Well, that wouldn't serve any purpose... meat actually delivers more nutrition than vegetables. But I see your point. You see the scenario as though it were being implemented because of someone's personal values (like the belief that eating meat is wrong), rather than because it makes better use of our limited resources and cuts down on pollution. I don't agree that that's the case, but I will say that this should not be done because of anyone's values, but only because of the problems with continuing to do things the way we've done them.
Wait... I'm not quite sure whether you got exactly what I was pointing to... (?)
Are you aware that an estimated >30% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the flatulence of the global cattle stock? (No joke; these estimates come from the U.N., not ExxonMobil or such, so, not that I trust the U.N. as a perfect source of information or anything, but, personally, I see no reason why they would be incentivized to overstate these estimates [in fact, I would see why they might be disincentivized to do so {although, now that I think about it, I believe the head of the U.N.P.C.C. may be an Indian, and possibly a Hindu, so...
}].)
If you disagree that there are problems with the way things are being done and have been done that must be addressed, and can explain why you believe this to be the case... then I will admit that my idea is wrong in principle, because it is founded on the assumption that what we are doing currently is unsustainable and ultimately bad for everyone.
Well, I wouldn't say I'm necessarily on one side or the other.
My position is that no one actually
knows whether the way we are currently doing things is necessarily unsustainable and bad for everyone, and that, in light of our ignorance, it is questionable whether or not taking extreme action, which would inimitably have very significant costs, is really worth it.
I'm not saying that the current way is not unsustainable, I'm just saying that we don't really
know whether that is the case.
There are
potential costs (aka risks) down the road if we choose not to act, or there are
certain costs right now (that may actually be completely unnecessary) if we choose to act.
In light of our state of ignorance, how certain can we be that the costs that we would incur right now actually outweigh the potential costs we may or may not incur in the future? And how likely is it that unforeseen variables will arise over the next 50-100 years that could totally change that delicate balance?
Yes, it may make you happy. But it's not good for the long term.
Well, as I said above, I don't believe we really
know whether this is true.
That's the entire problem with democracy... people are driven to do things that are destructive and wasteful in the long-term, because they bring happiness in the present.
Well, I will defer to Churchill here, and say, "Democracy is the worst form of government... after all the other ones."
What you are decrying as a problem of democracy, I could just as well extol as one of its virtues.
I, on the whole, trust private investors to make wiser capital allocation decisions than I do government entities: hence, as I said before, the lesson of the 20th century (market economy > command economy).
I don't want to offer just one example as if it's "proof" that my belief is correct, but I recently read this article, and I believe it's a rather telling example:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-images-cities-lying-completely-deserted.html
I think that eventually, people will look back and say that those other major countries were like the ant, and America was like the grasshopper.
Could you explain this simile? I don't think I understand it...
You are probably right. I haven't thought out the details of the plan, I just created an outline for how we might go about getting rid of cars, if we were to do it. In reality, the best we can probably hope for is that they'll finally get all the older cars off the road, and insist that all cars meet current emissions standards. And maybe increase taxes on them. But that's about as far as they'll go, and while that might make a small dent in pollution, it won't be enough.
IIRC (and I read this a long time ago, so I'm gunna keep the ranges rather large), pollution produced by a ZEV, ULEV, and/or LEV today is about 2% of what the average car produced some 30-50 years ago. Being from Southern California, I can say that, while our air quality is still not the best, it is far better than it used to be in the 1970s and 80s (and this, despite many more cars being on the road these days). In light of these facts, I don't see why, with tighter emissions and fuel economy standards, and possibly even a total shift to electronic vehicles (fueled by electricity from renewable and atomic energy sources), we could not keep driving cars, and just let technological innovation and smart regulation lead us to achieving our pollution goals.
I'm really not surprised. I think that ultimately, the current US model will be found to be terribly ineffective and wasteful. It will likely be found that a primarily market economy with significant government oversight is the best way to go. Neither system in pure form is adequate, and we know this from experience. The first country to realize this and create such an economy... will have a major advantage, and possibly even become a world leader.
Well, truth be told, the US model is already a primarily market economy with significant government oversight, as are most developed (and even many emerging) countries.
The best way to think about this issue is on a spectrum: with total government control of the economy on one side of the spectrum, and no government intervention on the other side of the spectrum. Most every economy in the world falls somewhere between those two poles, not directly on either one of the poles.
You seem to be of the opinion that the American model should shift more towards the government control side of the spectrum; other people think the American model is just fine where it is; and others, even, think we need to move to less government control of the economy.
I, personally, am one of the people who would generally tend to prefer less government control of the economy, but, years prior to the onset of this crisis, was loudly and insistently proclaiming that the paradigm of believing that deregulation and the free market created some sort of Liebnizian "best possible state of the world" scenario was inevitably going to choke on its own hubris by leading us into a crisis caused specifically by lack of proper regulation.
Many people thought I was a rather cantankerous asshole in the years leading up to the crisis, due to my strongly held beliefs on the matter, but, ever since the onset of the crisis, people have more or less come to admit that what I was ranting and raving about was really spot on all along.
That being disclosed, I believe we are experiencing a natural swing back to the pole of more government intervention in the economy after a 25-30 year period of moving towards the pole of less government intervention in the economy.
This is probably a necessary swing, but, at the same time, more government regulation/intervention/control is not some end-all, be-all solution to our problems, nor will it be beneficial in all ways/all of the time; there are pitfalls and problems with increased government regulation/intervention/control of the economy, and, as we move towards that pole, we will start seeing evidence that that this is indeed the case.
And then we will start swinging back.
(As I'm sure you know, we're already having this broader debate in the U.S., of which the debate over the potential repealing of the healthcare bill is a quintessential example.)
Perhaps not, but it should still be done as soon as possible. In fact, it should have been done a long time ago. Things cannot be allowed to continue on the way they've been going indefinitely (according to my current understanding of the issue), because it's ultimately unsustainable and possibly suicidal.
Well, as I've stated above, my perspective on the matter is a bit different...
This is true. I'm sure that would be the case, but... ultimately, it still serves the purpose because there are fewer wealthy people than low-income people. It will be upsetting to the lower-income people to see the rich continuing to drive around, though.
Yeah, and it would almost certainly be politically impossible for this reason, as well... (and, understandably so, in my opinion.)
As oil becomes more scarce, however, I think that market forces would naturally force us towards similar situations (where the wealthy drive, and the rest of us don't), but without the benefit of foresight or good public transportation systems to replace cars that people can no longer afford.
I'm glad you bring this point up, because, well, in light of what I stated above -- that we are actually in a state of ignorance about the potential costs of not acting in a manner similar to what you've recommended -- it would seem that the price of oil would be one of those variables that would have a major effect on what would be the right thing to do.
If it remains relatively cheap compared to other energy sources, then there's less reason for us to change; if it gets relatively expensive compared to other energy sources, then there's more reason for us to change.
Personally, I believe that, in light of the possibility that we could very well hit peak oil over the next 10, 20, or 30 years (no matter what anybody says, oil is becoming more difficult to find -- there are a whole slew of quotes from the highest-level oil exec's essentially proclaiming as much), it would probably be smart for us to start moving away from dependence on it, both as a source of fuel for our cars, and in all the thousands of products we make from it.
The question, though, becomes: if we indeed will hit peak oil sometime in the foreseeable future, would it be wiser to just let the free market determine what we do, as it will choose the most efficient and economical process available to create the products we need, in light of whatever the price of oil ends up being over the next several decades?
But still, I don't see a way around it that doesn't involve a solution similar to this. If one is possible, it would obviously be preferable.
Well, what about the stuff that I've outlined above?
To summarize:
- increase fuel economy and emissions standards
- possibly institute a mandate towards electric cars
- increase production of atomic energy
- increase production of renewable energy
- allow the free market to take care of as much of this stuff as possible, but accept that government intervention will be necessary to a rather significant degree
