• Eiri@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    They will truly do anything not to admit the problem is cars

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It‘s even worse. You need mass surveillance and strip away human rights to do it the way China does it. And I am sorry, but that‘s not worth it. There are countless better ways to deal with climate change because in the end of the day it‘s still a self serving mission for the most part.

        • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Your bad faith argument aside, they absolutely do use technology that violates human rights and integrate it in this system. Think about why smart cities are controversial and amp it up to 11. That‘s China managing their population. Point systems that prevent you from air travel or entering other provinces because you dared criticize the almighty government do violate the basic human right of free speech and control traffic at the same time.

          • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Point systems that prevent you from air travel or entering other provinces because you dared criticize the almighty government

            That’s… just not real… Your understanding of Chinese policy comes from curated western sources with vested interests in putting a dystopian and totalitarian understanding of China and its government in our countries’ people (we’re both westerners). There are systems in place to prevent certain convicted criminals from freely moving around there country, but that has little to do with criticising the party.

            Regardless, big data on traffic doesn’t imply knowledge about the particular vehicles and drivers inside said vehicles. You’re just going ahead and assuming “dystopian control of people” because it’s China.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      No they aren’t. They’re saying smarter traffic systems are an improvement over what we have now. I’ve looked in the article and nowhere do they say cars aren’t a problem, or that emissions is down to traffic lights not cars.

      I see so many examples on here and on Reddit of people letting perfect be the enemy of good.

      Whether we like it or not, cars will be around for a while. It makes no sense to put zero effort into improving efficiency in the meantime. You don’t have to be so all-or-nothing.

      • deltamental@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yes, and such intelligent systems can also optimize for pedestrian traffic, reducing the time waiting for a walk light, monitor bike lane usage, track dangerous intersections, improve emergency response times, prioritize buses and trams, etc. It’s good for people to be gathering this data and trying to make things better.

    • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      China has more public transit of every type than the rest of the world combined at this point, and most of their cities are quite pedestrian centric.

      Cars are a luxury outside the rural areas, and they’re a problem, but this is unrelated to that.