3 ms·
> "environment destruction" Wait wait wait. A single double-tracked rail line that's 50 feet wide carries more passengers an hour than a 10-lane wide highway t
by potatolicious 3y ago
> "environment destruction"
Wait wait wait. A single double-tracked rail line that's 50 feet wide carries more passengers an hour than a 10-lane wide highway that's pure asphalt. In what world is the train a greater destruction of our environment?
And in what world is that a greater destroyer of our natural landscapes?
I understand the convenience. I also went from taking public transit exclusively to driving a lot more - and I get the appeal. I also understand the appeal is not scalable, considerably less environmentally friendly, and contributes a ton of carbon output and environment destruction.
We don't need to bend over backwards to pretend that the things that are convenient and enjoyable for us must necessarily be virtuous. We should be fully capable of owning the dissonance that our desires do not necessarily align with public benefit.
- poisonborz 3y agoNowhere did I say it's greater, but still significant compared to how higways - which will still exist anyway - are much more useful and have more freedom of access (eg. for freight companies, emergency services). If most of society has this dissonance, maybe it'd be useful to overthink it. There are many ways to make personal travel greener, and that may be the more attainable goal.