Sometimes we fix by cannibalizing. Sometimes we repair by damaging. Sometimes we don’t understand the ramifications of our actions.
You know the expression about robbing Peter to pay Paul? In part, it’s an expression about our common dilemma of cross purposes.
Take beach preservation as an example. The movement of water in the surf zone generates a current called the longshore current that results in the transport of beach sands along a beach. Beaches, consequently, constantly undergo depletion and replenishment, but in some instances, the transport exceeds the replenishment. One way to preserve a beach is to build groynes, elongate rock barriers that jut out into the water perpendicularly to the beach’s edge. Another way to preserve a beach is to build little rock islands about where the waves begin to break. The groynes, which are rigid “hydrologic structures” capture some of the sands that move along the beach. The upcurrent side of the groynes can accumulate a crescent-shaped body of sands. The little rock “islands” absorb wave energy that moves sands and allow the buildup of a sandy connection called a tombolo on the beach-side. Both kinds of accumulations build up a local beach at the expense of a beach down-current. Robbed of its continuous supply of moving sediment, the down-current beach loses sands without replenishment. In other words, we can save one beach at the expense of another.
And now there’s an analog with respect to electric cars and highways. According to Jay L. Zagorsky, writing in Phys.org, using electric cars can make America’s highways worse. * Right now, the funding for highway maintenance comes from fuel taxes. With decreased use of fossil fuels, there will be fewer tax dollars to dole out to highway maintenance.
Of course, where’s there is a problem, some politician will suggest a solution. Maine has proposed a flat $250 fee for every electric vehicle. Smart, right? But not so good for the average vehicle owner in Maine, where the average fuel tax is just $82. So, those who choose electric vehicles to save money on fuel costs will pay more in taxes. Definitely a matter of robbing Pete. Go figure.
We are often faced with dilemmas that require tradeoffs. Sometimes the tradeoffs are no-brainers, such as paying for a military to protect the homeland at the expense of paying for some domestic program. No homeland because of war equates to no need for domestic programs. The reality of a world with threats requires a military to defend against those threats—one benefit cancels the other.
But the dilemmas can be more personal than beaches, highways, and armies. What of the dilemmas regarding matters like abortion? Is there a downside? I’ll give an example not tossed around by those on both sides of the debate: The justice system’s acceptance of DNA evidence.
Remember the OJ trial? It was termed by the Press the “trial of the century”—a highly debatable designation in light of the Nuremburg, Sacco and Vanzetti, and Lindbergh kidnapping trials of that century. Anyway, one of the core arguments of the prosecution in the OJ trial centered on DNA evidence that the jury apparently either didn’t understand or chose to ignore. But since that trial DNA evidence has become a key mechanism to prove guilt or innocence. How’s this related to abortion?
Well, the common argument on the side of prochoice proponents is that it is a “woman’s choice to do what she wants with her body.” That seems reasonable to the proponents, but it sets up a logical problem. How do we identify an individual as an exclusive individual? Why, DNA, of course. The woman’s DNA is hers and no one else’s, right? But then given a comparison of DNAs of mother and offspring, what can we say about the offspring’s DNA? Is it the same, or is it different? If it is different—it is—then the offspring is an individual in its (his, her) own right. The offspring has its own body if it has its own DNA.
Now jump forward in time and allow the offspring to become an adult accused of a crime. How can DNA evidence be valid if the individual isn’t an individual. According to the proponents of prochoice positions, the offspring has no guaranteed right to life because it is the “woman’s body.” So, if the offspring commits a crime years later, should we imprison the mother? Remember, the argument is that the offspring is the “woman’s body.”
So, let’s review. I can save my local beach at the expense of another’s beach. I can avoid fossil fuel use in my car at the expense of a tax increase and crumbling highways that inconvenience everyone, and I can abort an offspring at the expense of scientific evidence that is now apparently invalid, and in the process, thwart a potential conviction of a perpetrator.
*Zagorsky, Jay L. How electric cars could make America’s crumbling words even worse. The Conversation. Phys.org. February 25, 2019. Online at https://phys.org/news/2019-02-electric-cars-america-crumbling-roads.html Accessed on February 26, 2019.
You know the expression about robbing Peter to pay Paul? In part, it’s an expression about our common dilemma of cross purposes.
Take beach preservation as an example. The movement of water in the surf zone generates a current called the longshore current that results in the transport of beach sands along a beach. Beaches, consequently, constantly undergo depletion and replenishment, but in some instances, the transport exceeds the replenishment. One way to preserve a beach is to build groynes, elongate rock barriers that jut out into the water perpendicularly to the beach’s edge. Another way to preserve a beach is to build little rock islands about where the waves begin to break. The groynes, which are rigid “hydrologic structures” capture some of the sands that move along the beach. The upcurrent side of the groynes can accumulate a crescent-shaped body of sands. The little rock “islands” absorb wave energy that moves sands and allow the buildup of a sandy connection called a tombolo on the beach-side. Both kinds of accumulations build up a local beach at the expense of a beach down-current. Robbed of its continuous supply of moving sediment, the down-current beach loses sands without replenishment. In other words, we can save one beach at the expense of another.
And now there’s an analog with respect to electric cars and highways. According to Jay L. Zagorsky, writing in Phys.org, using electric cars can make America’s highways worse. * Right now, the funding for highway maintenance comes from fuel taxes. With decreased use of fossil fuels, there will be fewer tax dollars to dole out to highway maintenance.
Of course, where’s there is a problem, some politician will suggest a solution. Maine has proposed a flat $250 fee for every electric vehicle. Smart, right? But not so good for the average vehicle owner in Maine, where the average fuel tax is just $82. So, those who choose electric vehicles to save money on fuel costs will pay more in taxes. Definitely a matter of robbing Pete. Go figure.
We are often faced with dilemmas that require tradeoffs. Sometimes the tradeoffs are no-brainers, such as paying for a military to protect the homeland at the expense of paying for some domestic program. No homeland because of war equates to no need for domestic programs. The reality of a world with threats requires a military to defend against those threats—one benefit cancels the other.
But the dilemmas can be more personal than beaches, highways, and armies. What of the dilemmas regarding matters like abortion? Is there a downside? I’ll give an example not tossed around by those on both sides of the debate: The justice system’s acceptance of DNA evidence.
Remember the OJ trial? It was termed by the Press the “trial of the century”—a highly debatable designation in light of the Nuremburg, Sacco and Vanzetti, and Lindbergh kidnapping trials of that century. Anyway, one of the core arguments of the prosecution in the OJ trial centered on DNA evidence that the jury apparently either didn’t understand or chose to ignore. But since that trial DNA evidence has become a key mechanism to prove guilt or innocence. How’s this related to abortion?
Well, the common argument on the side of prochoice proponents is that it is a “woman’s choice to do what she wants with her body.” That seems reasonable to the proponents, but it sets up a logical problem. How do we identify an individual as an exclusive individual? Why, DNA, of course. The woman’s DNA is hers and no one else’s, right? But then given a comparison of DNAs of mother and offspring, what can we say about the offspring’s DNA? Is it the same, or is it different? If it is different—it is—then the offspring is an individual in its (his, her) own right. The offspring has its own body if it has its own DNA.
Now jump forward in time and allow the offspring to become an adult accused of a crime. How can DNA evidence be valid if the individual isn’t an individual. According to the proponents of prochoice positions, the offspring has no guaranteed right to life because it is the “woman’s body.” So, if the offspring commits a crime years later, should we imprison the mother? Remember, the argument is that the offspring is the “woman’s body.”
So, let’s review. I can save my local beach at the expense of another’s beach. I can avoid fossil fuel use in my car at the expense of a tax increase and crumbling highways that inconvenience everyone, and I can abort an offspring at the expense of scientific evidence that is now apparently invalid, and in the process, thwart a potential conviction of a perpetrator.
*Zagorsky, Jay L. How electric cars could make America’s crumbling words even worse. The Conversation. Phys.org. February 25, 2019. Online at https://phys.org/news/2019-02-electric-cars-america-crumbling-roads.html Accessed on February 26, 2019.
RSS Feed