different cultures that have moved somewhere else.
I think the study more clearly argues that we can afford to take care of everyone on the world if we wanted to. That there is a viable way and that that way is not as you are implying necessarily a deprived space with tight margins. Because living is about more than slaving away like a 12th century peasant to accumulate more wealth for a king somewhere far off.
You know global trade would still exist, a lot of treats would be much more expensive though.
People have an unrealstic expectation of what that would imply. Although most of the typical suburban american lifestyle would be gone and no more labubu dubai chocolate macha crumble cookies.
Maybe you should read the paper and find out.
Why? I’m not the one using it to justify an argument.
Because it would be a more efficient way to understand their actual methodology than posting random guesses on a comment thread?
It’s not my job to make your point. You don’t get free labor.
It’s not my job to read papers for you. You don’t get free labor
So you didn’t read it either? Interesting.
Nope, guess you’re going to have to read it yourself to find out if they’re assuming instant, frictionless transport of goods.
And bunch of other sacrifices. One of the points was also about everyone living in a city close by. The study is not applicable to real life, it’s utopia scenario. One of the biggest problems isn’t even resources, but co2 production.
I dunno, I think it would be perfectly doable with good public transit.
Don’t have many big cities, but have mid-sized cities near-ish, and smaller towns near the mid-sized ones. A sort of ‘web’ of cities, if you will.
what you’re describing is called “multigrid” system.
you have grids of varying size, all overlapping each other.
examples:
notice the streets make some kind of “grid” on the landscape
Yes, exactly this was what I was thinking about.
now you also know the name :)
It’s awesome, thanks!
And honestly, I could see this sort of systems being handy - having raillines between the big and mid-sized cities, and bus services for the aforementioned + small cities and towns, and (electric) bicycles for the rest.