[flagged]
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...
Small apartments, no cars, high taxes to fund a generous welfare and pension system just results in society eating itself.
We should be looking at what's going on in Spain generally as a failure. Without cars, these cities are giant glorified dormitories.
This bike thing is cute, but the reality is that several sections of the city will be shut down for 10s of minutes during morning peak hour, and the chance of a kid getting lost is fairly high. Several kids just walking together in a dedicated bike lane would be easier to control.
Is this some kind of a joke I don't get? If you're serious tho, it sounds like a positive to me.
> Cars are not the enemy
They are. Most modern cities are an unlivable toxic mess thanks to the fact we based transportation on private cars. There is no clean tech that can sustain the large scale usage of cars we currently have. Even electric pollutes a lot just during production/disposal.
I'm so tired of being poisoned (and with my greatest discomfort, my child too) every time I go out. I'm tired of having to give up something like 80% of the open space in our cities to a mass of lazy people that identify their "freedom" with the possession of a private vehicle.
> Example: Porsche's synthetic fuel
You know that only an infinitesimal part of the population will ever be able to afford a Porsche? How is that going to change anything except by calming the guilt of a few privileged individuals?
> The risk of biking injuries is always present.
That's why as they specify in the thread, you need a critical mass, in order to stop hysterical moped/car drivers from trying to dangerously pass you. Maybe if you just read it, instead of going on a rant against communism, you'd have something better to offer to this discussion.
I promise you, I love this idea so much I am going to dedicate myself to spread it and make it a reality.
This is rhetorical hyperbole that undermines your position.
If cities were actually “unlivable” then people wouldn’t be living there and it would cease to be a city. Toxic is also an exaggeration.
How much of your life you have spend under communistic regime? A assume none. That's was the point of my comment. You are a sitting ducks and the rational thing is to educate yourselves, but emotions are a default response. As always.
>You know that only an infinitesimal part of the population will ever be able to afford a Porsche?
Porches synthetic fuel has nothing to do directly with their cars.
This and bio-fuel will be the actual thing to reduce the global emissions. Not some group biking. What about people that have a disability and cannot bike? Inclusive approach is the answer in design and in systematic thinking. Not exclusive activism that is so popular in the West now (mainly as result of libertarian-communistic minded educational system for the rich kids and the lucky ones).
Please, do a little research before making a response to my comment: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/09/porsches-new-synthetic-...
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news-environment...
https://evcentral.com.au/synthetic-petrol-understanding-pors...
>I promise you, I love this idea so much I am going to dedicate myself to spread it and make it a reality.
Wish you luck in this crusade.:)
> How much of your life you have spend under communistic regime? A assume none
Communism means a stateless society, free from classes and exploitation. I wish I could live in a communist society, obviously not in a regime.
But I can tell you, I've lived my entire life under capitalism and exploitation, I've seen the good and the bad and I hate it with every fiber of my being.
I understand, that is why in my view the solution is to investigate and demand justice, lower the rate of corruption and lobbing and require more free market capitalism and less monopolistic and politically motivated practices.
>Communism means a stateless society, free from classes and exploitation.
This is never the real result. There were privileged "party" members which ruled in the shadows without any form of impunity, lived like modern bourgeois class while the masses consumed low grade products and followed collective constraints.
The Davos plan for the future of the world is exactly the same in its core.
You will live in "socially" acceptable constrains, with UBI (which will require total loss of privacy and some other nasty stuff), with no freedom of movement (due never ending pandemic or terrorists threats), with no ownership of transportation (due the high cost of electric vehicles or high petrol prices), no ability to grow and produce food (due to monopolistic companies which will be able to afford the regulatory "Green" tax), etc. So you will own nothing and will be happy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD-ioJM8v64
Everything while billionaire elites will live like gods in comfort, protected by the laws and mass surveillance apparatus.
This is the love child of communistic criminals of the past and western billionaires families which are investing billions in manufacturing consent trough technology and media psyops.
And it always starts with: Good intention, The Children, etc.
Everything that I shared about the communistic implementation can be fact-checked.
>The risk of biking injuries is always present
Lol. Because nobody was ever injured in a car before. What do you think are the major source of cycling injuries? It's collisions with motor vehicles. You fall off your bike and you'll probably scrape a knee. You get hit by a truck and it's near certain death. Cycling is NOT a dangerous activity, it is a benign activity done in a dangerous environment. Obvious example of Netherlands, where biking is number 1 method of transport, and nobody wears a helmet, yet they have one of the lowest rates of injury, thanks to the fact they have great cycling infrastructure which separates vulnerable road users from vehicles.
>Cars are not the enemy
Maybe some people think they are, but of course that is not the case. But that does not mean that cars must be used for every trip that we do. We can recognize that certain means of transport are better suited to certain journeys. If you are traveling very long distances then it makes sense to fly or take a boat. Likewise if you are traveling short distances it makes sense to walk or cycle. What people want is the freedom to choose their own means of transport. They want to be able to choose if they want to walk, cycle, take public transport or drive and they want to use whatever method is most convenient for them for whatever journey they are doing. They do not want the government to invest all transport funds solely into roads for cars and design cities around cars making their use essentially mandatory. I'm sure the car lobby is happy that many countries decided to do this in the 70's and that the decision to do that had nothing to do with influence from them, but now people are starting to see that the government has essentially made cars mandatory and their freedom has been taken from them. Of course cars are not the enemy and they are never going to go away, there will always be journeys where cars makes the most sense from a cost, convenience and time perspective, and there will always be people who just like driving.
>Porsche's synthetic fuel will reduce CO2 from cars dramatically
People often focus on the cO2 emissions from cars when driving, but that is actually not the worst part. In fact, it is actually much better to keep driving your old petrol car for as long as possible instead of switching to a brand new electric/low emissions car, because there are significant cO2 emissions released from building a new car. Then there is the cO2 emissions from building roads. Building just 2 meters of road has the same emissions as building a brand new car.
>Claus Schwab
Not surprised to hear you mention this name, or Santa Claus as I like to call him. The new favorite go-to for conspiracy nuts nowadays.
Wow. Did you, just call me a "conspiracy nut"?:)
Are you seriously thinking that this stance will remove the logic and facts from my argument?
There is no Santa Claus, but WEF agenda and "collaboration" with governments and billionaires is real.
And it is not for your "common good".
It is marketed that way, for sure.
literally listen to yourself, this article was originally about children cycling to school, now you are connecting this to the WEF conspiracy.
And yes it is a conspiracy, it's the same as all others where people make these vague and imprecise statements, like you did in your original comment, then take some actual facts and try to weave it all together into something malicious. Actually, this is literally what you are doing right now by taking this story literally about children cycling and weaving it into the whole WEF conspiracy.
Seriously? Did you not read at all. I see this as a non-solution of the real problem. I see this as opportunity to be used as a cover story for public consent towards "hate cars" and "love bikes". I see this as creating a narrative which will serve well WEF agendas. And I know for a fact how media works and who is the real beneficiary. Al this are facts, all of my view-point about WEF is well embraced even from leftist people with common sense. The legitimate concerns are turned to conspiracy theory in a whim. This is the real danger.
As I mentioned this is very "useful" story, already running as an "example": https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1047341052/barcelona-bicibus-...
And here you can read about "the conspiracy" angle. https://theintercept.com/2020/12/08/great-reset-conspiracy/
Note: I don't agree with Klein's view on dangers of communism. She is on the spot for the logic behind - halfway solutions for a systemic crisis far beyond WEF agenda. And yes, I have a bias. I have lived in communistic regime and have suffered over "refusing the party line and established common good practices".
That is the root cause of my reaction. I see people trying to convince themselves that this "biking" thing is a solution of a problem. In actuality this creates one. Blocking traffic in a city creates traffic congestions in other spots.