[sustran] Re: FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List

[Carlos Cordero Velásquez]

The arguments outlined in the previos messages sound a bit childish, since
the authors pretends a kind of guilty from the people involved with
sustainable transportation while using a plane or getting electricity. I
hope the authors do not not feel guilty every time they walk or use a
bicycle.
Following the logic of the argument one could say, well, what about all the
walking involved in building the technologies and services around the plane?

But besides futilities, there is also in these messages the strong line of
"the
future" vs "the past" which are not sustained in transportation history or
even in the way technology develops:

For instance the bicycle and cars can not be compared as old and new
technologies, since both are contemporary technologies, not only in
the sense that both  showed up almost the same historical moment, but also
since there are a strong relationship between both: the motorized car took
the form of the bicycle at the beginning of this development (in fact the
"first car" as it is shown in the Mercedes Benz Museum in Sttutgart is a
motorcycle). The other way around, Bicycles "paved" the way to cars since
the first ways used for bikes allowed a better circulation of cars in
Europe.
The point is that there is no line which divides past and future when we
talk about contemporary and modern means of transport, in fact  "modern" in
the latin sense of the word, means "the way or the form of today" So there
is no modernity if we do not understand  this basic starting point.

Any new technology does not develop isolated, they always need others (no
matter how
old or new they are) and this situation has an influence in the way the
technology develops. We can regard computers as a very new technology, but
we
write on them in the same way developed by the type writer machine, with a
keyboard organized in a way create by the type writer machine. So
computer also share new and old technologies inside.

In that context I found very futil the terminology about "the stone age" and
we should concentrate more in the way the technologies are mixed, the
purpose
of this technologies and the social context they are applied.
Regards,
Carlos

----- Original Messa
ge ----- 
From: "Daryl Oster" <et3 at et3.com>
To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport"
<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>; <policy at advancedtransit.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:53 PM
Subject: [sustran] FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List


This message from Jack Slade should be about as clear as it gets.  Next time
the "new mobility" folk jet to a conference; I hope they reflect on:
How their trip would be progressing if carried out by muscle, sail, and
rail;  and how they would get along without any running water (transported
to them via pipes - er tubes); and electricity (transported to them by coal
train, and wires;

Daryl Oster
(c) 2004 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: et3 at et3.com ,
www.et3.com POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jack Slade [mailto:skytrek_org at rogers.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:29 PM
> To: A/T Policy
> Subject: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List
>
>  The following is a copy of the message I sent to Eric Britton. I am not
> on his list, so I don't really care how he takes it.
>
> Jack Slade
>
> --!
>  -Original
>  Message-----From: Eric Britton
> [CLIP]
> >*         I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from
> this
> >list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic
> ties
> >and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies
> and
> >major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously
> cross-
> >checked with the full range of sustainability criteria).
> (COPY)
>  Eric: This message from you was posted on our Transit-Policy chatline. I
> am not sure what you classify as "sustainable". I sincerely hope you don't
> mean the kind of sustainable transport that I grew up with. Just in case,
> let me describe it to you.
>
> Quite a few of the people in my home town has horses, and carts or wagons.
> There were no cars. Carfree City? There were a couple of small trucks that
> brought in groceries and coal. A few of us had bicycles when we got older,
> but not to ride to work,!
>   because
>  the nearest factory was 82 miles away. Without transport for raw
> materials and manufactured goods factories cannot exist.
>
> While you are carrying out your project to improve the future, I think you
> should keep this in mind. Future transport has a requirement much more
> important than just moving people, because without it you will not have a
> job to ride to. Another fact is that un-maintained roads begin to revert
> back to nature after 10 years, and they are maintained, currently, by the
> tax on gasoline, which is going to dry up as portable fuel becomes
> scarcer. A fifteen mile pedal on a gravel road just to visit Aunt Mary is
> not my idea of a pleasant Sunday afternoon outing.
>
> You are eliminating all of the people who are trying to solve the full
> transportation problems of the future from your list. You are going to be
> left with the people who hav a lot in common with the people who said
> heavier than air flight was impossible (British Royal Society) and the
> gentleman who wanted to close the patent office he worked in, because
> "everything that could possibly be invented has already been invented".
>
> Somebody once said that if you are not part of the solu!
>  tion you
>  are part of the problem. I am not a member of your list, and please don't
> try to enroll me.
> Jack Slade         www.skytrek2000.org
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by Netsignia Online <http://www.netsignia.net/> , and is
> believed to be clean.