[sustran] Re: bikeplanes

Daryl Oster et3 at et3.com
Fri Jan 14 04:49:37 JST 2005




> -----Original Message On Behalf Of Carlos Cordero Velásquez -----
> Subject: [sustran] Re: bikeplanes
> 
> Just some comments on Daryl Oster message:
> I have been in several  conferences on sustainable transportation and 
> never heard of anyone a proposal to eliminate air craft or even
> automoviles.


Carlos,
What do you believe the term "car free" is supposed to mean??


> On the other hand the idea of rationalize car  use is very well accepted
> even inside the car industry.


Of course, any behavior can be rationalized; just look at your example:


> But going to the core of the message why is ironic or contradictory using
> a plane to go to a conference? Am I suposse to swim to go to Europe to fit
> your criteria of coherence?


You are the one rationalizing.  IMO, paying the cost is the only
rationalization needed.  


> Because I use a plane from time to time am I no entitled to ask why the 
> Concorde was flying so much time even if it was a big financial loss 
> (which meant huge subsidies from the goverment and for the company)  for  
> stated owned Air France or BAirways and not listening the constant 
> complain from comunities about the levels of noise they made?


Your exact argument can be equally applied to the French TGV.  "The
Economist" reported that the French rail system is losing 3.5 Billion euro
per year, and has amassed more than 30B euro in subsidy.  The TGV makes
horrific noise that disturbs far more people than the over-water Concord
routes did.  



> Well, maybe using a plane when there are other and more friendly options
> of travel can be as contradictory as a heart surgeon doctor smoking a
> cigarrete. But does it make him or her a fake?


Perhaps not a fake (assuming the medical license is in order), but certainly
a hypocrite if he or she advises customers to stop smoking. 


> Any change in the world is made by people living in the world of today,
> even sometimes with contradictory attitudes and no claiming to be perfect,
> because if we wait for perfect people there is no need to or no change at 
> all. Instead of a perfect state or a social nirvana, sustanability is
> a horizon and as you probably know no matter how long you walk in its 
> direction a horizon always seems far away from you.


If your are correct, and sustainability is a horizon that cannot be
achieved, then why try?  In fact, according to the measures of UN a21, the
horizon was further away at Johannesburg, than at Rio, and the horizon is
even further into the distance now.  If one keeps doing what they are doing,
they will keep getting what they are getting.  Revolutions quickly achieve
what is considered to be a horizon.  

THE STRUCTURE OF TRANSPORTATION REVOLUTIONS by Daniel Sweeny
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/charge20.htm 
shows that transportation changes in revolutions.  

Starting a new revolution is the way to sustainability, it will do no good
to seek to undo a prior revolution (or revolutions).  ETT has the potential
to be the revolution to achieve sustainability -- and then a new horizon
will eventually become apparent as ETT encounters limits of sustainability.



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




More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list