On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:03 AM, ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jun 22, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Gar Lipow wrote: >> >> Certain forms of consumption, such as massive amounts of flying and >> SUVs probably are unsustainable (and are also comparatively new). But >> quite luxurious electric trains are sustainable - ones where you are >> guaranteed a seat, and which run 24 hours a day with no more than a >> ten minute wait are sustainable. > > > But doesn't this depend on how much travelling is going on? If every Indian > and Chinese person wanted or tried to commute or travel using these trains > as much as the well-endowed American does (or would do, if he were to switch > to riding trains instead of driving his car), is the above still feasible > without significantly impacting the environment?
If those trains were driven by solar or wind power then yes. When automated (for various reasons they do need to be automated for maximum efficiency) they use electricity so thriftily that they could be driven by wind or even PV at todays PV prices and still be no more expensive in electricity use than autos are in gasoline use. But another important point is infrastructure use. Both for reasons of utilization (an automobile typically spends 80% or more of its life parked) and for reasons of density ultralight rail requires about 3% of the vehicle infrastructure autos do per passenger mile, and about 16% of the land use. In addition, a lot of the population of China and India live in denser communties than we do in the U.S., and in a rail based society development tends to cluster around railing, keeping development dense. The very long term effects of a switch to ultralight rail would a movement towards denser U.S. cities and suburbs and a reduction in miles traveled, while in China and India the result would be an increase in travel - some convergence, probably never totally meeting. http://www.cybertran.com/ULRTReport.pdf >you write that capitalism is wasteful, I would contend that it (along with >"modernity"?) is so in an even larger sense: it fosters techno-utopian >consumption and promotes a single-dimensional approach to living that is >inherently unhealthy and unsustainable. Hmm. I would argue that it is not modernity, but the combination of extreme top down hiearchy with technology that the creates the wastefulness. And I specifically did not sugget that waste of energy and water and nature was the primary wastefulness. I'm pretty sure that somewhere in that long quote I said something along the lines of "we can't expect a system that wastes human lives to use natural resources efficiently. I don't disagree that the single dimensional approach to living is unhealthy. But I'm also with Brecht that when people are deprived in that one dimension it is hard for them to worry about others. I also would add that just because our society tends to focus unhealthly on consumption that this does not make consumption and even growth unimportant. Look, of course material growth does not equal happiness or improvement. There are many other dimensions to happiness, health, freedom, potential. If I wanted to take the trouble I could even dig up a Kennedy quote on that to show that the idea is not unknown to mainstream, fairly conservative U.S. political figures - at least prior to their assassination. For that matter, as a number of paradoxes put forward show GDP is not the best measure of growth. In fact, I've heard some well know mainstream pundits suggest that if you wanted a single measure for the health of the economy in a conventional sense that real median hourly wage would be a better measure. (I suspect Sandwichman would consider it a quarter step in the right direction, since it would measure some of the potential for leisure.) It is possible that a various green measure of the economy, various alternatives might consider an index that makes various adjustments or recomputations of this number rather than adjustments to or recomputations of GDP. But growth in the conventional sense that that there is a greaty variety of foods to eat, that there are more toys to play with more ways we can use clothes, accesories and makeup to play with our appearence, and yes even ipods and better cellphones and what have you is actually a good thing. What is bad about it is that it is the product of system that destroys human beings, and also destroys the environment as a side effect. But the growth itself is not bad. Now some argue that growth in this sense is not seperable from its destructive roots and destructive fruits. And I will acknowledge that if you are right, it is not worth it. If after a brief flowering that brought perhaps 40% of the worlds population into a better life at tremendous cost for 20% and no great gain for another 40% and then suffer a massive die-off and lapse back into fuedalism or hunter gatherer than it won't have been worth it. But, if as I think, the bad and the good are seperable then saving growth and technical civilization is neccesary and well worthwhile. If you disagree, I hope you will at least acknowledge that giveing up growth would mean sacrificing something that has real value. Science, technolgoy, art, craft and mathematics are all iterative. Euclid did not invent most his theorems from scratch. He systemitized well known rules of thumbs of the craftsmen of his day. But also developed a methodology and probably invented at least some of his theorems. Galileo could not have made his observations in the absence of lens recently developed for eyeglasses. But he improved the optics to build a better telescope, and that technlogy spread out in turn. Homer (or the tradition named Homer if the works attributed to him are the works of many rather than one) created his poems in the context of a particular way of life. Euripides created his in another. Shakespeare and Moliere worked is still other specific contexts. What Ravi calls modernity has developed not only science but great arts. Jazz, Rock, Blue Grass, Hip Hop, Reggae are among modernist and possibly post-modernist musical genres. Is there nothing of value in movies and television, and comic books and videos? I could go on. But cultures without technical growth tend be very slow in cultural growth as well. And personally I find a great deal of value in science. Without technical growth there are lots of mysteries of the universe we will never explore. Again if the choice is between these things and species survial, or the choice is between giving them up voluntarily or losing them a bit later along with most of the human race - well I have practical streak. I can see what the best of bad choices are. But I reject the eagerness and joy with which I see people like Bill McKibbin or Gus Speth reject growth and insist those are the choices. And looking at the numbers, at the technical opportunities I'm very skeptical of the neccessity. I think what we need is a movement towards equality, and toward liberation and a rejection of atomization. We need an end to ruthless growth, to voiceless growth, to futureless growth, but not an end to growth. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
