I’m getting a lot of ‘but my car is more convenient’ arguments lately, and I’m struggling to convey why that doesn’t make sense.

Specifically how to explain to people that: Sure, if you are able to drive, and can afford it, and your city is designed to, and subsidizes making it easy to drive and park, then it’s convenient. But if everyone does it then it quickly becomes a tragedy of the commons situation.

I thought of one analogy that is: It would be ‘more convenient’ if I just threw my trash out the window, but if we all started doing that then we’d quickly end up in a mess.

But I feel like that doesn’t quite get at the essence of it. Any other ideas?

  • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    8 months ago

    🙄 people just like their cars, it’s not some evil plot. Evening is big oils fault, never people meeting choices.

    • Thinker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 months ago

      The major car manufacturers have literally been collaborating for the better part of a century, along with oil companies, to keep Americans dependent on cars. It’s a well-documented fact. Even long before Citizebs United made corporate bribery legal, they’ve been using the state’s power to quell protests, destroy non-car infrastructure, and outlaw use of our streets for anything except cars.

    • magiccupcake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Many cities had their convenient bus and tram line bought and dismantled by auto companies. All while under huge protest of residents too.

      It was not a natural evolution that got us here.