Hey, check this letter out that I got after pointing out that the environmental movement might have better results if they quit relying on Socialistic tactics, (putting all land under governmental control) and started trying to use more Capitalistic ideas, (Like making aluminum recycling worth the money)...

[quote]Brian-

I am getting tired of your harping on government control, capitalism and
access issues. The whole purpose of capitalism is to make a profit and to
"progress". The profit and progress come with a heavy toll on the
well-being our fellow creatures, and though some of us aren't yet aware of
it, on our own well-being. We are a greedy, heavy -handed "civilization".
Without laws curbing human greed, the earth and its systems would bein a
lot worse shape. Please get yourself a copy of Aldo Leopold's "A Sand
County Almanac."

The earth needs places free human mechanization. Your fixation on
Capitalistic solutions is a blind spot for you.

Please stop imposing your ideological ideas on this list-serve. Go talk to
the Cheney-Condi-Rumi- Wolfi groupies.

[name witheld out of courtesy]
[/quote]

Vor

Gee VOR, I guess he told you! :roll: What were we thinking? :ohwell: Capitalism being good thing.........How silly of us? :shock: :roll2: Where did you find this genius! :dis: :cheese:

[quote]This is one of the most thought provoking articles I've seen in a long time. Thinking along these lines might actually work to bring the environmentalists movement back in line with the rest of the country towards Capitalism and away from Socialism. I've always felt that the fundamental difference between the mainstream environmental movement and the rest of the country is their reliance on government ownership and control of land and resources. In order for a long term, working solution to be found I've always felt that environmentalism needed to take a more capitalistic stance.

This difference is at the core of my own issues with the environmental movement.

Thank-you

Brian Covey[/quote]
[quote]I tend to agree that Capitalism does not have a good track record when it comes to environmental issues, and I am not suggesting that Capitalism alone is the answer. What I am trying to say that if a Capitalistic method of solving a problem exists it is far more likely to succeed and to be accepted by the larger majority.

Example: Recycling aluminum cans does not become viable until it is economically feasible.

Those on the right tend to feel that those fighting for environmental issues have a socialistic bent. This cuts to the core of what being on the right means. It seems that an environmental activists answer always seem to include some sort of governmental control. I'm saying that it is SOMETIMES possible to find an answer that does not require more limitations by government. Developing a zero or near zero impact vehicle is one of these ideas. A bit far fetched? Maybe. But certainly a good start towards finding an answer that did not involve more land closures and limits on the publics access to public lands.

Brian Covey[/quote]

Those are my comments that generated the response above. They are the ONLY comments I EVER made in the two years I've been on the List.
It was on a Sierra Club List-Serv.

What started the whole thing was a guy who wrote a cool article about trying to get people interested in developing a ZERO IMPACT vehicle to try to mitigate some of the problems associated with OHV's and other vehicles impacting the land.

So, where did I go wrong?

Vor

Here is the original article: Notice the disclaimers!

[quote]Prefatory remarks --

1. One of the great things about this forum is that it is so easy to
delete messages -- potentially this one as well -- so that they need
not take up much of your time or computer storage. Each recipient can
exercise his/her own judgment about whether the message is relevant,
helpful, and/or useful.

2. This message is intended to stimulate thought, discussion, and
potential action (as to developing the ideas or similar ideas further).
This message is not intended to be a "polished", finished product.
These are ideas "in the rough". It is my primary hope that at least
some people may find some interesting ideas here or that these ideas
may stimulate other ideas that may be interesting and useful. However,
I do not expect that everyone, nor even necessarily most recipients of
this message will necessarily find this message of interest although I
hope they do. So if this message does not interest you, you are
welcome to simply delete it. And if these ideas interest you, please
"talk them up" wherever you feel like it. While some of the technical
issues may seem difficult to some, you or someone you know might be the
"genius" that is needed to show that the ideas are really easier than
some have thought.


3. The philosophical stuff: It seems to me that no matter how good our
“science” may be, the fact remains that public policy issues
necessarily contain aspects that are, in a sense, outside the realm of
“science”.

One very important such aspect is the matter of values. Of course, if
you are a firm believer in democracy, then you would probably favor
some method of poling a very broad spectrum of people to determine each
person’s values and then to aggregate those values in some way that is
“fair”. (What is “fair” might depend upon the purpose the aggregate
is to be put.) “Science” can be helpful in the poling process and in
analyzing the possible ways (and effects) of aggregating values, but
science cannot “decide” what those values should be. I am thinking
particularly of “intrinsic” values, that is, values that are held in
“their own right” and not held as a consequence of something else.
Examples are aesthetic values and the general value of maintaining
healthy living conditions. (There is a potential quibble here. The
value of maintaining healthy living conditions might be considered a
derived value based on the more primitive value of self-preservation,
but I see no pressing need to make the distinction here.)

And it also seems to me that ultimately there would need to be some
“arbitrary” decision or imposition of particular values in choosing the
method of aggregating the multitude of individual values obtained by
the poling process. So this requires that someone act as a kind of
“dictator” (e.g., a “chairperson”) at some point.

The point of this abstract discussion of “science” and “values” and, in
particular, the distinction between intrinsic values and derived values
is this: We need to examine our values to determine which ones are
enduring and intrinsic and which ones are derived (and therefore
subject to change based upon changing conditions). By undertaking such
an examination we stand to “refine” and improve our effectiveness and
satisfaction in policy advocacy, interpretation, and implementation.
[Incidentally, I don’t preclude the fact that intrinsic values can be
transient. But it does seem that because of the momentum that
codification brings, transient values ought not to be codified. After
all, we are interested here in policy matters that have some momentum
and will be around for a while.]

I submit to you that the proscription “no vehicles in wilderness” is a
__derived__ value in the minds of most people and especially in the
minds of the people who originally invented the proscription.

It seems to me in this regard that what people really object to are the
impacts that, historically, vehicles __typically__ or __frequently__
make to wilderness. It is the impacts to wilderness that people really
care about and are closer to the intrinsic values in the minds of most
people. The reason that vehicles become an issue is because vehicles
are easy to point to and identify, historically, as a substantial
factor in wilderness degradation.

But vehicles (vis-à-vis wilderness) have unfortunately become an
“automatic” proxy for much of what really matters in most people’s
minds.

The automatic proxy has been useful, and no doubt will continue to be
useful for some time at least. But this automatic proxy may also be
working against us, especially if what we really want is to minimize
human-caused impacts to wilderness (and/or in quasi-wilderness, etc.).


4. Please note that I write this from the point of view of my own
personal ("individual") values because I believe (1) that ultimately
all values are subjective and personal/individual (that is relative to
the individual) and (2) that it is by joining together on those values
that we share in common that we can become effective as a group in
promoting those values. I see the individual as the basic "sovereign"
from which all social values are derived as a kind of aggregation of
individual values. (An aside: This idea seems to be contained in the
early founding documents of the U.S., but it seems that some other
cultures traditionally hold an opposite view as well.)

Also, I write from the point of view of my own values because it seems
easier to avoid unnecessary philosophical and scientific complications
(especially as to just how universal are various values).

I anticipate that many readers will see their own values in those that
I express, but I don't want to presume that all or most activists will
necessarily share these values in common. By writing this in terms of
my own values I hope the reader can then easily avoid unnecessary
issues of what is true and what is not true vis-à-vis values and thus
be able to concentrate more on what really matters.

5. Enough of "government"/social philosophy: Think of how a cockroach
is able to speed over extremely rough terrain without leaving a trace,
except perhaps for a few tiny "footprints" in sand or sugar! Can
humans imitate such facility, dexterity, and minimal impact in
locomotion?

6. An aside: While what follows is primarily about vehicles that walk
like an insect, please note that I think even wheeled vehicles could be
designed much better to minimize impact, especially in regard to the
nature of traction and the exertion of tire forces on the ground
surface and thus the degree of erosion that wheeled vehicles can cause.



Off-Road Vehicles and the Vehicle that Walks like an Insect


It seems to me that a properly designed vehicle that walks like an
insect might substantially reduce "off-road" vehicle impacts and create
a largely "win-win-win" solution to perhaps most, if not almost all, of
the so-called "off-road" vehicle problems without getting into a
warlike contest with off-road vehicle enthusiasts.

So I'd like to point out a few impact-related considerations that such
a vehicle would involve and how such a vehicle might radically change
the issues about off-road vehicle impacts.

(Note that, while snowmobiles are not addressed in this discussion,
many of the issues discussed here, with appropriate modification, might
be fruitfully applied to discussions of snowmobiles.)



The Vehicle that Walks like an Insect --

So what's so good about a vehicle that walks like an insect?

As you can probably imagine, there are lots of ways that such a vehicle
can be designed and lots of ways it could be used.

As an ideal "prototype" I am thinking of a vehicle for transporting a
single person and that weighs perhaps 50 percent to 100 percent of the
person driving it. The total weight, including the weight of the
driver and all his gear, might be about 300 or 350 lbs. Compare this
with one horse (1000 lbs.) for the rider and another horse for his
gear, with perhaps a total weight of 2500 lbs. or more. So such a 300
or 350 lb. vehicle could very well replace the current horse-packing
practice of two horses and gear weighing about 2500 lbs. or more.
That's a very substantial reduction in travel weight.

Weight is a significant factor for impact, and so it is something that
should be considered.

But there are also other factors.

The very simplistic design of a wheel (actually four of them) rolling
down upon everything in its path is extremely damaging to most types of
wilderness environment.

But with a walking vehicle, "intelligent" engineering could be designed
to automatically avoid vegetation and to otherwise utterly minimize
impacts to vegetation, soils, and rocks. Basically, I have in mind
walking robotics controlled by a very sophisticated computer program,
so that vegetation would, for example, be automatically sensed and
stepped over rather than stepped upon. The computer, using appropriate
sensing devises, could dynamically change the speed with which each
step approaches the ground, with automatic adjustments appropriate for
various types of soil.

The actual "foot" has many possible designs, and several variations
might used in a single vehicle with computer controls dynamically
choosing the appropriate feet for the current terrain. Prototypes
might be drawn from cougar paws, deer, sheep, and pronghorn hooves, and
trekking-pole tips (with mud and snow "limiters"). Some of the
impact-minimizing design would be in the "passive", compliant,
mechanical nature of the feet (assuming simplistic walking motion) and
some would be in the intelligent, automatic, dynamic control of the
legs and feet.

Of course, the plan would be to utterly minimize any noise and any
possible noxious exhaust or other side effects, and this along with the
basic operability design of the vehicle needs to be done with an
extremely high degree of reliability. (For one thing we don’t want
people getting stranded and stressed-out, and we don’t want vehicles
being junked in remote places, and we don’t want “tow-insects” to have
to extract failed vehicles except in extremely rare instances. And of
course no human (or other fauna) should be able to smell or hear such
vehicles except as appropriate in very rare emergencies.)

So what if we get such a “super”, impact-minimizing vehicle? What are
likely to be the social consequences?

Such a vehicle is such a radical concept that it is hard to fully
anticipate all of the potential social consequences, but here are some
of the scenarios I imagine.

First of all, such a vehicle would be excellent as a "research vehicle"
to conduct surveys and to do "original" scientific exploration.

Also, we might find a substantial reduction in need for horse packing,
perhaps with the result that the high-impact, constructed, intensively
maintained horse-packing trails can be completely eliminated from
wilderness. Think of how much "prettier" even an ordinary foot trail
would be in the place of horse-packing trails.

But I think it may also be possible to do without even foot trails
altogether. Think of how much prettier wilderness would be without
even ordinary foot trails.

The biggest impact reduction seems likely in the areas where
all-terrain vehicles are currently used. It seems reasonable that we
may very likely see such an insect-like vehicle completely replacing
the current vogue in wheeled all-terrain vehicles.

Now there are also potential negative consequences of such a vehicle.

Such a vehicle might become so popular that people might swarm
quasi-wilderness and even wilderness areas with them. (Let's put aside
for the moment whether there should be a legal restriction as there now
is for designated wilderness.) People might think that, since one
vehicle scarcely has any impact, there is no damage; hence there may be
no hesitation to take them into all sorts of quasi-wilderness and
wilderness environments. So we could possibly get a tremendous loss of
solitude in large parts of quasi-wilderness and wilderness near
high-density human populations.

(But note that, since the vehicles would be well-designed for traveling
off-trail, it would take a lot more of them to obtain the same loss of
solitude that now typically prevails with backpackers traveling on
trails in popular wilderness areas.)

With large numbers of people driving such vehicles all over the place,
without any need or regard for roads and with roads being regarded as
an archaic concept, there might be some cumulative physical impact of
such large numbers of vehicles, even though the impact of a single
vehicle might be regarded as negligible. (Basically, I regard such a
problem as a problem of a wilderness or quasi-wilderness being too
close to and too popular with a high density of humans living nearby; I
see this problem as basically the "tough" problem of over-visitation,
whether on-foot or otherwise, due to proximity to high density human
populations.)

There are at least some types of physical impact I can foresee that
might require restrictions in where the vehicles can be driven. For
example, if such a vehicle is using a trekking-pole type of foot, it
probably would not be a good idea to drive it in the open desert where
desert tortoises reside. The trekking-pole feet might poke through the
sand and into tortoise burrows and pierce the tortoises themselves or
at least substantially disturb or injure them.

Also a trekking-pole type of foot might tend to aerate the soil, and
while gardeners tend to regard such a condition as favorable to
earthworms and grass, it may perhaps "unnaturally" encourage vegetative
growth in an undesirable way; at least it might result in a
recognizable human impact, regardless of whether that impact might be
regarded as favorable or unfavorable in principle. But of course, a
cougar-paw type of foot might be the preferred foot in such an area.

And if some types of soft soils should not be driven over, the vehicle
could be engineered to sense those types of soils and to automatically
limit the speed with which the vehicle could operate, the result being
that a driver would be motivated to, say, drive around a very wet, soft
meadow rather than to try to drive over it. But this would depend on
research as to actual impacts that might occur. And perhaps, if
necessary, the engineering could be subject to government regulation
and inspection much in the same manner as smog-control auto engineering
is today, although I imagine the inspection and monitoring process
could be much simpler and a lot less costly. But I think regulation
and involvement by government, aside from encouraging the technology,
should probably be completely avoided when possible. (Government
regulation often tends to be very costly and typically has a great many
undesirable side effects.)

From my own perspective, the most annoying or disappointing impacts
that seem plausible are (1) a simple loss of solitude due to (the
possibility of) encountering such vehicles everywhere I go, and (2), a
bit more likely, the indirect sort of loss of solitude due to seeing
(possible) trace impacts everywhere I go even though I might not
actually encounter such a vehicle driven by another driver while
visiting wilderness.

(Compare this second type of impact with the "loss-of-solitude" impact
of boot scuff marks on the slick-rock in the narrows of Dry Fork in the
Escalante area. Such scuff marks give the very strong sense that one
could encounter other hikers at any time, and the scuff marks represent
a very real psychological loss of solitude even though such a lone
hiker may not actually encounter another hiker. Make no mistake about
it: Yes, group hikes can be lots of fun, but group hikes as well as
hikes in popular areas are generally a very different kind of
“wilderness experience” than what can be found by a lone hiker in areas
rarely visited by others.)

Of course, there is much research that would be needed concerning such
a vehicle -- not only research into the design of the vehicle, but also
research into how it could be used.

But it seems to me that such a vehicle is an extremely promising
potentiality.

And so what will be the likely effects on various four-wheel-drive
enthusiasts?

Generally, it is my impression that there will always be
dyed-in-the-wool jeep aficionados, who, like
world-war-II-gas-guzzling-fighter-plane aficionados, will always be
interested in such things as a matter of a personal interest in
preserving history.

But by and large I think that roughly 90 percent of the jeep drivers
would readily convert to the utterly impact-minimizing vehicles and,
basically, jeeps would rapidly become history.

The result is that, although the dyed-in-the-wool jeep aficionados may
not want to give up any existing prime 4wd adventure-routes, there will
be a lot less pressure to have lesser-used adventure-routes open for
4wd vehicles, and this would especially be the case if backcountry
driving regulations are liberalized for the insect-like vehicles in
recognition of their utterly impact-minimizing design.

But regardless of how the details play out, it seems there would be
lots and lots of room for winning scenarios from every point of view,
including that of both environmentalists and adventure drivers (as well
as for people who may be both and as well as for others who may be
neither).

And what about even further into the future?

I envision an insect-like vehicle that can climb fly-like up the face
of El Capitan in Yosemite. But I think there might be at least a bit
of "religious" outcry just as there are people today who are
religiously opposed to any kind of surgery for correcting medical
conditions.

As for myself, I would regard it as essentially no different than if I
could just as readily spot climbers using the classical rope-based
gear, which also might be regarded as a kind of vehicle of sorts.
(It's just not all unified into one conglomerate "thing".)

And as for encountering someone driving an insect-like vehicle in
wilderness? I would regard it impact-wise as essentially no different
than encountering a backpacker on foot, except that insect-like
vehicles have no need to be confined to trails. So I would be much
less likely to encounter such a vehicle than I am to encounter
backpackers out in the same numbers following trails. (Note that GPS
units with intelligent software would probably be needed as a part of
the vehicles so that people not following trails would be very unlikely
to get lost.)

And what about potential impacts to habitat for flora and fauna?
Essentially nil, except possibly for some losses of solitude, which
might be just as important to some other fauna as it is to me.

But of course, this is all a subject for research to clarify just what
impacts there might be and what adjustments might be appropriate.

Richard Haney[/quote]


And finally, here is a very cool website to check out.
DARPA Challenge

Vor

DARPA looks very interesting! I wouldn't mind going and watching the challenge. Are they talking fuel cell, solar, electric hybrids or something even more advanced? And do I understand you right? This guy was upset because you suggested that DARPA was a good idea??? I guess it is like we have said all along, they won't be happy until all public and private land is closed to OHV use. No matter how advanced or how low impact it is! :roll: :x :dis:

No, the guy who wrote the article is cool...
His thoughts were that it would be a good idea to try to come up with a zero impact vehicle.
The OTHER guy, the guy who wrote the e-mail is, I think, the L-serv owner. The only reason I brought it up was because I thought the tone and content seemed very similar to a guy we have posting around here sometimes... Basicly "Typical" Enviro crap.
On HIS turf he didn't even mince words... "Take your crap and go elsewhere!"

The DARPA stuff DOES look cool. I don't think it is limited to solar or battery, though, it has to make the trip by itself. You don't even get to watch.

Read the "Rules" page at the website. I would really like to see some of those machines!



Vor

Hot damn Pastor, he straight out said, "Take yo crap elsewhere?" Now dat is da perfect example of a total McPenis!

BOOOYYY SLAPPYS GOT A RIGHT MIND TO OPEN UP SOME SERIOUS MCWOOPAIS FOR DAT...You let Slappy know, cuz Slap's been benchin 125lbs 4 times Pastor...uh huh, Slap's huge...