You know you are getting old when:

[Lean'n'mean]

When each new generation of the icar comes out, will people be standing in long lines outside Apple stores to purchase them?

Probably but they'll also be able to buy the necessary latest iPhone too so they will only have to queue up once.

 

[LizzieMaine]

iWon't.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

The key phrase in your statement is "emerging technology". I don't have any problems with the concept of alternate fuel vehicles, but the technology just isn't there yet for them to become a feasible replacement for what most of us have now. Stupid example: Right now I could jump in my truck with a full tank of gas and drive to Las Vegas, a trip of roughly 260 miles, without stopping for gas. Based on personal experience, that trip would take about six hours, give or take. But if I had an average modern electric car with a range of barely over 100 miles, during that same trip I'd have to stop twice and wait anywhere from 30 minutes to 12 hours for the batteries to recharge. Worst case scenario, I'm adding a full day to a six-hour trip. I don't call that feasible or practical. Granted, there are hybrid vehicles out there that could make the trip, but the average price for one is at least $10,000 more than what it would cost if I had to replace my truck right now with the newest model. I don't know about you folks, but I don't have that kind of spare cash laying around. Surely there will come a time when the technology and the cost will be comparable, but I don't know if that will be within my lifetime.

I have a theory as to the real reason electric cars are being so heavily promoted but I'm wearing my tinfoil fedora today.

 

[belfastboy]

Well, the cars themselves certainly seem "legit."

Rumor is that Apple is looking into the automobile biz.

My nephew who just made a huge bundle on a marijuana stock play indulged in a new model S. He traded in his Mercedes and now regrets it. For his $125K he thinks he could have done much better sticking with a Merc. It was his impulse buy and he now regrets it.....not enough value for his $$ but it does give him cred amongst his progressive friends.

 

[tonyb]

My nephew who just made a huge bundle on a marijuana stock play indulged in a new model S. He traded in his Mercedes and now regrets it. For his $125K he thinks he could have done much better sticking with a Merc. It was his impulse buy and he now regrets it.....not enough value for his $$ but it does give him cred amongst his progressive friends.

Yeah, that's a whole lotta scratch to drop on a car. A whole lot more than I would, even if I could afford it, no matter its propulsion system.

 

[Zombie_61]

Early automobiles were rich peoples' toys. They were hardly practical for the common person, and not just because of price. The infrastructure -- fuel stations, for instance -- wasn't there yet.

The electric cars of 2018 are considerably more practical and affordable to the common person than were the automobiles of the turn of the 20th century. Let's see what the next couple decades bring. Better batteries, faster charging. Or swapping out depleted batteries for ones with fresh charges in a matter of minutes, perhaps? I dunno. But don't bet against electric cars being an increasingly common sight, and being of more utility to more people.

We can't continue burning petroleum forever. It borders on sophistry to highlight the shortcomings of the currently available electric cars while disregarding the very real cost to the health of the planet and its living inhabitants by burning fossil fuels.

I don't disagree with you, and it's not my intent to sound argumentative. I'm simply of the opinion that right now, at this moment in time, the technology isn't yet advanced enough for electric vehicles to be an adequate replacement for the vehicles many people currently own. I have no doubt that the various technologies for both electric and hybrid vehicles will improve in the next couple of decades, and right now I'd guess electric will become the dominant technology; assuming the infrastructure to support it will improve as well, that is.

That said, they also have to find a way to make it all affordable to the people who need it most, i.e. the "working class". As the technology improves I would hope the costs associated with buying and operating alternate fuel vehicles would become more reasonable, but...well, we'll see.

My nephew who just made a huge bundle on a marijuana stock play indulged in a new model S. He traded in his Mercedes and now regrets it. For his $125K he thinks he could have done much better sticking with a Merc. It was his impulse buy and he now regrets it.....not enough value for his $$ but it does give him cred amongst his progressive friends.

Must be nice. I couldn't come up with $125K to save my life, let alone spend it on a lousy overpriced car.

 

[tonyb]

I've heard speculation that the personally owned motor vehicle we have come to know and love may itself be a thing of the past in the coming decades. I dunno. Maybe that'll come to pass. But so much of our world has been built around cars over the past century-plus that I find it difficult to see how cars at the ready are going away. If a jointly owned vehicle won't appear in Joe Suburbia's driveway within a couple minutes of summoning it, I'm guessing he'll opt for his very own car, thank you very much.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

My nephew who just made a huge bundle on a marijuana stock play indulged in a new model S. He traded in his Mercedes and now regrets it. For his $125K he thinks he could have done much better sticking with a Merc. It was his impulse buy and he now regrets it.....not enough value for his $$ but it does give him cred amongst his progressive friends.

 

[belfastboy]

I don't disagree with you, and it's not my intent to sound argumentative. I'm simply of the opinion that right now, at this moment in time, the technology isn't yet advanced enough for electric vehicles to be an adequate replacement for the vehicles many people currently own. I have no doubt that the various technologies for both electric and hybrid vehicles will improve in the next couple of decades, and right now I'd guess electric will become the dominant technology; assuming the infrastructure to support it will improve as well, that is.

That said, they also have to find a way to make it all affordable to the people who need it most, i.e. the "working class". As the technology improves I would hope the costs associated with buying and operating alternate fuel vehicles would become more reasonable, but...well, we'll see.

Must be nice. I couldn't come up with $125K to save my life, let alone spend it on a lousy overpriced car.

I thought it rather fitting that he spent the money gained from a marijuana grow operation stock play on an overpriced tech toy.....so very very current.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think eventually some sort of electric transport is inevitable -- it might not dominate in what's left of my lifetime, but I have no doubt that today's twentysomethings will live to see a world where you only see the internal combustion engine in a museum, and they'll wonder what took us so long to wise up.

I also think that, if humanity is going to survive on the long term, we have to get away from the consumerist-driven "growth society" idea that having and/or being anywhere and everything we want on demand RIGHT NOW is a necessary part of a satisfactory standard of living. If we don't voluntarily learn to be happy with less, we'll eventually have to learn to survive with a whole lot less whether we like it or not.

 

[Tiki Tom]

Agreed. A model based on never ending growth, growth, growth across future centuries cannot be sustained. However, for all its problems, the number lifted out of poverty globally since the end of WWII cannot be discounted. What the long term answer is, I have no idea. It is hard to deny to the poor of the world the middle class comforts that many of us are fortunate enough to enjoy (largely due to pure luck). But can the world really plan on never-ending growth, growth, growth given limited resources? Maybe unknown future leaps in technology (fusion energy?) will make it possible. I’ll be out of the picture by the time the world moves to the post-capitalist phase, whatever that might be —-and I’m not implying anything with that statement. So far, all utopian schemes have fallen far short of the mark. But humanity is nothing if not creative, and perhaps a solution might yet be found.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Neverending growth = cancer...

 

[Fading Fast]

What we have now - in most developed countries - is a blend of capitalism and socialism. And every election, every bill debated, every law, every rule, every regulation is an outcome of that blend, which usually starts as a political battle.

The system today is not a growth-at-all-costs system at a macro level even if most individual companies want that (not all do) because they are limited in that growth by all the rules, regulations, laws, restrictions, etc. we, as a society, have voted into law.

As a society, we have already agreed not to have growth at all costs - the environmental movement is one example as we (thankfully, in my opinion) reduced growth at many companies to improve the land, air, water, etc. What we do everyday - through our political and social interactions (like here, sometimes) - is debate that balance.

My point is that our current system is debating the balance between growth and its cost. I am not making an argument for more or less of one or the other (that would be too of-the-moment political in my opinion). Again, I'm just saying that I think we are already having a very active debate about how much growth / what kind of growth - what those tradeoffs are - and what we as a society collectively want.


Edit: Added "we" as the fourth word in the third paragraph proving one should not type a post when hungry and with food waiting twenty paces away.

 

[tonyb]

Agreed. A model based on never ending growth, growth, growth across future centuries cannot be sustained. However, for all its problems, the number lifted out of poverty globally since the end of WWII cannot be discounted. What the long term answer is, I have no idea. It is hard to deny to the poor of the world the middle class comforts that many of us are fortunate enough to enjoy (largely due to pure luck). But can the world really plan on never-ending growth, growth, growth given limited resources? Maybe unknown future leaps in technology (fusion energy?) will make it possible. I’ll be out of the picture by the time the world moves to the post-capitalist phase, whatever that might be —-and I’m not implying anything with that statement. So far, all utopian schemes have fallen far short of the mark. But humanity is nothing if not creative, and perhaps a solution might yet be found.

Yup. Most of us here truly are winners of the birth lottery. I'm thankful, when I take a view sufficiently detached to recognize that. And I'd advise all of us, myself included, not to lose sight of it.

If I harbor anything resembling faith, it is a faith in what humans might achieve. We're exceedingly clever critters, and I have little doubt that wondrous human creations will eventually come to pass. Which is not to say that dreadful human creations won't.

 

[Zombie_61]

...If I harbor anything resembling faith, it is a faith in what humans might achieve. We're exceedingly clever critters, and I have little doubt that wondrous human creations will eventually come to pass...

I'm convinced many of them already have, and that we'd all know about them if we could somehow eliminate greed from the human equation.

 

[tonyb]

I'm convinced many of them already have, and that we'd all know about them if we could somehow eliminate greed from the human equation.

I ain't holding my breath.

 

[1mach1]

I ain't holding my breath.

I wouldn't

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm convinced many of them already have, and that we'd all know about them if we could somehow eliminate greed from the human equation.

The entire world could be fed and made comfortable many times over if we truly had the mass will as a species to do it. But we don't because we've been taught to believe that other things -- economics, nationalism, ethnicity, "religion" -- are more important, and we're all so nobly devoted to our own particular ideas of The Truth that we're willing to have other people die for our beliefs.

 

[tonyb]

... Must be nice. I couldn't come up with $125K to save my life, let alone spend it on a lousy overpriced car.

To save my life I could, but that's what it would take for me to tap into enough real estate equity to actually do it. So short of a threat to life itself I certainly wouldn't. Sure as the Hell that awaits us I wouldn't do it for a car.

If I had millions I might own a six-figure car, seeing how you can't take the scratch with you so you may as well spend it while you're still on the sunny side of the sod. Etc. But unless I hit the lottery (which I very rarely play) or some rich bachelor uncle I've never had leaves me a wad, the only way I would ever acquire that level of wealth would be through hard work, frugal living, and a healthy dose of luck. And expensive cars are inconsistent with that. So even then it's doubtful I would buy one, for pretty much the same reason I very rarely take in dinner at hundred-dollar-a-plate eateries, which the missus and I actually could afford at this point. But among the reasons we got to this point is that we DON'T indulge in all the extravagances we can afford.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm convinced many of them already have, and that we'd all know about them if we could somehow eliminate greed from the human equation.

And then I saw this article: Curing Patients Is Bad For Business.