Changing the World...

Originally posted by inimalist
why do you think transportation is the most pressing issue that the world has to face? especially considering a huge portion of people (and the majority outside of the west) would have no way of affording it?

EDIT: for instance, improving public tranportation, using already existing technology, would cost far less and have an exponentially greater effect on people's lives.

If the price of oil raises...the price of food raises if I am correct. So either way it would affect the cost of people in their lives.

Originally posted by D-Wag
If the price of oil raises...the price of food raises if I am correct. So either way it would affect the cost of people in their lives.

why not focus on local things that don't require intercontenental rail lines?

Like, I'm with you as far as mass transit is concerned, but most people really don't go over seas. An argument for tram, light rail or monorail systems in small communities to reduce oil use during daily commutes would be infinitely more effective than these international ideas. Most people don't work or travel far enough from home to make such a cumbersome system worthwhile. Sure, it might cut down on some polution, but how much of a problem, when compared to infrastructure and industry use, do you think gas consumption by planes is?

This is true. People tend to stick close in most cases depending upon where they were raised. There is plenty more to talk about, that's why I started this thread. I'm not trying to write a book about every little thing right now, but rather just trying to have a talk and share ideas on whatever comes to mind.

Now airlines are a huge waste of gas consumption. Right now that consumption is cheaper then building intercontinental rail lines or even local rail lines and even new roads, etc. In the other hand though, we know its not going to be like that forever. So why continue to use a system that will eventually fail?

The machines that are ran to produce and harvest our food source is all done using fossil fuels. Well eventually were going to have to turn to the use of another energy to wield our machines into action. Energy as of right now is the main reason we are what we are today. With out the discovery of oil we would have never reached the growth and population we have today as I'm sure you know.

Originally posted by D-Wag
Now airlines are a huge waste of gas consumption. Right now that consumption is cheaper then building intercontinental rail lines or even local rail lines and even new roads, etc.

ok, so all info is from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Current_consumption

broken down by sector, we see transportation takes up 28% of total consumption of oil. Air travel takes up 12% of this, or 3.36% total.

space heating in residential homes is 6.72% of total. Basically, you would be TWICE as effective by attempting to change the way people use their own electricity for heat than you would by changing air travel.

Broken down by supply/demand, we see over 40% of all oil consumption goes to electricity.

EDIT: i will leave this up for all to see, my post is entirely BS, I totally just realized it... please ignore this energy break down, I messed it up, and really don't want to do the math necessary to fix it... look, everyone can see how terrible my basic reading skills are

Originally posted by D-Wag
In the other hand though, we know its not going to be like that forever. So why continue to use a system that will eventually fail?

1) the technologies you are talking about are in their infant stages, are inefficent and are clearly going to become much more affordable and effective in 10-20 years. Even if we suppose that the rail system you propose is a) possible and b) practical, there is no reason to do it now, rather invest into technology research for 15 years, and then use the mature and more effective technology to replace air travel

2) I can't imagine rail travel being anywhere near as effective as air travel. ware and tare of the tracks being the biggest obstacle I see. the most likely, and probably most desireable future, is one where air travel has been made green. (I am also just going to a priori assume air travel is safer than rail...)

Originally posted by D-Wag
The machines that are ran to produce and harvest our food source is all done using fossil fuels. Well eventually were going to have to turn to the use of another energy to wield our machines into action.

you are thinking of the wrong machines though. Its not your car, its your computer, refrigerator, air-conditioning, lights... etc. While transportation, as a whole, does take up a significant amount of oil, it is not the majority or even the largest sector/demand.

Originally posted by D-Wag
Energy as of right now is the main reason we are what we are today. With out the discovery of oil we would have never reached the growth and population we have today as I'm sure you know.

counter-factual history

oil companies have been at least somewhat detrimental to the progress of human technology. There is no way to know what might have been if there were no oil companies to kill public transportation and electric cars (if we are only looking at transportation, of course. Oil companies are also pretty anti-any-green-solution).

Haha its all good math isn't my best criteria either. Ok so I understand that the technology I'm speaking of is just starting to get their feet off the ground. So does this mean all we can do is wait for it to slowly improve over time?

Are all efforts to change anything technology wise that we could use to benefit us at a complete stand still until we create efficient energy usage through these other ways?

A few good films I recommend watching. (Unless you already have)
Collapse -Michael Ruppert
Zeitgeist (Part 1)
Zeitgeist Addendum (Part 2)

ugh

ya, I'm not going to be watching zeitgeist at any point in the near future, but thanks

Originally posted by Robtard
people who want drugs already get them, people who don't won't, legal or no.

That's, kind of how I lean, as well.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't think allowing drug addicts open access to crack/heroine/meth etc. is a safe road. Personally I don't want to see a society that promotes the acceptance of highly addictive chemicals that fry brains and ruin lives.

The counter argument to this would be that while an outright ban symbolically frowns at drug use it causes a lot of other damage, not just in the direct form of making safety information hard to come by but also results in a dangerous black market. To me it is more important that the money people spend on drugs feeds cartels than it is that they might kill themselves.

A ban also results in sweeping problems under the rug rather than addressing the issues that cause it. That's the main reason I'm sort of de facto opposed to bans. Wouldn't it be better if we used tax money to find out why there is such a drug problem in this country and work toward fixing that?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The counter argument to this would be that while an outright ban symbolically frowns at drug use it causes a lot of other damage, not just in the direct form of making safety information hard to come by but also results in a dangerous black market. To me it is more important that the money people spend on drugs feeds cartels than it is that they might kill themselves.

A ban also results in sweeping problems under the rug rather than addressing the issues that cause it. That's the main reason I'm sort of de facto opposed to bans. Wouldn't it be better if we used tax money to find out why there is such a drug problem in this country and work toward fixing that?

That's good logic, to me.

There are some bans that should remain in place, though, and that usually involves abuses against children.

In general, base legislature on fact-based analysis alone. Trying to legislate based on tradition or moral values has caused way too many problems.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't think allowing drug addicts open access to crack/heroine/meth etc. is a safe road. Personally I don't want to see a society that promotes the acceptance of highly addictive chemicals that fry brains and ruin lives.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's, kind of how I lean, as well.

that strategy has been tried, in various ways, since the begining of the 20th century

drugs are more widely available, cheeper, and of a higher quality

I guess the question becomes do you actually want to address the issues surrounding drugs, or do you just want to posture and look tough?

What strategy?

Outlawing dangerous narcotics isn't going to make them disappear. Nothing will do that short of unconditional understanding and cooperation amongst the entire populace. It's like saying that outlawing murder hasn't made homicide disappear, so the alternative is to go the opposite road and legalize it. That makes no sense.

It doesn't need to black and white. Keeping such heavy drugs illegal will keep them inaccessible to many who want them, and to those too naive/young/stupid to know not to want them (they are many). And there's absolutely no reason why money and time can't also be put in to discovering and rooting out the underlying social causes of drug use (but again, that won't eliminate it entirely). All or nothing is the lazy route, but understanding that the problem won't go away simply by ignoring it/throwing money at is the shrewd route.

Anyone who really wants drugs can find them, even while illegal. There are always channels out there.

Sure, that applies to just about everything. But there's a world of difference between "I'm going to stroll down to Walgreens/Starbucks/random drug store and buy some cocaine, then light up outside that daycare center across the street", and "I'm going to risk my job and my freedom and meet some shady guy outside his house, buy some cocaine, then run back to my house, dodging police officers along the way, and light up in my basement where no one can see me break the law."

The latter involves a lot of work, and a lot of risk, which is a deritive to a lot of people.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Sure, that applies to just about everything. But there's a world of difference between "I'm going to stroll down to Walgreens/Starbucks/random drug store and buy some cocaine, then light up outside that daycare center across the street", and "I'm going to risk my job and my freedom and meet some shady guy outside his house, buy some cocaine, then run back to my house, dodging police officers along the way, and light up in my basement where no one can see me break the law."

The latter involves a lot of work, and a lot of risk, which [b]is a deritive to a lot of people. [/B]

In the 1800s/1900s heroin/cocaine/everything else were legal, and there were a lot of abusers but I think the idea that legalization is going to turn the whole world into some drug den is dead wrong. We didn't see that then and we wouldn't see it now.

I've known a good few people whose brains would be mush by now if they could get their hands so easily on that stuff. There's a helluva difference between a junkie who begs their dealer for the next hit, and some dumbass 20-something who doesn't know when to say no at a house party. If that person then gets easy and legal access to to meth, supplied by hundreds of legal street/shop/online vendors, they're f*cked. If making drugs illegal prevents only a certain kind of person from ruining their life, then it's worth it. Where's the sense and the decency in opening up addictive and dangerous substances to the public for the sake of, judging from what I've read here so far, "convenience"?

Drugs have been used for hundreds of years. With the knowledge about drugs today education should be better equipped to teaching our young ones about these drugs. I agree with the legalization of some drugs, but not all of them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I've known a good few people whose brains would be mush by now if they could get their hands so easily on that stuff. There's a helluva difference between a junkie who begs their dealer for the next hit, and some dumbass 20-something who doesn't know when to say no at a house party. If that person then gets easy and legal access to to meth, supplied by hundreds of legal street/shop/online vendors, they're f*cked. If making drugs illegal prevents only a certain kind of person from ruining their life, then it's worth it. Where's the sense and the decency in opening up addictive and dangerous substances to the public for the sake of, judging from what I've read here so far, "convenience"?