Comment

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

Sort:hotnew top

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 ⁨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, 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 ⁨8⁩ ⁨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 ⁨5⁩ ⁨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
    wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    That’s why it needs to be a comprehensive system. Connecting unwalkable cities by long distance, high speed trains wouldn’t be enough to effect the cultural shift necessary, no. But I didn’t say that alone would be enough.
    
    Intercity rail is just one aspect of a comprehensive rail system, which must also include intracity railway infrastructure such as a well-planned metro system. And ideally some local routes that connect outlying suburbs into the main rail network.
    
    All of this is necessary to reduce dependence on automobiles, and to reduce the overall picture to one of its aspects and say that part alone wouldn’t be enough to achieve the goal is honestly not a very good argument.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- astutemural@midwest.social ⁨19⁩ ⁨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 ⁨8⁩ ⁨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