this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
43 points (89.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43892 readers
865 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Did automobiles replacing horses, diminishing horse population, diminishing horse suffering -- as a consequence of work forced upon the animals. Is that moral win for horses; less suffering? Although their population is vastly smaller than 130 years ago.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CannedTuna@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Horses however only require grass, hay, etc, are self driving to an extent and can return home if needed, and have less environment impact than a car.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

City streets were intensely filthy back in the days of horses.

They require a constant input of hay.

They're "self driving" in the worst possible way - they can run off on their own and do whatever they want, and have little understanding of the rules of the road. People already freak out when a robotaxi takes an inadvertent wrong turn, horses can freak out and try to kill pedestrians.

They're slow. They're hard to manage. If you don't want to be exposed to the elements then you'll have to build carriages, so you'll still have factories and whatnot. Horses eventually just up and die regardless of how well you care for them.

Horses are not better than cars.

[–] Piece_Maker@feddit.uk -2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

They’re “self driving” in the worst possible way - they can run off on their own and do whatever they want, and have little understanding of the rules of the road. People already freak out when a robotaxi takes an inadvertent wrong turn, horses can freak out and try to kill pedestrians.

Ah yes because no one has ever """accidentally lost control""" of their car and smashed something/someone to pieces with it!

I'd take the mounds of horse shit on the streets over the disgusting stench of cars any day. At least I can scoop some up and spread it on my garden.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 7 points 8 months ago

I'd take the mounds of horse shit on the streets over the disgusting stench of cars any day.

No you would not.

Excerpt:

New York, which at the time was estimated to be the home of 150,000 horses, was targeted as well. The 15 to 30 pounds of manure produced daily by each horse multiplied by the number of horses in New York city resulted in more than three million pounds of horse manure per day that somehow needed to be disposed of. That’s not to mention the daily 40,000 gallons of horse urine.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] cqthca@reddthat.com 2 points 8 months ago

Car sentience Rule #1: Don't let the Humans know you are sentient.

[–] SecretPancake@feddit.de 3 points 8 months ago

disgusting stench of cars

Good thing there is already a solution for that in the form of electric cars. But too many people prefer stinky and loud cars for some reason.

[–] cqthca@reddthat.com 4 points 8 months ago

It isn't mentioned much but there was often a 3 foot high lane of manure down most city boulevards