Automobiles and Television, two great pillars of contemporary American 
decadence are amazingly similar.  Both are filled with unreality.  When one
drives down the street looking through his "windshield" he is as removed from
reality as the couch potato with his remote control.  He knows nothing of the
non-community he is driving through.  Aside from turn signals and giving 
"the finger" to other drivers, he does not communicate with those around him.
He doesn't know about the coffee house or newstand around the corner.   He does
not pause to look in a store window or read the enlightening graffiti on the
old handbill pasted on the lamp post.
He is as passive as that couch potato, burning no calories, growing fatter and
polluting the atmosphere.  He hasn't walked two blocks to a store since he was 
12 years old, if he did so then.  He doesn't know that the person in the next
lane is human, if he is, and has automatic door locks to protect his indolence.
This similarity between TV and the car are not accidental.  The car companies
spend $1000. per car in advertising, mainly on TV, to promote their imbecile
image of happiness.  TV programming generally promotes self-indulgence and
idiot indolence.  It is no accident that TV news does such a poor job of 
informing us of the damage, ecological and economical, done by the automobile.

39 responses total.

I am often mightily tempted to five "the finger" to other drivers, but
I demur, because I do not want to be shot. More isolation, I guess. 
However in Italy (in particular) drivers do not (did not?) use
airconditioning, and happily vent their feelings with horn and voice,
hardly being the "couch potatoes" of the roads. In regard to the
"damage, ecological and economical, done by the automobile", that appears
to be a good topic to start in Environment - its your's, Bill, so I'll
leave it to you.

   Couch potatoes?  That certainly doesn't fit some of the driers I've
encountered.  Some of them are quite active, blowing their horns and
yelling "Get off the road" at cyclists.  One recent driver was even more
active, actually taking time out of his busy schedule (so busy that the
maybe two seconds of delay caused by a group of cyclists aparrently
mattered) to come back a second time and throw a full Pepsi can at us.

   I think it somewhat fits, couch potatoes.  When not in a car, all
too many Americans tend to sit around and not do things.  I myself
have succumbed to the habit of driving places that I should walk to.
I've gained weight because of it.  Once in a car, a driver doesn't
really have to do anything physical, unless you count turning a
steering wheel physical.

I drive small cars with manual transmissions. Therefore I get deep-knee
bend exercise getting in and out, and aerobic leg and arm (right)
exercise, shifting gears. Now, I need something to do with my left arm.
I am thinking of developing a system of turn-direction signals.

OK folks:  Let's not get hung up on that buzz-word of the 90's, *couch potato*
The main point is the unreality, detachment, isolation, alienation, and lack
of communication of the GREAT AMERICAN DREAM: YOUR CAR

I suspect that your insight has been accepted. So, now what do we talk
about? Cars are great transportation: do you have a suggestion for making
them less isolating? I would observe that bicycles are equally alianating,
at least in a city, where one must go single file: how many bicyclists 
get into conversations with other bicyclists they don't already know?
In fact, even in walking we are isolated, and generally avoid contact with
others. Maybe its society, not the tools of society?

   I think Bill's point is that the American style of car usage seems
to be optimized for as unhealthy a style as possible.
   Are cars "great" transporation?  I think not.  The one thing they
give is complete freedon on a unit level that mass transporation
simply can't match.  But in terms of saftey and energy usage, they're
pretty horrid.  Now, one can argue that the energy isn't all that
important since we can always get more (if we *ever* get the
political wherewithall to do it) but the saftey issue remains.
  I'd sure like to see a system of mass transporation where I could
get from here to say Brighton easily, but I'm not going to hold
my breath for it.

We used to have such a transportation system - the interurban railroad.
It is my understanding that the system was destroyed by General Motors,
who wanted to sell more buses. 
Re #7: I'd argue that cars are "great transportation" if you consider only
transportation, and not any other factors. That, of course, is why they
are so popular. What do you mean, in regard to energy, that "we can
always get more"? That is one of the major problems we face - the energy
crunch when petroleum is gone. That is only decades away. 

  A perfect example was known as the Red Car in LA. With the Red Car,
One didn't need a car to get around. 

  I might also add that there were lines that went to Pontiac, Grand Rapids
 and Ann Arbor from Detroit. That's something we need to do again.
 Dig those old rails up and let's run a few cars.

  With medians in most of the major routes like Woodward, Michigan,
Eight Mile, and so on, thwould be a perfect place to lay rails
and run a interurban, or a light rail system. In Chicago, The former
Congress St Expressway has a light rail line running in between the 
east/west lanes. (Congress Expressway=EisenhowerExpressway (i-55))

Those medians were *for* the interurbans: that's there they ran.

   Cars are "great" from the mobility standpoint.  That's their main
claim.  But in terms of safety and expense they loose out completely.

   As for being able to get energy: we live 8 light minutes from a star!
There is *no* energy shortage.  There is a intelligence shortage,
coupled with special interests that are trying to make sure we don't
really go after other sources.  But there isn't any shortage at all.
Only the will to develop them.

Solar energy cannot "economically" provide the type of energy uses
we are currently dependent upon. The reason is that it is so dilute -
in watts per square meter. You calculate what you would need to replace
a 1000 megawatt power generation plant, and discover you would have to
pave most of Washtenaw County with collectors. The damage to land is
enormous. Solar energy can only become viable if our demand can be
reduced by a factor of 10 or a 100. We can have more efficient lighting
(LED, rather than incandescent or even flourescent - and lots *less* of
it), LCD television, etc, (but there is still a problem with 
manufacturing, where there is no replacement for electric motors, even
if 100% efficient). Economics are important in all this - electric cars
may be on the horizon, to replace liquid fuels, but again you'd have to
pave enormous areas to replace the present automobile transporation
capacity. So, there *will be* an energy shortage. The only thing 
intelligence will serve is to find and choose the means to reduce
drastrically our energy demand.

You simply put your solar collectors on a space platform.  I haven't read
about it in a long time, but there is a way to do the collecting in space
and then get it down here, I just can't remember how to go about it at the
moment and all our books are still packed in boxes around here, somewhere.

...simply...

Right- High energy beams from space and there's an accident and a whole city
gets wiped out.

  No, Bill, thats SF from *bad* movies.  While I won't say "simply", it
can be done.  Or, rather, it could be done if we ever get ourselves into
thinking that we should do it.  The original and refined O'Neil systems
could sned 5 GW (five billion watts) down to receiving antenna farms of
more than a mile in diameter.  When you calculate the amount of power
per suqare meter on the ground, it turns out to be quite safe for
medium-term exposeure.  So, put the antenna systems in an area where
people don't live, and put farms underneath the antenna arrays.  The
environmental impact of such a system is very minimal, espically
compared to traditional sources of power generation.
  What this is vulnerable to unforunately, is terrorist attacks
such that it could be disabled for a time by a relatively simple
airplane launched missle.  *That* is a problem.

There is nothing to assure that this technology is either feasable or safe.
Meanwhile, the US counts as 5% of the world population and uses 25% of it's
energy.  The automobile is uncivilized and nasty, it breeds inconsiderateness
and selfishness.  We are prisoners of poisonous media that foster self indul-
gence, selfishness, and idiocy, and these media are owned by the car companies
to the extant that the big three US auto makers spend $1000. per car sold on
advertising:  Look at it: all the ads on TV are cars, beer, and pain relievers.
The program content is designed to foster infantalism.
The answer is not pie-in-the-sky science fiction, but old fashioned responsi-
bility and conservation.  That's why i repeat and repeat, bang bang bang:
Public Transportation and close together, multifamily housing.  OUR CURRENT
LIFE STYLE IS NOTHING SHORT OF CRIMINAL AND IDIOTIC!

   Bill, thats nonsense.  Nothing is feasable untill you try to do it.
America got from ground zero to the moon *in six years*.  We can damn
well do that again, only this time, we aren't starting from nothing.
While I won't say that this wouldn't be one of the most incredible
engineering feats in all hostiry, we could do it.  Really good
studies have been done on this.
   America uses a huge amount of energy, that is true.  Once we learn
to conserve, it seems pointless to me not to find ways for others
to be brought up to our level, rather than drag us down to third world
levels.
   There is enough for all, should we have the courage (and guts)
to get it.

Just to put a perspective on 5 gigawatts from space (while waiting for
the Andres to umpack their books), at a overall energy conversion
efficieny of 35% (which is optimistic), the collector in space would
be 3300 meters on a side - of photoeletrics, which deteriorate with
long term exposure to UV and beyond. There is controversy over putting
up a scientific space station, which would be much smaller, and would
be needed in advance anyway, as a platform from which to assemble
the collector. OK - dream about it, but the most *practical* approach
is to reduce our consumption, and conserve. That can be done almost
immediately, without anything near the investment in technology required
by solar collectors in space. It is not just "courage and guts" required
to get solar energy, it is a significant fraction of our gross national
product to make the thing and then *see* if it works.

 didn't Tesla do something along this line? Transmitting power through the
air rather than through wires?

You are correct - after he had invented alternating current power
distribution systems, and hordes of other stuff. However he did not
have efficient means of generation or conversion (not even a vacuum
tube). It can be done much more efficiently now. However, we haven't
even gotten to the problems inherent in doing this from *space*.

   I agree that the most pratical thing currently is to conserve.
Actually, even with infinate supplies it makes sense to conserve,
doesn't it?  So I have no argument with that.
   Yes, SSPS's are huge--really huge.  But that doesn't mean it
can't be done--even NASA successfully tested its Beam Builder, which
worked just fine.  Robotics can be used everywhere to help speed up
the process and make it safer for those up there.  Because of the
size of the project, it makes for a tempting target, I'm afriad to
say.

Replying to Steve's statement above, that using less energy by greater use
of public transportation and higher density housing would be "dragging us
down to a third world standard of living.":  Look at Europe: they use far less
oil than us, more pub trans and apartments.  That is hardly "third world."
Most of you reading this are 2nd generation of never or rarely using public
transportation.  Cities are civilization, suburbs are wastelands.  It is 
hardly a sacrifice to enjoy a leisurely ride to work reading the newspaper or
a book, or just staring out the window, rather that fighting traffic.  The 
interludes at transfers between buses are educational experiences, browsing in
store windows, etc.  Most Detroiters think that public transportation is for 
poor people only.  Even the infamous NYC subway system is ridden by middle &
upper middle class people during the day.  I myself, a sweet, shy little boy
from Oak Park, Illinois, ride the Chicago el at all hours of the day/night.
People belong on the street, not surrounded by 2500 pounds of steel and 
plastic.

   Hmm.  I didn't mean to say that.  My comments about being dragged down
refer to the thoughts/philosophies of some who advocate going far back
to be "natrual".  As for Europe, I couldn't agree more.  The time that
I've lived there was the only time I've ever felt that not having a car
was a problem.
   So I'm agreeing that things like mass transportation are a Good Thing,
and should be done whevever possible.  I do think that there are places
in America where it will never be practical for mass transit, such as
most of the West.  But thats not a reason why not to do it elsewhere.

I've lived in Europe, and public transportation there is excellent. It
is less excellent here, because of "urban sprawl". If "downtown" is
where all the stores are, then public transportation is great. But
if you have to hit half-a-dozen different scattered shopping areas
to find the stuff you seek, its not so great. What they do in Europe
is "compact" the cities, so almost all the businesses are within easy
walking distance of a transportation hub. Yes, we need more public
transportation, but we also need to redesign our cities, which have
been designed around the automobile.

   But, you can also get into the countryside.  Granted, it isn't like
driving a car, but it can be done and a lot of people do it.

Absolutely. I once went on a Univ of London outing club hike. I thought
we were really in the wilds. At the end of the day we strolled out
of a wood - to a bus stop! The sudden contrast was startling. (And
welcome - it was raining, of course.)

When public transportation becomes easy and timely I will take it.  When
I have to waste a LOT more time using public trans than I do driving
or walking myself I refuse.

One of my friends lives in Ypsilanti, not far from an AATA bus stop, her
kids go to a private school in Ann Arbor, also not far from an AATA bus
stop.  It takes them 2 1/2 hours to get to school.  If she had a car and
could drive them it would take 15-20 minutes.  I think that making a child
get up 3 hours before s/he normally would just to get to school via public
transportation is assinine.

I think public transportation is a good thing, but there have to be a lot
of changes made before I use it on a regular basis.  I know that you need
to allow a bit more time, but 10 times as long as driving yourself is
not cost effective to me, my time is worth more than that.

   Time does seem to be the key here.  Only the poorest who can't afford
a junker are truely stuck using AATA.  Many of my friends got cars when
I was younger just because of the time issue involved.  Even folks on
minimum wage generally seem to have cars.  Of course, this is a trap I
know.  And thats the tragedy of it all--how do we get out of this spiral?
What will it take to start redesgining cities such that we don't revolve
around cars?

It would have helped to have adopted Clinton's energy tax, to bring
the cost of fuel closer to reality. The true cost of fuel should
include not just its production, but also the disposal (suppression)
of the resulting pollution (gaseous, waste oil, etc).

   Have to agree there.  But can you imagine it happening here?
I don't think so.  It occurs to me that endless supplies of gasoline
seems to be thought of as an unwritten religous tennant somewhere.

Yea, some people think the Bible gives man license to exploit the earth to 
thpoint of wringing it dry.  I think there's a movement started amongst 
the more mainstream Christians to emphasize our need to live in concert with
nature, not try to dominate it.

Isn't that in conflict with several basic tenets?

Which way, Rane, living w. nature in conflict w. basic tenants, or trying
to dominate, in conflict w. biblical teachings?

Living in concert with nature. That is closer to Native American
religions. Christian doctrine supports the notion that man has
dominion over animals "and over all the earth", as opposed to a
cooperative tenancy. 

I was under the impression that "dominion" carried a sense of stewardship
with it.  However, I know some Christians who disapprove of environmentalists
because theybelieve that environmentalists all worship the Earth.  

I personally like trains a lot.  They can be made more like automobiles
by placing televisions in first class.  :-)

I think that the majority act as though dominion means a right to
control and alter. There may indeed be a sense of "stewardship",
but that seldom is applied as just protection. 

Dave & I lived in Ann Arbor for 8 years without a car, and I was
31 years old before I learned to drive one.  It takes planning --
when we looked for places to live, we ruled out the ones that
weren't within walking distance of school/work and grocery stores, 
just as we later ruled out houses that were too expensive -- and
in both cases we preferred places on a bus line.  After
we had the car, we tried to minimize its use, trying to save money.
(I felt extravagant when I took the bus to work instead of walking
down and up hills for 20-30 minutes)
That kind of thing can be done, if you think it's worth doing.

I wholeheartedly agree.  I guess for me it's a matter of what you get used to
and how you structure your life.  Besides, I like walkling to work.  It gives
me time to think, and I see things and people I might not other.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss