CS, I thought about your post as I drove across country today, and I think I disagree with you after all - even with the redirection.
Again, you're denying the hardwired tendency of the peacock to display his feathers, and the tendency of a Columbus to embark on a journey to the edge of what was thought to be a flat planet.
Romantic booshwah, I'm afraid. For one thing, Columbus wasn't looking for the edge of the world, he was looking for cash. For another thing, the peacock can display all the damn feathers he wants -- he just isn't welcome to use the world's resources in order to do it.
No. Major exploration now is being done in space and under the sea. Even back in the day when there was a lot of surface exploration - from the great sea voyagers to Lewis and Clark -- the explorers were a few intrepid individuals, not anywhere near a majority or even a significant minority, who were more likely to be found plodding behind mules. That certainly can't be used to justify America's love affair with cars.
The passion for speed and power in vehicles doesn't have to change, the choice of fuel does.
If a vehicle owner can derive significant power from a fuel choice that doesn't negatively impact our dependence on foreign oil then no harm and no foul, except to the vehicle owner's pocketbook, of course.
Once again, and I'm sorry - balderdash. Power and speed for the sake of power and speed is a waste of ANY kind of energy unless there's an unlimited source, and we're not to that point yet. Unless the goal is to further exploration to unknown places, and even there it's a big "maybe," speed and power can be limited without any huge loss. Nobody, NOBODY needs a car that goes 200 miles an hour, and I don't care if it's only driven in a continual left turn. We need those design resources to solve real problems that have been, so far, unsolvable.
It's precisely
because of that love of speed and power that the Big Three have been focused on everything BUT alternative energy. I vaguely remember a time when electric cars were being tested but they wouldn't go over 40 or 45 and they had a limited distance, so they were dropped. That was a long time ago; how different might our life be if we had had 20 years of electric cars, but we'd had to drive 15 mph slower, and limit our range?
No. I don't buy it, I'm sorry. Want to go fast? Get a bike. But until we've solved the immediate transportation problems facing this country, including energy and mass transit design --- that power and speed argument is just a distraction, and I want the serious gearheads working on serious problems.
I hope you'll agree that we can disagree.
