Nature Magazine used to be one of the titans of science journals. If you got your paper into Nature, it was a point of considerable pride and professional achievement. Whether that was warranted is a point of much debate…but it is undeniable that anything published in Nature will be read and cited widely.
Which is why nonsensical articles such as this are both sad, as an indicator of how far this once proud journal has fallen, and dangerous, because it promulgates the discredited Global Warming scam while also suggesting that it is the elites, and only the elites who can save us!
This short article is chock full of absolute, unadulterated bullsh*t. I can’t quote everything that is ridiculous because that would be the entire thing, but here are a few beauts!
Make trains great again — for the sake of people and the planet
One way research can help to get things back on track is by broadening the criteria governments use to assess railway investment, says Christian Wolmar, an independent transport consultant and author based in London. All too often, these are based on narrow metrics of profitability or ‘time saved’ by potential users, with insufficient consideration of the wider social and environmental impacts. Economists, other social scientists and sustainability researchers can all contribute to developing more-robust assessments of these indirect benefits.
Ah yes…change the metrics so that trains look better, and poof! Trains will look better. By all means, avoid that yucky measure of profitability, because really, what does that tell you about the technology?
Time saved? Yes, as an indicator, it is valuable, and there are other considerations when comparing the movement of people and cargo from point A to point B. Great…so you got yourself or the cargo to the train station. But what happens next? You still have to get yourself to your destination, or your cargo to the end user. That’s one of the shortcomings of rail transport and travel, so by all means…ignore it!
So now we have to pay attention to social and environmental impacts, which means bringing in the elite of our current academic mess…sustainability researchers! And sociologists! But don’t worry, the assessment will be more robust.
Here’s another lovely few sentences that will be recognizable to all of the people who just love the idea of the 15 minute city!
Better rail-based mass-transit options could help to reduce urban sprawl, as well as the land needed for roads, car parks and other car-related infrastructure. Less-congested cities with fewer motor vehicles are more liveable places where people are more inclined to walk and cycle, reaping the health benefits of these activities. They are also more inclusive, particularly for younger and older people who are less likely to own a vehicle.
Oh no! The evil car rears its ugly head. Never mind that cars give us freedom and autonomy, and are a superb measure of real wealth. But rest assured, our overlords are concerned for our health, so get on that bicycle and ride to work in the rain and snow! Don’t worry…everyone will be doing it, so you can feel like you are part of a huge, homogeneous crowd.
Research can also illuminate the winners and losers created by investment decisions. China, for example, is set to continue the breakneck expansion of its high-speed rail, aiming to reach 60,000 kilometres by 2030. But scholars are debating the wisdom of the speed and scale of this expansion, with uncertainty remaining about how widely the economic benefits of high-speed links are distributed.
That one is a real head scratcher. Apparently economic success needs to be examined more carefully than just by…you know…economic success. I guess that’s why inclusivity and carbon credits will be more important than traditionally accepted financial measures. And they aren’t pleased with China, in spite of the commies building lots of high speed rail, because there hasn’t been sufficient oversight of the networks by those sustainability researchers and equity consultants?
But this one might be my favorite, in a vomit-inducing sort of way…
The United Kingdom will be celebrating its role in birthing the railways later this month, but the country also offers an example of the effects disinvestment in railways can have. A 2024 study examined a sustained programme of cuts made to the nation’s railway network from the 1950s to the 1980s. It found that the predominantly rural areas most affected by the cuts saw population declines, job losses and drops in the number of skilled workers, relative to areas that were unaffected.
STAY ON THE LAND, SERFS! And wet streets cause rain, but that’s the sort of analysis that is necessary to support a political philosophy that requires rigid social hierarchies, forcing people into planned-by-the-government housing and employment, and taking away their ability to be human and go where they want to go, and do what they want to do. You know: communism.
Two hundred and fifty years ago, a Scottish economist named Adam Smith wrote about the now-obvious concept of “the invisible hand.” That is a perfect metaphor for the billions of individual decisions, motivated by self-interest, that drive economies. That invisible hand decides winners and losers, and it is the most efficient, and maybe the only way for economies to prosper. Elites short circuit those decisions by incorrectly assuming that their understanding of economies and societies are better than the sum of those billions of individual choices. They are wrong. They have always been wrong, and their arrogance has brought only pain and suffering and poverty.