Re: RE: RE: OT: Hybrid Escape

From: jon@dakota-truck.net
Date: Tue Jun 08 2004 - 15:50:35 EDT


"Mr. Plow" <adam_is_mr_plow@hotmail.com> wrote:

: I agree with pretty much everything you have to say Jon, although i'm a
: little disappointed at not being grouped into the whacko-pioneer group....
: hehehe

  Heh heh heh! What the heck, I figured I'd give you the benefit of
the doubt. :-) Lets just say that when I think of environmental
whackos, this isn't exactly what pops to mind:

    http://www.dakota-truck.net/meet/dmlbbq02/levy/35.jpg

:-)

: However, when you mentioned "forcing technology" were you talking about
: making legislation in that regard?

  Yep! Legislation bad... m'kay? ;-)

: Because i think that making that technology necessary via new laws is one of
: the few ways that it will become mainstream. (I pretty much explained my
: thoughts on this in my other diatribe about the oil companies)

   I prefer to let technology come into play based on its own
merits. Nobody had to create laws forcing people to buy cars
instead of using their buggies back when horses were polluting
the streets with their ummmm, "exhaust". ;-) Cars were better,
so people adopted them. However, I'll bet those first few people
who had cars were probably looked upon as a bit nutty. Expensive,
noisy, breaking down all the time, I'm sure many people thought "just
give me a good horse any day!". To force everyone to buy cars
instead of using their horses would have created an undue burden on
people, new levels of beaurocracy, additional tasks for police, etc.
Eventually, cars got better and were adopted into the mainstream.
As cars got better, the negatives to their ownership became smaller
and smaller, and as they did so, more and more people started to
see that a car would work better for them than a horse. (Although
there are no doubt people even today for whom a horse works better
than a car, or perhaps they need a horse in addition to a car. Why
burden these people with legislation?) This is the way its
supposed to work; the better product becomes predominant in the
marketplace. I have no doubt that vehicles with forms of propulsion
other than the standard gasoline internal combustion engine have
the potential to have many advantages over these gas engines, but
they are nowhere near that point today, so it is premature to try
to force manufacturers to build them and people to buy them. Lets
just leave these technologies out there on the "lunatic fringe"
where people who can afford the teething pains can develop them
into a viable product. Once the bugs are worked out, the magic
of the free market will introduce them into the mainstream.
This isn't something that has to be forced, it is something that
will mature of its own accord. The very fact that legislation
might be necessary to force people to use something is proof
that this technology is not yet ready for prime time.

  For example, it would be great if we could have star ships like
in Star Trek that could have a warp drive and travel faster than
the speed of light. However, creating a law that says the aerospace
industry needs to invent them and that they should make up 10% of their
yearly sales by the year 2015 isn't going to do a single thing to
make them a reality. All it does is create hardship for the companies
(most of which is passed on to their customers in various financial
forms). The companies will either try to comply and/or pay penalties
resulting in bankrupcy or loss of jobs perhaps, or maybe they will
try to move out of the country. In any case, this legislation helps
no-one; rather, it places a large burden on everybody and diverts
financial and human resources to things which detract from more
important matters. Although the starship example is obviously an
exaggeragion, the whole electric car deal is very similar. We have
legislators cowing to the pressure of environmental groups and/or
trying to make feel-good legislation who do not actually understand
the technical requirements of what they are asking. Someone will
suffer due to these unreasonable demands, and in the end, that
someone is us... Either directly or indirectly, every citizen is
harmed every time some stupid, extraneous piece of legislation comes
down the pike. IMHO, the gov't should stick to law enforcment (making
sure the actions of one person do not harm the rights of another) and
national security, and butt out of everything else...

: I'm sure we will have lots to talk about at the BBQ this year! :)

    As usual! :-) We don't seem to have a problem coming up with
topics to banter around the ol' campfire in between blasts of
leprechaun dust. ;-)

   Oh, speaking of the BBQ, the local town board has decreed that
4x4s are no longer allowed to drive on the trails because they pollute
too much, so we'll have to stick to RC cars in the driveway instead.
Also, I won't be allowed to use the propane grill for the hot dogs and
hamburgers, but I can't afford an electric one, so it will be cold
cereal and milk instead of BBQ. ;-)

  (Before the entire DML un-invites itself to the BBQ... Yes, I'm
kidding. Just trying to make a point about legislation and what will
happen if the gov't doesn't butt out of our lives.) :-)

-- 
                                          -Jon-

.-- Jon Steiger ---- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com --. | 1970 Barracuda - 1990 Dakota 'vert - 1992 Ram 4x4 - 1996 Dakota | | 1996 Intruder 1400 - 1996 Kolb FireFly - 2001 Ram QC 3500 CTD | `------------------------------------ http://www.jonsteiger.com --'



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 01 2004 - 00:15:16 EDT