On LinkedIn Enrique Dans has been busy condemning one of the great economic drivers of the 20th century (if you’ll forgive the pun) in an article entitled “Cities without cars: no longer science fiction”:
As rumors abound about Uber creating fleets of driverless Teslas or Mercedes (since denied), how close are we to creating truly car-free cities: have we finally begun to realize that as a species we made a huge mistake over the last century by turning our lives and economies over to the automobile?
Are we about to embrace a world in which we stop owning cars — surely one of the dumbest things to spend money on — and start using more logical alternatives that will allow us to rethink our urban spaces? Will this happen within five years, ten, or fifty?
It’s always somewhat discouraging to see a monocular view of a problem. Can’t we look at it a little differently? Perhaps even dig in a little bit further? For example, did we make a huge mistake by using cars instead of horses, or are the horses greatly relieved? What’s the real genesis of the problem of cars – the fact that they exist, or the fact there’s so many of them? If the latter is your answer, perhaps the next logical step is to ask if we made a terrible mistake when we embraced pro-natalist policies to the point where the mothers are worn out and the ecology is strained just by our search for food?
Or our embrace of individualism in the States, rather than a more communal approach to life? And while communal approaches are more prone to damage individuals if & when corruption sets in amongst those in charge, is this something we should have tolerated in the name of ensuring a higher likelihood of survival?
In the end, perhaps my complaint here is merely on style points: he begins his argument with a blanket condemnation. There is little nuance, and that lack of nuance suggests he has not thought very deeply on the topic, as if he’s going to paint over some rust without ever asking if the rust is caused by a leak in the roof that is weakening the foundation and about to lead to disaster. So I find I cannot even read an article on an otherwise timely, fascinating topic, without squirming and wondering just how deeply he thought about it.
And time is limited.
