Philosophy Now Forum

It comes up in some threads about the politics of oil, e.g. oil-consuming countries being interested in oil producers. In the long run, I don't see where this situation would persist as the technology would develop to eliminate fossil fuels as has been forecasted.

How do you see this developing?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:41 pm It comes up in some threads about the politics of oil, e.g. oil-consuming countries being interested in oil producers. In the long run, I don't see where this situation would persist as the technology would develop to eliminate fossil fuels as has been forecasted.

How do you see this developing?

PhilX

I'm gonna keep driving my fossil fuel powered car till they pry the steering wheel from my cold dead fingers.

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:41 pm How do you see this developing?

I see this developing the following way: Oil companies hire saboteurs to destroy facilities that produce alternative energies.

When that proves ineffective, they will tell reg'lar Americans that uranium-based energy is evil. (They have succeeded in that so far brilliantly and amazingly easily.***) Therefore it will be just a gentle push that's needed to line up the reg'lar Americans and go into the homes and offices of nuclear physicists and shoot them into a heap. They did that to abortion clinic doctors, why can't they do it to scientists.

Thirdly, they will create a world-wide economic and intellectual apocalypse; the sea will rise, the buildings fall, the wall that no one thought could fall: the altars of the just... crushed... dust in the wind type of Armageddon.

*** All normal, sane, and devout Christians in America know that uranium comes from Uranus, and that is an Abomination (as per Leviticus). Bang, uranium does not stand a flying chance to establish itself as an energy source. Unless it's for nuclear weapons... yeah, f.

wtf wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:18 pm I'm gonna keep driving my fossil fuel powered car till they pry the steering wheel from my cold dead fingers.

Driving a car with cold, dead fingers... hm. Please give me an advance notice of the date, so I can stay off-road that day. Thanks.

(I have seen enough zombie movies to know traffic is a total havoc those days.)

-1- wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:42 pm Driving a car with cold, dead fingers... hm. Please give me an advance notice of the date, so I can stay off-road that day. Thanks.

(I have seen enough zombie movies to know traffic is a total havoc those days.)

Between the drunks and the texters and the generally incompetent drivers, it's pretty damn dangerous out there. 33,000 automobile deaths a year. One hundred per day. Two Orlando massacres every single day. A 9/11 every month. Too bad people have no sense of proportion. We'll spend trillions combatting "terrorism" but a hundred Americans will die today on the road and another hundred tomorrow and another hundred the day after that and nothing gets done.

wtf wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:07 pm ... after that and nothing gets done.

Mark Twain said, "Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it."

I noticed some time ago that governments like to self-bash themselves, when it comes to "public opinion on the economy / driving habits / joblessness / homelessness / rats in hamburgers / etc." Sure, they don't say outright "we are to blame", but they don't oppress, but, instead, foster criticism.

I reason they do it because they figure they are a safe scapegoat. In the past for the same or similar social ills, the Jews were blamed, or the Armenians, or the Croats, or the Serbs, or the Injuns, or whoever. And that was not good. So the government takes the onerous and thankless role on as the scapegoat.

You see, you can eliminate a minority, or try to, and you can do a pretty good job at it. But that's not popular afterwards. However, you can never eliminate the government; it's a safe whipping boy. You can overthrow it, and replace it with another government; but government exists in human societies, it is as sure as death and taxes.

Wait, how did I get here. Oh, yes, the road fatalities. Nobody gets a brownie point for reducing the road fatalities, whereas everyone fears terrorism. Because the word itself contains the word fear. Ten people blown up at an outdoor cafe... horrible. Thirty thousand dead? so what.

It was nobody else but Stalin who said, "Ten people dead is murder. Ten thousand dead is a statistic." We are comfortable with statistics. Large numbers obliterate the minor picture of individual suffering. You can paint a painting and hang it on the wall of ten people being hanged or quartered; but you can't paint a painting and see its details if you want all of the 33000 accidents of fatal outcomes on it.

Also, to reduce fatalities would be easy: reduce speed limits all over on all roads to 10 miles per hour. Or better still, five miles per hour. We'd all starve to death, or most of us would, but there would be no road fatalities. I mean, there is no politically safe way to make the roads safer. Whereas fighting terror is what our big brother used to do for us: fight the bully in our class, to leave us alone. Big brother could not protect us from a speeding Mac truck, but a bully, who would cause at maximum a blackened eye or a bruised shin bone, yes, that he could do, and we hailed him for it.

Where was I?

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:14 am Also, to reduce fatalities would be easy: reduce speed limits all over on all roads to 10 miles per hour. Or better still, five miles per hour. We'd all starve to death, or most of us would, but there would be no road fatalities.

I do not wish to restrict driving so much that we eliminate fatalities. Driving carries inherent risk. I would like to see the "acceptable" number of fatalities a lot lower. I believe we could do this by putting real teeth into the drunk and inattentive driving laws. First offence, month in the slam and no excuses. Second offense a year. The force of this idea comes from allowing no excuses. Friend of the Mayor and you bankrolled his election campaigh? Too bad. 30 days first offense, one year second. Good college kid with a bright future, parents pillars of the community? Too bad. 30 days first offense, a year second. Hard luck case, sole support of your kids? Too bad. Give 'em to grandma or turn 'em over to the state

You'd cut annual deaths to 10k or less. You would not have to treat everyone this way. You just make an example out of one or two, makes sure the news gets out, and everyone else will fall into line.

wtf wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:25 am

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:14 am Also, to reduce fatalities would be easy: reduce speed limits all over on all roads to 10 miles per hour. Or better still, five miles per hour. We'd all starve to death, or most of us would, but there would be no road fatalities.

I do not wish to restrict driving so much that we eliminate fatalities. Driving carries inherent risk. I would like to see the "acceptable" number of fatalities a lot lower. I believe we could do this by putting real teeth into the drunk and inattentive driving laws. First offence, month in the slam and no excuses. Second offense a year. The force of this idea comes from allowing no excuses. Friend of the Mayor and you bankrolled his election campaigh? Too bad. 30 days first offense, one year second. Good college kid with a bright future, parents pillars of the community? Too bad. 30 days first offense, a year second. Hard luck case, sole support of your kids? Too bad. Give 'em to grandma or turn 'em over to the state

You'd cut annual deaths to 10k or less. You would not have to treat everyone this way. You just make an example out of one or two, makes sure the news gets out, and everyone else will fall into line.

I'd say crucifixion, first offence. Second offence, watching "Sound of Music" and "Erin Brockowich" end-to-end for a day. For men. For women, any two Arnold Schwartzenegger movies.

I have something to say here. In my old country, Hungary, there is zero tolerance for alcohol and driving. Literally. You can't even take a fake-brandy filled chocolate bon-bon and not be jailed if breathalyzed within hours and behind a wheel. THEREFORE. In Europe there are much fewer motor vehicle accidents than in North America. And the vehicle accidents there have a much higher fatality rate than in NA. In the end, a comparable body of driving population in Europe has the same amount, or more, (I can't research this) fatal road accidents as or than in North America. In Europe they have much fewer fender benders, broken prisms, etc., but when they hit each other, they hit it big.

And it's not due to higher allowed speeds or no speed limits. The roads there are so congested, too, that they had to impose speed limits on most Autostradas, Autobahns, Motorways, and Autopalyas. Almost all divided highways have an upper speed limit of 120 KM/h (About 70 mi/h).

These are facts, which are disputable, as I got them out of memory, mainly, and out of thin air, to a lesser extent. But facts are facts, nonetheless, and they speak for themselves.

I instead think that it's natural selection, this road fatality thing. Much like gun deaths in the US, or being hit by lightning on a golf course, or winning 78 million dollars on the lotteries. All Darwin's fault. (JOKE! My sense of humour this week really needs an immediate, ongoing online translator.)

wtf wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:18 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:41 pm It comes up in some threads about the politics of oil, e.g. oil-consuming countries being interested in oil producers. In the long run, I don't see where this situation would persist as the technology would develop to eliminate fossil fuels as has been forecasted.

How do you see this developing?

PhilX

I'm gonna keep driving my fossil fuel powered car till they pry the steering wheel from my cold dead fingers.

amen.

what needs to be done (and there is no politcal will to do) is to here in the US what the European have done.

tax the shit out of gas - to force the car makers to make class A cars (Fiat 500/ford Kia (latter not sold in america of course!) instead of fucking SUVs and Crossovers!!!!!

elephant in the room folks!!!!!

SMALL CARS!!!!!!!!!!!!! 40-50 mpg. you know like they USED TO MAKE AND OFFER in the US in the 70's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MG Midget, renault Le CAR, VW beetle, Honda 600S/N, Triumph TR6/TR7(used to drive the latter), Miata (new one is light (YES LIGHT DOES MATTER!) and small, etc................

but americans are too damn FAT to fit in the cars they were able to fit into 40 yrs ago (but that is another "problem" we americans have ain't it?).

----------------

instead of seeing the simple solution - we fixate on magical thinking - that electric car (which costs 5 times a fiat 500) to solve our problems!

its infuriating.

I now drive a Yaris - 13k new - now 10 yrs and 175k miles later and 37 mpg combined/41 hwy. - and yes a fking 5 speed STANDARD - shifting gears is not work, its mindless and not even work if you take the one day to learn how. still on original brake pads since i downshift.

yep. the solution is old school, manual, small car.......................not magical thinking folks. But the car makers cant make much money on cheap yaris can they? they will press and press to upsell you that fancy electric, while your wife will wisper in your ear how a "small car is a deathtrap - you love your children don't you"...........and press you to buy that SUV.

;-(.