Good to hear.Denian Arcoleo wrote:Correct, you're not.
The entire edifice (industry + the economic growth mantra) is a flawed solution in a world with finite resources.markodarko wrote: It's a flawed solution in a world with finite resources.
Absolutely, Mr. Denian. I concur completely. We should be concentrating our efforts on developing transport networks that will work for millennia - long after the oil has gone - not the next fad. We should develop with the mindset that everything is running out, so how can we make the most of it, not what new consumable shiny gadget can make the most money this quarter.Denian Arcoleo wrote:The entire edifice (industry + the economic growth mantra) is a flawed solution in a world with finite resources.
Well apart from the "personal" that would about sum up any modern aircraft. The pilots are not strictly required but few people would fly without one. Not me for sure.gitgeezer wrote:I'm waiting for the personal self-flying airplane (including self-takeoff and self-landing, of course) that can take me anywhere in the world with no flying ability required of me.
(This led to the absurd situation for British Airways that as the launch customer for the Boeing 757 to replace the Trident, the brand-new "advanced" aircraft had inferior all weather operations capability compared to the fleet being broken up for scrap. An indication of this philosophical divide is the comment from a senior Boeing Vice President that he could not understand why British Airways were so concerned about the Category 3 certification, as there were only at that time two or three suitable runways in North America on which it could be fully used. It was pointed out that British Airways had some 12 such runways on its domestic network alone, four of them at its main base at Heathrow.)
Yeah, until something malfunctions, which is inevitable with machinery...gitgeezer wrote:I'm waiting for the personal self-flying airplane (including self-takeoff and self-landing, of course) that can take me anywhere in the world with no flying ability required of me.
Not in Sydney, Jim!Dofpic wrote:The world is awash in oil. Gasoline and natural gas prices reflect this. Bottled water cost four times as much as gasoline!
The only places I previously have heard this to be true are in Venezuela and in some Middle East oil producers. Then again if we compare it to "Bling" brand water, it is absurdly true. I saw "Bling" in a shop in Madrid (Gourmet section of El Corte Ingles) for 89 euros, if I recall correctly, for a 0.7l bottle. At the moment it is possible that even in Germany or the UK if we compare petrol to the most expensive brands of bottled water in fancy shops, as opposed to the generic stuff in supermarkets, what you say may be true. However, the general run of the mill bottled water is in the 17c-30c per litre range vs .95-1.60 E per litre for fuel depending on which European country you compare it to.Dofpic wrote:... Bottled water cost four times as much as gasoline! ....
This is not as grim as you might think. Electric vehicles, charged via solar arrays would mean we can continue to drive or "be piloted". If the charging is from fossil fuels, then no. Or if you are predicting the collapse of the USA, then our driving addiction and work/commute models will also die. I hate to think that self-driving cars will bring about an apocalypse. I think it'll be okay.simonm wrote:...Whether we will be allowed to drive at all in 20 years is still an open question but that a prohibition will come eventually is evident.
Actually it is the other way round. The "apocalypse" will bring an end to the driving addiction. The self-driving pods may let a moderate commute model continue for a bit longer.Andrew Pohlman wrote: ... our driving addiction and work/commute models will also die. I hate to think that self-driving cars will bring about an apocalypse. I think it'll be okay.