What amazes me more and more often are general concepts that we all accept as something that goes without saying. I am talking ideas I was socialized with – and I used to believe them myself.
Mind you, this is regardless of the fact that, if you consider them reasonably, they get more and more doubtful. And you quickly realize that you definitely should question those concepts. Yet more often than not, you will not dare to contradict, because you do not wish to look stupid.
Here are two examples:
- Growth will solve the problems of our economy;
- Global trade will give us global wealth;
I am sure you will easily find more of those “totally-self-evident-concepts that are actually lies”.
Last autumn, I attended a philosophical workshop. It was about “lies made up to look like the truth”. Well, those “totally-self-evident concepts that are actually lies” could not have fitted more perfectly. Consequently, I described them in my presentation ( Vortrag) and also mentioned the problems I have with them.
The discussion about the following “totally-self-evident-concept that is actually a lie” was particularly exciting:
- Cars are something we cannot do without.
It came as quite a surprise to me how my anti-thesis
“It is quite possible to live without a car, in fact, you live better!”
polarized the group. Some of them reacted spontaneously by being outraged. My statement was very quickly called “total nonsense”. For some, the thesis was so absurd that they immediately got totally emotional. And I got really beaten up – so I was rather grateful to have a few of the seminarians (mostly younger ones) on my side.
Once again, the proverb that “things which hit home really make you concerned” was proved. And I also found that a car is mainly an emotional product.
The counter-arguments of the “indignant” party were based on three tracks of thought.
First, there were arguments such as:
It is not possible, because you just have too little time. How is anybody supposed to manage his or her life without a car?
This kind of argument is easy to prove wrong. If you balance everything properly, you will quickly gain time by doing without a car. Time that can be used for more important things. You gain liberty, many burdens and duties are gone.
By using your bike, you gain physical advantages for which you would otherwise have to spend plenty of time.
Public transportation supports the “lazy managers”, because they can use the time sitting in the trains for constructive work – or else for being at leisure.
You will have less stress, your social isolation dwindles. The positive results of a car-free life are inner stability, less deceleration and a higher degree of contentedness.
The second line of arguments among my adversaries went like this:
Without cars, our industry, our general wealth and our society will collapse.
This is also an argument that is easy to find counter-arguments against:
Innovation is creative demolition. Innovation and demolition are siblings that always have to go together. No matter if creative or not.
And change – especially in industry – is something quite normal. After all, industries come and go. Just like enterprises and firms disappear and new ones rise.
Especially in the mobility industry, it is quite easy to imagine substitute industries that at least create jobs. All you have to do is let your imagination go freely – and more than enough ideas will come to mind.
There is always industrial change. So far, however, it was never detrimental for the economic development. And there has always been the demolition of jobs. But what happened? Eventually there were always more than before.
As a third, very personal argument, someone said:
I would have to move!
Well, this is a hard one. If you actually want to do without a car, you might in some cases be forced to move. And this might well be a very huge sacrifice.
But what was it I heard our Lord Mayor of Munich, Christian Ude, say on an open council meeting where the third runway for Munich airport was discusses:
In our times, nobody can demand for himself to live in the same place all his or her life long.
This sentence caused another uproar. Well, when we are talking an additional runway at the airport, I understand this outrage quite well.
But still, I am afraid Christian Ude is correct. Even if the third runway is a rather poor example for backing my theory. If mobility gets restricted, some people will have to move. To me, it sounds plausible.
But some people will probably just be physical hermits and only live in cyberspace.
RMD
(Translated by EG)
Loading ...