3 ms·
There are cities not designed around cars. We just call them "rural." You could not have had your urban city without cars. There is absolutely nothing "tragi
by timewizard 1y ago
There are cities not designed around cars. We just call them "rural." You could not have had your urban city without cars. There is absolutely nothing "tragic" about this.
Meanwhile you live in a world where petty wars are fought over resources to enhance the wealth of an extreme minority of the population. That's an actual tragedy.
- freen 1y agoIt seems we have very different definitions of “city”. I am very curious to hear yours.
- timewizard 1y agoIt seems you want to ignore half the problem.
- alistairSH 1y agoI’m still not sure what point you’re trying to make… you claimed cities can’t exist without cars. Yet London and Paris and Rome and damn near every big city in Europe did predate cars by centuries.
- masklinn 1y agoNot just Europe either. Tokyo was not named after the Tokyo Motor Vehicles Ltd.
- masklinn 1y ago> There are cities not designed around cars. We just call them "rural." You could not have had your urban city without cars. That is literally the opposite of reality.
- oblio 1y agoThe first "urban city" predates the car by about 5000 years.
- rebolek 1y agoI lived car-free life in a (European) city without any hassle. I moved to "rural" and can't imagine I would be able to live there without a car. In city, you can afford to have public transport on every corner going every ten minutes. In the rural area it's impossible.
- rsynnott 1y ago> You could not have had your urban city without cars. … Eh? The city I live in has been here for a thousand years, and that doesn’t even make it a particularly old city. _Outer suburbs_ are a somewhat car-dependent phenomenon, but cities certainly are not.