You know the situation with Hemlock Harry driving fifty-five in the fast lane because, by God, that's the speed limit. These dangerous narrow-minded fools cause death around them because of the compression of the traffic building behind. Someone else gets killed and Hemlock Harry drives blithely home to worship his macaroni salad.
The immediate solution which no-one will accept or even remotely wants is self-driving cars but they come with such a monstrous price. You won't speed in those because you can't. You can't hog the fast lane because the governors will prevent it. The anticipation of much greater throughput, if you will forgive that evil word, is inevitable and reasonable. There is systems theory beyond my feeble wit which shows it's possible to speed things up by slowing things down and other such things which are often contrarily indicated.
Note: these vehicles will likely be ultra-tricked to prevent Computer Dave from tweaking anything. They will have governors and you will accept that. Rat racing is over.
Some of the systems theory is known to me but going into that is beyond the point. I have seen it demonstrated that reducing the number of paths while increasing the selectivity within the paths works impressively well to move everything effectively faster. It's eminently arguable slowing cars while better managing the use of lanes will get more cars home sooner. That may not seem logical but a valid argument exists and one which can be demonstrated.
The larger question and there always is one is regarding the model in general since cars represent better than anything else the idea infinite production and growth is possible. The inevitable consequence of moving more cars faster is to build more cars to accommodate the people who have arrived since the current status quo. In short order, lock the roads back up again and the problem is no longer solved.
That aspect is logically impossible in a finite world but the concept is much favored by conservatives even when they're quite intelligent enough to recognize the problem. We assume, therefore, they choose to ignore it.
Equilibrium is only death in a living system but that has no relevance toward equilibrium with the resources of the Earth. There's obviously no alternative to that unless some loon decides to compound the absurdity and tow an asteroid or its contents here. That extrapolates to a sci-fi world covered in metal but it will still scream for more resources. That's pointless sci-fi for anyone failing to take the lesson in it since where else can obsessive production and consumption possibly go.
Extrapolating to a world which is a garden and we're the Eloi walking about in idyllic contentedness takes the absurdity to something Lewis Carroll would be better suited to describe. Even the Eloi had Morlocks so these dream worlds are interesting to observe but the optimism is hoping humans are more sensible than that.
The immediate solution which no-one will accept or even remotely wants is self-driving cars but they come with such a monstrous price. You won't speed in those because you can't. You can't hog the fast lane because the governors will prevent it. The anticipation of much greater throughput, if you will forgive that evil word, is inevitable and reasonable. There is systems theory beyond my feeble wit which shows it's possible to speed things up by slowing things down and other such things which are often contrarily indicated.
Note: these vehicles will likely be ultra-tricked to prevent Computer Dave from tweaking anything. They will have governors and you will accept that. Rat racing is over.
Some of the systems theory is known to me but going into that is beyond the point. I have seen it demonstrated that reducing the number of paths while increasing the selectivity within the paths works impressively well to move everything effectively faster. It's eminently arguable slowing cars while better managing the use of lanes will get more cars home sooner. That may not seem logical but a valid argument exists and one which can be demonstrated.
The larger question and there always is one is regarding the model in general since cars represent better than anything else the idea infinite production and growth is possible. The inevitable consequence of moving more cars faster is to build more cars to accommodate the people who have arrived since the current status quo. In short order, lock the roads back up again and the problem is no longer solved.
That aspect is logically impossible in a finite world but the concept is much favored by conservatives even when they're quite intelligent enough to recognize the problem. We assume, therefore, they choose to ignore it.
Equilibrium is only death in a living system but that has no relevance toward equilibrium with the resources of the Earth. There's obviously no alternative to that unless some loon decides to compound the absurdity and tow an asteroid or its contents here. That extrapolates to a sci-fi world covered in metal but it will still scream for more resources. That's pointless sci-fi for anyone failing to take the lesson in it since where else can obsessive production and consumption possibly go.
Extrapolating to a world which is a garden and we're the Eloi walking about in idyllic contentedness takes the absurdity to something Lewis Carroll would be better suited to describe. Even the Eloi had Morlocks so these dream worlds are interesting to observe but the optimism is hoping humans are more sensible than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment