When discussing small, specialty car makers such as Porsche, its important to remember that they produce very few cars and are just a drop in the bucket of fuel consumption. High powered sports cars and low volume specialty SUVs (such as the Hummer H1) are not the reason why the average fuel economy is so poor. A much more important reason for this problem is the shift to from midsize sedans to light trucks (SUVs, pick-ups) as the primary family vehicle. Collectively, the Ford Explorer and F150 are much worse for the environment than the 911 Turbo.

Another important aspect of this story, one that is almost entirely unmentioned in the popular media, is the rise in average horsepower among high-volume passenger vehicles. Over the past 20 years, the efficiency of the internal combustion engine has been improved remarkably. However, instead of using those improvements to increase fuel economy (while keeping horsepower down), the auto makers have boosted horsepower and kept fuel economy nearly constant. The average family sedan now has over 200 bhp.

Here is an example: According to Road and Track (5/06), a 2007 Toyota Camry with a 268 bhp V6 (the most popular engine choice for that vehicle) can go from 0 to 60 mph in 6.1 seconds! In the 1960's, this car would have been a hot rod! The testers at Road and Track observed an overall fuel economy of 26.3 mpg. 26 mpg is actually pretty remarkable for a car with 263 bhp. However, how much better would the gas mileage be if the car only had 180 or 200 bhp? That modest reduction would probably put the car at something close to 35 mpg, without sacrificing much acceleration.

Its easy (and popular) to blame the sport cars and hummers of the world for our current gas crisis. However, its untrue and intellectually sloppy to do so.

Farhad,

Have you not learned that its not acceptable to openly discuss any aspect of any Apple product in anything other than positive, glowing terms?

Sheesh.

As Cary said, this is THE question of our existence and its not surprising that you are fretting over it. Your concern about the purpose of life just means you have a brain in your head. The meaning of life is the “hot topic” of the ages and there is no shame in not having it all figured out, or in reconsidering your answer once and a while.

My answer to is question that there is no one purpose to life. Life just is. We exist and then we die. So, what we do with our lives is up to us. We can spend our lives finding a cure for cancer, sitting on the couch watching reruns of Seinfeld, or being a serial killer. No matter what we do, there is no "higher power" that will hold us to account for our actions.

So, what’s the point of it all? I’ve decided that I will try to live my own life according to the purposes I choose. For me, one purpose of life is to leave this place better than I found it, to reach out to others and society and to help. The world could be a much better place if everyone wasn’t worried more about the afterlife than what’s happening right now. If there is no God, then all we have is each other.

Another purpose is to enjoy my life while it lasts. This is not a dress rehearsal. We don’t get a second chance at life. The world is a wondrous place, filled with interesting people. Get out and enjoy it while you can. Put down that copy of “The Stranger.” Life is too short and it could be over sooner than you like.

Other people have found other purposes to life. One popular reason is to raise happy children into adults. Others are to make scientific, technological, intellectual, and/or artistic achievements.

What will your purpose in life be? You’ve already decided that there is no externally-motivated purpose to life. So, now it’s up to you to decide on your own purpose.

P.S. Don’t fall for the B.S. that says that religion is the philosophical root of morality. The opposite of religion is not hedonism. Also, don’t let the religious tell you that the confusion or angst you are feeling is a sign that you really do believe in God. They feel the confusion too, even if they wont admit it.

This sort of simplistic argument for why man-made CO2 isn't important is typical of the "flat-Earth" arguments against global warming. The CO2 trapped in ice-cores being magically and exactly 20% low is also typical B.S.

Camile, this is why you should educate yourself before you speak out on matters you don't understand. When speaking on science, it’s not good enough to just have an opinion based on a gut-level feeling, a long ago notion of maybe majoring in geology, or a childish dislike of someone's mannerisms (Al Gore). This might be good enough in art criticism (or whatever it is you actually do for a living), but it doesn't cut it in science. You just look like a guffawing fool.

It is possible for you to separate your dislike of Al Gore from the facts surrounding global warming? Once again, I challenge you to go to: http://www.ipcc.ch/ and actually learn something about global warming from the thousands of scientists who study it every day (without a political agenda) and have reached the consensus that it is occurring and that it is man made.

Once again, I must say that just being contrary is not the same as being smart, educated, thoughtful, or interesting.