|
28253. Adam Selene - 4/25/2006 6:35:07 PM I think the discussion belongs under philosophy as much as anywhere, since we're talking rights to our lifestyle and not economics per se.
Anyway - I disagree with Pelle's assumption. While a car was once necessary to take advantage of life's pleasures and other benefits, that's not necessarily true today. Where I once needed to drive to a movie theatre, now I retire to my media room. Where once I had to drive downtown for a restaraunt meal, now it's just around the corner. My library and most of my liesure entertainment is a modem away. And if I lived in the city, my gym, library, museums, theatre, etc. would all be within reach without a car.
And we're not even talking total carlessness - just cutting our useage by a significant fraction. We can still have a car for weekend jaunts and cross-country vacations, we just would need a large fraction of people to walk/bike to work or work at home, and another fraction to increase gas mileage via hybrids or downsizing their vehicle, to completely remove dependence on foreign oil for the next few decades. 28254. Adam Selene - 4/25/2006 6:38:00 PM Another thought - the pressure to improve car usage is not just gas prices - it's also congestion. There's a very real limit to how long most people are willing to sit in a traffic jam, especially as they grow geometrically (if not exponentially) every decade. 28255. PelleNilsson - 4/25/2006 6:52:03 PM Yes, I do. And yes, I think it's rational. The doomsayers were wrong in the 70's. They are equally wrong now.
Have you read "Limits of growth"? If not pick it up at the library, and while you are there get hold of Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" as well. These two books, have directly or indirectly formed your world view. Read them, and feel a rising wave of incredulity over their reasoning and predictions. 28256. Adam Selene - 4/25/2006 7:01:51 PM I guess I agree too. Virtually all negative side effects of "progress" (for lack of a better word) are not nearly as serious in the near term as the problems they solve. Industrial pollution? Better than 16-hour days subsistance farming with well water and latrines. Sweat Shops? Better than starvation. Child Labor? same thing. As horrific as we think these things are now, the were better than the alternatives at the time.
So today we have problems.. they too will be solved when they get serious enough that we muster our resources. Global warming? well- maybe there will be some fairly large scale relocations away from the coast before we get it under control, but probably nothing much worse than Katrina already. And what we've gained from the industrial progress that gave us global warming has been tremendously better and healthier lifestyles for virtually everyone on the planet. Have some benefited more than others? Of course. Has everyone benefited? hardly. But most have benefited to some degree and many to a huge degree. 28257. alistairConnor - 4/25/2006 8:02:11 PM Global warming? Ah no problem. We're going to "get it under control". That's clear. By what means? Oh never mind about the details, I'm sure Science will fix it.
There, Adam, is the potted summary of the irrational belief system you share with Pelle.
The facts don't support such a view. The USA and China, leading protagonists in the competition for a finite supply of petroleum, are also sitting on virtually unlimited supplies of coal. Are they going to leave them in the ground? I think not. Are they intending to compensate for the CO2 and other gases they are currently releasing, or are intending to release? No sign of that.
Maybe there's a technical fix for the problem, or will be some day. But I think we'd already know about it by now, if there was one that could be deployed in time (say, within 20 years). That stuff doesn't happen overnight.
And "probably nothing much worse than Katrina already"... have you got some specialist knowledge you'd like to share, or is it blind, ideologically driven optimism, as I suspect?
28258. alistairConnor - 4/25/2006 8:03:34 PM But, having said that, I am relatively sanguine about being able to weather the coming storms, personally at least. I wouldn't be planning on buying a car in 2009 if I wasn't an optimist. 28259. Adam Selene - 4/25/2006 8:23:27 PM I wouldn't call it "blind," there's many generations of experience that man can solve problems man creates. Not eliminate all problems, but solve the ones that improve our situation in the near term. But yes, I'm an optimist. As a sci-fi reader since birth, I've always believed in man's innate ability to master his destiny, and that in the end, we will muddle through somehow. 28260. Adam Selene - 4/25/2006 8:49:13 PM alistair - I like that car! Specially the spartan interior. It appeals to the minimalist, functionalist engineer in me. 28261. resonance - 4/26/2006 12:26:09 AM ... exactly my point.
Well, not to put too fine an edge on it, but your point is something different -- that market pressure will remove the automobile from the hands of all but the 'well-to-do', whatever means of qualifying you are using for that title.
Mine is that the very same pressure will work to keep that mobility in the hands of most people, since both the jobs economy and the services economy depend heavily upon a mobile population.
28262. Adam Selene - 4/26/2006 12:45:10 AM resonance,
And I think you're both right. :)
Market pressure will remove the automobile in it's current form from the masses, but people will never give up mobility, even if it means shudder mass transit, hybrids, and self-imposed rationing of travel by living closer to your commute destination. 28263. Adam Selene - 4/26/2006 12:45:51 AM Darn toys. 28264. SnowOwl - 4/26/2006 3:02:51 AM test 28265. wonkers2 - 4/26/2006 3:15:01 AM I'm inclined (barely) to agree with Pelle and Adam in this discussion. We are certainly capable of adapting to declining oil reserves. The transition will be momentous because our economic development for 100 years has been based on oil. However, coal reserves are huge and nuclear energy is a viable alternative. Solar and wind energy will also contribute. I heard recently that we are on the brink of a significant breakthrough in solar power. Motor vehicles some day will be powered by hydrogen fuel cells. However, global warming is worth worrying and doing something about before it's too late. 28266. wonkers2 - 4/26/2006 3:16:37 AM If you look at world car production you'll see that more people, not fewer, are driving cars every year. This trend may be expected to continue. 28267. wonkers2 - 4/26/2006 3:16:58 AM For the forseeable future. 28268. judithathome - 4/26/2006 3:33:41 AM Yes, Wonkers, just think of all the Chinese waiting to trade in their bicycles for cars. 28269. Adam Selene - 4/26/2006 3:36:23 AM As if. If I were Hu, I'd keep them on bikes for their health and build cities with housing near jobs, and GOOD mass transit. There's no reason they have to duplicate our mistakes. 28270. alistairconnor - 4/26/2006 3:24:54 PM Motor vehicles some day will be powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
Yes, there will be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of hydrogen fuelled motor vehicles. I'm quite sure I'll never own one.
The thing, Wonk, is that bottled hydrogen has a very low energy density compared to petroleum based fuel. It's just not a smart option. If you've got lots of hydrogen, probably the best use for it is to use it to extract or fabricate petroleum for transport. 28271. alistairconnor - 4/26/2006 3:31:40 PM Res : your reasoning looks rather circular. Wish fulfillment : People will still be able to afford to drive cars, because they simply HAVE to!
I mean, I hope you're right. But it doesn't amount to an argument.
To go back to your original quote :
Message # 28236 I think it's an interesting question as to whether or not it is moral to force people, via price pressure and taxation, to stop driving so much.
This sounds a little bit conspiracy-theorist. Would you care to expand on it? Is some malevolent entity heavying us with price pressure? Is there someone who can flip a switch and make it all right again, as your reasoning implies? 28272. Adam Selene - 4/26/2006 3:37:14 PM alistair - energy density is a technical concern, not an economic one. As long as the fuel+tank weight isn't too much or too big and the range between refills is acceptable (perhaps 200 miles minimum, like a motorcycle,) then energy density is a non-issue. But if hydrogen is like batteries where you just can't fit enough into the car, then that's another story (and you're right.) But, if so, why haven't we heard that argument?
|
