Sustainable development

[Robert J. Kolker]

I wouldn't drive the POS if it was given to me. I'd sell it to a hippie and buy a truck. People like you are what foisted those damn, dim curly bulbs on us.

Simple solution to available energy: Build nuke plants!

.

Amen! And build fast breeder reactors. That goes a long way to dealing with the disposal of nuclear waste and by-products.

Bob Kolker

[brian0918]

I'm curious how much of this "trendy concern" is simply being generated by the existence of or potential for government subsidy. Certainly a big part of its foundation - the anthropogenic global warming claim - is the result of government funding poor science.

Edited January 24, 2010 by brian0918

[Maximus]

I'm curious how much of this "trendy concern" is simply being generated by the existence of or potential for government subsidy.

I think you've nailed it.

[softwareNerd]

Well, I’m not really a salesman, I’m just a graphic design student, and I don’t know that much about cars. So, I guess the best thing I could do is try to make a great advertisement, like the one it has already, which I think is great, but… since that doesn’t seem to work on you… well, I can’t do anything really . However, the point of this ad is to profit from the popular appeal of these ideas. Most of the potential consumers of this car, sustainable products, architecture, design, green products, etc., which are great in number since this is such a trendy concern today, are mainly focused on their good intentions and their so-called contribution to the planet, rather than the product's actual performance and technical features. They just drift with the current, and my job is to make use of this; tell them what they want to hear, give them what they want, exploit the moral appeal and make a profit from it. Of course, I would not accept this job in particular.

Come, come, you're weaseling out of your own position. If you want to backtrack, do so openly and with courage. You began this thread by indicating that there may be something rational about buying such a car. You even suggested that people who considered the facts openly would buy the car. Now, you claim that a salesman selling this car cannot appeal to rational people, but can pander to their irrationality?

Is it a revelation that goods and services can be traded on the basis of irrational values? Many people who frequent casinos, buy lotteries, drink excessively, use drugs and visit red-light districts do these things for irrational reasons. These are also multi-million/billion dollar businesses. If you don't like those examples, consider the billions that are spent on churches every year. So, yes, product are sold all the time because of irrational values and because of those who pander to those values. What of it?

I'm curious how much of this "trendy concern" is simply being generated by the existence of or potential for government subsidy. Certainly a big part of its foundation - the anthropogenic global warming claim - is the result of government funding poor science.

In addition, product-specific taxes are the other side of subsidies. The government already gives preference to fuel-efficiency in the form of the gas-tax. If one were to remove the gas tax, retaining ordinary state sales tax, the relative cost to run a Prius is less attractive than today. If the government really wanted people to buy Prius-like cars, they would go further. A $1/gallon additional gas-tax would make the Prius economically very close to other cars in its class. A $2/gallon gas tax would ensure pretty good sales for such cars. Of course, many left wing folk want that, but their leaders realize it is politically unpalatable. Gas taxes in the US are about 50 cents/gallon. In Europe, where gas taxes are four times as high (and more) the Prius probably seems like a good deal.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

One of the more frustrating attitudes I run into talking to Europeans is that many of them somehow think we haven't progressed as much as they have, because our gas prices are lower.

Obviously what they think we are behind on is in imposing those taxes softwareNerd mentioned. Apparently the thought is that we will run out of oil someday and that catastrophe can be averted by raising taxes to the point where people will use less and/or find an expensive, but now relatively economical alternative. Either way you are doing less for yourself (by using less energy) or impoverishing yourself (by continuing the same rate of use of either gasoline or those expensive alternatives that now "make sense" at a higher price than one would pay without the tax.

I try pointing out that the ONLY effect of that tax is to impoverish people so as to keep a bunch of oil uselessly in the ground, and it falls on deaf ears. Some people are just pathologically obtuse, I guess.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Do you consider this compatible with Objectivist ethics?

Uh…no, that’s why I said “Of course, I would not accept this job in particular” immediately after that. However, I do think this is the general position that most graphic designers would assume for any job. As it is being advertised right now, I wouldn’t try to sell this particular product, because of the kind of motivation behind it, which I don’t share, and the particular message that I’d be asked to promote for it. But, as for other products, I don’t see any problem with this. There is an alternative being taught here, it’s called “social responsibility class,” but you wouldn’t like that, and I don’t think it’s necessary at all.

Come, come, you're weaseling out of your own position. If you want to backtrack, do so openly and with courage. You began this thread by indicating that there may be something rational about buying such a car. You even suggested that people who considered the facts openly would buy the car. Now, you claim that a salesman selling this car cannot appeal to rational people, but can pander to their irrationality?

Nope, maybe you misinterpreted my position. I asked if any of you would buy this car, and I did so precisely because, as I said before, I don’t know much about cars. I didn’t assume or even assert that every rational person in the world would absolutely love this car and buy it, I asked if any of you would. Now, offhand, I thought this particular car was maybe a good option, with all the “they’ve added horsepower while increasing fuel economy” and the “advanced technology, extra power, space, safety and 50 miles per gallon”, yes, it seemed to me that there may be something rational about buying this car.

Is it a revelation that goods and services can be traded on the basis of irrational values? Many people who frequent casinos, buy lotteries, drink excessively, use drugs and visit red-light districts do these things for irrational reasons. These are also multi-million/billion dollar businesses. If you don't like those examples, consider the billions that are spent on churches every year. So, yes, product are sold all the time because of irrational values and because of those who pander to those values. What of it?

Yes, well, it depends on what the goods are. There are thousands of absolutely useless products that can only be traded on this particular basis, like most of infomercial type products, for example, which I’d sell, but these are different examples. Would you take a job that promotes churches? I wouldn’t. However, I just didn’t happen to mention the car, I do like the solar power structures and the solar ventilation bus shelters. Peeling away the guilt and irrationality from them, I’d like to sell these and other similar products, and would even consider to buy them. What I was trying to point out, is that they do represent an improvement in creativity and technological innovation, as against returning to nature, living in a cave, reducing living standards, destroying civilization, etc.

Edited January 24, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[JMeganSnow]

I wouldn't drive the POS if it was given to me. I'd sell it to a hippie and buy a truck. People like you are what foisted those damn, dim curly bulbs on us.

Simple solution to available energy: Build nuke plants!

College sure has changed since I was in. Sustainable Development classes indeed! Right up there with pottery and basket weaving.

I actually kind of like my curly bulbs, but I was using them before the other ones came under attack because I don't have to change them out nearly as often. That, and you CAN get bright ones, you know. They don't ALL suck.

I think the entire concept of "sustainable" development is based on the anti-mind premise that humans are trapped in a box and we have to arrange things so that we can keep doing EXACTLY the same things FOREVER otherwise we're SCREWED. It's the same mentality that leads to featherbedding in unions because god forbid anyone have to learn NEW SKILLS to keep up with CHANGING MARKET CONDITIONS. It has nothing to do with promoting anything, it's the same old mantra in new form: slow down, don't progress, give up.

[softwareNerd]

What I was trying to point out, is that they do represent an improvement in creativity and technological innovation, as against returning to nature, living in a cave, reducing living standards, destroying civilization, etc.

Check your premises. Twenty years ago software programmers had all sorts of clever ways of using tiny amounts of RAM, because many of our PCs had 256KB and 512KB. Now, with PCs regularly containing 1GB, people can have all sorts of graphic-intensive software. Imagine that some scientist spent tonnes of time and came up with a way to run slightly less graphic-intensive applications, but with the use of half the memory. Of course it might be an innovative way; but it would be a total waste of time, because it would be something that we do not need any more. Such an idea could have uses in the context of some smaller device, but if the researcher were focussing on larger devices that had tonnes of RAM, he'd be wasting his time.

Similarly, there are applications where Prius levels of fuel efficiency is useful even at higher cost of manufacture. However, the passenger car is not such an application. There's no objection to the prius as a lab-prototype, but it is clearly technologically backward compared to the Honda civic. it uses a different approach, but one that costs more to manufacture and does not deliver enough of a return. In what sense is this technologically superior? The 2010 Prius is superior to the 2009 one? Good for Toyota. maybe some day they will come up with a car that is superior to the Civic. Today, on a dollar-per-HP basis, the Prius barely scrapes the Civic, and at a cost that is 30% higher. God save us from such innovation!

Edited January 24, 2010 by softwareNerd

[Jake_Ellison]

What I was trying to point out, is that they do represent an improvement in creativity and technological innovation, as against returning to nature, living in a cave, reducing living standards, destroying civilization, etc.

It's not an improvement. It's a worse car than pretty much any used sedan you can pick up for 5000 dollars. In fact, it would lose in a comparison to a 2000 dollar '95 Corolla in every major way except fuel efficiency.

The 2010 Prius is superior to the 2009 one? Good for Toyota. maybe some day they will come up with a car that is superior to the Civic.

Not if they insist on hauling along batteries which are powered by a combustion engine. That's an obviously silly idea, they will always be behind regular cars in either performance or fuel consumption, since the amount of electric energy they can generate depends on how good the combustion engine is, which incidentally is just something they borrow from regular cars they inevitably compete against.

So, they're not so much using fuel more efficiently, as they are giving up performance, thus using less of it. (the amount of energy saved with the "clever" storage of energy in batteries is easily lost because of the added weight of said batteries) This could be done just as well without the batteries, except it wouldn't sell, because it wouldn't be a magical "hybrid".

The real options are:

1. More efficient combustion engine, and lighter cars, which the Europeans are all over because it's the most cost effective solution in that awful climate (caused by the massive taxation)

2. Pure electric such as the Tesla (nowhere near practical yet, but at least you don't have to completely destroy performance, because otherwise your hybrid would consume more gasoline than regular cars. Obviously, you still are emitting CO2, because it uses electricity. If the gods of irony are doing their job, it hopefully uses the most inexpensive type of electricity out there: the coal generated kind.

3. Hydrogen powered cars. Don't know much about them, but they do seem to work.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Capitalism Forever]

Is there anything unethical about selling a person something he wishes to buy, assuming that the person knows the nature of what he is buying and no misrepresentation or fraud is taking place?

Well, think about it. Was it ethical for Immanuel Kant to make a living by giving the kind of lectures and writing the kind of books he did?

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

It's not an improvement. It's a worse car than pretty much any used sedan you can pick up for 5000 dollars. In fact, it would lose in a comparison to a 2000 dollar '95 Corolla in every major way except fuel efficiency.

I said “they”, meaning, not just this car, but many other products which are a result of this approach, such as the curly light bulbs JMeganSnow mentioned, which I prefer over the conventional light bulbs. They're cheaper, work just as well, and last way longer. That is improvement.

[Jake_Ellison]

I said “they”, meaning, not just this car, but many other products which are a result of this approach, such as the curly light bulbs JMeganSnow mentioned, which I prefer over the conventional light bulbs. They're cheaper, work just as well, and last way longer. That is improvement.

Fluorescent lamps have been around for over a century, GE patented the first practical CFL model 70 years ago, and the modern version was invented and patented by the same company 40 years ago. The term sustainable development was born after an environmentalist UN conference some 20 years ago. Are you gonna cite the usefulness of the wheel as an argument for sustainable development next?

[Maximus]

I said “they”, meaning, not just this car, but many other products which are a result of this approach, such as the curly light bulbs JMeganSnow mentioned, which I prefer over the conventional light bulbs. They're cheaper, work just as well, and last way longer. That is improvement.

If you get 120V lamps at the hardware store, they last just as long as the curly ones, with a much warmer and more natural light - without the eye damaging occilations that fluorescent lights have . The 120V industrial bulbs have a heavier tungsten filament; incidentally, they are not considered Hazardous Waste when broken.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Well, think about it. Was it ethical for Immanuel Kant to make a living by giving the kind of lectures and writing the kind of books he did?

Apparently the school authorities in Ko"nigsberg were not bothered. He taught for decades until his death and was generally liked by his students. If you look at teaching as a kind of entertainment, he gave a a sufficiently good performance so that students came back for more. It works for actors, comedians and teachers apparently. All the biographies I have read about the man indicate that his company was well liked and sought after. He was invited to dinners because people liked his reparte and he was also a good card player so his company was sought a the card table. The criterion for success in this instance, apparently was --- do you like what he teaches and the way he teaches and do you enjoy playing whist with this fellow.

In modern contexts, people who go about giving seminars and such like to paying audiences are rated at the end of the course. If they score well, they are invited back to teach again. If they are not rated well, they are not invited back. At Princeton University, where I sometimes audit courses, the paying students fill out a rating form at the end of the semester. It sounds like a system that sustains itself in the short term. It is the market principle, or the principle of supply/demand applied over relatively short time horizons.

Do you know of any breach of ethics in his case? He taught what he believed to be the case (however mistaken he was) and no one objected.

If it were me, I would have walked out after his first lecture putting for the proposition that there are necessarily true synthetic apriori judgments. But that is me and I wasn't there having missed my chance by nearly 160 years. In my own life time, I have avoided attending lectures by Kantians actually advocating Kant's view, such as John Silver, President of Boston University. I have attended a course on the history of philosophy which went into some detail on what Kant did put forth in -Critique of Pure Reason-. Reading this straight in the German (or even in translation) is well nigh impossible so I opted to get a rendition of Kant's position by someone who apparently understood what he was saying. I was properly appalled and never delved into Kant again. However I do recognize Kantian arguments that people sometime put forth in other contexts. That puts me properly on my guard. When the pebbles start flying can the bricks be far behind?

Bob Kolker

[brian0918]

I just switched out most of the bulbs in my house with CFLs, and am now finding it hard to focus my eyes, and getting headaches. :/

[Maximus]

I just switched out most of the bulbs in my house with CFLs, and am now finding it hard to focus my eyes, and getting headaches. :/

That's why the US Naval Academy forbids it's cadets to read by florescent lighting - bad for the eyes. You'll all regret those damn curly bulbs in a few years.

I'd like to see the Bush-era law phasing incancesdents out repealed - it should be the market that decides, not the damn government.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Maximus

[softwareNerd]

I'd like to see the Bush-era law phasing incancesdents out repealed - it should be the market that decides, not the damn government.

Exactly. Those bulbs have their uses. Lots of people in the U.S. have bought them willingly, mostly wanting to save money. There has been some disappointment about some of their non-advertised disadvantages (like the flashing and the slow start-up). I have experimented with them all over my house, and have figured out some places where they will work, and many where they will not. If all incandescent bulbs are phased out, it is going to be costly for me, because quite a few fixtures in my house cannot take larger bulbs. Some of the fixtures that can take larger bulbs cannot accommodate the fatter base of these new bulbs. In addition, the typical such bulb does not work on a dimmer: ones that do, cost more. Beyond all those non-advertised disadvantages, having had to replace a few of them already, I am skeptical about their advertised lifetimes. I suspect that this is some type of laboratory test, and that the numbers are different in real use.

If I had a free-choice most of my home bulb-lumens would still be incandescent, with CFL in some uses and LEDs in others.

[Maximus]

I replaced the 60 watt in my porch fixture with an equivalent curly bulb. It barely lit up the immediate area of the porch. The incandescent lit up half the front yard. I switched back promptly. I have had a burn out rate only slightly better with the CFLs than with the incandescencents in the house. I've replaced them with the 120V bulbs as they bite the dust.

The CFLs mess with my eyes.

[gags]

I have a kithcen with a vaulted ceiling where I'm using CFL spotlight bulbs only because they do not generate as much heat as the incandescents. Due to the pitch of roof and other factors, the heat from incandescents has caused problems with ice damning and roof leaks in the winter. I would prefer to use regular incandescents in this application because I don't particularly like the light from the CFLs, nor do I like the fact that they take several minutes to give off their full amount of light. On top of that they're more expensive and while they may last somewhat longer than standard bulbs, they certianly don't last the advertised 7 years.

[Capitalism Forever]

Do you know of any breach of ethics in [Kant']s case?

(...gasp...) Give me a break, man, we're talking about the man Ayn Rand called the most evil figure in history, the intellectual father of the Holocaust, the GULAGs, and 9/11--and you're asking if I know of any breach of ethics in his case?

[Capitalism Forever]

I'd like to see the Bush-era law phasing incancesdents out repealed

I wonder what would happen if some of the states passed laws to override the Federal ban within their jurisdiction, citing the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The War of Independence broke out over tea--could light bulbs become the spark for the next revolution?

[Robert J. Kolker]

That's why the US Naval Academy forbids it's cadets to read by florescent lighting - bad for the eyes. You'll all regret those damn curly bulbs in a few years.

I'd like to see the Bush-era law phasing incancesdents out repealed - it should be the market that decides, not the damn government.

Six or Seven years for me. No problems.

Bob Kolker

[Robert J. Kolker]

I'd like to see the Bush-era law phasing incancesdents out repealed - it should be the market that decides, not the damn government.

The Civil War and its outcome ended the doctrine of nullification forever. The Federal courts would shred any effort to nullify a Federal regulation on tenth amendment grounds.

The Constitution you know and love has been dead for some time now.

Bob Kolker

[Jake_Ellison]

Apparently the school authorities in Ko"nigsberg were not bothered. He taught for decades until his death and was generally liked by his students. If you look at teaching as a kind of entertainment, he gave a a sufficiently good performance so that students came back for more. It works for actors, comedians and teachers apparently. All the biographies I have read about the man indicate that his company was well liked and sought after. He was invited to dinners because people liked his reparte and he was also a good card player so his company was sought a the card table. The criterion for success in this instance, apparently was --- do you like what he teaches and the way he teaches and do you enjoy playing whist with this fellow.

In modern contexts, people who go about giving seminars and such like to paying audiences are rated at the end of the course. If they score well, they are invited back to teach again. If they are not rated well, they are not invited back. At Princeton University, where I sometimes audit courses, the paying students fill out a rating form at the end of the semester. It sounds like a system that sustains itself in the short term. It is the market principle, or the principle of supply/demand applied over relatively short time horizons.

And what does that have to do with morality?

He taught what he believed to be the case (however mistaken he was) and no one objected.

What are you basing the opinion that those two (teaching what you believe in and receiving no objections from others) are valid criteria for moral judgment?

[Robert J. Kolker]

And what does that have to do with morality?

What are you basing the opinion that those two (teaching what you believe in and receiving no objections from others) are valid criteria for moral judgment?

May I make a suggestion? Start a new thread on whether Kant was immoral or just plain wrong. This is supposed to be a thread on sustainable development in action.

The subject of such a thread is really the more generally question: what is morality and what is immorality?

I would be happy to converse with you on these matters on a different thread. O.K.?

Bob Kolker