Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

For openers, my 'idealistic' view is set in the future when there are no
airlines to compete with, when fossil-fuel is priced through the roof
or simply not available; planes don't compete.

By that time they'll all be burning hydrogen anyway. Can't build a scramjet
that runs on oil. You really think that the engineers of the world are so
limited in their abilities that they will be unable to build an aircraft
that runs on anything but fossil fuels?

I also didn't confine my
suggestion for a railroad to a single line.You, however, did.

Actually, you did--you said a two track railroad from coast to coast.

Well, that gets you from New York to Los Angeles or wherever, but how do
you
get from Miami to Seattle? It's not as simple as building a railroad--if
it were then the railroads would still be a high profit operation. For
long haul passenger service, over that distance, your train is going to
have to be going 400 or so MPH to compete with the airlines and then
you're still going to have to run it cheaper, which may be difficult
considering all the infrastructure you have to maintain.

For freight, who cares how
fast it goes?
When stuff absolutely, positively has the get there....whenever.
They will still want lettuce in New York City.

So? It has to be transported at high speed? It isn't transported at high
speed now now so why would it need to be in the future?

That alone will be a huge step in the right direction.
BTW.. build in some accountability in that new system, i.e. Do Not
privatize it.

Huh? You're trusting the _government_?
Maybe the likes of Bechtel and Haliburton will be a better idea?
oops...they ARE the government....now.

Why are the options the government, Bechtel, or Halliburton? Are they
running all the nuke plants now?

There will have been some changes in the government by then.
There will have been a revolution. The mobs get really ****y when they
can't drive their SUV's

Why would "the mobs" be unable to drive their SUVs in your gloom and doom
future? It may come as a shock to you that automobiles run quite nicely on
a number of non-fossil fuels.

Staff the whole damn thing with military vets.

Which does what? The guys who retire from NR already go into reactor
operation and who else do you have that is going to be any more capable
than your average civilian?
I was just looking for a job for the warriors who won't be needed in
times of world piece.

Now let's see, the oil has run out, we can't run out SUVs, and there's going
to be no war as the world scrabbles over the pieces?

Can't fight really big wars without fuel.

Tell that to Hannibal. The Romans lost 100,000 men in a single day at
Cannae--that's one fourth as many as the US lost in the whole of WWII. And
the Romans ended up winning that war.

And what makes you think that lack of oil will render the military devoid of
fuel?

Besides, there will be virtually zero terrorists as there will be fewer
people ****ed at having been invaded for their resources... because
they'll be all out of resources.

You really think that Osama Bin Laden is "****ed at having been invaded for
their resources"?

I would hope that all those children who are now being left behind would
have been trained properly by the new government.

Trained to do what?


[snip]

So your plumber or carpenter or whatever is going to have to make ten
trips
in his Honda instead of one in the truck he uses now? How does that
benefit anybody? Or do you not consider ownership by a tradesman to be
"privately owned"?

You just added some variables again. I would allow for trades to operate
larger vehicles, of course. Your interpretation of my suggestion is
silly. Perhaps some guidelines would exist for trade vehicles to be more
efficient, hybrids of some sort.

Why? You are the one who worded it. Words have meaning. If you did not
mean what you wrote then you should have written what you meant.

Sorry, you're coming across as an idealist who hasn't really given his
ideas much thought.

I'm only seeing the big picture.

Actually, you're not seeing the big picture. You're only seeing that the
oil is going to run out, which it is no matter what we do, and not seeing
that the result will simply be the adoption of a different portable fuel.
That will have ramifications--what they are will depend on what is adopted,
but I doubt that the world is just going to roll over and freeze to death
in the dark because they weren't smart enough to find an alternative energy
source.

Others are better suited to nit-pick
the whole process to crawl. Let's form a study group and discuss what
colour to paint the railroad ties, eh?

You really shouldn't take me, or yourself so seriously.

Why not? If you're joking you need to put in the occasional emoticon or
some other such indicator.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)