We grow analogies here at Payne Hollow like other folk grow corn: tall and sweet. (Okay, I don't really understand that one...)
How's about this on the personal/communal responsibility issue as it relates to the personal auto (but the principles may carry over to other issues):
We recognize as a society (for the most part) that drunk driving is a big wrong. Drunk drivers - especially ones that end up hurting someone - are universally reviled.
Is that because every person who's had a few drinks is going to drive irresponsibly? As I understand it, no (I'm a tea-totallin' Baptist, so no real experience to speak of on this matter).
There may well be some folk who've had a few drinks who could (and do) navigate themselves safely home without killing or injuring a single soul.
But in general, the odds of someone causing an accident increases when they drink. Therefore, at least in the US, we've pretty much made drunk driving a social taboo. We've collectively decided that there've been way too many people maimed and killed by drunk drivers to allow anyone to drive drunk.
That would be an example of the people collectively acting responsibly when it may not really be an issue for any one individual, am I correct thus far?
Would this not be akin to driving in general? We recognize that any one driver may not be hurting anyone or anything by driving. It's not the individual that is a problem.
But when half a billion (there are roughly 600 million cars in the world currently) people drive nearly everywhere, we begin to have all sorts of consequences. Three million dying annually from air pollution (not exclusively from autos), over one million dying annually from auto wrecks. Tens (hundreds?) of millions maimed or otherwise damaged by auto wrecks and pollution at a cost of trillions of dollars. Every year!
To say that this is no small problem would be an understatement.
Would it not behoove us, then, to implement a bit of communal responsibility? Or, put another way, when does the realization that a communal act is so damaging that it becomes a matter of personal responsibility to take action?
And before the accusation is cast, I'm not advocating a ban on driving. Just as there are times when it may be appropriate for a drunk to drive (if someone were injured and the "drunk" in question were only mildly intoxicated?), there are reasons for driving.
I'm advocating that, just as drunk driving should not be the norm, neither should the personal auto be the norm for general transportation needs. And when they are used, greater care must become the norm (not driving cars that pollute like hell, driving much more slowly, less pavement, etc.).
For me, it's a matter of communal responsibility - and with so much evidence of the damage caused by the personal auto that it has become a matter of personal responsibility.
What say ye?
30 comments:
A better analogy than drunk driving might be addiction. Having a glass of wine or a beer with dinner is fine, but being an alcoholic (or any other kind of addict) is a major problem. Our society is addicted to oil, especially via private auto ownership and use.
Some New Order Amish communities have bought one or two cars or vans as a community and designated a select number of people to get driving licenses. Now, these communities, like their stricter Old Order cousins, use horse and buggy for most forms of transportation. But, if someone needs to be rushed to a hospital, they have the means. They can also pile into the van for a trip to the Louisville Zoo (and do). This recognizes the value of occasional driving, but has steps to avoid addiction (namely, not every family has a vehicle, nor does everyone learn to drive or get licensed, and their are plenty of horses, buggies, and wagons available as alternatives). If I were a gambler, I'd be willing to be that these New Order Amish communities begin soon to use hybrids or ethanol or bio-diesel to further minimize the impact of the few vehicles they have.
That solution, of course, depends on community--something the modern world is at pains to dissolve.
I agree with Michael that community transportation is the way to go. However, I believe that it is up to the individual to do this, and that the climbing price of gas will eventually motivate people to do this. Right now, people are willing to pay the price to drive their own car to work, but as the price of oil grows, eventually people will smarten up and start taking mass transportation, or car pool. So, in my opinion, I don't think it's necessary for group action, so much, but just natural motivation of not wanting to spend alot of money.
Back to your original topic, I see driving drunk and just driving as qualitatively different things. When one drives sober, one has the ability to drive responsibly, even though they may not use that ability. When one is drunk, their actual ability is impaired.
When one gets on the road, I believe they have an understanding of the risks involved. Each individual makes the decision if they want to sacrifice a little bit of safety for the advantages gained. However, they do so, or should do so, with the assumption that people on the road have the ability to operate a vehicle safely (ability is a slippery slope I know), and that is why we have drunk driving laws.
It's a tough issue, because two people I know recently were involved in auto accidents, one I really care about, so sometimes I think life would be even better if cars didn't exist. At the same time, its the choice each of us make.
Thanks for the thoughts, fellas.
Chance said:
"Each individual makes the decision if they want to sacrifice a little bit of safety for the advantages gained."
And here's where I'm getting on this issue: One can decide, "I'm willing to take that risk that I might be injured by driving this machine," when it's their butts on the line and that might be reasonable.
BUT when driving, one is ALSO (and maybe more importantly) saying, "I'm willing to take the risk that I might kill or maim someone else and certainly will pollute their air and water by driving this machine..." and I question the ethics of such a "decision."
It IS a tough issue.
The Amish model is indeed a wise one, seems to me, but how do we get there from here without an outside imposition (THIS IS THE WAY IT SHALL BE) of a rule? Again, if costs were reflecting something approaching actual costs, then Chance is right - most people won't or can't pay $10-15/gal for gas. But as long as we continue to subsidize driving, we're putting off that pain.
Chance also seems to underestimate the urgency of the situation. Because driving individual cars (too often with no passengers!) has, as Dan puts it, been subsidized for so long (with prices not reflecting the ecological and other costs), the planet is in grave peril. Waiting until each individual feels enough pain at the pump to do something other than drive (and how is that possible without group action--either creating simple, rural communities like the Amish or getting the body politic to make efficient and affordable public transportation available?) will result in the massive starvation, floods, etc. of rapidly increasing climate change. It's already too late to stop all damage, but if we are to minimize the disaster(s),
I don't see how Chance's vision of an unrestrained market helping individuals make good choices is up to the task. It's not like we still have a few decades, as when scientists first began warning of this--the polar caps are now melting so fast that polar bears are drowning, the tiny shrimp that sustain the Pacific Grey Whales may soon become extinct from raised water temperature (with the Grey Whales soon to follow), etc.
The miracle of the market's invisible hand working perfectly so long as each individual only acts as a rational, self-interested, consumer isn't going to be nearly miraculous enough, soon enough. This is the folly of trusting any system based on turning greed and selfishness into virtues!
Just one other follow up, Chance said:
"When one drives sober, one has the ability to drive responsibly."
And I would suggest that is placing way more confidence in drivers than I think the evidence supports. When one drives sober, at speeds under ~20mph, in a vehicle that isn't polluting terribly, on roads that are permeable, drivers have a decent chance of driving relatively responsibly.
At 35mph through a neighborhood, if a child runs out, if it's raining, if the suns in your eyes, if conditions are not perfect in any way, then you are likely sooner or later going to be involved in a crash - as any of us who drive can testify.
We're just hoping against hope that the consequences of those wrecks that we WILL have are not too severe. And we're betting on more than just our own lives that this is the case.
Which, again, is why this is a matter of personal responsibility for me.
The problem is most communities in the U.S. don't have access to good, reliable public transportation. Not even all big cities in the States do, much less smaller cities and towns. Yet we keep pouring money into building more Interstates and roads, instead of subways, trains, trams, and buses. Compare that with Europe, where last summer my wife and I were easily able to travel through seven countries, only using a car once (a taxi to get to the airport).
Good case AGAINST gun-control!
Both Michael and Dan bring up good points as far as pollution. As far as that goes, I believe that is where taxes come into play, or whatever type of restraints. When I was speaking of the free market and vehicles, I was just speaking from a standpoint of fuel consumption; pollution and global warming are external factors that I don't think the free market can account for. And yes, subsidizing fuel does offset the curve, so yes, we should be paying what it actually cost.
"BUT when driving, one is ALSO (and maybe more importantly) saying, "I'm willing to take the risk that I might kill or maim someone else and certainly will pollute their air and water by driving this machine..." and I question the ethics of such a "decision." "
That's true, but those other people made that same decision as well. You put yourself at risk, and others make the same decision. Not that it should be a license to drive irresponsibly, some do, of course.
But, I could also see it from your point of view, and there is something to say about not wanting to put others in danger.
How so?
By the way, you've never seen me argue in favor of gun control. I don't have a problem with hunting rifles and sporting pistols, things of that nature, and would be opposed to bans on them.
On the other hand, I don't want Daddio over in the Ozarks to have a nuclear weapon and so, I'm in favor of some rational limits on weaponry in general.
And thanks, Brother Wasp, for the testimony of how money can be invested either in building more and more roads for more and more cars OR in transportation that is less damaging, more personally and communally responsible.
Thanks for the reasonable response, Chance. As to this comment:
"That's true, but those other people made that same decision as well."
What other people? The pedestrians, the cyclists, the disabled, the children? Not all of us have made that decision.
Some of us would rather have no cars at all if it means I can't go fishing in my stream (and it does, at least as it's set up now), or if I can't walk down my street safely. Those who'd make the "decision" for others that it's worth the risk and pollution damage inflicted upon others, are imposing a bit of their danger and will upon those who'd rather not have them, aren't they?
Wouldn't that be akin to me "deciding" that the speed limit in my neighborhood should be 70mph? Sure it might cost a few more lives, but think of the time saved in getting to work!
A further issue is that the personal auto is self-necessitating. Because it's not safe to walk to work because of the cars, I'll have to drive. Because it's not safe to drive a small car because of all the big cars, I'll have to drive a big car myself. Because all these cars need more and bigger roads and parking spaces, the city suffers sprawl which makes walking all the more difficult and thus necessitates the personal auto.
It's quite devious, in my mind.
Sorry. My "How so?" comment was directed back to Daddio.
Even though that is getting off-topic here, I think (I reckon Daddio is saying that even though a few people are irresponsible with guns, that doesn't mean that guns should be outlawed? But that sort of runs counter to the analogy, so I'm unclear on his point).
It reveals more about my sense of humor than perhaps the human condition, but Dan's question made me immediately turn to Despair, Inc. and its range of demotivational posters. The one for Irresponsibility seemed particulary apt. Here's the link:
http://www.despair.com/ir.html
Great one, Tim!
(I, too, love the Demotivators.)
"What other people? The pedestrians, the cyclists, the disabled, the children? Not all of us have made that decision. "
Yeah, I see your point, Dan. I didn't take into account pedestrians and such, and you even mentioned it earlier. I suppose it depends on how secure you want society to be. People that hurt others due to negligence, should be punished, as well as people who hurt others for criminal reasons. Now, concerning crime, we prosecute those who commit the crimes, but how preventative do we want to go? Do we want cameras watching everyone's moves so no one will commit a criminal act. I see the same thing with unintentional harm too. There is a balance between freedom and safety here. You bring up speed limits; maybe a revamp is needed?
"Because it's not safe to walk ...I'll have to drive a big car myself. " I have noticed that as well concerning personal safety. It is a bit of an arms race. I've thought that SUV owners should not be given such a hard time, because SUVs are safer for their families, but at the same time, unless other people have SUVs, it is less safe for them.
"Having a glass of wine or a beer with dinner is fine"
What about breakfast?
This analogy is most striking when it comes to environmental regulation, one of the most-abhorred class of legislation by the Reeps.
Under common law, it's appropriate to claim damages whenever a neighbor's activities consistently extend onto your property and hinder your full enjoyment of said property.
So, for example, if a neighbor plays loud music every night, or burns tires in his back yard, or whatever, you can take his punk ass to court. This worked for a good long time because it was generally pretty easy to locate the source of your complaint and therefore hold the culprit accountable. (Personal responsibility, after all, depends on a society being able to hold an individual accountable for their actions.)
But when it comes to the total chemical composition of our whole shared global atmosphere, it quickly becomes very, very difficult to figure out who's responsible for what.
So: Your community suffers from a suspiciously high cancer rate, huh? Hrm. Was it the toxic chemicals that seeped from underground gas station tanks into the groundwater? Was it the emissions from those industrial smokestacks? Was it the non-stick cooking spray used by the local diner? On and on and on. Or maybe it was some combination of these chemicals we take in constantly.
The long and short of it is that once it becomes all but impossible to hold culprits accountable, personal responsibility goes out the window, especially when the culprits have the resources to keep their guilt quiet and muddy the waters with scientific doublespeak.
The typical solution is to have governments come down and say, since activity x, y, or z tends to be harmful to the community as a whole, we're going to ban it. This is the rationale behind bans on (street) drugs, prostitution, strip clubs, panhandling, gay marriage, and what-have-you -- protecting the society from the degradation of their moral/spiritual well-being. And people seem fine with the idea. But when it comes to protecting a community from the degradation of their physical well-being by the wanton emission of toxic chemicals, many of these same people will get all huffy about interference with economic development.
Personally, I think controls on what you can pump into the atmosphere or dump in the water are much more in line with libertarianism than enforcement of a particular moral code. But that's just me.
"Personally, I think controls on what you can pump into the atmosphere or dump in the water are much more in line with libertarianism than enforcement of a particular moral code. But that's just me."
Agreed.
In making an analogy between reasonable use of resources and our global (especially U.S.) addiction to oil, I compared it to the difference between reasonable alcohol consumption and alcohilism.
I said, "Having a glass of wine or a beer with dinner is fine. . ." and Chance replied, "How about with breakfast?"
It's not always easy to tell without voice or face expression, but I'm assuming that's humor. It's your stomach, dude. :-)
And speaking of humor, I was recently sent an ancient Catholic blessing on beer that I've been passing around. So here it is:
Bless, O Lord, this creature beer, that Thou hast been pleased to bring forth from the sweetness of the grain: that it might be a salutary remedy for the human race: and grant by the invocation of Thy holy name, that, whosoever drinks of it may obtain health of body and a sure safeguard for the soul. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
I wonder if I could use that at a Baptist Wed. night supper? Probably not, sigh.
"Beer is living proff that God loves us and want's us to be happy." - Ben Franklin
You really open up a can of worms with posts like this one, Dan.
Why not make extra-matrital/pre-marital sex illegal? It costs us GREATLY. It contributes to poverty here in the states and elsewhere in the world. Aids would be virtually eliminated if people obey those laws!
Heck, let's force every living soul on eareth tp attend a church of a single faith--that would put an end to religious conflict!
Let's eliminate meat--make it illegal to buy and sell in the world market. Bacon has killed many more people over the centuries than has pollution!
Shall I continue?
"Why not make extra-matrital/ pre-marital sex illegal?"
Daddio, play nice.
1. I did not mention making anything illegal. The purpose of this post was about communal responsibility. Personal responsibility.
2. Extramarital sexual relations may have some costs associated with it. I doubt that the numbers total in the millions dying each year due to it and probably not the tens of millions maimed, nor the trillions of dollars. Do you really want to try to make a comparison?
If you can, then by all means, make the case for personal responsibility and communal responsibility in regards to sexual relations as I'm making here.
No need to continue unless you have something more meaningful to contribute.
And, of course, Daddio, you could point to the many who die from AIDS but the difference between that and the personal auto is that with sexual activity, one is making decisions that may involve risks for one's self. With personal autos, drivers are taking risks with other people's lives, air, water and livelihoods.
Perhaps we oughtn't make laws that force people to not take risks with their own lives, but we DO make laws when people's actions are putting others at risk.
That's a big difference.
Personal responsibility.
Chance said earlier:
"I suppose it depends on how secure you want society to be."
That's one way of looking at it, but couldn't it also be viewed as, what value will we place on comfort and speed? If the car were invented today and it was put to a vote and the question was asked:
We have a new invention, The CAR. Its benefits are that we can move places more quickly, more comfortably and carry more stuff around with us. The downsides are that 1 million people a year will die from accidents, etc, etc.
Will you vote yes for comfort, speed and utility even at that cost?
As I've said here before, we have eased in to a situation that we would never vote for if presented with it at face value.
The car is also the ultimate in individualism. With it, we go when WE want to go and where we want to go without consulting others. The car created the suburbs (thus sprawl) and the commute to work. It also created dating in its modern form since prior to that teens could only go so far and usually with adult supervision, so it probably contributed to the breakdown of the family. With the ease in moving that the car made, it surely led to the breakdown of the extended family, since now we no longer, as a rule, live close to extended family members in this country. (Im lucky if I get to visit my father once a year.)
None of this was obvious when the car was invented or first became affordable with Ford's production line.
Despite all this, U.S. Americans are DEEPLY in love with private automobiles. Our music celebrates it ("Life is a highway. . ." etc.), we make movies about cars; we spend time washing and waxing.
One reason, despite my suspicion of technp-fixes to deep lifestyle problems, that I am enthusiastic about hybrids, and cars that run on bio-diesel, ethanol, etc. is that I have deep doubts that we could ever get enough Americans (no matter how deep the pain at the pump gets) to give up individual cars to make a difference. The Amish solution, plus public transportation, refusing to own cars, etc., will always be the choices of a heroic few, I fear.
So, I rejoice that we seem to be inventing ways that cars can be less harmful to the environment, at least. Is it enough? Soon enough? I don't know. I fear that it is neither.
"Do you really want to try to make a comparison?"--Dan
C'mon, Dan!
Do you REALLY want to make a comparison as to the costs?
No, AIDS is only harmful to those who choose to have irresponsible sex, right?
Tou really are selective in your analogies.
Look around you!
Personal responsibility is the domain of conservatives, Dan. You need to switch loyalties, dude.
Irrespnsibility is CLEARLY the goal of libralism--noone can honestly deny that!
"Personal responsibility is the domain of conservatives, Dan. You need to switch loyalties, dude.
Irrespnsibility is CLEARLY the goal of libralism--noone can honestly deny that!"
Well, D, as I've said before, I AM pretty conservative, when looking at classic conservative doctrine.
So, since you're so strongly opposed to irresponsibility, you'll join me in the rejection of the personal auto as the norm, as it is such an horrendously irresponsible position to hold?
Michael:"The car is also the ultimate in individualism."
That's one way of looking at it, that's certainly the way most Americans look at it.
I was picking blackberries today by one of our busiest roads and was disturbed by constant roar and wake of the cars and trucks. Each manned by someone welded to the machine almost Borg-like. It was hard to view that as individualism.
Several years ago I was invited to attend a meeting of what has to be one of the cleverest names for an organization. The local gay and lesbian support group is callee East Tennessee Alternate Lifestyles (Et Al.) Each member had to bring a token straight to that meeting and a pair of good friends brought the sister of one and me. Afterwards I was taking the sister (very good looking by the way) home and we stopped by the local pub to disect the meeting.
Sometime during the conversation it came up "What do you really want in life?" She immediately whipped out a picture of a Camry. It was the absolutely saddest thing I think I'd ever experienced up to that point. This was your goal in life?
I have always viewed personal motor transportation as a box with wheels, nothing asthetic nor charming about it. I've never found it necessary to buy myself a personality.
So I have a tendancy to view a personal automobile as not imparting individualism. Go where you want when you want? No, sorry, you have to dwell in the cubicle to pay for the damn thing. And in that every car owner is just alike.
E, thanks for that refreshingly different perspective. I mean that.
"What do you really want in life?" She immediately whipped out a picture of a Camry. It was the absolutely saddest thing I think I'd ever experienced up to that point."
Completely sad. I would go for something sportier, like a Dodge Viper, or at the least, a Mustang.
re: "absolutely saddest thing..."
Bicyclists have a name for motorists that I've always liked: Cagers
(As in, those stuck in a cage...)
Post a Comment