Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

To imply that anywhere near the majority of SUVs are used for off roading is somewhere between erroneous and misleading.

That is probably true with respect to off-roading, but not for "rough-roading." Most camping, fishing, hunting, skiing trips are over rough roads --- rutted, potholed, and overgrown forest roads, muddy and flooded roads, unplowed snow-covered roads. High clearance 4-wheel drive vehicles handle those roads, and also provide a shelter, in lieu of a tent, when you get to whatever creek or mountain lake or cross-country ski trailhead you picked for this weekend's adventure.

SUVs (and crossovers) have essentially replaced sedans as the standard vehicles that are sold/manufactured.

Yup. Because they are more versatile, practical vehicles.

My point is that the number of campers et al is essentially unchanged, yet the number of SUVs and crossovers is through the roof. The only potential use of most of them would be driving through urban snow (less and less of an issue with climate change) and carrying large loads, and it is true that home improvement projects are on the rise.

The unspoken issue though is the crossovers have similar, though slightly lower fuel efficiency when compared to sedans, SUVs are, as mentioned significantly lower in fuel efficiency.

[Pattern-chaser]

SUVs on average are about 37% more efficient than sedans (35 vs 22 mpg)...

In the USA, maybe. In other countries, many of the cars we drive achieve around 50 mpg, in practice. They still damage the environment, and we still own too many of them, but they are a lot more efficient than you describe. I imagine this is driven by our petrol (Am. "gas") prices, which are a lot more than in the USA. Subsidies, maybe?

[Pattern-chaser]

SUVs on average are about 37% more efficient than sedans (35 vs 22 mpg)...

In the USA, maybe. In other countries, many of the cars we drive achieve around 50 mpg, in practice. They still damage the environment, and we still own too many of them, but they are a lot more efficient than you describe. I imagine this is driven by our petrol (Am. "gas") prices, which are a lot more than in the USA. Subsidies, maybe?

P.S. We still own far too many 4x4s, though. I shouldn't give the impression that we don't. Their very existence shows contempt for the environment and environmental issues, and this is sadly world-wide.

[Sculptor1]

The SUV is the physical demonstration of the US's contempt for the planet and utter disregard for the future of the earth.

I'm reading "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity" by David Graeber and David Wengrow (I got it for Christmas). I'm not very far into it, but one of the themes is how the Enlightenment in Europe was largely prompted by new ideas from (you guessed it) America. Liberally educated beaurocracies were an idea borrowed from China and India, as European vessels started plying the seas. But some of the notions of freedom and equality, which were utterly foreign to European ways of thinking, came from the New World.

The man who invented American lived in the town I did my sixth form in; Lewes. Thoman Paine was not from American. American relied on the intellectual ideas discussed between France and Britain at that time. None of these ideas came from America. The American Bill of Rights is a second hand Version of Locke's Bill of Rights 1689, and the notion of Rights is one that predates the US by a considerable margin.
I very much doubt you got this from Graeber.

Indeed, one result of seeing Europeans as genocidal racists has been to ignore the influence of Native American philsophies on the Enlightenment (acc. to the authors).

Of yeah is that why the USA was an entire generation behind the emanciation of slaves?
Is that why the USA committed genocide until there was basically no "Injuns" left to kill?

In fact, "travel books" were wildly popular in the 16th and 17th centuries, and many of them intorduced readers to North American critiques of European culture -- which, in turn, influenced European critics.

Name one such book

The book (I think) will argue against both the Hobbsian and Rouseauian views of human cultural development. Another interesting tid bit from the first two chapters: Europeans of that era certainly didn't see human history as progressive -- like we sicence-oriented moderns do. They were more likely to see simple hunting and gathering societies as having regressed from a civilized state (just as Europe regressed from Greece and Rome).

My sister (PhD. anthroplogy professor) has read some of Graeber's other books , and claims he's brilliant (or was, he died recently). The book seems like it would interest GE and Sy Borg -- so far (I've read the first two chapters) it's fascinating. Sculptor need not read it, since he knows everything already. Except, perhaps, he is wrong that the U.S. holds the planet in contempt, since countries cannot feel contempt. Only sensient beings can.

You are such a *******
None of this has anything at all to do with SUVs.
Next time you see overweight children being dropped off at schools by "soccar Mums" with their SUVs, ask yourself if the children would have been better off doing the 10minute walk rather than burning yet another gallon of dwindling resources.
Here's what I mean..

Per Capita CO2 emissions
image_2021-12-28_223217.png (79.64 KiB) Viewed 1551 times

[Ecurb]

Foreign to much Continental thinking, perhaps. But those "American" ideas of freedom and equality were forged in Great Britain. The American Revolution did draw more attention to them on the Continent.

You missed the paragraph after the one you quoted, where I explain that Graeber and Wengrow are not referring to the Founding Fathers, but to Native Americans (Indians). They influenced intellectuals in Europe 200 years before the Revolyution. Here's a link to a New Yorker review of the book:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021 ... everything

From the review, here's the summary of the salient part:

This (our inability to imagine other social and political arrangements) wasn’t a matter of sheer forgetfulness, they say. It was by design. At least some of the Indigenous inhabitants of the Americas, they tell us, were bewildered and appalled by the strange European custom of giving and taking orders. Their judgments were widely circulated in the Europe of the early Enlightenment, where Indigenous people were often featured in dialogues meant to criticize the status quo. At the time, they were typically dismissed as the rhetorical sock-puppetry of canny European heretics. For how could “Natives” credibly engage with political constitutions or deliberate over consequential decisions?

“The Dawn of Everything” makes a persuasive case that what was passed off as Indigenous criticism of European political thinking was, in fact, Indigenous criticism of European political thinking. These Indigenous objections could be safely deflected only if they were seen as European ventriloquism, not ideas from another adult community with alternative values. “Portraying history as a story of material progress, that framework recast indigenous critics as innocent children of nature, whose views on freedom were a mere side effect of their uncultivated way of life and could not possibly offer a serious challenge to contemporary social thought,” Graeber and Wengrow write.

[GE Morton]

You missed the paragraph after the one you quoted, where I explain that Graeber and Wengrow are not referring to the Founding Fathers, but to Native Americans (Indians). They influenced intellectuals in Europe 200 years before the Revolyution. Here's a link to a New Yorker review of the book:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021 ... everything

You're right; I did miss that. I just read the New Yorker piece, and it was worth the time. So thanks for the link.

Nonetheless, the suggestion that Native American views on freedom and equality "influenced" European intellectuals is unsupported by the evidence and highly implausible. First, those intellectuals had no access to those alleged views; all they had were interpretations of those views by the few European explorers who by that time had visited the New World. Secondly, the notion that "primitive" people were freer and more materially equal than the inhabitants of civilized societies had been long accepted even before the discovery of the New World --- Europeans having had contact with other "primitive" peoples, in Africa and Asia, since ancient times --- which freedom and equality they attributed to the small size and simplicity of those communities (substantial accumulations of wealth being impossible in hunter-gatherer societies). Finally, there is no evidence that Hobbes, Locke, or their contemporaries were even familiar with those alleged views, much less were influenced by them.

However, the book (based on the New Yorker review) does make a case that the accepted narratives for the development of civilization are too facile --- that the real history is much more complicated and variable from place to place than those narratives assume.

The piece reminded of Jared Diamond's 1987 essay, "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" --- that being the development of agriculture.

http://public.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scanned%20Documents/Intro/Diamond.PDF

Also reprinted here, in 1999:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet ... human-race

[Ecurb]

Nonetheless, the suggestion that Native American views on freedom and equality "influenced" European intellectuals is unsupported by the evidence and highly implausible. First, those intellectuals had no access to those alleged views; all they had were interpretations of those views by the few European explorers who by that time had visited the New World. Secondly, the notion that "primitive" people were freer and more materially equal than the inhabitants of civilized societies had been long accepted even before the discovery of the New World --- Europeans having had contact with other "primitive" peoples, in Africa and Asia, since ancient times --- which freedom and equality they attributed to the small size and simplicity of those communities (substantial accumulations of wealth being impossible in hunter-gatherer societies). Finally, there is no evidence that Hobbes, Locke, or their contemporaries were even familiar with those alleged views, much less were influenced by them.

According to Graeber and Wengrow, "travel books" were popular in the 17th century. Many of these -- some written by well-educated French Missionary priests -- contained "dialogues" -- conversations with Native American philosophers. I'll report back when I get a little farther in the book, which definitely sets itself up as opposing the views of Hobbes (and his opposite, Rousseau). Apparently, the Indians thought the Europeans were greedy materialists who obeyed orders and lived in a servile, heirarchical society. Of course, they were right -- but it seemed natural to the Europeans.

I'll see if the authors provide direct evidence of the influence of these books on Hobbes and Locke. From the first two chapters, here's a quote:

.... Attempts to write off the inhabitants of the Americas as so utterly alien that they fell outside the bonds of humanity... didn't find much purchase. Even cannibals, the jurists noted, had governments, societies and laws, and were able to construct arguments to defend their social arrangements; therefore they were clearly human, vested by God with the powers of reason.

The legal and philosophical question then became what rights do human beings have simply by dint of being human -- that is, what rights could they be said to have 'naturally'.... Writers like Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius and John Locke skipped past the biblical narratives everyone used to start with, and began (to ask) what might humans have been like in a state of nature, when all they had was their humanity?

Each of these authors populated the State of Nature with what they took to be the simplest societies in the Western Hemisphere, and thus concluded that the original state of humanity was one of freedom and equality, for better or worse (Hobbes, for example, definitely felt it was worse.)

The authors then point out that while it may seem natural to us to assume that simple societies were exemplars of primordial times, it was not obvious in the 17th century. On the contrary, they often felt that simple societies had fallen from an ancient civilization, as, of course had happened in Europe.

Graeber and Wengrow suggest that as a result, by the 18th century, the idea of primordial freedom and equality made it seem natural to ask, "What is the origin of INEQUALITY?" This was a question that had seldom been entertained prior to European travel.

By the way, "American", as it was used in those days, referred to Native American (Indian).

[LuckyR]

SUVs on average are about 37% more efficient than sedans (35 vs 22 mpg)...

In the USA, maybe. In other countries, many of the cars we drive achieve around 50 mpg, in practice. They still damage the environment, and we still own too many of them, but they are a lot more efficient than you describe. I imagine this is driven by our petrol (Am. "gas") prices, which are a lot more than in the USA. Subsidies, maybe?

Sorry, I mistyped, SUVs are 37% LESS efficient than sedans. These are averages, true some sedans get 50 mpg, but Mercedes limos are part of the sedan statistic, just as Hummers are part of the SUV statistic.

[GE Morton]

Each of these authors populated the State of Nature with what they took to be the simplest societies in the Western Hemisphere, and thus concluded that the original state of humanity was one of freedom and equality, for better or worse (Hobbes, for example, definitely felt it was worse.)

The authors then point out that while it may seem natural to us to assume that simple societies were exemplars of primordial times, it was not obvious in the 17th century. On the contrary, they often felt that simple societies had fallen from an ancient civilization, as, of course had happened in Europe.

Graeber and Wengrow suggest that as a result, by the 18th century, the idea of primordial freedom and equality made it seem natural to ask, "What is the origin of INEQUALITY?" This was a question that had seldom been entertained prior to European travel.

I agree substantially, but point out that Europeans were familiar with "primitive" (non-civilized) societies prior to the discovery of the New World, and that the architects of liberalism (which term was derived, of course, from the Latin liber, meaning "free"), were not inspired by the "views" of those tribal peoples, but by observation of their actual social structure, relationships, and material circumstances.

[Ecurb]

I agree substantially, but point out that Europeans were familiar with "primitive" (non-civilized) societies prior to the discovery of the New World, and that the architects of liberalism (which term was derived, of course, from the Latin liber, meaning "free"), were not inspired by the "views" of those tribal peoples, but by observation of their actual social structure, relationships, and material circumstances.

I know next to nothing about it, but I'm not so sure. I'll grant that Europeans were familiar with small groups of nomads (Lapps), but where did they encounter people as different as the Native Americans? Trips around the Horn to India came later than North American exploration (I think). Even Marco Polo was travelling through lands where all the nomadic groups were influenced by sophisticated civilizations. Of Sub-Saharan Africa, little was known.

Also, why couldn't European Philosophers be influenced by both the structure of newly discovered societies, and their ideas? That's the notion that Graeber and Wengrow promote. From the New Yorker review:

“The Dawn of Everything” makes a persuasive case that what was passed off as Indigenous criticism of European political thinking was, in fact, Indigenous criticism of European political thinking.

[AmosMorrison]

We all know what the pandemic did to us in 2020. In essence, a lot of wealthy people, as well as brands, went bankrupt because of the effects of the economic crash. But I am more of a religious person who looks at the divine signs. Though we live in the world and everything here surrounds us as well. But I have always considered the world as materialistic. However, the pandemic taught me one thing which I think implies here truly. I think if there was someone who had at least three meals per day, like breakfast, lunch, and dinner, as well as had enough money to spend, eat, live, buy, and have extra accommodations for himself, that person is wealthy.
But this also leads to one aspect which we have to think of lately after the pandemic. In addition, I feel the world leaders also need to think of this aspect. That the prices of food items need to come low. In short, the expensive nature must not reach them. If you give this relief to the people, I do not think there is another item which they want to be less expensive. Low food prices will mean more consumption and thus it will reopen even the brands that were closed long ago.

[Pattern-chaser]

We all know what the pandemic did to us in 2020. In essence, a lot of wealthy people, as well as brands, went bankrupt because of the effects of the economic crash.

Au contraire: During the first year of the pandemic, billionaires increased their personal wealth and holdings by more than 25%. [link] It is us, the 'ordinary' people, who bore and bear the brunt. Plus ca change....

[Sculptor1]

We all know what the pandemic did to us in 2020. In essence, a lot of wealthy people, as well as brands, went bankrupt because of the effects of the economic crash. But I am more of a religious person who looks at the divine signs. Though we live in the world and everything here surrounds us as well. But I have always considered the world as materialistic. However, the pandemic taught me one thing which I think implies here truly. I think if there was someone who had at least three meals per day, like breakfast, lunch, and dinner, as well as had enough money to spend, eat, live, buy, and have extra accommodations for himself, that person is wealthy.
But this also leads to one aspect which we have to think of lately after the pandemic. In addition, I feel the world leaders also need to think of this aspect. That the prices of food items need to come low. In short, the expensive nature must not reach them. If you give this relief to the people, I do not think there is another item which they want to be less expensive. Low food prices will mean more consumption and thus it will reopen even the brands that were closed long ago.

I hear what you are saying but I do not think the assumptions undelying your view of the economy are going to lead to the results you think will occur.

[LuckyR]

We all know what the pandemic did to us in 2020. In essence, a lot of wealthy people, as well as brands, went bankrupt because of the effects of the economic crash.

Au contraire: During the first year of the pandemic, billionaires increased their personal wealth and holdings by more than 25%. [link] It is us, the 'ordinary' people, who bore and bear the brunt. Plus ca change....

Well to be more accurate, the market had huge gains driven by shifts from brick and mortar retail to online retail and delivery services. So anyone in the market did great, be it wealthy people, Middle class retirement funds, union pensions etc.

The economy took a huge hit, of course bouyed by the gig economy and government spending. Members of the old economy, travel and leisure and restaurants etc did very poorly.

[Astro Cat]

Menstrual products. They're often overlooked with charitable giving, they're nearly universally needed, there are more costs associated with menstruation than most people think (painkillers, soiled clothing, other complications [e.g. acne medication for some women]). It costs women thousands of dollars a year during fertile years.

Imagine having $6,000ish taken off of your salary (after taxes!) if you want to keep functioning in society and not have to burrow at home.