TechJudge

transportation

"We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us."

- Thoreau, Walden

Introduction and Rating System
Bicycle
Freedom of Refusal: 10/5
Freedom of Reversal: 10/5
Use Autonomy: 8/7
Make-Repair Autonomy: 7
Systemic Participation: 9
Manufacture Ecology: 6
Use Ecology: 7/6
Efficiency: 9
Human Contraction/Expansion: 7/5
Skill Replacement/Creation: 4
Total Score: 77/63

(1 January 2011) The split scores represent the bicycle in two conditions: where cars are the dominant mode of transportation, and where bikes are dominant. The latter system is immensely preferable, but paradoxically it lowers the score of the tool that enables it. If the system is designed for bicycles, then penalties appear for not using bicycles, or for collectively giving them up. Use autonomy drops a bit as bikes become more common, because there will be more legal constraints -- and it cannot be perfect as long as bikes require trails (unless all trail work is done by a fully autonomous system that includes the cyclist). Make-repair autonomy is covered in the introduction. And systemic participation is very high, but not perfect, again because most bikes require trails.

For use ecology, remember that seven is neutral. Bicyclists do almost no environmental damage if they're using roads already made for cars, but in a place without cars, bikes need wider and smoother dead spaces than people on foot. For efficiency, remember that I'm measuring over time, not distance, and the bicycle still beats everything on the ground, except walking. I give it a nine, to leave ten open for potential technologies that use even less energy. For contraction/expansion, bicycling scores higher when it's rare, and in bike utopia it drops to neutral because it no longer demands courage, and becomes more of a routine. And in the final category it scores a four because it's only moderately different from running.


Automobile (now)
Freedom of Refusal: 2
Freedom of Reversal: 2
Use Autonomy: 4
Make-Repair Autonomy: 3
Systemic Participation: 6
Manufacture Ecology: 0
Use Ecology: 0
Efficiency: 1
Human Contraction/Expansion: 3
Skill Replacement/Creation: 5
Total Score: 26

(1 January 2011) The automobile might be the worst technology in history. I can't think of anything else that has consumed so many resources while doing so much harm and so little good. And it's not finished yet -- China and India have barely begun to be ruined. Of course those nations might never reach the same level of car saturation as the USA. That level is what I'm looking at for this rating. A much lower level is considered in the "Automobile (best case)" entry below.

When everyone has a car, the infrastructure is built on the assumption that everyone has a car, and the places a person needs to go are separated by miles of pavement. This makes it very difficult to refuse the technology. The only reason I give it a refusal score of two and not zero is that there are places like Manhattan where density and public transportation make it easy to not drive. For reversal, the sudden absence of cars and trucks would utterly collapse American civilization, but cars are only mildly personally addictive, thus another two and not a zero.

For use autonomy the car achieves a four because you can steer it in any direction at any moment, but scores no higher, because there are so many restrictions attached, and there is a high penalty for using it for any other purpose than to drive in an orderly fashion from one paved location to another. It's interesting that so many American movies show people getting away with truly free car use. And for make-repair autonomy the car scores as high as a three because there are still a lot of old cars that people know how to fix, although the automotive industry is working to end this.

For systemic participation I give the automobile its highest score, a six, because the power is distributed to all owners, and rises from them. It scores no higher because there are legal and practical limits on how this power can be channeled, and also because most cars require roads, which are maintained by a central power.

In both ecology categories the automobile gets a perfect zero, for the effects of mining, road-building, parking lots, engine emissions, fluid leaks, and so on. In efficiency I give it a one. Remember I measure energy over time, not distance, and planes burn much more than cars, but we're also considering human attention, in which the automobile does worse than anything. In Energy and Equity (1973), Ivan Illich calculates that "the model American male devotes more than 1600 hours a year to his car" -- far more than third world people devote to walking. (details here)

You can use a car to expand your consciousness by driving to a different place -- except that cars have also made different places more similar. It is largely because of the automobile that the edges of every city are now covered with parking lots and chain businesses, while the cores of so many cities have died. Also, in addition to rarely going anywhere new, the driver barely notices anything along the road. The reason I give a three here rather than a one, is that driving itself is a novel and challenging activity, which demands the driver's responsible attention. Finally, cars score a five on skill replacement/creation, because walking could also get us from place to place, but not as fast.


Automobile (best case)
Freedom of Refusal: 10
Freedom of Reversal: 10
Use Autonomy: 6
Make-Repair Autonomy: 5
Systemic Participation: 0-8
Manufacture Ecology: 4
Use Ecology: 4
Efficiency: 3
Human Contraction/Expansion: 6
Skill Replacement/Creation: 5
Total Score: 53-61

(1 January 2011) What I'm considering here is the best realistic case, not the best imaginable case, which would go in the "fantasy" section. It is not realistic to have abundant cars without also having abundant pavement, sprawl, resource consumption, and dependence. But we could avoid all of these by keeping cars rare. Imagine that cities are made for pedestrians, bicycles, electric wheelchairs, and horses. By any of these modes, you can easily get around a three mile radius, which can comfortably hold half a million people if you don't have all the pavement necessary for cars. Larger cities could have rail systems. Rails and aircraft would connect cities, and there would also be a huge continental network of trails, and a modest network of two-lane paved roads. Roads would go through places too steep for trains, and would skirt the edges of cities without going inside.

The big question is: if cars are rare, who gets to drive them? For this I've left open a wide range in the systemic participation category. In the best case, everyone would get to take a few fun road trips over a lifetime. More realistically, the driving privilege would be bought and sold, and richer people would do more of it. I still think this would be better than cars not existing at all. And in the worst case, a small elite would have a monopoly on driving, and use it to reinforce the control system that benefits them.

The other scores need little explanation. Without every idiot driving every day, there would be fewer restrictions on use. Cars could be designed for easy repair, like old Volkswagens. Energy efficiency would remain low, but we would get far more miles per hour of attention. And driving is more mind-expanding if we're not doing it as part of the daily tedium, but as a rare adventure.


Passenger Train
Freedom of Refusal: 10/4
Freedom of Reversal: 9/4
Use Autonomy: 1
Make-Repair Autonomy: 0
Systemic Participation: 0
Manufacture Ecology: 3
Use Ecology: 4
Efficiency: 5
Human Contraction/Expansion: 7/5
Skill Replacement/Creation: 5
Total Score: 44/31

(6 January 2011) As with other transportation technologies, I've split the ratings to cover the present system (the USA in the last decade) and also the system where most land travel is done by passenger train. And again, we see that the penalties for refusal/reversal are higher as we allow a function to be dominated by one technology. Even under the present system, trains do not score a ten on reversal because so many people in the northeast depend on trains to get to their jobs.

For use autonomy, we can't drive the train, and even the driver must stay on the track, but I still give one point for our ability to choose among different routes. Because our choice of route does not influence management or scheduling, it does not count for systemic participation. Obviously, make-repair autonomy is also a zero. Imagine what would happen if everyone took their own handmade vehicle on the rails, and you begin to see how deeply allied rail is to central control.

The ecology scores are rough guesses (and remember that seven is neutral). Notice that trains beat cars by four points on use ecology. This is mostly because trains don't require any pavement, and partly because of fewer emissions per passenger mile. I give five points for efficiency because passenger trains are a bit closer to cars than to bicycles. (Freight trains would score much higher, but their function is so different that it doesn't make sense to compare them here.)

For contraction/expansion, trains score relatively high because you can look out the window, and you're forced to share space with other passengers. But if normal train use is to ride the same route every day to your job, these benefits drop to neutral. And for skill replacement/creation, trains don't add any skills, nor do they add a new function, since we can cross land by walking. The score of five represents their speed.


Sailboat
Freedom of Refusal: 10/8
Freedom of Reversal: 10/5
Use Autonomy: 10
Make-Repair Autonomy: 8
Systemic Participation: 10
Manufacture Ecology: 6/4
Use Ecology: 6
Efficiency: 9
Human Contraction/Expansion: 7/5
Skill Replacement/Creation: 9
Total Score: 85/74

(6 January 2011) Boats with wooden hulls and cloth sails are one of the oldest and most successful technologies in history. As with the bicycle, I've divided some scores in two, to represent the present system where sailboats are uncommon and mostly recreational, and the imaginary/historical system where almost all water-borne travel and commerce is done by sail. And we see again that the more one technology monopolizes one function, the higher the penalty for abandoning it. So the most resilient system uses many alternate technolgies for the same function. Still, even the worst case for sailboat reversal scores a five, because it does not affect land travel.

The sailboat gets a perfect ten for use autonomy, mostly because of the difference between water and land: even bicycles need trails, but on water you can go anywhere, and rules are hard to enforce. For make-repair autonomy, again, we're talking about wooden hulls and cloth sails, which earn an eight because trees and fiber plants grow all over the world. A fiberglass catamaran would score much lower.

For systemic participation, another ten, because the power is in the hands of the sailors and the terrain is wide open. But here we have to distinguish between boats and ships. The larger the craft gets, the easier it is to keep crew members powerless through onboard hierarchy and specialization. During the golden age of piracy, every pirate was trained in navigation, while the centrally controlled navy ships had only a few elite members who could navigate.

For ecology, remember that seven is neutral, so sailboats in the best case score a six, because they only require cutting down a few trees. But if all travel and commerce is being done by wooden-hulled boats, the score is lower, because that's a lot of trees! The entire rim of the Mediterranean was once forested, and boat-making was one of many reasons they got cut down. For efficiency, sailboats require no fuel, but they do require some human attention, so I've given them a nine to leave ten open for something even better.

For human contraction/expansion, as with the bicycle, the sailboat scores higher if it's exceptional and lower if it's routine. The low end is a bit lower than on land, because on the ocean the landscape is not as varied. And on skill replacement/creation, the sailboat scores a nine, because it exceeds swimming by a very wide margin (but not an infinite margin), and because operating a sailboat requires many other skills.

Finally, a boat can double as a house. This isn't really covered in any of my categories -- or it's invisible in categories where the score is already a ten.


Horse
Freedom of Refusal: 10/5
Freedom of Reversal: 10/5
Use Autonomy: 10
Make-Repair Autonomy: 8
Systemic Participation: 8
Manufacture Ecology: 7
Use Ecology: 7/4
Efficiency: 7
Human Contraction/Expansion: 8/6
Skill Replacement/Creation: 4
Total Score: 79/68

(11 January 2011) Notice how similar the horse is to the bicycle. Again, split scores represent cases where it's rare and normal to use horses for transportation, so as a system becomes more dependent on the horse, the penalty for refusal or reversal increases.

Make-repair autonomy is high because horses mostly make and repair themselves, but we do need some time and resources to take care of them. Systemic participation is only eight for a subtle reason: in practice, horses have sometimes been used to reinforce central control, to maintain the advantage of those who have horses over those who don't.

The four for use ecology represents the historical case where horses were used densely in cities and their manure was a major pollutant rather than a topsoil-builder. Otherwise they are a neutral seven. It might seem that horses do more ecological good than harm, by converting grass into good topsoil via manure, but the test is to imagine that humans do not exist, and in that case feral horses would have the same benefit. Efficiency is high but not as high as a bicycle. But contraction/expansion is one point higher than a bicycle, because of your relationship with the horse.


Airliner
Freedom of Refusal: 9
Freedom of Reversal: 8
Use Autonomy: 1
Make-Repair Autonomy: 0
Systemic Participation: 0
Manufacture Ecology: 3
Use Ecology: 4
Efficiency: 1
Human Contraction/Expansion: 7
Skill Replacement/Creation: 8
Total Score: 41

(11 January 2011) Passenger airline travel is done mostly for fun or convenience, not for necessity, so penalties for refusal or reversal are low. Notice that my system rewards us for limiting advanced technology to non-critical roles.

The next four scores are the same as passenger rail: a single point in use autonomy for your power to choose your own route, moderately harmful manufacture, and use ecology that beats cars because you only need pavement for takeoff and landing. For efficiency, since we're measuring over time not distance, airliners are worse than cars, but they avoid a zero to distinguish them from private jets.

For contraction/expansion, the score is high because you're flying! And also you have to mingle with other people. But it's not that high because most passengers don't have windows and for most of the flight you can't see much. And for skill replacement/creation, any aircraft scores high because humans can't fly, but in this case not a ten, because as a passenger you're not learning any skills, and it's still possible in theory to make any trip by foot or boat.


Private Jet
Freedom of Refusal: 10
Freedom of Reversal: 10
Use Autonomy: 7
Make-Repair Autonomy: 1
Systemic Participation: 5
Manufacture Ecology: 3
Use Ecology: 4
Efficiency: 0
Human Contraction/Expansion: 8
Skill Replacement/Creation: 8
Total Score: 56

(11 January 2011) Private jets are considered only in the case where they're uncommon, because if everyone had one, that would be flying cars, which is still in the realm of science fiction. So there's no penalty for not using them. And because you can fly in any direction at any moment, use autonomy is high, but not too high because there are still very few places you can land. Make-repair autonomy gets a point because you're at least permitted to get under the hood, even if you're unqualified. And systemic participation is mid-scale and complicated: people who have jets have full participation, but only rich people have them -- but at least they're not using them to press their advantage.

Manufacture ecology and use ecology are roughly the same as passenger airliners, and of course efficiency is at the bottom of the scale. Contraction/expansion is a notch above passenger airliners, because you get to look around more and you have more responsibility, but skill replacement/creation is the same -- unless you're piloting it yourself. In that case I'll give you a ten.

Notice that private jets score much higher than airliners. This seems radical, but only because our culture is radical in the other direction: we think it's better to be herded like cattle with enough efficiency to be herded like cattle forever, than to move freely.


Passenger Dragon
Freedom of Refusal: 10
Freedom of Reversal: 10
Use Autonomy: 10
Make-Repair Autonomy: 10
Systemic Participation: 10
Manufacture Ecology: 10
Use Ecology: 10
Efficiency: 10
Human Contraction/Expansion: 10
Skill Replacement/Creation: 10
Total Score: 100

(11 January 2011) This is an attempt to imagine a transportation technology that scores a perfect 100. So, for dragon-riding to get perfect scores in refusal and reversal, dragons have to be uncommon, or else society will become dependent on them. There is a way to keep them uncommon and also get them to ten in manufacture ecology: Dragons are not servants or pets, but allies and friends, and the only way you can befriend and ride a dragon is to spend years being a skilled steward of a piece of land, making the land much more alive and in synergy with the region and the biosphere, than it would have been without you.

Once you've done this, your dragon friend volunteers to fly you around. For use autonomy, they can fly and land anywhere at any time, and for make-repair autonomy, they fully make and repair themselves. For systemic participation, dragons are intelligent creatures and political anarchists, so they will refuse to do anything that feeds central control (see comment below).

For use ecology, the digestive system of a dragon is similar to that of a worm: they poop out worm castings, the most concentrated substance in the world for improving topsoil. But as magical creatures, they can eat anything, so they eat whatever there is too much of, or whatever is most harmful to the ecosystem, whether it be nuclear waste, bindweed, or humans. And since they don't consume resources in any meaningful sense, they are perfectly efficient.

Dragons get a ten in skill creation because they fly, and also because we have to learn some skills to ride them, including balance and overall fitness. A ten in contraction/expansion is more difficult. It's not enough for them to fly us where we want to go. They are actively dedicated to our expansion, so they will refuse to fly us on trips that reinforce comfort and routine, and insist on flying us on missions of exploration and learning.

This exercise shows some limitations in my system -- or in the language that I had to build it out of. If a dragon refuses to fly you to the liquor store, or to help you drop bombs on people to control them, do you really have perfect use autonomy? The deeper problem is that we don't have a word for freedom that is consistent with our own future freedom, and with the freedom of others. This is how "libertarians" can use "economic freedom" to justify removing constraints from the most pervasive economic domination system in history. Anyway, whatever we call it, the dragon example helps define what we should be seeking.