Perhaps we’re getting hung up on the semantics of “replaced.” Where once there were horses, there were later internal combustion vehicles of many kinds. But the point the article makes is simply that that “replacement” wasn’t as direct as the typical claim, as urban workers were not commuting on horseback. People did not ride into the dealership in a personal carriage, trade in the horses, and drive off the lot in a Model T. At that time, communities were denser and people were walking and using transit. Some of the transit was pulled by horses, later replaced by individual cars as the auto industry systematically attacked transit and reshaped cities, but that’s not what the “replaced” claim implies. It has the sound of a 1:1 swap.

Have you read the article? It’s really not about horses at all, and it makes some good points that help put the horse comment into context.

Eh, probably, but it’s a lot to ask of someone in their declining years to move away from everything and everyone they know, especially if dementia is a factor. It’d be different if families stayed close, but so many older adults don’t have anyone nearby. They should be moving in with their kids. But their kids are overburdened, over scheduled and underpaid. And not all of them voted to keep it that way…but…

Anyway it’s different from person to person, but it rarely seems to be simple.