this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
547 points (97.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9662 readers
64 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
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 98 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean, if north american streets could look like picture 1, that would already be a huge step.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah by my standards pic 1 looks fantastic. For anyone who thinks otherwise, whatever you do, don’t move to an American city.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

Totally agree. At least the merchants aren’t completely shut off from customers and the trees look great.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’s better for your mental health, too.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

But where are the poor poor cars going to park? Won't anybody think of the cars?!?

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)

"But there will be bugs, and what about my allergies!"

I have a suspicion that a ton of allergies are the result of avoiding nature except where it is a mono culture like lawns and three plant landscaping where the body only adapts to a limited number of irritants and overreacts for others.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Fun fact: many cities had issues with female fruiting trees because their fruits would rot on the ground, causing bad smells and rodents. So they replaced them with male trees.

Unfortunately for allergy sufferers, this increased pollen counts exponentially. But that's not all. Because these trees can "sense" that they are competing with other male trees, they produce even more pollen than they normally would.

Edit: My information is outdated! It was based on an article that I read back in the early 2000s and it looks like it's been debunked.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is only partially true. Not all trees, and not even most trees, have exclusively one gender. There's not that much scientific evidence supporting your claim of a conscious effort to plant certain gendered trees resulting in exponentially higher levels of pollen

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So I had to look this up.

My information was based on an article that I read back in the early 2000s and it looks like it's been debunked.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Thanks for checking it and the update, that's cool of you

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Would it have been possible to pay a crew to clean up the fruits?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

In an age where cities are getting less and less tax revenue, replanting new trees that don't fruit is often more cost effective in the long run.

And even if you did hire a crew, they aren't going to get every piece of rotted fruit. Animals, being what they are, will bury or hide them.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

That's literally one way allergies form.

https://evidence.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/EVIDoa2300311

Exposure to allergens makes you less likely to be allergic to them.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago

I'll take the first one too. Much nicer than where I live.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

The top one is not that bad. A lot of places look much worse.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

I wouldnt call that nature but its a hell of a lot better than pavement hell.

[–] Squirrel 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Wow, greenery sure makes things brighter. /s

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah it looks like the top picture was taken with an old webcam

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Thanks for the detective work. Maybe it’s because the top picture looks like autumn and the bottom one is spring which makes the comparison pop so much

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

The bottom picture makes me happy. ☀️

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I can only dream that my city could look like the first picture let alone the second one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

But that would make the temperature colder and it was finally getting comfy up in here!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago

not even remotely similar to what "back to nature" would mean

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago

Then the buildings and sidewalk would be overgrown. This is giving a bit of it back to nature.