Was the car a positive or negative development for society?

submitted by Ponderer from self.debatealtright

The car is so fundamental to modern life that you might not even notice it as something strange, much less question its existence. But there was a society before cars. Do you think it was a better one?

Pros of cars:

  • Much faster travel and everything that goes with that

  • Far greater freedom of movement for the average person

  • They're cool

Cons of cars:

  • Faster travel and more freedom of movement "brings the world together" in a way that often flattens cultures and empowers large corporations over local industry

  • Having to build roads to accomodate cars makes cities and towns less walkable, which has many negative aftereffects, including obesity from inactivity, loss of aesthetics, and lack of communal gathering spaces; communities become spread out and their essential parts are not accessible on a human scale; communities may become wholly dislocated from farms or water sources and depend on other places to provide these

  • Environmental concerns due to oil extraction

  • Effects on human health (carcinogens, leaded gasoline)

For reference I think that in the current day, cars are probably more positive than negative. I think the current push for self-driving cars could be a way to deny freedom of movement to the common man entirely. However, I'm not so sure cars were positive when they were introduced a bit over a century ago. What is your opinion on this?

all 48 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Cars aren't that big of a problem. I'd say they're pretty cool. The worst tech to come out in the last 2000 years is social media and online dating sites. It has single-handedly destroyed society and turned people into abnormal bugmen.

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Ponderer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Agreed that OnlyFans and similar platforms are going to screw things up royally for a very long time.

    I think there's some ways to mitigate this though (at least for men) and I will make a post about it soon.

    [–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    They've been particularly destructive given that they're only like 15 years old.

    Imagine an entire generation being raised in a world where onlyfans, xvideos and social media have always been around. I feel pity for them. They'll never even know what a normal society even looked like. What we feel is sickening degeneracy will be as normal as school for them.

    God help us all.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    would online dating matter if cars were never invented, like oh a girl matched with chad, but he lives 20 miles away, and there are no cars, so no way to meet. Girls would get with local regular men more.

    [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Just be chad

    [–]PastorJohnny 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

    Cars aren't that big of a problem.

    no, of course not.. cars are not a problem... if you are blind and dumb... lololol..

    just wait... oh my, just wait... just wait until the piper comes calling.. just wait.. you simple minded boobs that think that you can drive these cars and you wont pay the price for it..

    for every action there is a reaction.. in most cases..

    just wait.. one day, you will find out that we have destroyed some aspect of the environment and the bees dont know how to do what bees do.. and the fruit wont grow any more.. the flowers wont grow any more.. the grass wont grow any more because you have covered the earth with chemicals.. there is no more grass for the cows to eat.. no more for the deer to eat..

    you stupid people... you should have left the oil in the ground.. you should have left the gold and the silver in the ground..

    too late now..

    dont bother yourself watching the video... no, dont bother..

    btw, this video is "age restricted", not because it is porno.. but because yahoo doesnt want you to see this filthy river.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkSXB-lRAp0

    [–]Airbus320 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

    Not clicking that link, instead lets drink some E85

    [–][deleted]  (8 children)

    [removed]

      [–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      because you are a professional shill that has been paid to come here and spread hatred of jewish people.

      Freudian slip, Jew shill gtfo

      [–]PastorJohnny 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I would enjoy working for Israeli intelligence.

      So sorry if you no likey.

      [–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

      I won't but don't worry, u/JasonTheNigger will

      [–]Noam_Chomsky 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

      u/Jasoncarswell this comment takes me back to the Opie and Anthony era.

      ;-)

      EDIT: Or maybe it was IP.

      [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

      Or before both of them.

      [–]PastorJohnny 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      hello jason.

      [–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      That account more older than yours

      [–]PastorJohnny 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      so what.. an account could be two minutes old and it could belong to elvis.

      [–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I believe it.

      [–]DisgustResponse 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

      People seemed to get along fine with their lives without motor vehicles for thousands of years.

      Makes me wonder what future "conveniences and improvements" will be dumped on humanity and then when you question their value, the scienceTM respectors will crawl out of the woodwork to scream about how terrible and unlivable life used to be before SHITTECH Corp developed the bazumpafuck.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Skyactive-G is for cucks tho

        [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

        I personally agree with Tolkien on the subject. Cars aren't bad in and of themselves, but when everybody and their grandma has one, then there is a problem.

        [–]Ponderer[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I like that take. I call it a "problem of scale", basically when something isn't bad in and of itself, but becomes bad when everyone does it.

        For example, fishing isn't bad. But if too many people fish too much, the natural supply of fish is exhausted. There are plenty of things like this, and people portray the original thing as a problem, when in reality it's just the amount of people doing it, which is much more subtle and harder to blame.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Yeah, that's basically the view. Now, I also believe that cars could be done away with, and we could all be using single-person drone-pods and improve that technology until we have Luke's speeder from Star Wars, while also pulling back and relying more on animals that can pull wagons and trailers. I think cars should be replaced by multiple other things, some old, some new. Edit: I'm an idealist on this front.

        [–]proc0 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        Overall it was good, but city planning took a huge hit from every single person to needing a car. I think cities could be structured so that most people can walk to at least get food and do some outdoor activities like shopping or parks. Instead we have cities which are impossible to walk, which creates a bad dependency on a vehicle, and as a result people spend way too much time driving, in my opinion. The downside is sitting too much, and spending time travelling, and also traffic, and dependency on gas.

        There are a handful of exceptions, but these large cities are on the extreme opposite end, and there are way too many people piled on top of each other, and everything is either too expensive or you're in a dangerous neighborhood to walk in. I don't what the solution is really, but before the plague, living in some cities without a car was a great experience for me. No sitting in traffic, getting plenty of walking exercise, and not worrying about parking.

        [–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

        I think it would be awesome if we had the internet but no high speed travel.

        [–]Ponderer[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        I agree.

        [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

        Cars are a extremely positive addition to society and would require a radical reconstruction of societies to work without cars.

        • Cars allow White people evade crime populations by fleeing to rural areas and suburbs. The car can be a useful buffer against a criminal. Going into the wrong side of town on accident with a car is safer than without one especially if there is a "gathering".

        • Cars decrease the need for emergency services because automobiles are not only a fast form of travel but it is easier to reach multiple destinations during extreme changes in weather. Many lives were saved by the creation of automobiles and accessible roads.

        • Cars are needed to travel on rugged terrain, rural areas and needed for transporting heavy industrial equipment.

        • Cars are a more robust form of travel. If train tracks are broken or a train is broken in the middle of a track that causes huge delays in a supply line and passenger transportation. If a terrorist destroys a bunch of train tracks they effectively stopped a big chunk of your supply line. Cars have many highways and multiple routes to most destinations.

        • Cars give people a better sense of control of their destiny, people are more anxious in trains and airplanes because their lives seem out of their control even when it is less safe driving in a car.

        • Cars are the only way we can have super markets and factories with just in time inventory systems. You would need to rebuild stores to carry more storage to have the same quality of life without cars.

        • Cars are better for traveling in extreme weather. A sudden blizzard could end your life if you are the middle of nowhere. Every car has air conditioning and heating to weather those storms. The way people plan when traveling would be radically different without cars.

        • Our societies are built around the use of a car, it would take a radical reconstruction of city and towns to work without cars.

        I am not for the elimination of the car, but I am all for the reduction of cars on roads, better city planning for pedestrians and more robust forms of public transportation.

        [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

        Cars allow White people evade crime populations by fleeing to rural areas and suburbs. The car can be a useful buffer against a criminal. Going into the wrong side of town on accident with a car is safer than without one especially if there is a "gathering".

        This argument was actually part of the long reply in favor of cars which I was gonna write on this post, but you already beat me to it. It's perhaps one of the most important reasons why any serious white nationalists should support cars and strongly resist any potential future government attempts to ban them (or only allow self-driving cars), aside from maybe the essential role cars play in enabling white nationalists and other dissidents to effectively organize across vast distances outside of corporate and government control. Also very based reply in general!

        [–]Noam_Chomsky 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

        why any serious white nationalists should support cars and strongly resist any potential future government attempts to ban them (or only allow self-driving cars), aside from maybe the essential role cars play in enabling white nationalists and other dissidents to effectively organize across vast distances outside of corporate and government control.

        Are patriotic, ethnic-europeans actually self-identifying as "white nationalists"?

        Seems unlikely...

        Then again...

        Something. Something. FBI surveillance.

        IDK.

        [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

        ...What?

        [–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

        I don't know of anyone who would ever describe themselves as a "serious white nationalist".

        Do you?

        "Patriot" is the typical description for this.

        [–]MarkimusNational Socialist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

        Yes I know dozens of people who are white nationalists.

        [–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        They call themselves "white Nationalists"?

        Do you work at the FBI?

        [–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

        Do you know any self-described "white globalist's"?

        [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        Is a white person who wants whites all over the world to gain more political power, at the expense of the political power of Jews and non-whites, a "white globalist" to you? And if so, why would you consider that a bad thing, assuming you're white yourself? Because most of the time I've heard the term "white globalist" being used, it wasn't someone calling himself that, it was being used as a pejorative/accusation, similar to terms like "wignat", "Duginist", "racist liberal", "MarxNat", etc.

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

        Globalism in general is not the proper course of action.

        [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I agree, but whites becoming the most powerful group on the planet again (and possibly having colonies) wouldn't be globalism, that would just be imperialism or expansionism (nationalism and ingroup preference taken to its logical conclusion).

        [–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Are patriotic, ethnic-europeans actually self-identifying as "white nationalists"?

        Seems unlikely...

        Some definitely are (myself included), especially in Northwestern Europe, probably because that's where the attack on white people is the strongest in all of Europe (just like in the US and Anglo colonies), as well as because racialism historically isn't just an exclusively Anglo colonial thing but a Germanic thing in general. But I meant white people with racial ingroup preference in general, regardless of where they live and of what label they give it. Being pro-white and being pro-[your specific European ethnic group] aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd argue you can't be truly ethno-nationalist without having at least some racial ingroup preference if you're white, since your race is an essential component of your ethnic group (which couldn't even have existed without your race existing).

        Then again...

        Something. Something. FBI surveillance.

        IDK.

        It isn't just about surveillance. Governments and corporations can easily deny anyone access to public transportation and air travel (see Nick Fuentes being on the no-fly list for example), something that's a lot more difficult for them to pull off with car travel. Regarding surveillance, with public transportation and air travel, governments and corporations automatically track you by mere virtue of you checking in and out. With cars, if you completely shut off your electronic devices, the only way they can track you is if you happen to drive past highway surveillance cameras, unless you have tracking hardware built into your car (which sadly is the case with more and more cars today, as a way to bypass the privacy we used to have in them, so in that regard you're better off driving an older car). With cars, you also have the ability to change your course any time you want, unlike with public transportation and air travel.

        [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

        It's less about the tool and more about how it's used or abused.

        Taxes are stolen from the masses for "free" socialist "security" and "defense" but they won't pay for "free" public healthcare, public education, or public transportation.

        Look into the Los Angeles Goodyear Tire conspiracy that destroyed their public transport systems and was jammed up in the courts until it was too late to do anything about it.

        The ruling class is always the problem.

        [–]NayenezganiNot alt-right 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Far greater freedom of movement for the average person

        You've probably seen the point raised by a lot of traditionalists that the normalization of cars as a means of transport causes urban places to be built with the assumption that the average denizen can drive. Which often shuts out young people who can't drive yet, the elderly, and the disabled. Obviously every community should be built so that employment and essentials -- such as schools, shops, medical services, and the like -- can be found within walking distance of one's residence. But cars will still have significant utility as individual transport between settlements, and hopefully there will be developments in sustainable transport in the future.

        Biodiesel in particular can be produced from sewage sludge or waste vegetable oil and certain blends purportedly have better fuel efficiency. Apparently over 60% of biodiesel production originates from Europe. Locomotives of the British Royal Train have managed to operate on B100 with success, but one of the major downsides is that it is vulnerable to gelling. It doesn't function well in cold climates and can be destructive to certain materials.

        [–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        Obviously every community should be built so that employment and essentials -- such as schools, shops, medical services, and the like -- can be found within walking distance of one's residence. But cars will still have significant utility as individual transport between settlements, and hopefully there will be developments in sustainable transport in the future.

        This sounds like the ideal world. I could see some speculative fiction examining a society that works like this, where communities themselves are completely walkable, and only use cars to travel between them.

        [–]NayenezganiNot alt-right 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        This sounds like the ideal world. I could see some speculative fiction examining a society that works like this, where communities themselves are completely walkable, and only use cars to travel between them.

        One of my main reasons for reading alt-right forums, other than keeping my finger on the political pulse of the West, is because I like seeing discussion about building a better society. Many ex-socialists claim that innate human selfishness was their motivation for losing confidence in that ideology. So what would society look like if people were grouped with others that they fundamentally trust and empathize with more? Sometimes I think the existence of different cultures/races is necessary to function as an Other, which strengthens the cooperation of the in-group.

        Anyway, regarding urban planning. Maybe some sort of matrix can be created to determine approximate land size/composition for certain community specifications. You could plug in metrics like population size, desired industry composition, climate, etc. I've been thinking about natural patterns of settlement growth, and whether there are any universals for industrial development. Like most communities would be primarily agricultural up to a certain point, and after a certain population size it is almost inevitable that they would have at least one local IT company or food manufacturing plant to serve the community's needs, or something like that.

        There are probably also optimal ratios of different industries to each other, e.g. maybe the medical sector in one settlement is too large compared to its agricultural sector. And skewed ratios between specific occupations in themselves definitely exist, e.g. too many nurses compared to doctors in a hospital or too many bakers compared to butchers in one town.

        (By the way it appears I've neglected to focus more on the class aspect of cars but it was pretty obvious anyway. Poor people are very disadvantaged in the USA because of the urban structure, emphasis on cars, and generally abysmal public transport in many cities. And there's obviously people flexing on others and the possibility that people can get discriminated against based on the vehicles that they drive. It's still a cool technology though. I think there needs to be greater activism for the right to repair and people need to be more wary of excessively complicated newer models that are much more difficult to repair while not being significantly more useful.)

        Edit: Typo.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

          [–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

          I've been meaning to read up on him. Is there anything you'd recommend?

          [–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Cars that guzzle gas are bad for society. They should all have been made electric by now.

          And by consuming oil, it only helps strengthen Middle Eastern countries, which has lead to pointless wars and terrorism that should never have involved us.

          [–]88BitSorelianism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          I think commercial airlines have been much more destructive to our societies than cars for the most part.

          [–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          Depends on your perspective. Read Ted

          127 A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

          [–][deleted]  (1 child)

          [removed]

            [–]Ponderer[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

            Oh, I totally agree things would be screwed if we run out of gas now. But that's mostly because we've already built our society to be dependent on it.

            Before the car, most people lived on a farm. Combined with their local community, they were more-or-less self-sufficient. Not being able to travel to the next town over would deny them access to specialized goods like medicines, but they would still have necessities like food and water. That's not the case today.