Slashdot Mirror
The Problem With Abundance
GRW writes "Peter de Jager, "a speaker/writer/consultant on the issues relating to the Rational Assimilation of the Future", asks, 'What do traffic jams, obesity and spam have in common?' He answers that 'they are all problems caused by abundance in a world more attuned to scarcity. By achieving the goal of abundance, technology renders the natural checks and balances of scarcity obsolete.' His article is a thought provoking discussion of the unintended consequences of technological change."
Is this the guy who made a name for himself yelling about the sky falling at Y2K? As I recall, the sky didn't fall at all. I'm sure he'd like credit for that.
I guess he can't find another "crisis" so he's decided we have too much stuff.
In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity -- the epidemic of over-production
Karl Marx
The Communist Manifesto
Any form of change will have at least some unintended or unpredicted consequences.
:o)).
While a reduction in scarcity may be unintended, I find it hard to consider it automatically undesirable. Scarcity in terms of food is bad, by and large. Even though an abundance has its own issues, obesity is arguably less of a problem than starvation (though obviously, the middle ground is probably to be preferred).
(Now, if there were a scarcity of lawyers and politicians, that could be a good thing
It doesn't appear that the author is railing against technology, but there are people who will read it that way. "Technology is bad!", they will say, and point to any number of unintended problems that have arisen. What these people seem to miss is that the solution to those problems is further progress (and technology), not stopping in one place and burying our heads in the sand (or clamoring for a idyllic past that never existed).
Given that, for the most part, the problems caused by these unintended consequences are often less harmful than the problems that the technology addresses, I'm willing to accept the consequences, assuming that a goal is further advancement to address those problems, and so on.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
There is certainly a larger problem here -- the very mechanisms by which we were to be freed from the ravages of nature (esp. sewage, refrigeration, washing-machines, elevators ...) have enslaved us to convenience through a kind of hypnotization. We now must have convenience, for if we don't, we can't do anything. Think about what happens when the power goes out: our sleep-walk through existence is rudely disturbed, much like when a magician's victims find out that they have been barking like dogs. This is a much worse bondage.
Economics IS the study of scarcity. Or more accurately, how humans develop social systems to cope with or mitigate scarcity. (When you boil it down, trade and money are just tools of controlling resource allocation or power over resources.)
Those who complain about affect & effect on
The problem is that city's and to a larger extent suburbs are designed for cars. I ride my bike to work most days, and I have to do it in traffic because there is no place for bikes. So riding a bike to work is more than just riding a bike to work. I put my life at the mercy of half asleep drivers that are paying attention to other cars and not me.
Subjectively I think I am more likely to be involved in a collision with a car when I'm on my bike then when I'm driving. And I'm pretty sure I'm more likely to be seriously damaged when on the bike.
So lack of bike routes, combined with the fact that most people live too far away from their jobs to make biking practicable (again a subjective observation based on experience in DC, Baltimore and Memphis), means that you won't be seeing a massive shift to bikes any time soon. Plus people are lazy.
i don't like my old sig.
It's not even a matter of purchasing a vehicle for fuel efficiency, it's a matter of common sense. The folks who howl at the top of their lungs to try and defend their house-on-wheels purchase miss the point entirely or just don't want to admit (or just don't care) that what they did was incredibly, inexcusably stupid and suggests they have the IQ of a dead muskrat while on car lots.
If you don't NEED (or want) to go stomping through 3 feet of water, up 25 degree rocky inclines, and through 2 feet of snow on a regular basis, you don't NEED an SUV. Even the losers who whine about driving in 6 inches of snow with their SUV just don't get it. There's plenty of 4WD and AWD cars out there that are cheaper, faster, safer, easier to maintain, and handle light and moderate offroad and bad weather duty just fine. My one friend had a 4WD Tempo for about a year. It handled wet, grassy hills, snow, ice, and mud just fine.
If you NEED a vehicle for the family, a minivan is safer, cheaper, equally as versatile, and better on gas.
If you NEED to haul a boat or something similar every great once in awhile, borrow or rent a truck or SUV WHEN YOU NEED IT. There's no sense in driving a truck/SUV/van like a car for 90% of your mileage.
There are certainly the rare few who can justify an SUV/Van/Truck purchase - I know some. They have jobs that require the power of a Dodge Ram or the versatility and all-weather capability of a Suburban (actually, I know a guy who has a Durango solely because he lives in the boonies in a steep-sloping valley and doesn't usually get plowed out for days - he drives the Durango occasionally if it's the only vehicle available and to keep it from locking up in the summer, then drives it most of the winter).
Face it SUV-owners: most of you are fad following losers with no imagination or individuality. I recall a mere decade ago when SUVs were the prime requisite of mud-stomping hicks and were frowned upon by the "new elite businessperson" in favor of Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes sedans. They're a fad - I've yet to question one person who could successfully justify his/her SUV purchase. Stupid. And I will (and occasionally do) maintain that in the face of anyone who can't give me a good reason for their decision.
Oh... and I'm not against them so much for their gas-wasting ways, though that's definitely one reason I don't like them. I'm against them because the people who are dumb enough to buy them without cause aren't smart enough to drive them safely. Bigger vehicle = more responsibility. But, they mostly drive just as recklessly as everyone else anyway. In fact, I kept track for awhile, and I saw nearly twice as many people in SUVs driving recklessly (significantly over the speed limit, rapid lane changes, pulling out in front of people, etc.) as in cars. Although that could certainly be regionalized, I doubt it.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!