Utopia is Powered by the Rainbow Farts of Unicorns

Drive Free or Die. Jalopniks’ bold moto welcomes automotive enthusiasts from around the world to the inclusive protection of a car loving community. If you are from California and love the Prius; welcome. If you are from New York and like to collect old Checker cabs; welcome. If you like 1970’s American carnosaurs, Eurotrash Accountant sedans, Volvo manual wagons, or even the hairdresser cars of Ford Mustang and Mazda Miata? Welcome car enthusiasts one and all….and then there was last night.

Last night for whatever reason the Big G Media Machine chose to not push some corporate financed sub blog, or un-paid promising new writer who enjoys cars; to instead push not one but two car hating stories by an idealistic utopianist car hater. I don’t wish to invalidate the authors greater points, drivers shouldn’t run pedestrians over and pollution is bad, but to point out that it wasn’t Jalopnik level content that embrace the moto.

Advertisement

The first of the two articles Smart Phones don’t kill people, cars do; would have made sense on its original sight Gizmodo if it had followed their mantra “Welcome from the future” if the author had written about how technology in the future such as self-stopping cars or how the internet of things would prevent a car from entering a crosswalk where the walk sign was illuminated. The author didn’t. The author wanted to ban cars

“Yep, right now gas is almost as insanely cheap as it was in 2009. And Americans are driving more miles than ever. Unless we take drastic measures to bolster alternatives to driving and keep cars off the road, we’re unfortunately quite certain to see even more crash deaths reported in 2016, as well as far more pedestrian injuries.”

I rolled my eyes, and as the author wasn’t debating rebuttals, clamped down on the urge to reply. Instead I went on with my evening. I would have forgotten about the post if I hadn’t gone back to Jalopnik to see if the night watchman had anything interesting from the other side of the world, or maybe just some good car porn. Much to my surprise there was a second car hating story…from the same author.

The second article, Delhi’s Car Ban Experiment Didn’t Improve Air Quality That Much, But it Should Still Be Permanent. Talk about invalidating your own point in the headline! Usually journalist hide that info until the last paragraph. How about this for a title? This won’t work so how about we do it anyway because it’s the nice thing to do?

Advertisement

I had severe asthma as a kid. I know what it’s like to not be able to breathe. It sucks. I like nature; I like clean air and water. These are life’s basic things, but I also like freedom, and I also like cars. Instead of talking about gizmos from the future that would give an alternative to internal combustion. Instead of suggesting giant stacks reminiscent of power plant cooling towers with huge fans sucking air out of the sky and running it through filters and deploying it at ground level. The authors’ only solution is to ban cars even after admitting it wouldn’t help very much.

More suggested changes sound great and honestly they are the methods California used to significantly reduce its smog all while gaining cars.

“coal-fired plants should be taken offline, and the widespread burning of wood and trash needs to be regulated”

Advertisement

But the author doesn’t offer solutions or replacement for these items either. Does the author even technology? Ban coal; great replace it with what; Nuclear?

Wide spread burning of wood and trash needs to be regulated; great but once you realize a lot of that “trash” is e-waste shipped from around the world being broken down you aren’t talking about stopping trash burning. You’re talking about turning off a source of revenue to the poorest of people. The part of the trash that is trash should, yeah maybe it can be burnt in a power generating incinerator that scrubs the exhaust before releasing it, but the author offered no solution here either.

Advertisement

I don’t mind occasionally sparring with someone with a different opinion. E Pluribus Unum “out of many, one” in my opinion means though we are different have different histories, cultures, and beliefs we work together for the better good, and not that we all become the same. The problems the world has require many solutions. What works in L.A. wont necessarily work in Detroit, Japan, or in Delhi and vise versa.

I would like to see many things made better, safer, more in balance with society and the environment as a whole. I would just go about it differently than the author of these two articles seems to want. I simply lack the understanding of how these two stories are Gizmodo worthy “Welcome from the future” Or how they are relevant to Jalopnik “Drive free or die.” What made them bump worthy?

Advertisement

It should be noted that as I write this the author is currently enjoying free reign over Oppositelock, a Jalopnik sub blog, that had been a community driven automotive-ish blog. Now I’m not sure if I’m communist enough to belong there.

The utopianist belief of do what sounds nice is what is running California into bankruptcy faster than any state in the nation. If you have no workable solutions to problems and can only point problems out, you are just as much a part of the problem.

Share This Story