Columnist George F. Will doesn't seem to like passenger trains. In a recent Newsweek column he criticizes President Obama's plans for high-speed rail projects around the country.

Although Will might have been able to make a (short-term) case against trains by concentrating on the project's cost, instead he makes the loopy charge that Obama's real goal -- and the goal of progressives everywhere -- is "the modification of (other people's) behavior," and to get people out of their "subversive" automobiles. Making such a far-fetched suggestion of a greater progressive conspiracy reminds me of the equally loopy argument used by proponents of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), that the only possible reasons for being against GMOs must be either Luddism or some religious belief.

The main problem with Will's argument -- other than trying to further the myth that progressives are for behavior modification on the (inter)national scale -- is that he is not taking the long-term view; he makes the assumption that in 10 years, let's say, the world will be the same and there's no need to plan ahead for a changing planet.

A recent article in the Swiss Beobachter magazine called The Auto of the Future (in German) reviewed four examples of research in Switzerland to make lighter and more fuel-efficient autos. It's an example of technologists concentrating on one isolated problem (how to propel cars more efficiently) instead of taking the longer view (how does the steadily growing number of automobiles affect our quality of life). I wrote the following Letter to the Editor in response:

I always get frustrated when I drive to Geneva and it takes forever to find a parking place. The folks at scifi.com appear to have found a solution to my problem. Go to their downloads page and view the short TRANSFORMER video. QuickTime is required.

(For those of us in dead-end jobs, the HUMAN SUIT video may offer a ray of hope.)

Fareed Zakaria is justifiably enthusiastic about hybrid automobile technology in his article Imagine: 500 Miles Per Gallon. He explains how much of the technology necessary to reach mileage ratings of 500 miles per gallon (MPG) is already available, waiting to be put into use, and how our future cars will be plugged in overnight to recharge the batteries, not unlike our mobile phones and iPods. He says, "Hybrid technology is the answer to the petroleum problem."

But not once does he mention "changing our driving habits" as a complementary option to help reduce fuel consumption. Whether intentional or not, and although the article is about hybrids, this omission reinforces the pro-technology myth that we in the developed world can continue to live our lives of relative luxury (and considerable destructiveness) with a clear conscience, trusting with blind faith that technology will solve our problems.

Solving the "petroleum problem" will not solve the "automobile problem." A 500 MPG hybrid car will not reduce the more than one million annual traffic fatalities world-wide. A 1,000 MPG hybrid car will not reduce congestion and the countless hours wasted in traffic jams. Even a solar-powered car, running on 100% renewable energy, will not reduce the urban sprawl (first made possible by automobiles) and its negative effect on quality of life. And based on current trends in population growth and rising living standards, these problems are likely to get much worse unless we -- individuals and governments -- are willing to rethink how we use cars.