<Sunday Open ThreadThe Oil DrumRough notes for a Monday morning>

46 comments on The Forum is where you debate (or Peak Oil and the Environment Conference Day 1)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Cherenkov on May 8, 2006 - 1:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The answer is to quit thinking that we evolved to be glued to the seat of an automobile. Why is it that technophiles have NO imagination?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on May 8, 2006 - 2:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Possibly you missed the opening of the article - American technophiles may believe in having their asses glued to a four wheeled cage, but people from the rest of the world don't share that attitude. Check into maglev systems for an example of imagination in practice - airline speeds using electricity would certainly seem to be an imaginative solution to using airplanes for domestic travel. (Better solutions are also imaginable, of course - including minimal need to travel anywhere quickly.)

To adapt lightly -
'Why is it that American anti-technophiles have NO imagination?'

America is a very special case, and it would be nice for more Americans to understand this from the outside, so to speak. As the author of the article does.

As a certain indicator of how Americans think they are special - poor British adults are healthier than rich Americans, using several quantitative measures, like heart disease and diabetes. And the British health care system is sort of the basket case of western Europe. America's 'average' health care is not envied by anyone with experience of European health systems. (That the peak of American medicine is pretty much the peak of world medicine is true - it is just that easily 250 million Americans will never, ever see America's peak health care in action, apart from trauma situations like car wrecks, heart attacks/strokes, and gunshot and other violence related injuries - perhaps not surprisingly, problems where the older white males running the country have a very direct interest, whether in the case of the first two for their own health, or in the case of the last, ensuring the military a test bed and school for training doctors, nurses, etc.)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on May 8, 2006 - 6:44am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
every culture that has had the chance to adopt a "people's car" has done so.

and why not?  it satisfies the human urge to cover territory while at the same time satisfying the need to conserve body energy.

it's only bad once you notice the non-obvious side effects (pollution, global warming, resource depletion).

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on May 8, 2006 - 7:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, to a certain extent that is true - when you can sit in an enclosed box, without dealing with -10 or 100+ temperatures or driving rain, a car looks pretty inviting. Add in the entertainment systems of the last generation or so, plus 'image' or 'status,' and sure, lots of people will drive.

But in the real world, in a place like NYC, a lot of people happily live without a car. And most of those happily living in NYC would not support tearing down the city to make it more car friendly. And this in America, to make the point.

What is so often overlooked in much of these discussions is how much of any industrial society, in total, is devoted to the manufacture, sale, and driving of cars - it seems the absolute best way invented to use up otherwise free time for the members of mass societies - especially when debt is added into the mix. (Notice the history of debt and selling to see some real interesting foundations of what we now consider 'normal.') An efficient transit system actually lets people enjoy free time in a city, for example, which is not only hard to profit from, but could lead to people actually thinking this is a good way to live - whereas sitting in traffic every single day is simply money (and time) flowing through the system, reaching the top as always, without disturbing it in any way. Notice the 'stupid' French not going along with the plans of the government to make firing easier - the French are actually obnoxious enough to feel that they actually deserve to live in a society which doesn't allow hire and fire, since the striking French ARE their society, and not the owners/bankers. Doesn't make the French smart, just troublesome for the French ruling classes. If only the French would go into debt, buy huge cars, and spend a couple of hours a day in traffic, the French elite could probably have a much easier time - it is dangerous to let people have too much freedom. Worse, to get used to the idea that the opinions of the majority actually should be important in the decision-making process. (Not that being in a majority is any guide to being right about something.)

But car use doesn't come in the form of the 'people's car' (certain historical examples notwithstanding - and even then, often it was the tank which came before the car),  instead it comes in the form of decades long investment by companies like GM, VW, or Toyota to ensure that a society which has never used cars, like China, become a huge market. And to do this, they become part of the 'free' media which we live surrounded by. Rarely have 'the people' demanded higher profits for car and oil companies - but they certainly can be seduced into thinking a car represents things they want, if history is any guide.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on May 8, 2006 - 7:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Didn't Renault make a "people's car" for the French?  The 2cv or 4cv maybe?

Ah well, my view comes from my reading of "Car Wars" by Jonathan Mantle.  I think it is a good history of the spread of the car ... any my takeaway was certainly that a "people's car" appeared in the major markets.  Ford here, Morris in England, Renault in France, VW ... a lot of places, and so on.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on May 8, 2006 - 9:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
They did - as I remember reading about its history (when it was discontinued after some 40 or 50 years of production), it was intended primarily as a serviceable vehicle for farmers (bringing things to market, for example), other rural people,  and tradespeople - apparently, more like a Model T in all round usefulness than a VW Volkswagen, in the sense of being a vehicle to drive on the new autobahns. Certainly, a step up from a horse cart. There are a number of reasons why motor vehicles are omnipresent in our lives. The history of the Model T is quite interesting that way, actually - introducing such a piece of machinery led to all sorts of changes in rural life, most of which were definitely considered an improvement by all concerned parties. And if we had stuck to that sort of philosophy, of a useful, rugged, easily repaired piece of machinery, made by people paid a decent wage, which could be used to power equipment or transport people or things over a landscape of rutted dirt roads, we wouldn't have much to discuss today about peak oil.

My reference to tanks was in regards to various socialist countries, in general.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on May 8, 2006 - 6:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Why is it that technophiles have NO imagination?"

i mumbled some time back some words about the natural (evolutionary) reason for laziness.  our technology reinforces that, but didn't create it.  people drive a block to buy a paper because they are lazy, not because they love their car so much.

i'd love to see a happy walking/cycling future, but i think it will have to built on ideas of health and vigor - to combat the laziness.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.