- cross-posted to:
- neoliberal@lemmy.world
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- neoliberal@lemmy.world
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://quokk.au/c/fuckcars/p/550765/meme-choochoo
You must log in or # to comment.
Downvoting because this doesn’t really have anything to do with science. Also because it isn’t funny. I support the message, though
The connection to science isn’t explicit, but there’s definitely an implicit connection. There’s the engineering it would take to design efficient rail systems and modern locomotives, there’s the calculation of relative emissions cost compared to reliance on automobiles, and all the science on the impacts of those emissions, the calculated benefit of converting infrastructure to rail-based, etc.
It doesn’t out and say it, but anyone with the basic knowledge should be able to draw the connection.
You could say the same thing about a picture of a cow with the text “Cows have feelings. Stop killing cows.” Yes, science can validate that cows have feelings, and it can discuss the ways in which animal agriculture contributes to climate change. But we could all tell that the poster has less interest in making jokes about science, and more interest in spreading heavy-handed vegan propaganda.
And again, I personally am in favor of reforming urban design to lessen our reliance on personal automobiles (though I will note that, contrary to the emphasis of the meme, the more research-supported position is that the primary transportation alternative to cars needs to be walking, not trains). But this meme is clearly not a science meme.
Also, it isn’t funny. So I like it even less, because I think getting people on board with improved urban environments starts with being likeable - not whiny.
You could say the same thing about a picture of a cow with the text “Cows have feelings. Stop killing cows.”
Yes, you could.
heavy-handed vegan propaganda
No such thing, only carnists desperate not to acknowledge their unethical behavior.
I don’t think carnists are desperate, they just don’t care. They don’t view it as unethical.
You can try explaining to someone the harms of the meat industry from an environmental standpoint, an animal rights standpoint, a food security standpoint, a worker’s rights standpoint, and some may be amenable with the right amount of convincing.
But trying to bludgeon someone into compliance through shaming and demanding them to change is heavy-handed. And especially when carnists are in the majority, it’s not likely to be effective either
as a full time carnist - I’m not desperate, I don’t see it as unethical, It’s not that I don’t care about science and health but the data I’ve found does not support the plant based movement, I’m open to new data but not propaganda or low hazard ratio epidemiology
In advanced countries the public transport isn’t a problem, only the USA is 50 years behind.
Railway map EU vs USA
Excuse me statesia isn’t 50 years behind. 50 years ago we were better. We’re more like 200 years behind.
Well, the US was always a third world country with too much money and weapons.
That’s very offensive to third world countries.
Ok, true, much third world countries treat its people.way better
This is already the case in many places where it’s possible. It would be a huge waste of resources though, in places that are thinly populated.
That’s weird. I thought it was everyone driving their own cars all the time that was a huge waste of resources.
With work hours being what they are, you don’t have set times where everyone needs to be at work or go home at the same time. It rural areas, having public transport so often that “you don’t need to check a schedule” would mean empty busses and trails most of the time.
For me, I can tell that I have lived in a city where this was the case. It was great! But where I live now, this isn’t possible. The narrative now is, that people should move into towns, to make this more effective. There is a very fine balance between effectiveness though, and industrialization of living conditions.
The meme is specifically about cities, so when you said “thinly populated,” that should have been about thinly populated areas of cities.
If you’re actually talking about rural areas and not cities, then you’d want to start with buses. Speaking of living in places with good public transit, I used to live in Japan, and I was surprised by how much buses get used in rural areas. They can get pretty full.
Efficient planning could overcome that. A central hub with lines going to every other major hub nearby would be enough to connect all the cities. Then each route can run “express” services that only stop at major stations along the way, and “local” services, which stop at every small station. That way people can travel faster between hubs, while stilling giving access to less populated areas.
A few transcontinental lines for high-speed trains, and some major north-south routes as well, make public transit a viable optipn for long-distance travel.
Each city having its own metro system would make intracity public transit a viable option, reducing the need for cars and therefore reducing traffic congestion, simultaneously making it possible to make neighborhoods more walkable. A few spoke-shaped lines to reach out to surrounding suburbs, and loop-shaped lines to connect the outskirts without having to tranfer at the central hub.
Then all you need is a few well-planned bus routes to connect suburban areas to nearby stations. The only ones this leaves out are rural areas, who would still depend on cars, but that’s a much smaller portion of the population. Eliminating the need for a car in urban and suburban areas would go a long way towards reducing congestion and pollution.
Lots of places already have good public transportation systems, because they were built around the premise of using trains as a main mode of transport. Suburbs are built around train stations. Mixed-use zoning allows for as many residences as possible to be constructed within walking distance of a train station. And since there’s less need for parking lots, they can be built more densely to avoid wasting space.
The car lobby in the USA did a lot of damage, and now it would be costly to convert the infrastructure. But long term, it would be a worthwhile investment.
90% of the US has none of that. Nothing walkable. No trains. No buses. No sidewalks. I’ve lived in places with transportation pretty decent, but the only option where I live currently is cars. We are generations away from what you’re describing. Making cars more expensive isn’t accelerating the development of alternatives, it’s only making people suffer and more and more angry.
Yes, I know that. I’m identifying that as a problem, but I never said a solution would be quick or easy. I’m fairly certain I even said that US infrastructure is built in a way that would make it more difficult, as compared to societies that are built upon rail-based systems.
When did I ever say anything about making cars more expensive? What is it with Lemmy comments and making strawman arguments?
-User posts in-depth explanation of how to build out public transit
-“Well we don’t have it NOW so you’re hurting farmers!!!1!”
![[meme] choochoo](https://quokk.au/static/media/posts/8L/4e/8L4eFCNmnx9NzyK.webp){kind=link}