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

Daryl Oster et3 at et3.com
Thu Jan 13 12:46:55 JST 2005


Carlos,

I was not implying any sort of guilt, only that one considers what life
would be like if early aircraft and electricity development had been
successfully circumvented by "new mobility" type of efforts.

Don't you think it a bit ironic that most of those who show up at
sustainability oriented conferences that seek to eliminate cars and aircraft
use car and air travel to get to them?  It may be childish to point out this
irony, and it is certainty elitist to assume that it is only "others", or
Americans that should stop using cars and aircraft to travel.  

The first bike in America showed up May 21 1819, long before the first
automobile, and even before the first steam ship of rail locomotive. 

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: sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org
> [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+et3=et3.com at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf Of
> Carlos Cordero Velásquez
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 3:58 PM
> To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
> Subject: [sustran] Re: FW: [atraPolicy] Removal From Sustran List
> 
> 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
> >




More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list