this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
1208 points (86.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

9660 readers
199 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] And009@reddthat.com 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or everyone could plant trees instead of just grass?

[–] garden_boi@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, this is important, too (see !nolawns@slrpnk.net). But no-lawns doesn't reduce car traffic, neither does it single-handedly create more walkable and public-transport-friendly communities. But you're right to notice that OP's meme doesn't make a compelling argument in itself.

[–] And009@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

Ideally nature should be my lawn, then I'll have the biggest one of all.

[–] Yellingatbirds@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are limits to how many trees, how big they can be and how close to the house you can have them. There is also a ton of car infrastructure that needs to be spread out across all the houses that takes up a good percent of the land no matter how you slice it

The most important difference though is that each person only has access to their stamp of nature that is 1% of the island. With the apartment all 100 people living there have access to 96% of the nature on the island.

It doesn't have to be just nature either. You can use it to build playgrounds, outdoor gyms, running tracks, community centers and tons of other public use things.

[–] And009@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

I hate apartments, I believe humans should spread out and live in lower densities. Cities are important in our current infrastructure and a necessary evil.

I've moved away from a city and been living in a small town past 2 years and cars are more important here than ever which is just shifted me from one evil to the next. Public transport becomes less relevant the more remote you go.

Wonder if there's a perfect balance between pollution and nature. I'm in the mountains so bikes aren't the most comfortable either and useless in case of emergency with an elderly.