a few more possibly non-boring thoughts about engineering...
Bob Murphy wrote:
> Hi Muriel et al.
>
> 5 key essentials to assure adequate living standards - clean air,
> clean water, healthy food, warm clothes and snug shelter??? Sounds
> boring, Muriel. Your prize is my starting point.
>
> I really do not agree with your contention that your "5 key
> essentials" are that at all. I can do all that with an axe, a gun and
> a knife on my own land.
how exactly are you going to create clean air & clean water with an ax,
gun & knife? how do you plan to tan the hides, assuming you are not
planning on weaving? what do you plan to use to sharpen the blades?
how will you find gunpowder on your land? what if someone decides to
make it their land? then you will need a government and some police to
protect you.
> There's sex, dope, and rock 'n roll, literature, music, philosophy,
> fun and games, medical support, and a desire to travel and meet new
> people and experience new things. All those require social interaction
> at some level and travel and I think your somewhat idyllic list would
> drive most of us spare with boredom within weeks. I'm here to explore
> the possibilities and that's what makes it worth breathing.
perhaps i should clarify that i am looking at this as a traditional
housemanager, whose job it is to make the ends meet. for complaints
like those above i can only suggest "go outside & play unless you want
me to give you something to do. if you no longer wish to continue
breathing that's really your problem."
i submit that if the 5 physical essentials i named are available, human
ingenuity and aversion to boredom will take care of the rest. (and
don't underestimate the interesting possibilities and challenges that
the natural world can provide.) i await with interest archaelogical
evidence that hunter-gatherers were too bored to live.
> If you put your notion of outcomes up against the above desires or
> building blocks of a life worth living, it changes the equation
> radically.
i fear i don't understand this statement, because my equations are
unchanged. i suspect there is an iceberg's worth of value judgements
under the surface of anyone's notion of a life worth living.
> Engineering activity is there to expedite a lot more than improving
> the physical living standards of people.
can you specify these? are you sure no simpler substitutes are
available that would acomplish the same needs as the essentials i have
specified? (hint: be sure to differentiate between physical needs, and
nonessential wants.)
muriel
>
> Bob Murphy
> PO Guildford VIC 3451
> Australia
>
> Craig Fletcher wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> I didn't get Shimon's e-mail so i've had to reply through the
>> forum. You may hit delete NOW. You may already have this info, but
>> these guys are good to talk to for the Australian statistics you're
>> looking for, some of it free to public.
>> http://www.arrb.org.au/
>>
>> and Hi to Muriel, and thanks for another interesting debate. What
>> is a non-key essential<grin>? It reminds me of NASA's categories of
>> "known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns," where they
>> actually listed what was in the last category...wow they're smart!
>>
>> and Hi to John Bullas, i like the flower in the hair, but don't all
>> the sheep eat them in NZ? Must get very grotty. And who the hell
>> is Eric Satie, do you have a sound byte for 'Les Trois Gymnopedies'
>> that you can send me?
>>
>> cheers all,
>> craig
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Craig Fletcher, BSc, BEng(mech), MIEAust
>> Simulations Engineer, RABiT www.rabit.com.au
>> PhD candidate, Melbourne University, Dept. of Mechanical and
>> Manufacturing Engineering www.mame.mu.oz.au
>> ph:+61 3 8344 6680
>> fax: +61 3 9347 8784
>> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> snail-mail:
>> Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
>> University of Melbourne
>> Victoria 3010 Australia
>>
>> 'This e-mail and any attachments may contain personal information or
>> information that is otherwise confidential or the subject of
>> copyright. Any use, disclosure or copying of any part of it is
>> prohibited. The University does not warrant that this email or any
>> attachments are free from viruses or defects. Please check any
>> attachments for viruses and defects before opening them. If this
>> e-mail is received in error please delete it and notify us by return
>> e-mail.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> At 05:26 AM 7/9/2004, Muriel Strand wrote:
>>
>> > i would suggest that the cost-effectiveness of highway research
>> > programs
>> > tends to be low for the same reason as typical engineering
>> > projects.
>> > usually the focus is on the project itself, and how well the
>> > engineering
>> > works, rather than on the final purpose of the project.
>> >
>> > what i mean by final purpose is the basic underlying set of goals
>> > for
>> > virtually all engineering activity, to improve the physical living
>> > standards of human beings. there are 5 key essentials to assure
>> > adequate living standards - clean air, clean water, healthy food,
>> > warm
>> > clothes and snug shelter.
>> >
>> > how effective really are highway projects and highway research in
>> > assisting us in realizing these 5 essentials? usually the pat
>> > answer is
>> > that highways facilitate mobility so people can more easily travel
>> > to
>> > transport these things from one place to another. but this is
>> > simply a
>> > means to an end. and highways also cover up lots of perfectly good
>> > land
>> > in ways that compromise access to or quality of these essentials.
>> > in
>> > addition, excessive reliance on vehicle travel leads to many health
>> >
>> > problems related to obesity and lack of exercise, especially in the
>> > u.s.
>> > and increasingly elsewhere.
>> >
>> > i recommend keeping a focus on these key essentials as the true
>> > goals of
>> > human technology & economic activity. as with engineers,
>> > economists
>> > typically also focus on means (in their case, money) rather than
>> > the
>> > true ends that are really driving all this activity.
>> >
>> > let's keep our eyes on the prize.
>> >
>> > muriel
>> >
>> > שמעון נסיכי wrote:
>> >
>> > > Dear Friends
>> > >
>> > > I am asking for your help in providing me or referring me to any
>> > > sources which may have information relevant to the following
>> > issues:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Percentage of highway research budgets as a percentage of
>> > total
>> > > (national) expenditure on highways.
>> > >
>> > > 2. Data on cost effectiveness of national research programs (e.
>> > g.
>> > > US-SHRP project)
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > >
>> > > Shimon Nesichi,
>> > M.Sc.,
>> > > Managing
>> > Director,
>> > > Materials and Research
>> > Division,
>> > > Public Works
>> > Department,
>> > > Ben Zvi Rd. 55, POB
>> > 49057
>> > > Tel Aviv,
>> > 61940
>> > >
>> > Israel
>> > >
>> > --
>> > Any resemblance of any of the above opinions to anybody's official
>> > position on anything is completely coincidental.
>> > ******************************************************************
>> >
>> > Muriel Strand, P.E.
>> > Air Resources Engineer
>> > CA Air Resources Board
>> > 1001 I Street
>> > Sacramento, CA 95814
>> > 916-324-6771
>> > 916-322-3923 (fax)
>> > www.arb.ca.gov
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Any resemblance of any of the above opinions to anybody's official
position on anything is completely coincidental.
******************************************************************
Muriel Strand, P.E.
Air Resources Engineer
CA Air Resources Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-324-6771
916-322-3923 (fax)
www.arb.ca.gov
|
