I'm not sure Paris has one of the best public transit in the world or maybe that's just an indicative of the sorry state of public transit worldwide. I mean I wouldn't call world-class a system where just a single failure easily strands 1 million people halfway to their destination and where trains are delayed and cancelled routinely, often without information given to passengers.

I'm in favor of more public transportation, but if you think people use car willingly in and around Paris, I don't think you've tried it; it's so bad that only people with no viable choice will use a car. Or maybe you could explain (for example) how my sister in law was supposed to carry her two baby kids to the daycare using an overcrowded metro (and bonus, through stations without working elevators) or how my brother was supposed to carry the equipment he was using to constructions sites he was working. And then you've got all the places where taking a car is a 30 min trip vs 2 hours by bus or public transportation (thankfully the Grand Paris initiatives are helping a lot there).

For now, removing cars in Paris just push them around the city, because the public transportation network isn't ready.

▲

Kuinox 7 months ago | parent [-]

For a lot of destination you can take 2-3 differentes routes.

The rest of your comment try to justify car usage by taking less than 5% of the transit in the city, when there is already exception or infrastructures made for the scenario you described (except elevators and accessibility, thats a big issur in paris intra-muros). Yes, there are a lot of people that use the car when they can not use it, thats still most of the car traffic.

▲

baud147258 7 months ago | parent [-]

> Yes, there are a lot of people that use the car when they can not use it, thats still most of the car traffic.

so, do you have any data to back up that assertion? (I won't claim that I have any favorable to my argument, just the observation that driving in and Paris around Paris is pretty bad)

> For a lot of destination you can take 2-3 differentes routes.

most alternative routes usually take longer and end up congested whenever the main route is having issues.

▲

Kuinox 7 months ago | parent [-]

The average is still 1.3 person per car, if you get outside a little you will see tons of single person in cars, and not in minitruck like artisans.

https://www.paris.fr/pages/le-bilan-des-deplacements-a-paris...

Indicate 13% of the traffic is for utilitary vehicule. This number include people taking their utilitary vehicule for personal reason. 50% is for personal vehicules.

Also, why were you driving around Paris ?

> most alternative routes usually take longer

It depends.

▲

baud147258 7 months ago | parent [-]

But I don't see anything in the document that shows that people are using personal vehicles for deplacements they could have easily been made with public transportation. Which was your original point that I disagreeing with: people aren't 'brainwashed by cars', but rather can't practically use another way.

Also, according to one of the linked pdf, cars in Paris are barely for Paris-Paris movement, but more for Paris-suburbs, which is still the biggest weakness of the public transportation network.

	▲	Kuinox 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		If you need to go east-west of paris suburb, that's 1h in car, the same time in public transit. If you need to go north-south of paris suburb, that's 1h in car and 30 mins in public transit.

▲

nradov 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

How do people get around Paris when transit employees don't feel like working that day?

	▲	Kuinox 7 months ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There are multiple route to get from point A to B. For example, from Versailles to Invalides, you can take: RER C then Metro 8. Or TER N then i can choose from two different metro line at Montparnasse Or TER U then RER A. There is also buses, bus since the rail is faster, I never take it. In case of strike the network is never fully down, people that can remote work do it, so there is a lot less of people transiting. On the biggest strike you can loose an hour or two while commuting, for small strike, it will get more crowded.
	▲	TeMPOraL 7 months ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They don't, because that would be the whole point of a total shutdown in a coordinated, all-modes transit employees strike. Ask people in London, they have that on a semi-regular basis. Otherwise, there is no such thing as "transit employees not feeling like working" - thanks to the magic of economy holding a metaphorical gun to the heads of most people. You work whether you feel like it or not.

▲

sneak 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I disagree entirely. Single person octocopters running autonomously would be awesome.

▲

Kuinox 7 months ago | parent [-]

Catastrophical failure would be way worse.

Flying is less energy efficient. You need to find cheaper and clean energy source.

You need to find a tech that allow to fly quietly.

Forcing to make people walk more is better for the society as a whole.

▲

mikro2nd 7 months ago | parent [-]

I'm forced to disagree. Catastrophic failure would be a feature not a bug. "Natural selection against stupidity."

▲

vel0city 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

Having my children die because someone's poorly maintained octocopter broke down and flew into the side of my home isn't "natural selection against stupidity".

It's like you think the only victims of drunk drivers are the drunks themselves.

▲

Kuinox 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Worse" was not for people in the vehicle but the people below. After car forced us to be aware of our surrounding when walking, flying car would force us to be aware of the sky too.

▲

nradov 7 months ago | parent [-]

Humans have always needed to be aware of their surroundings. Plenty of pedestrians were hit by horse-drawn vehicles before cars were even invented.

	▲	MichaelZuo 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		How can they be aware of something so high up it appears smaller than the average pigeon?

▲

eru 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Alas, that doesn't really work, if catastrophic failure also harms innocent bystanders.

▲

samatman 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

I, too, imagine a person in my head, and then immediately wish that they die in a terrible accident, possibly taking innocent lives in the process, because I decided I don't like the imaginary person I just created. In my head.

▲

pantalaimon 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Flying cars just look cool in movies and immediately take the scene to the future. Movies don't need to concern themselves with practicality too much.

▲

Kuinox 7 months ago | parent [-]

Exactly why the cybertruck should never have been something more than a concept car.

	▲	faggotbreath 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

bradley13 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Interesting article, but jeezum, he could have said the same thing with 1/10 the words. You can skip entire paragraphs and mess nothing.

tl;dr: it all leads to this conclusion: replace "capitalism [with a system that] is based on a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth and power:.

	▲	drooby 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		That's Graeber for you. "Bullshit Jobs" should have also remained a blog post.

▲

js8 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Today, we would instead make an app that would matchmake important people, who desire to be effortlessly washed, with less-than-important people, who are willing to wash others for less than a minimum wage. It's sharing (and caring) economy!

We would also call this a "minimum viable product" and promise that in some future update, the less-than-important people involved will be replaced by AI (and become even less important).

▲

vasco 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

> Ah, those beautiful times when people actually cared and believed the future will be better

Thinking the future will be worse with all the available evidence is of a huge ego. How main character you have to be to think that it's just as you're alive that a trend of millenia will inverse.

▲

smackay 7 months ago | parent [-]

Technologists' very existence is based on the idea of improvement, and, as a result, making the lives of others better. Compared to other approaches, nothing has delivered quite on the same scale, though it's not without its costs.

	▲	vasco 7 months ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yep, and there's no stopping technological progress. Whoever thinks things will get worse is just being what internet investing lingo calls "gay bears" - waiting for the doom that can justify their constant state of depression and existential dread. In fact people will get upset if you don't agree with them that the world is going to shit (and prove they are smart by predicting it).
	▲	hooverd 7 months ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Mostly. Sometimes people will do what's good for them, externalities be damned. I like leaded gasoline as an example. It wasn't an oopsie. We know it was bad from the day it was introduced and lead producers fought to keep it known as safe.
	▲	js8 7 months ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I am not sure about this, but it depends on definition of "technologist". Is Gates or Musk a "technologist"? I think that social democratic movement in 20th century, and also Chinese communist government, made many people's lives better, by improving their material conditions. It often involved technology, true, but the technology is not much if it's not applied en masse. (Communist government of my home country, Czechoslovakia, had famously huge success in eradicating polio.) And I am not convinced that free market dispersal of technology is more efficient in providing it en masse than government-directed dispersal. For a striking example, watch the ending of "scientific horror story" from Angela Collier: https://youtu.be/zS7sJJB7BUI?si=rrBJPb6bHASNrPEY&t=2991