Areas of Unrest

24 June 2001 - Prices, Packaging and Appropriate Technology

QOTD: "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo." - H. G. Wells

Reading: Margaret Atwood, Alias Grace

Listening to: the original cast recording of Man of La Mancha

One of the great annoyances of getting older is that things aren't the way they used to be. Last weekend, Robert and I were talking about this in the context of how much things cost. I commented about rising gas prices. I'd had the odd notion that gas would be cheaper in Corona (Riverside County) than here in West Los Angeles and was surprised that it was somewhat more. The real point wasn't $2.15 a gallon versus the $1.99 I pay at the place just up the street, but that I still think gas should cost under $1 a gallon. I know full well that I'm still not paying the real price and that by the standards of much of the world it is still a bargain. Similarly, it bothers me that a bargain movie matinee is over five bucks, which is what I think full price should be. (Full price is up to nine bucks at the place I go to most often.) Of course, I don't comment on the things that are cheaper than they used to be - most electronics, for example. And I certainly don't complain about cheap airfares. (I've just bought a couple of tickets, one for a trip to the Bay Area when Robert will be there, another for a birthday excursion to Cooperstown.)

The thing that is even less what it used to be is packaging. I understand the extra layers of tamper-proofing I struggle with, since I'm old enough to remember the incidents that led to them. The tape holding CD jewel boxes closed is a greater annoyance, since it seems redundant with the nearly impenetrable plastic wrap they encase the jewel boxes in. But what really bothers me is that you can no longer get bandaids in metal boxes. I realize that the metal boxes are more expensive to manufacture and they're probably not all that environmentally saner, since people don't necessarily save and reuse them. But they were the perfect size to reuse for all sorts of odds and ends. I can't think of any products that come in nice small rectangular metal or plastic boxes in such a handy size. I fear the decline of film canisters some day. (Incidentally, a little known but useful fact is that a film canister is the same volume as a shot glass. This is quite handy to know should you ever find yourself in, say, the Namibian desert with a good supply of both film and amarula, but nothing to pour the latter into.)

I was going to have a cleaner segue to my other rant subject, but I couldn't quite persuade myself that metal bandaid boxes are actually more appropriate technology than cardboard ones. What prompted this part of the rant was an article in The Atlantic about personal aircraft. The premise was that the process of getting to an airport and waiting for your flight and getting a rental car at the other end is so onerous that the increased use of small planes that can use general aviation fields is inevitable. This was followed by discussion of advances in aircraft engineering which make private planes easier and safer to fly. The conclusion was that private planes are the way to go for trips under 500 miles.

The problem with this is that if private planes become that common for short trips, the associated air traffic delays will increase. And, of course, small planes are less weather-resistant. Furthermore, one still has to get to a general aviation airport and get a rental car at the other end and it isn't necessarily obvious that there is a general aviation field closer to one's departure and arrival points than a major commercial airport would be. (For example, short of having a seaplane at the ready, it is at least as long a drive from Farmingdale to my mother's house as it is from JFK.)

But the bigger issue is that the author of the article entirely ignored a far more appropriate solution. Namely, high speed rail. Since he's limiting the discussion to trips of under 500 miles, the advantages of rail are obvious. Even if we just talk about trains that use improved tracks, we can get to speeds two to three times those of a car. (Magnetic levitation technology would be faster, but its feasibility is still not really proven.) There are plenty of existing tracks to provide feeder lines to major city pairings. And the fuel economy (measured per passenger mile) is far better than either car or plane. The idea is hardly radical as the technology is well-utilized in Europe. (And, in fact, the trains between New York and Washington, D.C. are very successful.)

This struck me as a classic example of ignoring what all the alternatives are when creating arguments to justify the solution you prefer. The application of that principle to other areas of life (my life included) is left as an exercise to the reader.