On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 08:11 AM, Marshall Clow wrote:
This is a terribly important point, and failure to understand this point is the source of more disagreements than I can count.At 9:52 AM -0600 1/30/03, Harmon Seaver wrote:Also, you didn't factor in the subsidies. Those prices would change greatly ifThat may be true, but I have to travel in the world as it is, not the world as it could be.
you took away the billions given to airlines recently, and the 100 years of
subsidies to trucks. Travel times for the trains would be much, much better by
now as well. Look at Japan and Europe -- trains work extremely well.
--
"What if everyone thought that way?" (Fallacy, as my actions will NOT affect the choices of others, a situation most evident in the standard "Does it make sense to vote in elections?" debate.)
"If we all started driving electric vehicles, think of how we could change the world!" (Fallacy, as my choice to drive or not drive an electric vehicle will not affect the choices of others, at least not to anything more significant than fifth or sixth order.)
"You didn't factor in the benefit of saving the planet." (Fallacy. Saving the planet depends on a lot of things. Spending more for a less safe vehicle so as to affect the planet by one part in 10 to the 9 is not wise. Plus, the alternative fuels are not all they are cracked up to be.)
As Marshall said, things are what they are. Each actor should act as he sees fit. For most of us, this means maximizing returns (maximum expected utility, MEU) based on local, immediate choices.
This is often called the Prisoner's Dilemma. Or greed. Or self-interest.
"But what if everyone thought that way?"
"Then I'd be a damned fool to think otherwise, wouldn't I?" (Catch-22, paraphrased)
--Tim May, Citizen-unit of of the once free United States
" The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. "--Thomas Jefferson, 1787
