One of the really tough questions is whether a given someone's snappy
lane changes, etc., in their <let's say> immaculately-maintained 8 MPG
BMW (_the brand_ when it comes to gas guzzlers, BTW), leave a trail of
subtle side effects that include agitation, poorer driving, etc. by the
parties blown off.
Then there's the question of what to do when the party of the first part
drives that way with, for instance, new tires but with a lousy speed
rating. Then add rain. Then add wet non-ABS brakes. At some point, Party
A really does become an accident waiting to happen, no matter how good
their putative coordination, or their putative "efficiency".
On the matter of inefficiency: I just got a car with a 2 liter engine,
instead of a 1.6. So far, I'm only getting about 22 MPG, rather than the
close-to-30 I was getting before. If this keeps up, I'll probably
increase the amount & frequency of my handouts to street people, to help
offset the increased disease incidence I'm contributing.
Am I joking?
Robert Owen wrote:
> Emlyn wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Technotranscendence" <email@example.com>
> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2000 3:45 AM
> > Subject: Atheist Propoganda?
> > [snipped all that stuff]
> > It's a pity for those poor right-leaning religious folks that their
> > religions are based on commie propaganda such as being nice to other people.
> > The wisdom of hindsight tells us, in this bright new century, that the only
> > truly ethical way to coexist with one's neighbours is to attempt to kick
> > their teeth in at any opportunity. To do less would be innefficient, which
> > is clearly the blackest sin immaginable.
> > If only I had the means to an end. Sigh.
> Hello Emlyn,
> I think your post succeeds as satire even though it is dangerously
> close to the edge of "righteous indignation". I'm very glad you didn't
> cross over -- by observation all "righteous indignation" amounts to
> "self-righteousness", the inflation of egoism which you are criticizing.
> But I would add, although satire, in general the exaggerations are
> meaningful descriptions of what always seems to occur when someone
> attempts to "update social darwinism" and give it a patina of moral
> respectability. We don't say "Society red in tooth and claw" anymore;
> we might offer the concept of "Constructive Individualism" which means
> to avoid constraints placed on our competitive, ambitious, and Type-A
> tendencies. On the highway, this allows busy people with superior
> eye-hand coordination and reflexive reaction-time to get where they
> are going without the interference of speed-limits, and it allows lousy
> drivers to kill themselves, removing their genes from the pool. If you
> think this is hyperbole, try the Autobahn.
> You see, it isn't really necessary to implement a social policy of bad
> memecide; just don't interfere with their self-destruction. If you want
> progress, you need winners. Losers are merely collateral damage. It's
> not a question of reveling in this -- one soberly accepts it as an
> unavoidable cost of doing business. I do question whether it ought
> to be deductible.
> Robert M. Owen
> The Orion Institute
> 57 W. Morgan Street
> Brevard, NC 28712-3659 USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:01 MDT