Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the whole urban/suburban conversation would better be discussed without turning it into a morality play. Thinking one holds the moral high road is not conducive to a good debate.
Sometimes people believe things and do things for reasons other than holding a debate. Surely people who give to charity think its a moral choice, even if thats not helpful in debate. Some people make "urbanist" choices just cause it works for them, but clearly for many the environmental impact of their choices is at least part of the motivation. While I prefer not to bring that up except as it impacts policy, I don't think its right or fair to expect people to NOT have those motivations. Theres a huge movement today to try to change the world through our own personal actions, and I for one think thats mostly a good thing.
do you think there is such a thing as an ethical choice? Is giving to charity more ethical than not giving?
Or do you think that altruism is a falsehood and a lie, and that "objective" morality is pursuing ones own interest, period?
If the latter, well than we may be too far apart to discuss practical ethics. If the former, than it seems possible that some transportation choices, and some location choices, ARE more ethical than others, all other things being equal.
here is the thing, you don't know why people choose where they live. There are too many factors involved. Some people move to the suburbs because their job requires them to be less than 5 minutes from work. People move to the suburbs because that school is the best for their kids. Some people move to a suburb because its better for their health, or need to be very close to family. To sit there and question whether an environment that somebody lives is ethical or immoral amazes me. I dont think anybody has a right to bring morality and ethics into a discussion about where somebody lives because they don't know a person's situation.
here is the thing, you don't know why people choose where they live. There are too many factors involved. Some people move to the suburbs because their job requires them to be less than 5 minutes from work. People move to the suburbs because that school is the best for their kids. Some people move to a suburb because its better for their health, or need to be very close to family.
I agree. thats why I think judging INDIVIDUALS on an internet forum is nonsensical.
Quote:
To sit there and question whether an environment that somebody lives is ethical or immoral amazes me. I dont think anybody has a right to bring morality and ethics into a discussion about where somebody lives because they don't know a person's situation.
But why can't I say that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, living in place A has less negative impact on the environment, and having less impact on the environment is a good thing?
That does not of course means its the ONLY good thing.
by whom? since i come to this forum to discuss policy, etc and not to judge Katiana, where you live and work isnt a concern to me.
Actually, it is indirectly. Part of modern urban planning is increased decentralization. SACOG, for example, has Blueprint which calls for decreasing the expansion of businesses in Sacramento and increasing them in the suburban areas. While it might not be important what one individual does for public policy, it's obviously important what they are doing in aggregate. And in aggregate decentralization is just a matter of fact. Decentralizing jobs outside the urban core/CBD is nothing new. In some cases, decentralization is actually leading to decay in the urban cores while in others the urban core may not be decayed but hold less importance than they once did. The ongoing trend of suburbs and residential districts not to be bedrooms of cities is actually fairly important. Here in the Sacramento area, Sacramento has been below average job growth in the metro region for the last two or three decades.
So yes, that has an impact on the "morality" of the too stupid or greedy to be held accountable suburban dweller vs the ethical urban dweller. When the fact is an ever increasing number of people work in the suburbs, living in the city is ever becoming the "immoral" decision... whether or not the urban dwellers who increasing work in the suburbs are too stupid or greedy to be actually held accountable for their unethical, unsustainable behavior isn't something I would consider aside from pointing out the absurdity of it.
The not immoral only because they aren't worthy of being held to moral standards urban reverse commuters is nothing new and ever growing.
But why can't I say that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, living in place A has less negative impact on the environment, and having less impact on the environment is a good thing?
It's an absurd simplification. Things are never equal. In San Jose, cars are more energy efficient per passenger mile than rail is. In San Diego rail is significantly more efficient per passenger mile than cars are. Rail in San Jose was, at least for the present, a very bad environmental decision and a good one in San Diego.
Working in a small office has less negative impact on the environment than working in a larger office. Living in a smaller apartment has less negative impact on the environment than living in a larger house. The driving factor behind smaller offices and smaller houses isn't the environment but economics. Personally, if environmental concerns were my primary motivator I would work completely from home.... I'm in a field where I could do that. I work predominantly in the legal sector, however. If I worked in the entertainment or educational sectors, much of it is done remotely because of cost and digitally rather than paper. Where I lived would irrelevant. I could live in a suburban apartment some place with good bicycle infrastructure and be just as green as if I lived in a city apartment in the city. Transportation is a larger use of energy than residential anyway.
If you want to live your life in a good way, move to Cambodia (or other undeveloped country) and live life like they do. I have to admit I'm too selfish to do that myself. Put it in context. Using less resources is a good thing, but where you live alone has little to do with it. Industry is the biggest use of resources followed by transportation. Consume less stuff, consume less transportation, consume less housing in that order.
So yes, that has an impact on the "morality" of the too stupid or greedy to be held accountable suburban dweller vs the ethical urban dweller. When the fact is an ever increasing number of people work in the suburbs, living in the city is ever becoming the "immoral" decision... whether or not the urban dwellers who increasing work in the suburbs are too stupid or greedy to be actually held accountable for their unethical, unsustainable behavior isn't something I would consider aside from pointing out the absurdity of it.
The way that reverse commuters are being "unethical" is by burning extra fuel and contributing to emissions. A carbon tax would hold them accountable nicely.
Whether a carbon tax would induce them to move to autocentric suburbs - where they would likely burn more fuel in their day to day tasks, offsetting their commutes, and where they would likely live in larger homes using more energy, is another question.
of course you assume the only alternatives are dense living in the central city or autocentric living in the suburbs. That is, again, where walkable, relatively dense development IN SUBURBAN areas comes in to play.
In greater DC where I live, there is a huge employment concentration out beyond the beltway toward Dulles. Reston Town Center provides an island of dense walkable living close to that area - and islands of density are planned. Im sure some of the folks living in RTC feel very ethical and green also.
But why can't I say that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, living in place A has less negative impact on the environment, and having less impact on the environment is a good thing? .
Because all other things never are equal, especially when it comes to the complex reasoning behind the choices people make when it comes to places to live and work.
Because all other things never are equal, especially when it comes to the complex reasoning behind the choices people make when it comes to places to live and work.
Hence this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
Ceteris Paribis is NOT a statement that two situations are equal, its a thought experiment to tease out the implications of aspects of a choice.
It would be like saying that because no two people are alike, we can never look at alcohol use to determine if it's bad for humans. The common argument to support that statement typically involves pointing out an alcoholic that lived till they were 110 years old and saying, "see, it doesn't matter if you drink heavily."
The point is that you have to abstract from the individual subjectivity to focus on the logical components of the topic at hand to have an objective discussion.
The way that reverse commuters are being "unethical" is by burning extra fuel and contributing to emissions. A carbon tax would hold them accountable nicely.
Whether a carbon tax would induce them to move to autocentric suburbs - where they would likely burn more fuel in their day to day tasks, offsetting their commutes, and where they would likely live in larger homes using more energy, is another question.
of course you assume the only alternatives are dense living in the central city or autocentric living in the suburbs. That is, again, where walkable, relatively dense development IN SUBURBAN areas comes in to play.
In greater DC where I live, there is a huge employment concentration out beyond the beltway toward Dulles. Reston Town Center provides an island of dense walkable living close to that area - and islands of density are planned. Im sure some of the folks living in RTC feel very ethical and green also.
I don't get how that's a fix. It's like saying murder is unethical but we could fix it by having people pay a suitable fine. Obviously, the fine for murder would need to be higher since it, at least to me, is more unethical than by consuming stuff that produces pollution. If it's unethical, it's unethical. Taxing it doesn't "fix" it being unethical it just discourages unethical behavior. And suburban areas use very little energy for daily tasks. Take a trip to the grocery store... a carbon tax would have a much greater impact on food prices than on how much gasoline it takes me to drive to the grocery store to buy it.
Foodstuff accounts for a fairly notable 16% of America's GHGs, of which just 14% is personal transportation and an even more trivial 4% is supply-chain. How much would the GHG tax have to be to get me not to drive eight miles round-trip (rather extreme for the suburbs)? You'd just implement policies of mass starvation with a carbon tax long before you had a notable effect on people driving to the grocery store. In gas it costs me about 60 cents to drive to the store.... double that to $1.20 am I going to stop driving? Probably not. But you've gone and nearly tripled the cost of producing food since that emits nearly three times the GHGs as the personal transportation to acquire food does. Adding 60 cents to my weekly shopping trips isn't all that relevant to me. We don't spend all that much money on food either, but tripling the cost of my food bill would have a pronounced effect on budget. And that's before you consider the carbon emissions that occur in packaging, retail, supply-chain, cooking the food...
The point of ceteris paribus in economic modelling is to attempt to make an accurate model of human behavior. Intentionally making hypothetical ceteris paribus assumptions that are known to result in horrible models isn't good economics. Models are inherently flawed, the point is to minimize the flaws to develop a simplification that is manageable yet still reflects a gross view of reality. Making ceteris paribus assumptions that result in models that are so flawed they have no reflection of reality is useless. Using said useless models to then form your world views on is disingenuous.
Last edited by Malloric; 08-23-2012 at 02:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
