Wired’s article about the nearing technical feasibility of self-driving cars makes several intriguing observations about the (possible) future of personal transportation:
Author Archives: legallysociable
Explaining opposition to new development
How the theft of the Mona Lisa helped make it an enduring cultural work
I stumbled upon this story again when looking for an example of cultural production for one of my classes. This is a fascinating tale: “How the Mona Lisa became the world’s most famous painting.”
Why the Washington Metro doesn’t yet reach Tysons Corner
As part of an argument that seems to really be about the difficulties of large-scale bureaucracies in responding to change, Michael Barone explore why the Washington Metro has had difficulty in reaching suburban destinations like Tysons Corner, the prototypical edge city.
Shopping malls as glamorous places in India
After fifty plus years of living with the shopping mall, perhaps they have simply become second nature to Americans. But, when they are built in places like India, it is fascinating to see how the mall fits into a different context:
Making “fake steak” socially acceptable
In an article about how “fake steak”/engineered meat may just be the solution to food problems in the world, a sociologist briefly discusses the social objections to the meat:
Sociologist: social media is not socially isolating
In a debate over the merits and consequences of living alone, sociologist Keith Hampton argues that social media is not socially isolating:
Gapers delays, rubbernecking all about group behavior
A social scientist suggests that the human propensity for rubbernecking is all about group behavior:
Turn your house into a billboard
Perhaps you have seen cars or trucks that have been turned into a billboard but what about a house? A marketing company thinks there is a niche here, particularly with homeowners who need some extra cash:
Someone finally says it: “Huge houses are morally wrong”
If you read enough about McMansions or mansions, you might get the idea that there is a moral dimension underlying the critiques. One commentator finally just comes out and explain this moral view: “huge houses are morally wrong.”
Which is to say, the rich are welcome to live well, but not ridiculously well. Aside from the hundreds of lives of poverty-stricken Bangladeshis or whatever that likely could have been saved had our nation’s billionaires deigned to downgrade from a massive mansion to a mere McMansion, the people, eventually, just won’t stand for it. Your monuments to excess will become beacons for the pitchfork-wielding mobs, rich folks.
Don’t be stupid. Or too greedy. Huge houses are immoral just like gold plated cars are immoral and massive private jets are immoral. Because you don’t need them, and the money you waste on them could actually save people’s lives. This is an ideal towards which we all need to strive; not buying a mall-sized home is the easiest possible way to adhere to it. You can save those starving peasants and afterwards you will still be rich. So do it. Or don’t complain when the raging poors finally rage onto you.
The moral basis of this argument is attributed to Peter Singer. The argument seems to be this: that money that was put toward the giant house could have been used for more good if it had been given to those who truly need it. It’s too bad we don’t see what Singer thinks is the “maximum wealth” someone should be able to hold onto. Interestingly, the argument cited above in the two summary paragraphs seems to be a little different: you shouldn’t have a big house because the masses will resent you and come get you. You can’t appear greedy as people will hold it against you. The difference in tone is between being able to help more people with the money you saved by not buying the huge house (positive) versus you had better not buy that big house because it will be taken away from you (negative).
Morally, what’s the biggest house you can/should have? Is this house too big while these houses are morally superior? Can the size or price of your house be mitigated by its features or what you do with it? Does it differ by region to adjust for cost of living? Does your profession matter or whether you acquired the money yourself or it is “old money”?
