The Similarity between Television and the Automobile

Sep 5 17:09 UTC 1993

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.

response 2 of 39:

Sep 6 18:05 UTC 1993

   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.

response 4 of 39:

Sep 9 03:41 UTC 1993

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.

response 6 of 39:

Sep 10 04:16 UTC 1993

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?

response 8 of 39:

Sep 11 18:10 UTC 1993

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. 

response 10 of 39:

Sep 12 00:30 UTC 1993

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

response 12 of 39:

Sep 12 05:36 UTC 1993

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.

response 14 of 39:

Sep 12 16:39 UTC 1993

...simply...

response 16 of 39:

Sep 13 01:07 UTC 1993

  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.

response 18 of 39:

Sep 13 02:52 UTC 1993

   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.

response 20 of 39:

Sep 13 04:53 UTC 1993

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

response 22 of 39:

Sep 13 19:03 UTC 1993

   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.

response 24 of 39:

Sep 15 23:49 UTC 1993

   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.