From: doucette@hannah.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.society.futures
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:04:31 GMT
Followup-To: In article <SLAGLE.92Aug6133153@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> <l846u5INN5hd@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


From: doucette@hannah.enet.dec.com ()
Reply-To: doucette@hannah.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: Re: Cars, Cities and Choices
Keywords: 

In article <SLAGLE.92Aug6133153@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> <l846u5INN5hd@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Jon Roland writes,

>In article 92Aug6133153@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com, 
>slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark 
>Slagle) writes:
>>For a change, I find that I think Jon Roland is at least
>>partially right.

>Thank you. I suspect that as you come to better understand my arguments in
>greater detail you will find more to agree with in them. And my recommendations
>for restructuring our capital into sealed, compact "starship-cities" may
>become somewhat more acceptable as you better perceive that the proposal is
>not based on a single, simple line of reasoning, but is supported by a
>multi-threaded analysis that can stand in the main even if some of the threads
>are weak.

Finally, one paragraph which summarizes your perspective in such a way that I
can comment without ratholes, digressions, or tangents! ;-)  Quite frankly,
you are jumping to conclusions prematurely and are not waiting for outside
variables to sort themselves out.  You assume certain contraints are 
insurmountable and certain requirements are taken for granted without
debate.

>Personally, I share some of the distaste for some of my proposals. I just
>find that as I look more deeply into the alternatives, they turn out to be
>worse. And I resolved early in life not to allow comfort with ideas to 
> influence my selection of them.

How good is a police officer, who argues simply that "Its the law" and
closes the case, regardless if the person was stealing bread to feed his hungry
family.

The human aspect of the equation should tell you that people won't give up.
They won't take the "rules of logic" for a debate down a path that they don't
agree with.  If the outcome is unacceptable, then backup, change the rules of
logic which resulted in the outcome, and try again.  Sooner or later you will
find an outcome which is both possible and acceptable.  Until that occurs,
do what you can with what you have and wait for technology to advance and 
redefine your assumptions.

Predicting the next millenium without knowing the conceptual and technical
leaps which will occur is an exercise in futility.  What we need to do is solve
*today's* problem with *today's* technology, DON'T SOLVE IT WITH TOMORROW'S 
TECHNOLOGY.  Even with this discussion in alt.society.futures, we have to be
very careful on how assumptions of technological advancements limit our choices
instead of increasing them.  Saying that `"x" is the only solution` to the 
issue limits debates and reduces alternatives before any commitment is 
*required.*

I remember debating with my teacher about people eating only pills to live.
I argued that people want to eat food, not swallow pills to live.  He held
his ground, it's fifteen years later and I still have three meals a day of 
food.  If anything, I'm eating more fresh produce instead of canned.

--
Welcome to post-modern Western Materialism 101.  Choose between the following:
		Wedding		Child		House	
		Automobile	Computer	Motorcycle
********	LIMIT:	 One choice per year, maximum.		********
--------	--------	--------	--------	--------
Dave Doucette			Digital Equipment Corporation	Westford, MA
Common Sense Rules!		Doucette@hannah.enet.dec.com	(508)-635-8513