5 ms·

A car with triple the gas mileage is yawn-worthy? How out of touch are you? Do you not believe emissions are a serious problem? 1) Eliminate the need for a leg

A car with triple the gas mileage is yawn-worthy? How out of touch are you? Do you not believe emissions are a serious problem? 1) Eliminate the need for a legislature by using technology to collect votes. I think you have a serious misunderstanding about government and complex systems in general. 2) Do more for less - find a way to provide today's services for 1/10th the cost. Sounds great but is a total fantasy. Wildly unrealistic goals are of no use to people that actually get things done.

tomjen3 14y ago
Yes it is boring, it is doable and it doesn't involve the country. In the sixties getting a man to the moon was an acceptable challenge. More than 50 years later we shouldn't waste ten years of our countries best and most brilliant minds on something like merely better millage. How a commercially viable replacement for oil, that can be made in the US in a way that doesn't produce CO2? That would do a lot to improve the world is a worthy goal.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I think commercial viable replacement for oil is a great analogue to the moon mission. 1) It's a big goal, but one where the first steps are already being made, just as with the moon mission. 2) It has the potential to develop a ton of derivative technology that is widely applicable. 3) It has the potential to cement American's place for decades more, just like the rocket technology developed as a by-product of the space race did. It was hard to compete militarily with the country that could bomb you from space with ICBM's, and it'll be hard to compete economically that has a source of cheap, clean energy.
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  A couple billion Chinese and Indians are moving up in the world and they aren't going to be riding bicycles. I am as big a fan as any of the moon landing but they didn't even send a geologist. A much better value is had with unmanned probes. Maybe it isn't as sexy but it is infinitely more sensible without a Sputnik type catalyst.
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    It wasn't supposed to be smart, it wasn't to gather scientific evidence, it wasn't to do any of these things. It was to show the world, once and for all, that communism wasn't better than capitalism. For that you need a big hairy audacious goal. Better millage isn't one. Cutting the arabs out of the oil deal, saving humanity as we gather the resources needed for a final jump into our future as a spacefaring species -- that is a goal worth of us.
    - youngerdryas 14y ago
      >It was to show the world, once and for all, that communism wasn't better than capitalism. For that you need a big hairy audacious goal. Better millage isn't one. I understand and it achieved its purpose (yay freedom) but now is different. Freedom has won, commies are laughed at, though mildly problematic, and the planet is one, sort of. The problems we face are less epic which makes them seem dull and we should be thankful for that.
      - tomjen3 14y ago
        The planet is split into essentially three groups: the western world, China and the arab world (Middle-east + large parts of Africa). China isn't going to attack us, they make far more money trading with us. The arabs on the other hand.
  - SilasX 14y ago
    >A couple billion Chinese and Indians are moving up in the world and they aren't going to be riding bicycles. But wait, bicycles are more fuel-efficient than even the best cars -- that should imply that the Chinese will want to use them instead, right? Because the problem is as simple as discovering greater fuel efficiency? Or is this the bizarro world you mocked where higher fuel efficiency is bad?
    - youngerdryas 14y ago
      I'm sorry if I offended you with the bizarro comment on the other thread. I have nothing against you and I think we actually on the same side. I read the Wikipedia article you linked to and I understand it. What would you propose? Less efficiency to have more pollution per useful work?
- sageikosa 14y ago
  http://www.hcssllc.com/ http://www.hcssllc.com/ Done; next challenge?
rayiner 14y ago
> I think you have a serious misunderstanding about government and complex systems in general. Careful. Around here that kind of talk will get you labeled a statist. In reality society is simple and self-governing, if only government gets out of the way! Also: ponies.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  No. Society is complex and self-governing, which is why injecting government can only make anything more complicated and expensive.
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    While I agree with you to some extent I am not quite ready to be an anarchist, if only for my grandmother's sake. I do believe that the founders of this country deliberately designed it to be mostly gridlocked to try to avoid the worst parts of government.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      That's the middle school "checks and balances" view. There is a lot more to it than that. The U.S. government was a desperate reaction to the the ineffective government under the Articles of Confederation. Indeed, the federalists would have made it even stronger if they thought the states would have ratified it.
      - youngerdryas 14y ago
        Are you arguing my point or conceding it?
        rayiner 14y ago
        I'm disagreeing that the founders intended the government to be gridlocked.
SilasX 14y ago
>A car with triple the gas mileage is yawn-worthy? How out of touch are you? Do you not believe emissions are a serious problem? Of course they are, but increasing efficiency is only loosely related to that, due to Jevons Effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox Having more efficient (and probably phallic shaped) vehicles could reduce aggregate emissions ... or, more likely, the lower cost of driving could increase how often it's done. Unless the newer efficiency is combined with laws that make emissions directly more costly, you're ultimately just bailing from one side of the pool to the other. But then, if you're going to put those laws in place, then you don't need to reward any one specific technology's creation; you've already incentivized (sorry) any emission-reducing change in behavior, which is a far longer list than any bureaucrat or contest-creator can come up with. Unless, of course, you think that we're going to have separate contests for "make the average distance of worker from workplace less than one mile" or "make average driving distance less than 11k miles/person-year", etc etc etc. Projects like the "car with ultra-high gas mileage" are instances of a very unproductive mentality when it comes to responsible environmental stewardship: it's a mentality that, stripped of misdirection, says "it's okay to be wasteful, as long as you're wasteful with efficient technology".
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  >Projects like the "car with ultra-high gas mileage" are instances of a very unproductive mentality when it comes to responsible environmental stewardship This is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. To a partisan all pragmatism is bad.
  - SilasX 14y ago
    It's more like "feel-good being the enemy of the good". Without other good policies, a more efficient car has ~zero expected benefit. With the other good policies, the more efficient car is marginally relevant. Pure, unadulterated feel-good-ism.
    - youngerdryas 14y ago
      Better fuel efficiency is bad. Welcome to bizarro world!
cryptoz 14y ago
> A car with triple the gas mileage is yawn-worthy? In 10 years? Extremely yawn-worthy. Tesla plans on building a 0 emissions, all-electric car and selling it around $20,000 in two years. Not 10 years with epic, huge pollution going everywhere. > How out of touch are you? Do you not believe emissions are a serious problem? How out of touch are you? Obviously emissions are a serious problem. That's why we shouldn't aspire as a country to be emitting gigantic amounts of greenhouse gasses from our cars in 10 years.
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  An electric car is essentially coal powered.
  - cryptoz 14y ago
    No, it's not. That doesn't make any sense at all, especially in the context of my example. Teslas that are charged with the SuperCharger system are solar powered. Teslas that are purchased in my province (Quebec) are Hydro powered. Electric cars charged from coal power plants are still a dramatic improvement to the system, despite having a terrible pollutant in the charge somewhere.
    - youngerdryas 14y ago
      > Electric cars charged from coal power plants are still a dramatic improvement to the system, despite having a terrible pollutant in the charge somewhere. Maybe you are referring to clean coal technology which I am dubious of, but I think it is unlikely that tranferring cheap electric power across great distance is more efficient.
  - jordan0day 14y ago
    Sometimes. It depends on what part of the world you're in. If your statement is meant to imply that electric cars are a bad idea because they're "essentially coal powered", I disagree. Imagine if doctors applied that kind of logic: "We'll, you could quit smoking, but, I mean, you're still going to die eventually anyway."

tomjen3 14y ago

Yes it is boring, it is doable and it doesn't involve the country. In the sixties getting a man to the moon was an acceptable challenge. More than 50 years later we shouldn't waste ten years of our countries best and most brilliant minds on something like merely better millage. How a commercially viable replacement for oil, that can be made in the US in a way that doesn't produce CO2? That would do a lot to improve the world is a worthy goal.

rayiner 14y ago
I think commercial viable replacement for oil is a great analogue to the moon mission. 1) It's a big goal, but one where the first steps are already being made, just as with the moon mission. 2) It has the potential to develop a ton of derivative technology that is widely applicable. 3) It has the potential to cement American's place for decades more, just like the rocket technology developed as a by-product of the space race did. It was hard to compete militarily with the country that could bomb you from space with ICBM's, and it'll be hard to compete economically that has a source of cheap, clean energy.
youngerdryas 14y ago
A couple billion Chinese and Indians are moving up in the world and they aren't going to be riding bicycles. I am as big a fan as any of the moon landing but they didn't even send a geologist. A much better value is had with unmanned probes. Maybe it isn't as sexy but it is infinitely more sensible without a Sputnik type catalyst.
- tomjen3 14y ago
  It wasn't supposed to be smart, it wasn't to gather scientific evidence, it wasn't to do any of these things. It was to show the world, once and for all, that communism wasn't better than capitalism. For that you need a big hairy audacious goal. Better millage isn't one. Cutting the arabs out of the oil deal, saving humanity as we gather the resources needed for a final jump into our future as a spacefaring species -- that is a goal worth of us.
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    >It was to show the world, once and for all, that communism wasn't better than capitalism. For that you need a big hairy audacious goal. Better millage isn't one. I understand and it achieved its purpose (yay freedom) but now is different. Freedom has won, commies are laughed at, though mildly problematic, and the planet is one, sort of. The problems we face are less epic which makes them seem dull and we should be thankful for that.
    - tomjen3 14y ago
      The planet is split into essentially three groups: the western world, China and the arab world (Middle-east + large parts of Africa). China isn't going to attack us, they make far more money trading with us. The arabs on the other hand.
- SilasX 14y ago
  >A couple billion Chinese and Indians are moving up in the world and they aren't going to be riding bicycles. But wait, bicycles are more fuel-efficient than even the best cars -- that should imply that the Chinese will want to use them instead, right? Because the problem is as simple as discovering greater fuel efficiency? Or is this the bizarro world you mocked where higher fuel efficiency is bad?
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    I'm sorry if I offended you with the bizarro comment on the other thread. I have nothing against you and I think we actually on the same side. I read the Wikipedia article you linked to and I understand it. What would you propose? Less efficiency to have more pollution per useful work?
sageikosa 14y ago
http://www.hcssllc.com/ http://www.hcssllc.com/ Done; next challenge?

rayiner 14y ago

> I think you have a serious misunderstanding about government and complex systems in general. Careful. Around here that kind of talk will get you labeled a statist. In reality society is simple and self-governing, if only government gets out of the way! Also: ponies.

sageikosa 14y ago
No. Society is complex and self-governing, which is why injecting government can only make anything more complicated and expensive.
- youngerdryas 14y ago
  While I agree with you to some extent I am not quite ready to be an anarchist, if only for my grandmother's sake. I do believe that the founders of this country deliberately designed it to be mostly gridlocked to try to avoid the worst parts of government.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    That's the middle school "checks and balances" view. There is a lot more to it than that. The U.S. government was a desperate reaction to the the ineffective government under the Articles of Confederation. Indeed, the federalists would have made it even stronger if they thought the states would have ratified it.
    - youngerdryas 14y ago
      Are you arguing my point or conceding it?
      - rayiner 14y ago
        I'm disagreeing that the founders intended the government to be gridlocked.

SilasX 14y ago

>A car with triple the gas mileage is yawn-worthy? How out of touch are you? Do you not believe emissions are a serious problem? Of course they are, but increasing efficiency is only loosely related to that, due to Jevons Effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox Having more efficient (and probably phallic shaped) vehicles could reduce aggregate emissions ... or, more likely, the lower cost of driving could increase how often it's done. Unless the newer efficiency is combined with laws that make emissions directly more costly, you're ultimately just bailing from one side of the pool to the other. But then, if you're going to put those laws in place, then you don't need to reward any one specific technology's creation; you've already incentivized (sorry) any emission-reducing change in behavior, which is a far longer list than any bureaucrat or contest-creator can come up with. Unless, of course, you think that we're going to have separate contests for "make the average distance of worker from workplace less than one mile" or "make average driving distance less than 11k miles/person-year", etc etc etc. Projects like the "car with ultra-high gas mileage" are instances of a very unproductive mentality when it comes to responsible environmental stewardship: it's a mentality that, stripped of misdirection, says "it's okay to be wasteful, as long as you're wasteful with efficient technology".

youngerdryas 14y ago
>Projects like the "car with ultra-high gas mileage" are instances of a very unproductive mentality when it comes to responsible environmental stewardship This is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. To a partisan all pragmatism is bad.
- SilasX 14y ago
  It's more like "feel-good being the enemy of the good". Without other good policies, a more efficient car has ~zero expected benefit. With the other good policies, the more efficient car is marginally relevant. Pure, unadulterated feel-good-ism.
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    Better fuel efficiency is bad. Welcome to bizarro world!

cryptoz 14y ago

> A car with triple the gas mileage is yawn-worthy? In 10 years? Extremely yawn-worthy. Tesla plans on building a 0 emissions, all-electric car and selling it around $20,000 in two years. Not 10 years with epic, huge pollution going everywhere. > How out of touch are you? Do you not believe emissions are a serious problem? How out of touch are you? Obviously emissions are a serious problem. That's why we shouldn't aspire as a country to be emitting gigantic amounts of greenhouse gasses from our cars in 10 years.

youngerdryas 14y ago
An electric car is essentially coal powered.
- cryptoz 14y ago
  No, it's not. That doesn't make any sense at all, especially in the context of my example. Teslas that are charged with the SuperCharger system are solar powered. Teslas that are purchased in my province (Quebec) are Hydro powered. Electric cars charged from coal power plants are still a dramatic improvement to the system, despite having a terrible pollutant in the charge somewhere.
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    > Electric cars charged from coal power plants are still a dramatic improvement to the system, despite having a terrible pollutant in the charge somewhere. Maybe you are referring to clean coal technology which I am dubious of, but I think it is unlikely that tranferring cheap electric power across great distance is more efficient.
- jordan0day 14y ago
  Sometimes. It depends on what part of the world you're in. If your statement is meant to imply that electric cars are a bad idea because they're "essentially coal powered", I disagree. Imagine if doctors applied that kind of logic: "We'll, you could quit smoking, but, I mean, you're still going to die eventually anyway."