Trump is against everyone having an electric car
- Thread starter KevinJ
- Start date
To play devil's advocate, I have no offspring. I don't give a shit what happens to the people left here when I die. I don't even know any of them, beyond being my neighbors.
S'truth. Fossil fuels, electric vehicles, self driving automobiles -- whatever man. Just move my body where I want it to go easily and I'll use whatever I can get my hands on readily (and legally). Why do you guys care so damn much about it? Sincere question.
My perspective is similar to some extent - I really dont want to control what happens to future people, but why make their situation worse by greed and stupidity of current inhabitants of the world?
I don't think we deserve all the planet's resources, I don't believe that God made the Earth subservient to human (even when there are some claims that he said so..). We don't own the place so we should leave it in not worse condition than we received it.
But i'm afraid greed is stronger than anything else. And there's just plain greed (let's ignore everything and everyone, just make more money), and greed disguised as effort to limit the damage to the planet (guess where Cybertruck belongs).
And there's also pure-human factor, organized socio-economical system for past generations to control the lives of future generations - here I mean all the laws and regulations that allow rich people to get some privileges much beyond their needs and at the cost of exclusion of other people, and maintain these privileges even after death. Real estate, land ownership is a good example - is having money a really justified reason to take bigger part of the planet than anyone else? Should the whole place be owned by just few rich clans, forever? The sacred law of possession is seen as the cornerstone of modern and prosperous nations, but few really dare to point out that this happens at the cost of other, not-so-prosperous or not-so-lucky, people, and big part of the setup is to keep them excluded and paying the rent forever.
I don't think we deserve all the planet's resources, I don't believe that God made the Earth subservient to human (even when there are some claims that he said so..). We don't own the place so we should leave it in not worse condition than we received it.
But i'm afraid greed is stronger than anything else. And there's just plain greed (let's ignore everything and everyone, just make more money), and greed disguised as effort to limit the damage to the planet (guess where Cybertruck belongs).
And there's also pure-human factor, organized socio-economical system for past generations to control the lives of future generations - here I mean all the laws and regulations that allow rich people to get some privileges much beyond their needs and at the cost of exclusion of other people, and maintain these privileges even after death. Real estate, land ownership is a good example - is having money a really justified reason to take bigger part of the planet than anyone else? Should the whole place be owned by just few rich clans, forever? The sacred law of possession is seen as the cornerstone of modern and prosperous nations, but few really dare to point out that this happens at the cost of other, not-so-prosperous or not-so-lucky, people, and big part of the setup is to keep them excluded and paying the rent forever.
Last edited:
The Toecutter
100 kW
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2015
- Messages
- 1,417
I personally think that fossil fuel caused global warming has potential to go into a runaway state to where the Earth will eventually become uninhabitable to human life. I think the scientists' estimates are generally overly conservative so as not to generate panic. But it speaks volumes, whether a position promotes the belief of anthropogenic global warming or not, that:
1) Fossil fuel companies knew this and kept the findings hidden from the public, while BP invented the concept of the carbon footprint to shift the blame to the individual person that buys its products instead of itself
2) Knowing this, the fossil fuel companies lobbied governments to prevent necessary changes to address this that would have resulted in less profits
3) Governments themselves generally have intentionally maximized resource consumption to boost GDP as part of policy decisions, especially through wars, but also through regulations that promote planned obsolescence and through hostile opposition to automobile alternatives that would reduce consumption associated with them
4) Both fossil fuel corporations and governments destroy careers or/cancel/sometimes murder dissenting voices to the reigning dogma dujour
5) Both fossil fuel companies and governments have engaged in fraud to derive the statistics they claim as facts
The fact is, wasting resources and energy makes a small group of obscenely rich people yet more money. And that sacred cow is never allowed to be on the chopping block to solve the issue. No, people must be forced to sacrifice their quality of life instead, so that the rich can remain rich and get richer, OR the other choice we are given is eventual planetary destruction.
It says something about a class of people that wants to cram us into 15 minute smart cities, force us to eat bugs and synthetic nutritionally void GMO slop, live in cramped pods, have our location data constantly monitored and our access to places contingent upon the whims of bureaucrats, and not own anything to "save the planet", while this same class of people rides around in private jets using more fuel on a weekend trip across the Atlantic than your average wasteful American will use in 2 years, rides around in yachts for an afternoon joy ride using more fossil fuels than a McMansion dweller in Maine will use all winter to keep their house at 80F, uses more electricity to heat their pool for a weekend party than the aforementioned McMansion dweller will use in an entire year, consumes exotic food with a 20,000+ mile chain of transport for all the ingredients, and who owns collections of exotic supercars while at the same time want you to give up your lone clunker car. And all of that wealth thy "earned" was off the backs of working people that they underpaid and from everyone who lost savings to inflation while they manipulated the money supply to benefit themselves by blowing asset bubbles.
Should we really take seriously and follow any edicts or mandates enforced by the government that were written and lobbied into place by the above self-serving hypocrites? I would say no.
Want to save the planet? You start with a policy that cuts off the endless flow of money/resources to the rich and to wasteful government spending. Do this by building products that provide maximum lifespan and reparability and minimum resource/energy consumption for the level of utility and function desired. Decentralize industrial production, especially that of food, but really for all major consumable items. Stop cancelling people because they don't agree with the establishment and let their voices be heard. Stop wasting resources on unnecessary wars, and on spying on everyone. Stop allowing debasement of fiat currencies, so that instead a policies allowing more wealth to flow to working people and people on fixed incomes can succeed, while preventing the formation of asset bubbles that prevent working people from owning anything. Stop allowing rich people to rip off working people via employment by manipulating the labor market, and by removing government hurdles to self employment.
Taxes and profit margins are really two sides of the same coin. That is money that you worked for, using your limited time on this Earth, that gets confiscated from you. That money gets concentrated into places that are far too tempting for greedy opportunists to ignore, and they get rich off of it, at your and everyone's expense. This imbalance is arguably the largest driver in wasteful resource usage and the pollution and greenhouse gases generated by it. Not only do many current proposals to "save the environment" deliberately exacerbate this imbalance and allow the same hands to take more out of the cookie jar, but no one even got a vote on any of it.
EVs definitely fit into this. They have the potential to cut resource consumption per mile travelled to a very tiny fraction of what it currently is, at least for ground transport. The current market offerings of EVs do the opposite, because extra consumption is what extracts money from people. Modern EVs are a product of government regulations written by the car industry and forced onto the consumer via government coupled with intentional planned obsolescence by the auto industry itself. Those in power have turned a beneficial technology on its head into something environmentally disastrous and too expensive for people of ordinary means to afford, just to make yet more money, and we weren't allowed to have it until that became possible. That money comes from you and I, and they don't deserve it.
I'm doing my part. 100+ miles/kWh. Untaxed. Unregistered. Unlicensed. Uninsured. Screw them all.
1) Fossil fuel companies knew this and kept the findings hidden from the public, while BP invented the concept of the carbon footprint to shift the blame to the individual person that buys its products instead of itself
2) Knowing this, the fossil fuel companies lobbied governments to prevent necessary changes to address this that would have resulted in less profits
3) Governments themselves generally have intentionally maximized resource consumption to boost GDP as part of policy decisions, especially through wars, but also through regulations that promote planned obsolescence and through hostile opposition to automobile alternatives that would reduce consumption associated with them
4) Both fossil fuel corporations and governments destroy careers or/cancel/sometimes murder dissenting voices to the reigning dogma dujour
5) Both fossil fuel companies and governments have engaged in fraud to derive the statistics they claim as facts
The fact is, wasting resources and energy makes a small group of obscenely rich people yet more money. And that sacred cow is never allowed to be on the chopping block to solve the issue. No, people must be forced to sacrifice their quality of life instead, so that the rich can remain rich and get richer, OR the other choice we are given is eventual planetary destruction.
It says something about a class of people that wants to cram us into 15 minute smart cities, force us to eat bugs and synthetic nutritionally void GMO slop, live in cramped pods, have our location data constantly monitored and our access to places contingent upon the whims of bureaucrats, and not own anything to "save the planet", while this same class of people rides around in private jets using more fuel on a weekend trip across the Atlantic than your average wasteful American will use in 2 years, rides around in yachts for an afternoon joy ride using more fossil fuels than a McMansion dweller in Maine will use all winter to keep their house at 80F, uses more electricity to heat their pool for a weekend party than the aforementioned McMansion dweller will use in an entire year, consumes exotic food with a 20,000+ mile chain of transport for all the ingredients, and who owns collections of exotic supercars while at the same time want you to give up your lone clunker car. And all of that wealth thy "earned" was off the backs of working people that they underpaid and from everyone who lost savings to inflation while they manipulated the money supply to benefit themselves by blowing asset bubbles.
Should we really take seriously and follow any edicts or mandates enforced by the government that were written and lobbied into place by the above self-serving hypocrites? I would say no.
Want to save the planet? You start with a policy that cuts off the endless flow of money/resources to the rich and to wasteful government spending. Do this by building products that provide maximum lifespan and reparability and minimum resource/energy consumption for the level of utility and function desired. Decentralize industrial production, especially that of food, but really for all major consumable items. Stop cancelling people because they don't agree with the establishment and let their voices be heard. Stop wasting resources on unnecessary wars, and on spying on everyone. Stop allowing debasement of fiat currencies, so that instead a policies allowing more wealth to flow to working people and people on fixed incomes can succeed, while preventing the formation of asset bubbles that prevent working people from owning anything. Stop allowing rich people to rip off working people via employment by manipulating the labor market, and by removing government hurdles to self employment.
Taxes and profit margins are really two sides of the same coin. That is money that you worked for, using your limited time on this Earth, that gets confiscated from you. That money gets concentrated into places that are far too tempting for greedy opportunists to ignore, and they get rich off of it, at your and everyone's expense. This imbalance is arguably the largest driver in wasteful resource usage and the pollution and greenhouse gases generated by it. Not only do many current proposals to "save the environment" deliberately exacerbate this imbalance and allow the same hands to take more out of the cookie jar, but no one even got a vote on any of it.
EVs definitely fit into this. They have the potential to cut resource consumption per mile travelled to a very tiny fraction of what it currently is, at least for ground transport. The current market offerings of EVs do the opposite, because extra consumption is what extracts money from people. Modern EVs are a product of government regulations written by the car industry and forced onto the consumer via government coupled with intentional planned obsolescence by the auto industry itself. Those in power have turned a beneficial technology on its head into something environmentally disastrous and too expensive for people of ordinary means to afford, just to make yet more money, and we weren't allowed to have it until that became possible. That money comes from you and I, and they don't deserve it.
I'm doing my part. 100+ miles/kWh. Untaxed. Unregistered. Unlicensed. Uninsured. Screw them all.
Last edited:
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
Misses the big one: Food.
Absolutely no way to feed 8.1 Billion people today without fossil fuels. From working the farm, chemicals like weed and insect control and fertilizers, transport, refrigeration, packaging... most of us would starve.
Close to 100% of human societies have been in this position since the beginning of written history via one form of subjugation or another.
And it's always held together by mind games. This video explains that game:
Unfortunately most people today.. instead of rejecting the game.. they play into it and believe using political means to 'fix the system from the inside' is the answer.. and it results in an incredible amount of energy usually going nowhere... and nothing changed about the exploitative nature of the game.
The rulers love it when their subjects are broken up into two sides and spend most of their time/energy squabbling amongst each other. Today that takes the form of endless partisan political debates on the internet.
In most cases, in order to see any change in the game, a massive amount of the game's players must reject the validity of the game or it's players. Most people don't like anarchy, so they will immediately replace one form of subjugation with another.
The cycle will continue until there's a mass change in conscience or circumstances. Don't expect anything different.
Like the toecutter, i take action on my beliefs and ideals, understanding that, only for legal purposes is government my master, and, it is unreasonable to ever expect them to do the right thing. Instead, it's my job to do the right thing ( voluntarily live an ecologically low impact lifestyle, among other things )
That's included in the list i posted. And yes, some >66% of the food we produce today is thanks to scientific discoveries and oil.
Our civilization rests on it.. we live in the information and oil age!
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
The most objective data shows it is probably not human activity. Mars is, fundamentally, the same as Earth in planetology terms . Small rocky, thin atmosphere, ice caps, etc.
And amazingly, because we can see mars in it's entirety for centuries, we have a better record of the ice caps of Mars than we do of Earth.
Huygens 1659
Lowell, 1905
Today, NASA:
So with NO HUMANS at ALL, our sister planet shows expanding and retreating icecaps. Which means at least a significant part of what is going on is external to Earth. Probably changes in the output of that big yellow ball.
We should be good stewards of the Earth, but we should also be aware of the science and what we can control and what we can't.
Hillhater
100 TW
…..and real science supports the same view .
the problem is sourcing the “real” science, and recognising the “fake” science that is used by various partys to push their own agenda
Chalo
100 TW
They told you to eat the poo, and you ate it. Congratulations. Fortunately the rest of us will move on without you.
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
One man's poo is another man's Mac and Cheese
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
There is a protocol for good science. Most of the climate change "science" does not fall into the protocol. Much of it is modelling, and the models have a horrible failure rate.
Hillhater
100 TW
And much of it is based on unproven “Theory’s” which fail basic scientific verification..
Such as exactly what % of atmospheric CO2 (420 ppm) is actually from anthropogenic/ Ffuel sources ?
I choose my own diet, …if you swallowed all that the IPCC/Gore etc forces on you, then maybe its you with a bad taste in your mouth ?
Hummina Shadeeba
10 MW
So we’re all on the same page: trump admits he lost the 2020 election
Unrelated but worth knowing.
Unrelated but worth knowing.
What's the solution? Population reduction?
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
Well, that is more of the *outcome* than the solution...
There is no real solution. Keep using oil until we crack fusion or some other technology and we can fix nitrogen right out of the air.
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
LewTwo
1 MW
Affirmative.
The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 8.1 billion in 2024. Unfortunately most economic models are based on a constantly expanding population. There is (that we know of) this one small planet suitable for our life form. If the human race destroys it by breeding like rabbits then there no place else to move to. Captain Kirk is not going to come along and bail us out.
Hummina Shadeeba
10 MW
I just found out trump had changed his mind. Seems a big deal considering the years he said it was stolen, the attack on the capitol, and all the trump fans who believed him. Did you know trump changed his mind?
Last edited:
Superb_Raccoon
1 W
What does it matter? You think anyone who is going to vote for him will change their mind? Or that anyone who wasn't going to vote for him is going to change their mind?
Nope. It is just noise and no signal.
Hummina Shadeeba
10 MW
I’m exposed to hoards of trump fans still raging about a supposedly stolen election. I think it does matter there’s no evidence of a stolen election and even trump is no longer saying there is.
In recent interviews ( 2 days ago ), Trump has continued the 'stolen election' language.
I agree, it doesn't matter. In USA politics the losing party always makes that claim.
What's it got to do with EVs.. we just had Trump's opposition signing of on a ban of the most economical ones.. if you think one candidate is better than the other for EVs, i got a bridge to sell ya..
I agree, it doesn't matter. In USA politics the losing party always makes that claim.
What's it got to do with EVs.. we just had Trump's opposition signing of on a ban of the most economical ones.. if you think one candidate is better than the other for EVs, i got a bridge to sell ya..
Hummina Shadeeba
10 MW
I can’t think of any other time the losing presidential candidate claimed the opposition cheated and didn’t concede soon after the results of the election. It’s not a political position but an assault on democracy when that happens. Now we have half the country believing everything is rigged and they don’t trust their own government
Last edited:
JackFlorey
100 kW
Yeah, my impression that Harris is very much for them, but for Trump it's below his event horizon. If he thinks about them at all he just blurts out whatever is on his mind, but he spends zero time thinking about them. If he just talked to Musk he'll say something positive, and if he just talked to Vance he'll say something negative.
JackFlorey
100 kW
Eh, he'll change his mind tomorrow and claim he never said that.
