60 mpg by 2025

[davelj]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.

Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.

It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)

I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.

Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]

Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.[/quote]

I agree. And I’ll take it a step further: I think humans will be forced out of existence because the principal trait that has suited them well for survival up to this point (a heavy bias toward procreation without any concept of consequences) is the very trait that will eventually doom them.

The rate of population growth has slowed markedly over the last many decades, but there appears to be a gap several decades out into the future between sources and uses of energy (and potential environmental consequences). I’m not worried about my lifetime, but beyond 50 years, absent some major technological breakthroughs, the population issue will become the major problem in the world. Dicking around with mpg for cars is just rearranging deck chairs and pretending to address the issue.

[justme]

[quote=Ren]FWIW, a modern 500hp 911 Turbo has lower emissions than a 60hp, 46mpg 1986 Honda Civic. That’s what I call progress.[/quote]

Ren, I think you are missing the point. First, the only way “emissions” can be lower for the Porsche than the Honda is if you define “emissions” as not including CO2. The Porsche emits more CO2 by a factor of 5 or maybe even more.

Second, it is not just the “emissions” that is the problem (even if you ignore CO2), but the CONSUMPTION of the car.

[justme]

[quote=Ren]FWIW, a modern 500hp 911 Turbo has lower emissions than a 60hp, 46mpg 1986 Honda Civic. That’s what I call progress.[/quote]

Ren, I think you are missing the point. First, the only way “emissions” can be lower for the Porsche than the Honda is if you define “emissions” as not including CO2. The Porsche emits more CO2 by a factor of 5 or maybe even more.

Second, it is not just the “emissions” that is the problem (even if you ignore CO2), but the CONSUMPTION of the car.

[justme]

[quote=Ren]FWIW, a modern 500hp 911 Turbo has lower emissions than a 60hp, 46mpg 1986 Honda Civic. That’s what I call progress.[/quote]

Ren, I think you are missing the point. First, the only way “emissions” can be lower for the Porsche than the Honda is if you define “emissions” as not including CO2. The Porsche emits more CO2 by a factor of 5 or maybe even more.

Second, it is not just the “emissions” that is the problem (even if you ignore CO2), but the CONSUMPTION of the car.

[justme]

[quote=Ren]FWIW, a modern 500hp 911 Turbo has lower emissions than a 60hp, 46mpg 1986 Honda Civic. That’s what I call progress.[/quote]

Ren, I think you are missing the point. First, the only way “emissions” can be lower for the Porsche than the Honda is if you define “emissions” as not including CO2. The Porsche emits more CO2 by a factor of 5 or maybe even more.

Second, it is not just the “emissions” that is the problem (even if you ignore CO2), but the CONSUMPTION of the car.

[justme]

[quote=Ren]FWIW, a modern 500hp 911 Turbo has lower emissions than a 60hp, 46mpg 1986 Honda Civic. That’s what I call progress.[/quote]

Ren, I think you are missing the point. First, the only way “emissions” can be lower for the Porsche than the Honda is if you define “emissions” as not including CO2. The Porsche emits more CO2 by a factor of 5 or maybe even more.

Second, it is not just the “emissions” that is the problem (even if you ignore CO2), but the CONSUMPTION of the car.

[justme]

Listen sdduude, what I was attempting to do in my first post was to expose a very common double standard:

Whatever you want to do (waste oil) you define of as an inalienable right, and whatever you do NOT want to do you (incur public debt) you want to impose on everyone, although perhaps through a democratic political process of some sort.

Why does not the same standard apply the other way around? Or better yet, why do we not apply a regular democratic standard to all decisions and choices that clearly affect EVERYONE and are not just a private matter that does not affect anyone else?

This whole business of getting on a high horse and claiming inalienable rights in a matter that clearly affects directly every person on the planet is inconsistent, one might even say plain wrong.

[justme]

Listen sdduude, what I was attempting to do in my first post was to expose a very common double standard:

Whatever you want to do (waste oil) you define of as an inalienable right, and whatever you do NOT want to do you (incur public debt) you want to impose on everyone, although perhaps through a democratic political process of some sort.

Why does not the same standard apply the other way around? Or better yet, why do we not apply a regular democratic standard to all decisions and choices that clearly affect EVERYONE and are not just a private matter that does not affect anyone else?

This whole business of getting on a high horse and claiming inalienable rights in a matter that clearly affects directly every person on the planet is inconsistent, one might even say plain wrong.

[justme]

Listen sdduude, what I was attempting to do in my first post was to expose a very common double standard:

Whatever you want to do (waste oil) you define of as an inalienable right, and whatever you do NOT want to do you (incur public debt) you want to impose on everyone, although perhaps through a democratic political process of some sort.

Why does not the same standard apply the other way around? Or better yet, why do we not apply a regular democratic standard to all decisions and choices that clearly affect EVERYONE and are not just a private matter that does not affect anyone else?

This whole business of getting on a high horse and claiming inalienable rights in a matter that clearly affects directly every person on the planet is inconsistent, one might even say plain wrong.

[justme]

Listen sdduude, what I was attempting to do in my first post was to expose a very common double standard:

Whatever you want to do (waste oil) you define of as an inalienable right, and whatever you do NOT want to do you (incur public debt) you want to impose on everyone, although perhaps through a democratic political process of some sort.

Why does not the same standard apply the other way around? Or better yet, why do we not apply a regular democratic standard to all decisions and choices that clearly affect EVERYONE and are not just a private matter that does not affect anyone else?

This whole business of getting on a high horse and claiming inalienable rights in a matter that clearly affects directly every person on the planet is inconsistent, one might even say plain wrong.

[justme]

Listen sdduude, what I was attempting to do in my first post was to expose a very common double standard:

Whatever you want to do (waste oil) you define of as an inalienable right, and whatever you do NOT want to do you (incur public debt) you want to impose on everyone, although perhaps through a democratic political process of some sort.

Why does not the same standard apply the other way around? Or better yet, why do we not apply a regular democratic standard to all decisions and choices that clearly affect EVERYONE and are not just a private matter that does not affect anyone else?

This whole business of getting on a high horse and claiming inalienable rights in a matter that clearly affects directly every person on the planet is inconsistent, one might even say plain wrong.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj][quote=sdduuuude][quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.

Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.

It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)

I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.

Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]

Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.[/quote]

I agree. And I’ll take it a step further: I think humans will be forced out of existence because the principal trait that has suited them well for survival up to this point (a heavy bias toward procreation without any concept of consequences) is the very trait that will eventually doom them.

The rate of population growth has slowed markedly over the last many decades, but there appears to be a gap several decades out into the future between sources and uses of energy (and potential environmental consequences). I’m not worried about my lifetime, but beyond 50 years, absent some major technological breakthroughs, the population issue will become the major problem in the world. Dicking around with mpg for cars is just rearranging deck chairs and pretending to address the issue.[/quote]

I don’t think it will doom us. I go back to Jay Forrester’s world model that suggests the world’s population will peak, then drop to a lower steady-state level.

This makes more sense than the “doom” scenario because as population dies off, there is less to support and thus more resources for all that remain.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj][quote=sdduuuude][quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.

Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.

It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)

I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.

Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]

Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.[/quote]

I agree. And I’ll take it a step further: I think humans will be forced out of existence because the principal trait that has suited them well for survival up to this point (a heavy bias toward procreation without any concept of consequences) is the very trait that will eventually doom them.

The rate of population growth has slowed markedly over the last many decades, but there appears to be a gap several decades out into the future between sources and uses of energy (and potential environmental consequences). I’m not worried about my lifetime, but beyond 50 years, absent some major technological breakthroughs, the population issue will become the major problem in the world. Dicking around with mpg for cars is just rearranging deck chairs and pretending to address the issue.[/quote]

I don’t think it will doom us. I go back to Jay Forrester’s world model that suggests the world’s population will peak, then drop to a lower steady-state level.

This makes more sense than the “doom” scenario because as population dies off, there is less to support and thus more resources for all that remain.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj][quote=sdduuuude][quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.

Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.

It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)

I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.

Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]

Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.[/quote]

I agree. And I’ll take it a step further: I think humans will be forced out of existence because the principal trait that has suited them well for survival up to this point (a heavy bias toward procreation without any concept of consequences) is the very trait that will eventually doom them.

The rate of population growth has slowed markedly over the last many decades, but there appears to be a gap several decades out into the future between sources and uses of energy (and potential environmental consequences). I’m not worried about my lifetime, but beyond 50 years, absent some major technological breakthroughs, the population issue will become the major problem in the world. Dicking around with mpg for cars is just rearranging deck chairs and pretending to address the issue.[/quote]

I don’t think it will doom us. I go back to Jay Forrester’s world model that suggests the world’s population will peak, then drop to a lower steady-state level.

This makes more sense than the “doom” scenario because as population dies off, there is less to support and thus more resources for all that remain.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj][quote=sdduuuude][quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.

Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.

It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)

I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.

Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]

Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.[/quote]

I agree. And I’ll take it a step further: I think humans will be forced out of existence because the principal trait that has suited them well for survival up to this point (a heavy bias toward procreation without any concept of consequences) is the very trait that will eventually doom them.

The rate of population growth has slowed markedly over the last many decades, but there appears to be a gap several decades out into the future between sources and uses of energy (and potential environmental consequences). I’m not worried about my lifetime, but beyond 50 years, absent some major technological breakthroughs, the population issue will become the major problem in the world. Dicking around with mpg for cars is just rearranging deck chairs and pretending to address the issue.[/quote]

I don’t think it will doom us. I go back to Jay Forrester’s world model that suggests the world’s population will peak, then drop to a lower steady-state level.

This makes more sense than the “doom” scenario because as population dies off, there is less to support and thus more resources for all that remain.

[Author]

Posts