>>19395741st, as others have pointed out, the idea that the OP image or anyone in the thread has argued that the full scale abolition of cars is a real and desirable goal is a farce. All the countries/cities that /n/iggers want American cities to model themselves after *do* have cars. You're asking a bunch of nonsensical questions such as "if no cars, how do mail?" As if mail was a concept that didn't exist until cars were invented.
Not to mention that, as per picrel, it's more often than not the carbrains that think that transit, bikes, and even pedestrians should simply not exist than it is the reverse.
But if I'm taking your question even remotely seriously, the real answer is this: while the entire world doesn't (and can't) be 100% car dependent or 100% car-free, everytime you make a decision regarding transportation infrastructure, you are making a statement over which mode of transportation that you value more.
When we widen a road to allow more car capacity, you also make it more difficult and dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. This is a statement about how we value cars more than we value bikes and walkers. When we install a raised crosswalk or bollard protected bike lanes, we are making the experience of walking and cycling safer and more enjoyable. But we're also forcing cars to slow down and increasing the risks of cars getting damaged. When we dedicate huge swaths of land to parking, we're making transit worse by spreading everything out. When we improve transit by adding bus lanes, we're improving bus service at the cost of vehicle throughput.
Much like all forms of governance, any kind of policy action (or inaction) implies a statement of your values. The main goal of urbanists is to value a human-centric environment and transportation system over an automobile-centric one