Comment on [meme] choochoo

blarghly@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

• wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Science != Engineering

    source

    • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      It’s not equal to engineering, but it’s certainly involved in it.

      That’s like saying x ≠ x²+3x+b

      Of course it’s not equal to it (unless x and b both equal zero)

      source
  • blarghly@lemmy.world ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Valid. Although,

      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

      The thing is, rail-based infrastructure encourages walking. If you’re only going a should distance, you walk a few blocks instead of driving. If you’re going further, you walk to the station, and then to your destination.

      Walking is not an option over a certain distance. Unless you want to spend all day getting somewhere you could have gone in less than an hour, and a multiple days journey to get places farther.

      Walking alone will never replace reliance on cars until there’s a viable alternative, and trains are the best option. Especially if they’re designed efficiently and use renewable energy

      source

      • blarghly@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Certainly trains will play a part in a transition away from auto oriented transport systems. But my point is that walking needs to be primary. Every few years the train boosters will say that, for example, a high speed rail project connecting two cities will reduce auto congestion and car dependency. And then it ends up a severely underutilized boondoggle, because the two cities it connects are still auto oriented.

        If you have two places that are already pedestrian friendly and which have a high volume of traffic between them, by all means, build a train. But a train that only has stops in a sea of parking lots is not a reasonable infrastructure investment. The surrounding environment must be reformed before the train will see significant use.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • astutemural@midwest.social ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        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

        source