Seen on [email protected]
As much as I hate cars, removing them is only possible inside cities. North America has a very large rural area(and population) that needs to be converted away from fossil fuels.
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
34 points (97.2% liked)
Fuck Cars
9614 readers
129 users here now
This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.
This community exists for the following reasons:
- to raise awareness around the dangers, inefficiencies and injustice that can come from car dependence.
- to allow a place to discuss and promote more healthy transport methods and ways of living.
You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.
Rules
-
Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.
-
No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.
-
Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.
-
No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.
-
No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.
-
No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.
-
No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.
Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Maybe yes, but a large part of society at least in America and Europe live in cities or suburbs, where cars are just bs
I completely agree with you on that one. Unfortunately I'm one of those rural people.
I'm banking on autonomous busing in hopes that we can eventually drop to one vehicle, we already have bus service but it's only 1/hour to the nearest little town, and only 3/day to the nearest city(commuting busses @ $20 round trip per day)
We did buy an EV though for cost and environmental reasons (I live somewhere with a 99% clean grid)
trains
Trains are not financially viable for rural areas.
Cars are not ecologically viable for life to continue on planet earth
That's a pretty shit argument. Humans are not ecologically viable for life to continue on planet earth at our current population, even if we remove all cars.
Yeah no, that's Malthusian shit you're arguing. It's not equivalent to degrowth
Yea no what? We are already setting population targets via immigration right now, the question is about what the target should be (and why) not whether or not to do it.
To do what? Limit immigration so that poor ppl from countries we immiserated, exploited, and put in danger of climate collapse from our overconsumption can die? Sounds like nazi shit to me
Wat? Should we just let anyone who wants to live in Canada do so? That sounds a lot like suicide to me.
Setting a fixed population target for optimized citizen benefit of available resources and then bringing in immigrants to make up for the birth shortfall seems like a fairly sensible option. It's not like our immigration would be "low" even if we did that, though it wouldn't be as high as it currently is it would still be hundreds of thousands of people per year.
Ppl from the global south have to immigrate bc of the plundering, immiseration, political violence, and climate catastrophe caused by colonial imperialist global north countries like Canada. You're advancing a fascist position, to force your country's victims to die so you can continue to live in undeserved privileged luxury
You can fuck right off with that nonsense.
That is just not true.
Yes it is. We hunted multiple animals to extinction and poisoned vast stretches of land long before the industrial revolution, we didn't need cars to be assholes to nature.
True, but we could sustain a lot more people and also not bring animals to extinction and destroy the environment with the right policies. Blaming overpopulation is just facist propaganda.
The number of people shouting the word fascist around here is hilarious. It's not fascist to limit immigration, it's a policy employed by literally every country in the world.
North America has a large suburban population. The rural population is almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels for the near future because of infrastructure scarcity and the energy density of fossil fuels.
Sigh...I own an EV and I will tell you that my reasons for buying it are less environmental and more practical. Not having to go to a gas station (charge at home) or how I literally have way more power than I need or that it's just fun to drive. You can shit on EVs, but in all reality they are a superior car if you don't get hung up on the fuel. I want to be better about the environment, but honestly, my EV is hands down my all time favorite car (and it's not a Tesla). So before you mock em, go test drive a few.
A "superior car" is still a fucking car
It's not the best solution, but it's better than the internal combustion engine. Obviously bicycles and walking is the ideal solution to transportation short range, while electric or other clean energy options are the way to go for long haul trips of large groups of people and goods.
Sure they are better, but still cars
Oh shut up, ecars cause less environmental damage than normal cars by far. Yes they require lithium. The lithium required doesn't get close to the damage of 300k miles worth of gas.
"but power plants burn coal for that electricity"
Not mine. I live in portland and have signed up for 100% renewable power. That's a your-city problem. You should work on that.
I think you're arguing points that weren't made.
Individually owned automobiles and the systems required to support them are wasteful and polluting no matter how you power them.
Electric cars are better, yes. But their popularity is in a large part because they allow us to mostly maintain the status quo.
Do you think they are a sustainable long-term solution? Should we be planning our future around paved roads made almost exclusively for personally owned mostly single-occupant vehicles?
It's two months later and I've done a 180 on this opinion and went from "fuck gas cars" to "fuck all cars".
The car infrastructure is the shitty part, not so much the cars
@corm @1993_toyota_camry Sort of? All cars ruin our lives. But gas cars also ruin the planet, where electric are substially better now and will be almost carbon free in 30 years or so. Getting rid of cars in general is very desirable, but getting rid of gas cars is an existential necessity.
Still cars 🤷
Electric cars help pollution like filtered cigarettes help smoker health. It's a tangible improvement, but on the grand scale of things it's not a significant improvement.
Please post links, not screenshots of content
Thanks, will keep that in mind
I actually like the laziness of just images. Links for extra context and source are always appreciated though
I disagree, twitter won't embed on the timeline, meaning you have to click the link to actually see the content, instead of just being able to expand the image. Images are much faster and easier.
Your argument is basically "fuck blind people" and "I don't care about citing my sources".
If you don't want to link to Twitter, link to another twitter front-end, like nitter.net
You can include an image of the content in the body of the post as well as link to the source, but you discredit yourself if you just post an image without a source. And you exclude people who can't see images.