@pmvines: Hmm. Well, I dunno about the final impact of hybrids on the environment as a whole, but they do make an immediate impact on me.
Most of what I know about hybrids comes from encountering them as they pass me on my way to various places (I am, in case my username didn't give it away, a walker). Hybrids make this horrible, high-pitched whine. On the other hand, they do smell better than non-hybrids. So they make the audible part of my environment less nice, but also make breathing a bit easier.
So there's that.
@DarrenWalker Yes, the hybrid hiss is pretty high pitched and off putting but i can imagine as a walker it is better to pass one by than an suv. I am a pessimist, but am also hopeful because as crap as things are, i realize the flipside of how things could be, I often wonder if everyone in the world drove a hybrid, rode bikes, walked, took buses and trains, etc, how long it would take for any kind of evidence of impactful change. My guess is decades. However even then, there are still so many things harming the environment. It all seems a bit like using your finger to plug a hole in a dam while other holes are popping up every day all around you.
I think we’ve inflicted irreversible damage upon ourselves as a species by way of destroying our environs, and that hybrid cars won’t change our inevitable fate.
Future generations will struggle to breathe, coastal cities will plung beneath the waves, draughts will last for years, and fires will ravage the tinderboxes that were once the world’s forests.
Our fate as a species is to choke on ash as we starve to death.
LOL
@mickcuddle I have heard a lot about the data etc for iphone being superior. I suppose if i were more tech savvy i would want to go with iphone. As it stands now though i mostly just browse and watch vids and go on a few sites. Nothing too fancy.
We can talk about hybrid cars all day but the fact of the matter is in 2018 Ford, GM and Chrysler announced they were dropping most of their car models and expanding cars and trucks. They were not the only companies to do so. Sounds like regress not progress.
@FunCartel Agree the US auto companies are headed in the wrong direction. Historically, they have always been reactionary in what they market, never cutting edge. In the last 7-10 years, their quality and design have been excellent.
@hogboblin
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/
@DutchBoy
Seems like a totally unbiased site.
@hogboblin Is there any such site? Read for content, not the url. Major points easily verified (or not) if you set your politics aside.
I'm not a political person. Furthermore, I don't attribute a negative value to the cessation of our species. If the decaying of our environs doesn't kill us, then something else likely will; perhaps an asteroid, some grand epidemic , or fighting amongst ourselves. Who knows! On the scale of deep time, we've existed for a nanosecond: it seems fitting (even ideal) to me that we should disappear just as quickly.
But all of that is a somewhat different topic.
Awesome, I’m sure this thread will get rid of arguments etc in all other threads lol
@pmvines: Eh, sound preference really is a personal thing—for me, lower-pitched sounds generally hurt less than higher-pitched ones. It'd be great if I didn't have to pick, though! A world of quiet, low-pollution transportation. Isn't that a dream?
Like so much in life, you can only do as much as you can do... and in the long run, no: it'll never really be enough. Entropy is a powerful thing (even without all the help).
So, @hogboblin , where was I? Oh. I remember now. Thanks Mark
@Morpheus
@OhioMike
Settle a bet, how many miles do you drive per year?
Just drive? I really don't keep track because I travel in multiple company vehicles plus personal and even rentals a 1000 miles a week isn't unusual so let's say minimum 50,000 plus Ok who's betting and who won? Lol
What about flying and driving? I know I average about 200,000 miles a year.
I win. I win.
Oh gosh I haven't given this thought 200,000 miles is a lot. I don't think combined I'd be more than 125,000 to 150,000 tops...I go to Vegas once to twice a month so that's like 4000 to 8000 a month flying from Ohio.
First copy-over from Uplifting Things:
DarrenWalker "Reality is not passive, we actively create it." Oh, that's beautifully dark. Are you the serpent @inparadise?
The idea that every bad thing in the world is your fault... lovely. Nothing happens to you, it happens because of you. Loss of financial support, living on the streets: only your negative perception of the cold and wet makes this reality. The power is in your hands. Reality is not passive. It doesn't just... exist. You actively created this reality. The fault is yours. You should have created a better day. Mmm. That's gorgeous. If I were the lying type, I think I'd tell that one.
Since I'm not, the best I can manage is "You can't always change your situation, but you can nearly always change your focus. Look at the good you can create, not the bad you can't avoid."
Not nearly so damaging, alas.
laylanie @DarrenWalker I think it makes sense though. Its the reality that isn't passive. As in, being the Observer in this plane of existence, the exestential I am in control of lighting the frame of how this experience will mold me. Either good or bad. We are essentially like Sisyphus who is 'doomed' to roll a bolder up the hill for eternity, however it becomes the persons effort of how they form there reaction to the task. Either Sisyphus will continuously curse the bolder and resent its existence or he will take pride in his work, do the mundane task, and embrace the chaos that he can not control. Possibly some kind of middle ground response of maybe finding more effective ways of rolling the bolder up the hill. Events, we do not have control of as the infinite chaos that can happen in a life is unpredictable and uncaring as to who it effects, but the reality or stream of consciousness that experiences the event has control of how they go from there. So really "reality is reactive, and we actively create it" maybe more accurate.
Rexagon A change for the worse is better than no change at all. As downdraft is an opposing force to uplift, and the bouncing ball must fall and hit bottom before it rises again.
DarrenWalker @laylanie: "There is nothing either good or bad," eh? Yes, let's go with that—why not?
We're responsible for our own reactions to things. Being condemned to endless effort, achieving nothing, with no purpose to the goal... this is only condemnation because Sisyphus isn't enlightened enough to enjoy it. His fault, because he could so easily take pride in his work. His fault, because he could enjoy trying to figure out the most effective ways of doing something meaningless.
Hmm. No, I can't say this is untrue. Hell itself would be a heaven if only you decided to enjoy it. You might have to lose a great deal—your instinct for self-preservation, maybe, or your grasp of reality—but who am I to say it's impossible?
"The stream of consciousness that experiences the event has control of how they go from there," indeed.
@Rexagon: Personally, when given a choice between a change for the worse (say, a new type of seasonal flu) and no change at all (staying healthy, for example), I tend to pick "no change at all." But I have no objection to others making the painful choice! Perhaps the devil you know is so boring by now you'd actually welcome a worse one.
Second copy-over:
Rexagon I'm happy for your choices for you, @DarrenWalker. Are you just out for a stroll?
And, here, I reply: When the moon is waning gibbous, as it is tonight, it is indeed a splendid time for a stroll. But no, @Rexagon: the sun'll be up in an hour, and I intend to be safely asleep in my own lovely lair, as deep below ground as I can get. Mir ist nicht ein Strolch—unless one means the term in a purely moral sense, without reference to lodging or action.
DARN... missed the iPhone/Android debate... my response in honor of @hogboblin is ZOMBIES... with notes stapled to their chests...
@pmvines the answer is two-fold really (this is actually my field of employment (not education)), go back even just a few (10) years ago and the answer was no, they are not really making an impact due to the scale of production, battery construction and waste and breakdown - hybrids and electric vehicles actually take MORE energy to produce than conventional engines, so net it wasn't a gain. fast forward, time, technology, manufacturing, volume, etc... and yes, they are making a much bigger impact, a real and measurable impact. I don't have studies here to share, but they are out there - from US universities, private industry and in foreign publications as well.
@TouchIsTLC I've heard along the same lines for the topic of electric cars. I would think that the manufacturing of new cars would be the hardest hit, but also being a new car hopper. Basically selling off a car after its no longer shiny and new to trade up later. I've heard for a net gain to be worth it, it is better to "run it til the wheels fall off" and only buy new when absolutely neccessary.
@laylanie that is sort of true - yes for a single owner, but if we're measuring NET carbon costs/usage, then the used electric/hybrid still goes somewhere to someone (and replaces a conventional new/used purchase) so globally that argument isn't as valid.
@TouchIsTLC Ah, I see. Interesting. Stupid question: are manual electric cars common in the USA? Or really anywhere. I really like my stick shift and from what I've noticed it appears to be a unicorn to find. =/ Logically, it would make sense that having a function of a clutch is now obsolete...... BUT I WANT IT! ???
Some car companies are making a commitment to go all electric in the next few years, namely Volvo. But there others dipping their toe in.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/29/17173176/electric-car-marketing-campaign-automakers-northeast-states