They can be, but not when they're over crowded. Then they are extremely uncomfortable, and become ideal spreading grounds for infectious diseases as well as pickpockets. The conditions commuters endure at peak times would be illegal for transporting farm animals in many countries.
Pushing more people into over crowded trains is not the answer, reducing congestion should be the goal.

Only it's not, the focus is always on forcing more people onto public transport which just increases congestion and worsens conditions.

Work remote if you can, if your job can't be done remotely have the workplace in a location that enables people to live nearby and walk to work. Having workplaces bunched together in an area with no housing is harmful.

If you took the train into the city during peak hours from these locations where you lived, how comfortable was it?

Standing room only with other passengers packed in so you can barely move assuming you can even physically get inside, no air conditioning so it's unbearably hot during the summer... Do you actually like travelling in these conditions? And you believe that *more* people should be travelling on these same trains?

The fact is many journeys are unnecessary, and most travel at peak times is extremely unpleasant wether you're driving a car stuck in traffic, or on a train enduring the conditions above. Getting away from this antiquated mindset of dragging everyone to a workplace at the same time every day solves so many problems.

It's a combination of excessive consumption (sure we've eaten these foods for thousands of years, but not in the same quantities), heavy processing, and artificial ingredients used as replacements for things either because they're cheaper or because the original ingredient is being blamed for obesity/diabetes.

For example, a recent study shows that artificial sweeteners are more dangerous than sugar:
https://www.oncologyrepublic.c...

Multiple governments have been pushing hard to reduce sugar, which resulted in them being replaced with artificial sweeteners making the problem even worse.

The key drivers here are poorly thought out government initiatives to reduce X, and the commercial for-profit food production model which incentivises excessive consumption. The removal of [fat|salt|sugar] being a prime example, they replaced these with artificial junk and now openly promote "now sugar free, you can drink as much as you want!".

Moderate consumption of traditional ingredients is the obvious solution, but no for-profit company is ever going to encourage people to buy less of its product.

Not really, they might make a trip to go shopping instead of picking something up on the way back but that's about it. It's also down to city layout as some people may not have shops nearby where they live. The long commute can also be replaced by a short trip to the shop which will often be a walk.
In many european countries lots of people don't even have cars, and if you don't need to commute every day and have basic essentials within easy walking distance you have very little need for a permanent car and can save the cost. For occasional trips there are rental cars or car clubs.

Those efficiencies depend on packing people in. Transporting livestock in such cramped conditions is actually illegal in many places, and yet you would willingly subject yourself to such conditions twice a day? You know what would be significantly more efficient? Storing you in a coffin sized pod in the office outside of working hours, that way you don't require housing or travel and can be paid significantly less.
Slavery is the most efficient system of work, is that where you want to end up?

I said "their traditions".
Even if some of them have chosen to drop their traditions, that is still a part of the history of their religion. Christians have their share of history and varied degrees of practice too.

So do you embrace and protect historical traditions, or do you force them to change? And if you're forcing them to change to conform to your views what's one tradition vs another?

Ah, my favorite among such is the warning from a hair drier I bought some years ago. It said: "do not use while sleeping."

A white one, which means surrender.

This just adds more variety...
The smell of tobacco is just as disgusting, but it's been legal for a lot longer. Smokers regardless of what they smoke usually tend to be oblivious to how badly they stink.

There are also lots of other unpleasant smells on public transport, and even if you set out clean in the morning by the time you're travelling home on a hot overcrowded train you're going to be sweating.

How would they even know that you're gay? Even if you travel together noone has any reason to think you're not friends/colleagues/relatives/etc travelling together unless you advertise otherwise.

But yes your point about public transport being an unpleasant environment stand.

Most of the assholes that give people grief are not actually homophobic or racist, they just use whatever slurs they think will provoke a reaction. The same "racist homophobes" will still happily harass a straight white male if the situation arises.

No it's generally not...
Trains are heavy and require a lot of energy to move them, and in most cases don't take you directly where you need to go so you might have to take an indirect (ie longer) route, and will usually have to travel to/from the station at either end.
In order to get close to the claimed energy efficiency benefits over cars, trains are often packed well over their design capacity - that means no comfortable seats, you will be standing with other passengers right in your face.

Those trains which are sufficiently quiet that you actually get to sit in a comfortable seat are nowhere near the claimed level of energy efficiency.

Trying to force more and more people into overcrowded trains and buses might increase energy efficiency, but it is very unpleasant for those doing it. A much better solution is to simply reduce people's need to travel, which covid proved does work.
This means remote working when the job allows for it, and for jobs that are unsuitable for remote work designing cities so that employees can live closer (ie within walking distance) of their workplaces.

If you eliminate most of this unnecessary daily commuting you'll easily exceed the 3% target.

This is just modernisation. Drones are now a more important war fighting tool than guns.

Exactly this. It's the "nuclear deterrent" of ancient kings.
Convince the people that you have an all powerful weapon on your side, so that any attempt to oppose your rule would result in a certain horrible fate for them.

It's more that the traditionally christian countries have developed faster, with higher standards of education and more emphasis on critical thinking rather than blindly believing a 2000 year old book.

If you look at church attendance rates in christian countries they have been in severe decline for years. A lot of younger people have abandoned religion entirely, and religious leaders have been forced to become more moderate in an attempt to slow the decline.

Thats the difference between science and religion.
Science is ok with saying "we don't know the answer".
Religion is not ok with that, so they would rather make an answer up than admit they don't know.

Harris is a christian, Biden is a christian...
Who exactly was the non religious candidate that people could have voted for?