3 ms·

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 th

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?
  - SilasX 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure I explained that other policies must complement efficiency improvements, specifically penalizing the bad-thing-you-want-to-reduce e.g. with a tax. So you can ease up on the faux-naive questions -- maybe read the rest of original post that upset your worldview about fuel efficiency.
    - youngerdryas 14y ago
      The Jevons paradox is sometimes used to argue that energy conservation efforts are futile, for example, that more efficient use of oil will lead to increased demand, and will not slow the arrival or the effects of peak oil. This argument is usually presented as a reason not to impose environmental policies, or to increase fuel efficiency (e.g. if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).[7][8] Several points have been raised against this argument. First, in the context of a mature market such as for oil in developed countries, the direct rebound effect is usually small, and so increased fuel efficiency usually reduces resource use, other conditions remaining constant.[6][9][10] Second, even if increased efficiency does not reduce the total amount of fuel used, there remain other benefits associated with improved efficiency. For example, increased fuel efficiency may mitigate the price increases, shortages and disruptions in the global economy associated with peak oil.[11] Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher.[3]
      - SilasX 14y ago
        >Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher Yes, the point I made from the beginning, except that I added that such a policy would make the contest for the supercar superfluous -- it would eliminate all the marginal uses of energy (i.e. where the benefit doesn't exceed the cost + tax) in the first place! One step above copy-paste is analysis, and one step above that is understanding.

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?
- SilasX 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure I explained that other policies must complement efficiency improvements, specifically penalizing the bad-thing-you-want-to-reduce e.g. with a tax. So you can ease up on the faux-naive questions -- maybe read the rest of original post that upset your worldview about fuel efficiency.
  - youngerdryas 14y ago
    The Jevons paradox is sometimes used to argue that energy conservation efforts are futile, for example, that more efficient use of oil will lead to increased demand, and will not slow the arrival or the effects of peak oil. This argument is usually presented as a reason not to impose environmental policies, or to increase fuel efficiency (e.g. if cars are more efficient, it will simply lead to more driving).[7][8] Several points have been raised against this argument. First, in the context of a mature market such as for oil in developed countries, the direct rebound effect is usually small, and so increased fuel efficiency usually reduces resource use, other conditions remaining constant.[6][9][10] Second, even if increased efficiency does not reduce the total amount of fuel used, there remain other benefits associated with improved efficiency. For example, increased fuel efficiency may mitigate the price increases, shortages and disruptions in the global economy associated with peak oil.[11] Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher.[3]
    - SilasX 14y ago
      >Third, environmental economists have pointed out that fuel use will unambiguously decrease if increased efficiency is coupled with an intervention (e.g. a green tax) that keeps the cost of fuel use the same or higher Yes, the point I made from the beginning, except that I added that such a policy would make the contest for the supercar superfluous -- it would eliminate all the marginal uses of energy (i.e. where the benefit doesn't exceed the cost + tax) in the first place! One step above copy-paste is analysis, and one step above that is understanding.