Peterkin

People in the country usually keep a personal supply in their garage. They need it for the snow-blower and lawnmower anyway, even if thy don't have a home generator, which many do. (Of course, it's an extra fire hazard.) But how long will it last? What we need is solar-powered cars that recharge themselves.

I guess it depends on where you live. In Canada and some of the northern US states, it was. Now that it's become scarce and expensive, they're trying alternatives, but there is still lots of salt. They've cut backs substantially, substituted more efficient spreaders when it's unavoidable (freezing rain and black ice), and use sand, which is quite adequate for snow, where possible. It's a whole lot better for the vegetation and ground-water! As well as the roads, cars, boots and the poor dogs' foot-pads. In Ireland, possibly, as the temperature is more moderate and equable than in Canada. Of course, it's also wetter, which isn't great for cars, though it's terrific for human skin. What used to happen here is: the car would come in off the cold road, its underside coated with salty, frozen slush, wheel-wells choked with the crud. Then, in a heated garage, all that stuff would melt and eat away at the exposed metal. I agree that rust-proofing has improved over time, but it's still not foolproof. They used to put a lot more steel in cars, so they were heavy (bad), didn't break so easily (good) so when the shells were made thinner, better passenger protection was devised.

I've seen a solar panels on police stations and a few churches around here. Also, the works department just added some more. Several other community buildings have had them for years. These might be enough to charge the city's vehicles - except they haven't invested in any electric ones, and have cut back on the plans for the new city hall - just not enough money. No municipal government ever has the money to carry out its optimistic plans.

Only because God doesn't understand about evolution or psychology, which are recent discoveries. If he thinks that human decision-making is free and unhampered, he's not alone in that delusion. If it makes him feel good to think he invented and gifted it to people, humour the poor old guy.

Because of the indiscriminate, unlimited use of salt - everywhere, on every surface, all winter long. And those cars didn't just rust; they spilled oil and used way too much fuel, the tires blew out and the wheels came off.... Systems operate as a reciprocal unit: when we're collectively stupid, we're stupid about a lot of things all at the same time. Next time period, we're stupid about a whole new set of things that work, and break down, together.

That's one of the new directions that should be considered. Very seriously. While a scenario of replacing all emergency vehicles with electric ones, without the infrastructure to keep them running in an emergency, is unlikely (Parliaments may be that short-sighted; town councils can't afford to be.), extreme weather events do need to be provided-for. It's not only electric cars that will be immobilized when (not if) the storms become stronger and last longer. Communications, light, even heating of homes will be disabled. It doesn't matter if the fuel is propane; the controls are electric. So are the pumps for drinking water and sewage. It's a good idea, then, if you're going to be that heavily dependent of electricity, to insure your own supply. Every home, office and factory - and most particularly public service buildings: hospital, police station, fire-hall - should have its own solar/wind/tide/hydro generating capability and storage facility.

But there is more than one possible direction forward.

Because of what we know about life and how life evolves and what sustaining life requires. While, in theory, there may be life forms based on other chemicals than carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, it's less likely that we would encounter such a life-form: it seems more efficient use of resources to look for conditions that we know how they work than conditions that we think might possibly work somehow. And since we have never seen an alternative system in operation, we might not recognize such a life-form if we did encounter it, which would be an even bigger waste of resources. Kind of like a detective, searching a mansion and its grounds : "I'm looking for a blunt instrument that matches this wound." vs "I'm looking for anything that connects the owner to the crime." Of course, you're always doing the second,incidentally, but the first focuses your search on a specific outcome.

Of course. That's why I'm reasonably sure it won't be done, and can't be done. So it just seems to me like a good idea to start replacing those unfixable things with better alternatives. There must be some clever people out there, with ideas waiting to be heard! https://www.nec.com/en/global/insights/report/2020022504/index.html Some have been waiting for quite a while. Something can be done - if people are motivated to do it. Not the same thing everywhere, and it won't be equally effective everywhere, but it's better to try for better and fail than to commit to the status quo and watching our quality of life, as well as our world, deteriorate. As long as people are convinced of this, they won't do anything about it. Maybe so, but apparently costs in other than $ have not decreased. It doesn't matter to most consumers - maybe because they don't know and/or don't want to know, or else, they figure the advantage of being able to lock their from a remote location and making more unnecessary trips for the same cost in fuel is worth trashing Taiwan, or they think if they buy a lot of something, its manufacture will automatically become cheaper and cleaner. But mostly because they don't question how things are. messed that up purdy good

That would be one way of forcing the US to expand rail and mass transit, I suppose, but our system is built on being able to drive from point A to point B, and much of that at speeds faster than 30 mph. And we have lots of vehicles that get much better than 25 mpg. True enough. I wasn't actually comparing cars of today unfavourably with cars of 120 years ago. Just pointing out that they could be made to run without 2000 microchips, which might not be such a bad idea to revisit. Maybe not in the same way they did at the turn of the last century; maybe in more clever ways, seeing as we have more information and devices to apply to the task, as well as a more urgent reason to look for solutions. Only, that system is breaking down. I very much doubt Biden's truncated bill is going to fix all the roads and bridges, or that the vast overcomplication of highways and city streets is going to reduce the number of accidents or the amount of frustration, road rage, parking problems, delays, snarls and jams, or mitigate the economic disparities that enable rich people and hamper poor people in getting to their schools, work-places and voting stations quickly and safely. The fact of having become accustomed to, or even dependent on, something doesn't make that thing good or desirable. A crisis is often the precipitating event in a systemic change. Several people I know quit smoking because when they were ill they couldn't - then decided not to resume. I'm just suggesting this may be an opportune moment to think about a change in direction.

Did they, in 1907? Because those are the ones I was referring to, as compared to the gas-powered cars of the same period. Don't know anything about the new ones, except they seem to be beset with all manner of problems. And i do suspect they're as overcomplicated as everything else now. I had a longer post that somehow got lost. The short answer is, No, not at the ready. I don't recall any breakdowns from my youth. (Flat tires, yes! Usually at night, in the rain. I don't miss those.) One VW that needed a lot of coaxing in cold weather, and later, a diesel Olds that was a complete dud. The oldest car of my acquaintance was a 1947 Plymouth that my father bought in 1957 and had for many years. Built like a tank, made me seasick and guzzled like crazy - but gas was cheap then. The best car of my youth was a 1961 Renault and of my adulthood, a 1984 Toyota pickup (I loved that little red truck!) That would have been a toss-up with the Hyundai Excel hatchback, but for the damn catalytic converter - a complication.

They are now. Before they were invented, nobody complained. Once a new thing - gizmo, convenience, extra little perk - becomes available, the people willing and able to do so pay extra for them. Then the manufacturers, hoping to charge more for all their products, spend a fortune of advertising that links these perks to the perception of success, and the people (usually staring with youngish middle-management) who want to be successful and try very hard to appear successful, buy whatever pricey product a celebrity is endorsing. When enough people buy it, the manufacturers can lower the price (still above the previous price, but not beyond to average buyer's credit limit) and in a few more years, make some of the desirable features standard - so the buyer no longer gets the option of not having it. For the next model, then, they have to come up with a new 'extra' for the elite wannabes, until that becomes standard.... The consumer is so used to having his gimme buttons pushed, he doesn't even notice.

25, for the motorwagon, which is not terrible for 1886, though the thing would have been uncomfortable to ride on. The electric ones were better. And quiet. Also, I should think at 30mph, anything is safer than at 80mph. No, the gas-hoggery came much later, with the big V8 engines. Granted, these whales on wheels could go way faster than the speed limit, but they had super tough chassis and skin, and many of them are still on the road. Still no chips, though. And then, for a little while, some car makers went sane again. Computers are a convenience, not a necessity. Something becomes available, then becomes fashionable, then becomes indispensable -- until it becomes unaffordable, undesirable or unobtainable, whereupon we discover that we can manage without it again. Like cigarettes. Good design, efficient engineering, well maintained roads and conscientious drivers are all that's really needed.

No computer chips are necessary, for any kind of car. Electric cars went just fine before there was such a thing as a microchip. And so did gasoline and steam-powered cars. And they lasted longer. We're making everything overly complex. And, of course, the more components something has, the more things break down. Design it so that no mechnic can get at the defective component without throwing away three still functioning components, and the consumer discovers that it's cheaper to replace the whole car [printer, washing machine, coffee maker, whatever] than try to fix the old one. Especially if the manufacturer doesn't make a quiet model available. And that provokes a question: Are the manufacturers responding to customer demand when they add yet another frill, wrinkle or convenience (with a corresponding price increase)(plus tax, shipping fees and insurance premium) or is the customer trained, through constant, intensive exposure, to expect all those complicated extras? This crisis in chip supply is a grand opportunity for a maverick car-maker to produce a pared-down, economical model, so we can see if it's competitive.

Nobody is more or less qualified. Some are given power; some have studied the law; all are equally capable of forming an opinion. The law is a construct to safeguard society. Justice is an insubstantial concept. It can only be measured according to societal consent - which is never unanimous - and individual opinion - which contributes a proportion of the consensus. That proportion is determined by the number of members and the distribution of power among members. I'm sure a mathematical formula could be devised which would show exactly how much an particular citizen contributed to the making of their nation's laws.

Magistrates and priests, each in their own pulpit. Editors and media commentators, each on his own platform. Citizens at large, each at their own computer or dinner table. We all judge one another all the time, each by the light of their own world-view.

That's a lovely sentiment, but off-point. I asked you to back up this gainsaying of simple arithmetic. So, again, I ask: On what basis, and according to what priorities, do you think societies formulate their laws?

Plasticity is the property that allows a material to be shaped and deformed by some outside agency. If the new form is temporary, and the material can be re-formed into some other shape, it retains its plasticity and is still plastic. If the shape is retained permanently, it has lost its plasticity and become rigid or flexible or elastic. Elasticity is the property that allows a material to be stretched by some outside agency - can be extended in a single plane, and thus become thinner. But when the force stretching it is removed, it retracts to its original shape. When it has been stretched and stressed beyond the ability to retract, it has lost its elasticity and is no longer elastic. I should think materials commonly referred-to as plastics can be found at any given point in their respective life-cycles in any of their various states of plasticity and/or elasticity. Similarly, a dead rubber band or waist-band is still called an elastic - only it's a name, not a description.

How do you say? More to the topic: How do you think each individual affects the legislating and enforcement of laws?

Individuals are part of society. The more numerous/ larger the society, the smaller part each individual is/plays.

I phrased that badly. I meant: You may not care how one person achieves his peace, but society does. Individual actions matter to society; individual feelings don't. What do you mean by my level of violence? I'm hardly violent at all - only to mosquitoes and extra-pesky flies. Have, therefore, a fairly high level of personal peace. But then, I negligible influence on society at large. And then, where do levels or justifications come into what I wrote? I don't understand the question.

It does to society. Laws are not made to satisfy individual's feeeelings; they're made to insure the survival of the community. If individual feelings, even a feeling of inner peace, were paramount, what would happen to the community? If predatory behaviour gives one person temporary respite from his inner demons, and taking brutal revenge on that predator gives satisfaction to a victim, or victim's relatives, then revenge on them allays the rage of the original predator's aggressive friends, etc. etc. - What happens to the society? Nations, through their legislative and legal apparatus, confer specific rights, privileges, protections and obligations on individuals.* They also have the power to rescind or suspend those rights, in case of individual transgression or national emergency. Laws don't exist to make people feel good; they exist to make people behave in accordance with the best [perceived] interest of the society. *I don't claim that most of them do this very effectively or efficiently.

Oh, you're still sore about my reluctance to 'throw away the key'. I confess to having political leanings toward the Green & Socialist end of the spectrum. The same convictions - formed over a lifetime of watching, reading and learning - that inform my political views also influence my opinions. Opinions are necessarily subjective. Statements of fact, on the other hand, are not. I back those up with citations, statistics, studies and reports from reputable and relevant sources. The emotions you attribute to me are not mine. The 'philosophy' to which you object in this thread is actually Anthropology, a science, though the aspect of it under consideration here was cultural anthropology, which is more akin to the humanities, as it overlaps the disciplines of archeology, history and linguistics. Again, I confess a long-time interest in this field of study, and claim a little bit of amateur knowledge. The origin and development of spiritual, magical and religious belief systems in the past is not even applicable to anything that societies, reasonable or unreasonable (and have quite a few of the latter right now) may implement in the future. The recent past has an immediate impact on present societies; ancient history has an influence on how they formed; prehistory has only the faintest traces in our lifestyles, political and religious organizations, morality and law-making. But it lives on in art, language and spirituality. I'm describing, not subscribing or prescribing.

I'm not labelling anyone. Most people believe in something supernatural; some people don't. The thread title mentioned atheists. Many religionists, past and present have other words for unbelievers. I didn't make any of them up. Nobody said we can, could or ever have. We - as a species - also can't seem to live without the supernatural. Some of us can and do; the majority don't. Science doesn't make the supernatural go away and superstition doesn't make science go away. They are always in operation at the same time. Not all myths are comforting - far from it! But yes, myth and reason live together in human cultures. Quite sophisticated, rational people will throw spilt salt over their shoulder, avoid stepping on the cracks in pavement, walk around ladder, make birthday-candle wishes, refrain from anticipation of a good outcome in case they jinx it, and cross their fingers when telling a lie. It does no harm. Lots of quite rational people talk to their dead and buried parents or spouses. It makes them feel better and does no harm. Ah! you're referring to medieval Christian Europe. (You might have been clearer, as we had previously been talking about ancient mythology, not modern.) Yes, they were benighted in many ways. Stone-age people are far less likely to have suffered epidemics, because their living conditions were less susceptible to mass contagion, so it's unlikely that a pandemic was the reason for making up stories about the Baxian or guie. Still, the existence of disease may well have played a part. Of course, if you have no way of detecting pathogens, you look for another cause. They had science, enough for celestial navigation, aqueducts and cannons, but not advanced enough to figure out what caused the plague. (We have science advanced enough to detect the cause, but not enough to prevent it.) And, of course, now the response to disease is entirely free of irrationality, right? It's not like anybody was refusing the vaccine, breaking quarantine, protesting against precautions or threatening doctors, right? Coz we have access to science now. What philosophy? It doesn't matter. Ideas* are not quantifiable. (Ghosts get measured and filmed and Geiger-counted all the time, but that's probably a fad.) Nobody who believes in gods wants to observe or measure them - that's not what gods are for. The only people who demand such a procedure are convinced that it's absurd and say it expressly for the absurdity. Which doesn't mean those very same people don't have some other superstition or irrational belief of their own. *they don't exist

I don't ignore it. Unscientific myths are part of every culture, past and present. Most people either believe or go along with the prevailing religious belief; a minority don't. That minority is called 'atheists' - if they're lucky enough to live in a society that doesn't call them 'apostate' or 'blasphemer' or 'heretic' and punish them more or less severely. Every society, every culture has elements of the rational and the irrational, just as every human being does. the proportions vary from time to time and place to place; the co-existence of spirituality and science is constant. You mentioned pandemics. What about them? How are they an example of what? Which silly superstitions? Who? When? In what context? What does it illustrate? What philosophy?