at the 2007 l.a. (you know, los angelos) auto show, this behemoth was named green 'car' of the year. the 5,000-plus pound V8-powered chevy tahoe hybrid boasts 8 passenger seating and a cool 21 mpg city and 22 mpg highway. (for a comparison, the regular honda civic gets a reported 36 mpg highway). just seems like were missing the point. we always want the best of both worlds, even if it means we dont really get either. save the planet, but dont make me change how i live. i know some situations require larger vehicles, but i think there's a greater sense of entitlement that tends to muddle our thinking. what if we actually let go of our god given right to have complete mobile independence?
i have no place to complain. i drive to work by myself pretty much everyday. sure my job requires that i travel to job sites at a fairly regular basis, but how hard would it be for me to schedule ahead of time, line up days that i could carpool with a roomate and have access to the spare truck at work.
but what about the freedom? what if you just want to drive somewhere unexpected? i shouldnt have to be inconvenieced by someone else.
i just need to let go of the idea that i own my time and deserve to have it completely at my own disposal.
this all seems to point out to me the ways i try to leave my foot in as many doors as possible. jack of all trades, master of none. the concept of either or, is kind of a foreign thing to me because i always think i can have both. dont commit to one thing because you may have to miss others. dont move on one job because it might limit you later. dont make plans for the weekend because something better might come up. for me, it stems from the need to be perfect.
...im learning that imperfection is good.
8 comments:
does the world have to be a zero-sum-game?
maybe the status quo of technology and specifically SUV's are this way, big = wasteful and polluting, but if technology adapted so that a vehicle of any size could be run off water:
would not comprimising or inconveniencing in terms of transportation even be an issue?
or is it human nature and would people just find something else to complain about or find other ways to be destructive?
is it just the thinking process that we people should not have to change or adapt the problem, or can people remain 'inconvenienced' and have other variables change in order to not be distructive. (i.e. the car example)
whats the price tag on one of those babies?
I laughed out loud at the ironic (and probably accidental) juxtaposition of those two comments! They are both good comments but when read right in order it's funny.
If you want to read something related to these thoughts that will make you depressed and disgusted with the way we live, read "Home From Nowhere" by J.H. Kunstler. Good book but very sad.
just my opinion. but i think the notion that technology will one day reach some level that will afford us the chance to continuing living as we do without compromises is simply wishful thinking. for example a car running off water may help aleviate pollution but only agrivates the shortage of drinking water for 1/3 of the world.
for the sake of arguing:
who says it has to be drinking water? isn't something like 75% of the earth water?
i think "wishful thinking" is as much of a mindset as conservation is. many things were thought to be impossible a century or even a generation ago.
all im saying is, resources are limited. well find some way to use them up. in my opinion theres never been and never will be technology that completely nuetralizes our effects on the world, if we continue as we do. all technology does is delay the inevitable.
also, i dont know if its a realistic aim to think that we can change and live in a way that is completely sustainable either. thats probably wishful thinking too.just my opinion
I don't know if you've read much Wendell Berry, but I think you'd like him a lot. I do. But here's his take on some technology:
http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berrynot.html
Post a Comment