3 ms·

I mean, one of the interesting changes that's soon happening is the transition from ICE to electric cars. I think the core issue is the concept of cars themselv

I mean, one of the interesting changes that's soon happening is the transition from ICE to electric cars. I think the core issue is the concept of cars themselves. Storing them all over the road (they are everywhere!), people using them for very short journeys, their accessibility/cheapness to practically anyone and how much our society relies on them each and every day, even at the cost of the beloved hedgehogs which are being squished day in, day out (or badgers/roadkill I see frequently, they just can't compete with our death machines). Electric cars will rapidly slow the pace of life down; with them taking longer to charge, adaptions will be required since you can't fill them in in 2 minutes like an ICE car. Yet, I am not convinced shifting the burden to electricity completely solves the equation; the demand for battery production and development, the depletion of the batteries and mining for lithium itself is just shifting the problem elsewhere. Humans need to drive less, consume less and expect less. Yet the global economy is based on consumption; as I write this comment on my computer consuming internet/electricity, buying food (relying on transport for that!) etc etc. 8 billion humans is not compatible with "nature", we've overtaken nature. Our species must be limited to a maximum population and the rest be culled; we did it with the minks due to Covid-19. Then again, suggesting we cull humans is seen as barbaric but cutting the heads off billions of chickens is okay, apparently, so people can drive to McDonald's and get their 5 nuggets because "capitalism". McDonald's should be illegal if we are to take nature seriously, yet no human wants to make sacrifices "for the greater good". Maybe we deserve to be the chickens for once.

Causality1 6y ago
Using an electric car wouldn't change my lifestyle much at all. Instead of going to a gas station once a week I'd plug it into the wall every day when I got home. If anything, the reduced cost would make me drive more places, not fewer.
hutzlibu 6y ago
"Maybe we deserve to be the chickens for once. " Many people actually do live like those chickens. Anyway, cutting the heads off of chickens is not really a problem with me. But how those chickens have to "live" before that. That bothers me. Nature is not soft either btw., a wounded chicken in the forest would get eaten alive by ants for example. But before that, it usually had a intense life. The chickens in the factory have no life. (and many of the people who eat them, neither)
biohax2015 6y ago
Did you really just advocate for mass murder? Humans are not chickens.
imtringued 6y ago
I don't believe this. The answer is actually much simpler. We invest into technological progress, solve our problems and that's the end of the story. That's how we have done things the last 500 years. The insistence that we have to give anything meaningful up is what is causing this avoidance of progress. We don't. A lot of the things that we will have to get rid of are actually not as valuable as we think and the things that we will gain will more than make up for the loss. You overestimate how much environmental harm is actually necessary for humans to continue to exist. It's mostly a matter of incentives and tragedy of the commons. Overpopulation is not a problem in societies with educated women. Those women can decide for themselves how many children they want and when they want them. That's what is causing the demographic shift to an aging population. There is no risk of runaway population growth if everyone is making informed decisions about having children. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with having exactly 2 children.

Causality1 6y ago

Using an electric car wouldn't change my lifestyle much at all. Instead of going to a gas station once a week I'd plug it into the wall every day when I got home. If anything, the reduced cost would make me drive more places, not fewer.

hutzlibu 6y ago

"Maybe we deserve to be the chickens for once. " Many people actually do live like those chickens. Anyway, cutting the heads off of chickens is not really a problem with me. But how those chickens have to "live" before that. That bothers me. Nature is not soft either btw., a wounded chicken in the forest would get eaten alive by ants for example. But before that, it usually had a intense life. The chickens in the factory have no life. (and many of the people who eat them, neither)

biohax2015 6y ago

Did you really just advocate for mass murder? Humans are not chickens.

imtringued 6y ago

I don't believe this. The answer is actually much simpler. We invest into technological progress, solve our problems and that's the end of the story. That's how we have done things the last 500 years. The insistence that we have to give anything meaningful up is what is causing this avoidance of progress. We don't. A lot of the things that we will have to get rid of are actually not as valuable as we think and the things that we will gain will more than make up for the loss. You overestimate how much environmental harm is actually necessary for humans to continue to exist. It's mostly a matter of incentives and tragedy of the commons. Overpopulation is not a problem in societies with educated women. Those women can decide for themselves how many children they want and when they want them. That's what is causing the demographic shift to an aging population. There is no risk of runaway population growth if everyone is making informed decisions about having children. There is also absolutely nothing wrong with having exactly 2 children.