GDE guys - question on EGR delete...

Its NOT a choice, its a law.
And following a law is a choice. Occasionally I don't agree with a law, and I choose not to follow it.

We have an exponential growth of human population. Everything else aside - lowering the human population is the most important thing that humankind can do for the earth, and for it's own continued existence. To say that this isn't THE issue is asinine.

Until a government steps up and rightly proclaims the glaring obvious, then it makes almost no difference if we keep these emission systems on our vehicles. So why hassle this guy?

These systems, recycling, not watering your lawn quite as much, are just a spectacle. They cause a lot of furor, chest pounding, back patting, hand shaking, and raised noses, but that's all they do. They don't resolve anything, they actually detract from a genuine solution.

If I had the issues that so many of the people in these GDE threads have, I'd make the obvious choice.

I'm fairly sure that most of the GDE shamers have a substantially larger carbon footprint than the overwhelming majority of the world's citizens, and probably more than the average American. If someone wants to remove their crap emission system because they don't have unlimited time and funds to dump into it, it's their decision. But let's not pretend like a few people removing their emissions equipment makes any difference at all.

Want to make a difference? Start by reducing your own carbon footprint.

 

Attachments

Last edited:

sajohnson

'09 View/08 3500 chassis
And following a law is a choice. Occasionally I don't agree with a law, and I choose not to follow it.

We have an exponential growth of human population. Everything else aside - lowering the human population is the most important thing that humankind can do for the earth, and for it's own continued existence. To say that this isn't THE issue is asinine.

Until a government steps up and rightly proclaims the glaring obvious, then it makes almost no difference if we keep these emission systems on our vehicles. So why hassle this guy?

These systems, recycling, not watering your lawn quite as much, are just a spectacle. They cause a lot of furor, chest pounding, back patting, hand shaking, and raised noses, but that's all they do. They don't resolve anything, they actually detract from a genuine solution.

If I had the issues that so many of the people in these GDE threads have, I'd make the obvious choice.

I'm fairly sure that most of the GDE shamers have a substantially larger carbon footprint than the overwhelming majority of the world's citizens, and probably more than the average American. If someone wants to remove their crap emission system because they don't have unlimited time and funds to dump into it, it's their decision. But let's not pretend like a few people removing their emissions equipment makes any difference at all.

Want to make a difference? Start by reducing your own carbon footprint.
Great post!

Whether or not a Sprinter owner gets the GDE ECO tune pales in comparison with overpopulation and the fact that there are almost 3 billion people in India and China alone who aspire to a "Western" lifestyle.

Glass houses...
 

sajohnson

'09 View/08 3500 chassis
God help us. I guess we really are screwed.
If we continue in our current direction, the human race is certainly screwed but people choosing to disregard a law occasionally is not a major factor in our destruction.

I'm not suggesting that 'laws were made to be broken' or promoting anarchy, but if we are honest, we would all have to admit to violating the law at least a few times in our lives:

* Exceeding the posted speed limit, even by 2-3 mph is breaking the law -- not to mention possibly creating more pollution.
* Underage drinking -- even a sip of beer one day before your 21st birthday -- is a violation of the law.
* Traveling across state lines to purchase fireworks or evade the excise tax on cigarettes in your state.
* Hunting out of season.
* Using any "controlled dangerous substance" (CDS).
* Failure to turn on headlights when windshield wipers are required (some states).
* Jaywalking.
* Walking your dog where doing so is prohibited.
* Smoking a cigarette in Central Park in NYC -- even if there is no one else in sight.
* Etc, etc.

Almost all laws are well-intentioned, but the consequences of violating them vary tremendously. For example -- we'd all agree that running red lights = dangerous and stupid. But let's say a motorist pulls up to a red light at 3 am and it remains red for several minutes. It appears to be broken. S/he can see clearly in all directions that there are no vehicles approaching the intersection so they carefully proceed thru -- treating it as a flashing red. "Illegal"? You bet. Is that person a scofflaw who deserves to be issued a citation? I'd say no.

Some laws are silly -- relics from 150 years ago, like 'mule carts are prohibited within town limits on Sundays' or whatever -- but they are still laws.

Some laws clearly should never be broken -- like the violations of banking regulations that led to the financial collapse of 2008 and the resulting "Great Recession".

To a greater or lesser degree, humans are greedy, selfish, shortsighted, and/or stupid. Therefore, they will almost certainly destroy the earth's ability to support human life.

Overpopulation is the root cause of almost all of our serious problems -- aquifers running dry, renewable and nonrenewable resource depletion, starvation, wars, pollution, traffic congestion, etc. If humans remain on this path -- and there are no signs that they will not -- there will likely be wars over water, energy, and food.

All of that could be avoided if our population was reduced to a sustainable level, but we are constantly fed the lie that 'growth is good!', 'grow or die!'. Our economy is build on infinite growth which requires more and more people. Infinite growth on a finite planet is clearly impossible, but people in most countries are encouraged (thru tax breaks, subsidized health insurance, etc) to have more children.

Faced with those overwhelming problems, whether or not someone reprograms the ECU in their vehicle, thereby increasing emissions of one pollutant while decreasing others, is about as much of a concern as someone using one ounce more lighter fluid than they needed to on their charcoal.

In short, there are shades of grey, and the ECO tune is way down toward the white end of the scale.

It's important to put things in perspective.
 

jvvjvv

2008 V6 Dodge 2500 Agile
http://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c

It's important to put things in perspective.

I almost never debate "stuff" on the internet, as usually there is a 50/50........or 60/40 or so split. Just look at our past several elections :hmmm::hmmm:

Is the world flat or round.............(highly debated just a few centuries ago) ...........Smoking a joint........Probably 90/10 against in the 60's............now???
 
Last edited:

avanti

2022 Ford Transit 3500
if we are honest, we would all have to admit to violating the law at least a few times in our lives
I repeat, it is not a choice. You don't get to decide.

If you don't agree with a law, you have two ethical choices:
1) Obey it anyway while working to get it changed.
2) Engage in civil disobedience, which means to publicly and flagrantly disobey it with the intent of being arrested as an act of speech.
Anything else is either anarchy or narcissism, depending on whether you believe you are the only one so-entitled. "Everybody does it" is a pathetic argument.

I don't even know how to communicate with someone who does not accept the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
Over and out.
 

smiller

2008 View J (2007 NCV3 3500)
If you don't agree with a law, you have two ethical choices:
1) Obey it anyway while working to get it changed.
2) Engage in civil disobedience, which means to publicly and flagrantly disobey it with the intent of being arrested as an act of speech.
Anything else is either anarchy or narcissism, depending on whether you believe you are the only one so-entitled. "Everybody does it" is a pathetic argument.
I understand what you are saying and it is an accurate description of legal theory, but I think others are trying to point out the difference between the theoretical and the practical. In theory, yes, the two ethical choices are either following the law or civil disobedience (and yes, 'civil disobedience' does not mean 'I break the law when I want to' ;) But for example, do you never knowingly exceed the speed limit? Or if you do, do you only do it when passing a LEO and as flagrantly as possible in an attempt to get cited? Or are you unethical? It is not only possible to both believe in the rule of law and yet still allow for minor transgressions, it is a practical necessity in the real world.

.
 
Last edited:

sajohnson

'09 View/08 3500 chassis
I repeat, it is not a choice. You don't get to decide.

If you don't agree with a law, you have two ethical choices:
1) Obey it anyway while working to get it changed.
2) Engage in civil disobedience, which means to publicly and flagrantly disobey it with the intent of being arrested as an act of speech.
Anything else is either anarchy or narcissism, depending on whether you believe you are the only one so-entitled. "Everybody does it" is a pathetic argument.

I don't even know how to communicate with someone who does not accept the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
Over and out.
Well said.

My primary point was not, "All the other kids are doing it" but rather that we should put things in perspective.

The concern regarding 'tunes' for vehicles is the potential negative impact on the environment. The fact that a regulation is violated is secondary -- at least that's the impression I get from those on this thread who oppose tuning.

That being the case, it helps to put it in perspective.

As citizens of a 'Western'/developed country, we all create way more than our share of environmental impact -- large air conditioned/heated homes; huge SUVs and pickup trucks; motor boats; jet skis; motorcycles; snowmobiles; ATVs; RVs; food shipped from across the country and around the world; rampant consumerism; products that are designed to be thrown away; coal-fired power plants; huge landfills and incinerators; cruise ships and airliners; and on and on.

If a few owners reprogram the ECU in their vehicle in a manner that increases one pollutant but decreases the others, that's hardly worth mentioning, let alone fixating on. It's all but inconsequential.

As was pointed out by another forum member, what we should be talking about is our overall impact on the environment. It's always tempting to focus on something others may be doing that does not apply to ourselves, but no one here has zero impact. In fact, I'd guess that many of those who are upset about the GDE ECO tune are doing more harm than those they are criticising. "Sure, the electricity for my huge hot tub comes from a coal-fired power plant, b-b-but -- look at that guy over there! He's *really* bad!

As for 'everyone is doing it', can you honestly say that you have never once violated any law, rule, or regulation? Ever?

If so, you are a rare individual indeed. My point in mentioning that wasn't that 'two wrongs make a right' but that it is hypocritical for anyone who has ever broken the law (which is essentially everyone) to act holier than thou and criticize others for doing the same.

Disregarding one regulation is a far cry from "not accepting the rule of law as a fundamental principle". It's not as if Sprinter owners who have the ECO tune are running around raping, robbing, murdering, and looting.

There are shades of grey, degrees, and extenuating circumstances, which our justice system itself recognizes.

Almost everyone has *decided* to violate the law at some point, and most continue to throughout their lives. To scold others because we have justified whatever lawbreaking we do while condemning their actions is presumptuous.

"Glass houses" and "He who is without sin" both apply here.
 
Last edited:

sajohnson

'09 View/08 3500 chassis
I understand what you are saying and it is an accurate description of legal theory, but I think others are trying to point out the difference between the theoretical and the practical. In theory, yes, the two ethical choices are either following the law or civil disobedience (and yes, 'civil disobedience' does not mean 'I break the law when I want to' ;) But for example, do you never knowingly exceed the speed limit? Or if you do, do you only do it when passing a LEO and as flagrantly as possible in an attempt to get cited? Or are you unethical? It is not only possible to both believe in the rule of law and yet still allow for minor transgressions, it is a practical necessity in the real world.

.
Or I could have written what smiller did...

Well said and concise.
 
I repeat, it is not a choice. You don't get to decide.

If you don't agree with a law, you have two ethical choices:
1) Obey it anyway while working to get it changed.
2) Engage in civil disobedience, which means to publicly and flagrantly disobey it with the intent of being arrested as an act of speech.
Anything else is either anarchy or narcissism, depending on whether you believe you are the only one so-entitled. "Everybody does it" is a pathetic argument.

I don't even know how to communicate with someone who does not accept the rule of law as a fundamental principle.
Over and out.
It is a choice; I do get to decide. "Everyone does it" is indeed a pathetic argument. I sense some cognitive dissonance, and I'm also inclined to believe that you've never read Civil Disobedience ...

----

I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion.

Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.

Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

If the state has a true and useful purpose, then why should it care if some do not participate? That is the next step in government, one where consent is required.

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to— for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well— is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it.

- Henry David Thoreau
 
"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right." - HDT

As I've said in two different GDE threads: Occasionally I don't agree with a law, and I choose not to follow it. I sleep in my van every night. That is against the law. I'm certainly not going to get myself arrested over it, though that is the penalty in SF, but I will do what I think is right. For me, that is living a simple and environmentally responsible life. I have very little impact living this way. That it's a crime is ridiculous, and I'll cast my vote with my actions.

If you feel morally okay owning a large home, a few cars, a luxury diesel RV, several children, etc, then cool. None of my business. That's your decision.

But if you believe yourself to be morally superior because your unnecessary luxury RV is brand new, and the emission equipment functions perfectly, and you're not relying on it to get you from point A to B, and even though it is most likely more damaging to the environment, but legal, to build an entirely new vehicle and ship it over here and throw the old one out to scrap rather than keep it in service by altering the emission equipment, then you are an inconsiderate ideolog.

As I said in my first post to this thread - the planet, and it's inhabitants are all in trouble unless the government's start stating the facts and encouraging a population reduction. But, since that's not happening anytime soon, since you yourself have a tremendous carbon footprint relative to the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants on this planet, it seems impertinent to be telling others what to do with vehicles that they rely on.
 

Seber

Member
As for 'everyone is doing it' said:
I will go one step further and say that if you tell me you have never violated any law or regulation, you are a liar. Further yet, calling others wrong in doing so makes you a hypocrite.
 

vnvet

Member
I will go one step further and say that if you tell me you have never violated any law or regulation, you are a liar. Further yet, calling others wrong in doing so makes you a hypocrite.
There needs to be a RANTS AND RAVES section here. Like Craigslist has for those needing to chastise others wanting to do things to their vehicles others disagree with. Keeping to the topic with discussion and advice and sharing knowledge and experiences is what the forums should be for.

Unfortunately though, like most forums, peeps just gotta through out their .02 worth of SxxT that nobody wants to read.
 

Top Bottom