|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Environmentalism and Socialism
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, the snark was unnecessary. Apologies for that.
I do know something about transportation costs and funding. Though I admit to not being as knowledgeable about Canada's system.
Snark? It didn't come across that way to me. Robust and witty. I like the "noble" comment. Canada is merely where I live and know about. We suck at what I'm talking about and what I want to encourage. Others are doing more.
This is a shift that needs to happen. Work in progress. We need to move it in the direction of encouraging some behaviour and discouraging other.
It requires significant work to educate the public on the finer points. Some misunderstandings are likely to persist and to be exploited deliberately by some folks. Plus the benefits of action are not immediate, whilst the effect of doing nothing is in the future and debatable.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You're proud of that? Happy or indifferent to the lives shortened and ended so you can recite that list?
I was clarifying what might have been meant by 'crap' by listing some of our crap. Sorry I didn't get back to this earlier.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Non-use of cars is inefficient if it means a lot of energy used to create a car which then sits around doing nothing - and it's inefficient to the extent that the usable lifetime of a car is determined by age rather than mileage.
This seems a very clear and concise example of the sunk cost fallacy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems a very clear and concise example of the sunk cost fallacy.
I see I wasn't very clear. I was attempting to contrast a model where people bought cars and parked them on their driveways with a model where people owned fewer cars.
If you're comparing the two different models (with different rates of car ownership and so on) which is what I was trying to do, then the costs aren't sunk. The question of whether it is more efficient to purchase X cars and use them in some usage pattern, or purchase Y buses and use them in some way is a sensible one.
This kind of comparison is the right way to think if you are deciding what long-term steady state to aim for.
If you start with a particular distribution of car ownership, and then ask what people should do, then the costs of car ownership are indeed sunk, and the thoughts I outlined would be wrong.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you start with a particular distribution of car ownership, and then ask what people should do, then the costs of car ownership are indeed sunk, and the thoughts I outlined would be wrong.
Aren't we, in fact "start[ing with a particular distribution of car ownership"? (i.e. the world as it now exists)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
