Automobiles Are Not Pro-Life

[Geremia]

It is well-established that:

1. 
   *]Humans are polluting the earth.
   *]There is a component of today’s global warming due to humans.
   
   It is less-established that
   1. 
      *]Contraception and abortion are not the only solution.
      *]The earth is actually underpopulated with humans.
      *]We are not promoting a culture of death through overpopulation of humans but through overpopulation of automobiles and inefficient manmade machines.
      
      Addressing the less-established point #1, read this:
      

      From Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae:
      

      1. Another present-day phenomenon, frequently used to justify threats and attacks against life, is the demographic question. This question arises in different ways in different parts of the world. In the rich and developed countries there is a disturbing decline or collapse of the birthrate. The poorer countries, on the other hand, generally have a high rate of population growth, difficult to sustain in the context of low economic and social development, and especially where there is extreme underdevelopment. In the face of over-population in the poorer countries, instead of forms of global intervention at the international level-serious family and social policies, programmes of cultural development and of fair production and distribution of resources—anti-birth policies continue to be enacted.

      Addressing the less-established point #2, read this:
      

      Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family
      is an excellent 52 minute film about the world’s underpopulation crisis due to aggressive abortion and contraception. For a shortened, 20 minute version of the film, click here. For more information on this film, visit the film’s website, and for more information on abortion and underpopulation, join the Movement for a Better America.

      Addressing the less-established point #3, read this:
      

      Ivan Illich’s work Energy and Equity (View attachment 4592) [is] very interesting. In it he shows that
      

      Man, unaided by any tool, gets around quite efficiently. He carries one gram of his weight over a kilometer in ten minutes by expending 0.75 calories. Man on his feet is thermodynamically more efficient than any motorized vehicle and most animals. For his weight, he performs more work in locomotion than rats or oxen, less than horses or sturgeon. At this rate of efficiency man settled the world and made its history. At this rate peasant societies spend less than 5 per cent and nomads less than 8 per cent of their respective social time budgets outside the home or the encampment.

      Are not the automobile and other inefficient manmade machines a major life issue? Must not we Catholics, if we are truly pro-life, relinquish all dependence on inefficient manmade machines, seeing how much death they cause to the environment and to humans?

 

[Ruthie]

Think about it. Just think of some of the unpleasant consequences.

If I fall down the stairs and break a leg, how am I going to get to the nearest hospital, 10 miles away? Ask my neighbors to carry me on a litter?

How am I supposed to harvest my hay, and get it to market? A little at a time, in a rickshaw? My horse, who is a pet and does no work, eats around 30 lbs of hay a day.

Do you know where the produce in your store comes from? Do you want to go back to the days when all produce was locally produced? If you live in a big city, it would still come from many miles away. Check it out, and see what you’d miss, and see if you can even *get *fresh fruit & veggies in winter. In many places, it would be nothing but canned - and you know how rich in nutrients canned veggies are.

I’ll grant you that a really good public transportation system would be a big benefit. But it is simply not cost-effective to give good service between small towns and the big city. If you’re lucky, you’ll have one bus leaving at 6 am, and returning at 7 pm. That’s a little more time than you need to go shopping on foot. That’s not convenient for work, either. (That’s what they had from the last little town I lived in. I’ve never even seen a public bus out here.)

I’ll grant you, it would create jobs - minimum wage jobs, sweeping horse poop off the streets. Oh, boy.

Nah. I’ll take the internal combustion engine, until we find something better.

God bless the inventors and energy researchers,

Ruthie

 

[Sam_Maloney]

It is well-established that:

1. 
   *]Humans are polluting the earth.
   *]There is a component of today’s global warming due to humans.
   It is less-established that
   1. 
      *]Contraception and abortion are not the only solution.
      *]The earth is actually underpopulated with humans.
      *]We are not promoting a culture of death through overpopulation of humans but through overpopulation of automobiles and inefficient manmade machines.
      Addressing the less-established point #1, read this:
      
      Addressing the less-established point #2, read this:
      
      Addressing the less-established point #3, read this:
      Are not the automobile and other inefficient manmade machines a major life issue? Must not we Catholics, if we are truly pro-life, relinquish all dependence on inefficient manmade machines, seeing how much death they cause to the environment and to humans?

1. 1. 
      Gosh, I hope you’re joking…
      
      Machines aren’t just luxuries that make life better, they make life possible. Without machines, the cities would starve. Cars don’t pollute as much as horses do [and I should know, I’m a horse breeder], and I have very little faith that the average person could go back to a horse powered world, or would want to.

 

[Dale_M]

Cars don’t pollute as much as horses do

I remember reading in college that one of the great benefits of the advent of automobiles is that they cleaned up the streets of New York and other crowded cities. Apparently the streets were covered with filth from the horses.

I have very little faith that the average person could go back to a horse powered world, or would want to.

Automobiles (and trucks and farm machinery etc) greatly improved the efficiency of the economy. Doing away with them would be a monumental blow to production, and even lead to world starvation given that the US has been such a major producer of food.

 

[thomfra]

I’ll grant you that a really good public transportation system would be a big benefit. But it is simply not cost-effective to give good service between small towns and the big city.

They manage to do it in Europe? Why not the US?

 

[Sam_Maloney]

They manage to do it in Europe? Why not the US?

Because this isn’t Europe: the population distribution and density is different.

An interesting study from the Cato institute says that in much of the US, light rail commuter trains are more polluting than cars because the trains are running even at hours when there’s very few passengers.

 

[flameburns623]

I’m going to take a rather different tack than others. Because, frankly, I think we do need to simplify our lives in any of a huge number of ways. We NEED to depopulate our cities–no place on earth should there be an aggregate number of people greater than about 100,000 people. Most of us should live our lives our never travelling more than 100 miles from our places of birth. We SHOULD rely much much more on locally-produced goods and service, using simpler technologies (we’ve come a long way from the 19th century in terms of how to preserve foods, raise crops even in cold weather, etcetera). We should have the sort of small, tightly-knit communities where if Jane falls and breaks her leg, Joe her neighbor can get her help. Bicycles and public transit systems.should be the primary way we move ourselves about. Our focus should be on ‘localism’ rather than on ‘globalism’.

Even if y’all disagree with my radical stands as outlined above–we should agree that cars can and should be made more environmentally-friendly and that alternative ways of producing the same benefits we get from internal-combustion engines need to be explored and implemented.

That said: my car, to my knowledge, hasn’t killed anyone since it was built in 1987. It certainly hasn’t killed anyone since I’ve owned it in 2006. I’ve been driving somewhat longer than my present car has been around, and I haven’t killed anyone yet, either.

But in virtually every case that a woman enters a abortion clinic, someone dies. I believe the numbers of people killed in auto accidents every year is far far fewer than the numbers of abortions. Even if we factor in the consequences of asthma and so forth, I don’t think the numbers would add up.

So no–the automobile is NOT the moral equivalent of the abortion issue. Environmentalism is a valid issue for Catholics to address. I applaud your raising it in this thread. But abortion is not overshadowed by the inefficiency of automobiles or other internal-combustion engines.

 

[thomfra]

Because this isn’t Europe: the population distribution and density is different.

An interesting study from the Cato institute says that in much of the US, light rail commuter trains are more polluting than cars because the trains are running even at hours when there’s very few passengers.

yeah, but big cities, east coast etc…pretty dense population there?

 

[Dale_M]

yeah, but big cities, east coast etc…pretty dense population there?

Yes, but European countries tax gasoline and diesel at a much higher level than the US and Canada. Europeans use mass transit because it is more economical - this makes up for the inconvenience. Americans, by and large, prefer cars because they are convenient and not too expensive to use.

If you want to advocate raising gas taxes by $6.00 a gallon, good luck with that.

 

[fix]

Must not we Catholics, if we are truly pro-life, relinquish all dependence on inefficient manmade machines, seeing how much death they cause to the environment and to humans?

No, and there is no such moral imperative. If we want a “better” life then we need to strive for more holiness.

 

[Sam_Maloney]

yeah, but big cities, east coast etc…pretty dense population there?

The study I cited said the big factor of light rail is where the energy is generated. Pacific northwest with mostly hydro power, it’s a good thing from a carbon standpoint.

East coast, where the power is mostly coal fired, not good at all.

Either case, wonderful when the trains are full, at 5:30, but to be a viable alternative to cars, you need to keep those trains running till midnight, and for those off-peak hours, the polution per passenger is incredibly poor.

I think the number one lesson we can learn from Europe pollution wise is nuclear: France leads the world, and it’s time we caught up.

 

[AHapka]

Most of us should live our lives our never travelling more than 100 miles from our places of birth.

I don’t see why anyone should be able to tell me to sacrifice my freedom to move about??

How did you arrive at the 100 mile figure, out of curiousity? What calculations support that distance? How would such a restriction be enforced? How would violations be punished?

What if God calls someone to join a religious community over 100 miles away? What about when Joseph had to take the Holy family to Egypt? What if a Cardinal has to travel to Rome? What if I have to take care of my sick mother 150 miles away? What if I am unemployed and the only job I can get is 105 miles away? What if my job requires me to go to a meeting across the country? What if a family in the United States wants to take a vacation in Europe and enjoy the creation that God has made? What if I wish to gain an indulgence by travelling to Lourdes? Am I to be denied a church indulgence based on the fact I live too far away? What if I need to take my son to a children’s hospital that happens to be over 100 miles away? What if God intends to join me in marriage to a wife who happens to be over 100 miles away? What if I am in the military and get deployed more then 100 miles away? What if I am a diplomat and get sent overseas? What if there is a natural disaster (like hurricane Katrina) which requires me to travel over 100 miles to escape? What if my job is relocated over 100 miles away? What if a someone is trying to escape an abusive spouse and moving far away is the best solution? What if someone is in the witness protection program and needs to be moved a far distance away for security reasons?

I’m sorry, but I see the 100 mile rule as ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[Brendan]

. Cars don’t pollute as much as horses do [and I should know, I’m a horse breeder], and I have very little faith that the average person could go back to a horse powered world, or would want to.

No kidding, one of the advantages of the automobile that was given in the 1920’s was that the automobile would END pollution.

‘Pollution’ at that time was all the horse manure that was in the city streets. On hot days, it would dry out and fly everywhere.

Going back to such a transportation system would be a health nightmare ( as it was back then).

Bring a few thousand horses into a city for a week on summer day and they would have to close the whole city down due to dangerous ecoli levels.

 

[kaws]

I do agree that we have a moral obligation to try to reduce pollution. I don’t think that it is possible or practical to entirely eliminate automobiles from the picture in our global world or to completely restrict travel. However when possible walking or riding a bike instead of taking a car could make a small dent. It is better to buy local grown produce from local vendors using less fuel and less pollution in transport and also supporting one’s community instead of sending money out to big mega-corporations. We need to invest in properly managed mass transit systems and invest in developing cleaner alternative energy sources and more fuel efficient transportation.

 

[flameburns623]

I don’t see why anyone should be able to tell me to sacrifice my freedom to move about??

How did you arrive at the 100 mile figure, out of curiosity? What calculations support that distance? How would such a restriction be enforced? How would violations be punished?

What if God calls someone to join a religious community over 100 miles away? What about when Joseph had to take the Holy family to Egypt? What if a Cardinal has to travel to Rome? What if I have to take care of my sick mother 150 miles away? What if I am unemployed and the only job I can get is 105 miles away? What if my job requires me to go to a meeting across the country? What if a family in the United States wants to take a vacation in Europe and enjoy the creation that God has made? What if I wish to gain an indulgence by travelling to Lourdes? Am I to be denied a church indulgence based on the fact I live too far away? What if I need to take my son to a children’s hospital that happens to be over 100 miles away? What if God intends to join me in marriage to a wife who happens to be over 100 miles away? What if I am in the military and get deployed more then 100 miles away? What if I am a diplomat and get sent overseas? What if there is a natural disaster (like hurricane Katrina) which requires me to travel over 100 miles to escape? What if my job is relocated over 100 miles away? What if a someone is trying to escape an abusive spouse and moving far away is the best solution? What if someone is in the witness protection program and needs to be moved a far distance away for security reasons?

I’m sorry, but I see the 100 mile rule as ridiculous in my opinion.

The ‘hundred miles’ was just a ballpark figure, an average for the ‘ideal’ world I outlined in my response to the OP, as an exaggerated way of aggreeing with the OP’s general point that our present American lifestyle is unsustainable. To some degree my ‘utopian vision’ was tongue-in-cheek, although it contained the germ of an idea that I do wish I and others could aspire to: a simpler way of life, less dependent on the global economy we have all come to take for granted.

I don’t see any way to arrive at any part of the ‘ideal’ I outlined in my post, short of the rise of a brutal dictatorship. I wasn’t advocating forcible evacuation of major cities either. I simply think it would be better if it was the way everyone woke up one day and chose to live. We won’t get there of course. My point is that an entire world culture dedicated to the sort of radical localism I suggested would be better than what we actually have right now–if we allow for the OP’s position that modern conveniences such as cars are bad for the human race. I concede the point: automobiles and other symbols of our ultra-modern society really are NOT good ways for the whole world to organize itself.

Don’t miss my central point though: the OP suggested that automobiles, as they exist RIGHT NOW are a more serious moral issue than abortion. I went out of my way to make it clear that RIGHT NOW, this is simply not true. If the absolutely worst prognostications of the global climate change scenario are correct–then at some point, global warming, to which automobiles contribute to a very high degree, will kill most or nearly all life on earth and probably destroy the human race completely. In such a case, automobiles, at some point in the future, and assuming we don’t recognize the risk and make positive and effective steps to change things, MIGHT BE a moral issue more serious than abortion is.

But we’re not there yet.

 

[kaws]

Don’t miss my central point though: the OP suggested that automobiles, as they exist RIGHT NOW are a more serious moral issue than abortion. I went out of my way to make it clear that RIGHT NOW, this is simply not true. If the absolutely worst prognostications of the global climate change scenario are correct–then at some point, global warming, to which automobiles contribute to a very high degree, will kill most or nearly all life on earth and probably destroy the human race completely. In such a case, automobiles, at some point in the future, and assuming we don’t recognize the risk and make positive and effective steps to change things, MIGHT BE a moral issue more serious than abortion is. But we’re not there yet.

I don’t think the OP was saying that reducing pollution from automobiles was a bigger problem than abortion. I think the point was that we should reduce the automobiles instead of the people (through abortion). I agree that abortion is wrong and should be stopped. I also agree that global warming is a very serious issue that unchecked could have drastic and dire consequences on the lives of people on Earth (and in a broader view of pro-life outside of purely anti-abortion IS a pro-life issue). I think BOTH are very serious issues that need to be addressed.

 

[AHapka]

-then at some point, global warming, to which automobiles contribute to a very high degree, will kill most or nearly all life on earth and probably destroy the human race completely. In such a case, automobiles, at some point in the future, and assuming we don’t recognize the risk and make positive and effective steps to change things, MIGHT BE a moral issue more serious than abortion is.

But we’re not there yet.

Ahh…I see your point now as you mentioned.

What would you think of this: Making a lot more plug-in electric cars and then building a significant number of nuclear power plants to suppy the energy?

I think that would seriously cut down on the carbon dioxide pollution while still allowing for automobiles.

In most families with two cars you could easily make at least one car electric. In my family we have a minivan (Chrysler Town & Country) for when we have to move everyone, and I drive a small car (Audi A4 4 (4 cylinder)) for the to and from work commute, and errands where I can use it to save on mileage. That car could easily be a plug-in electric.