3 ms·

Mass-produced consumer EVs are a relatively new tech and they will have problems for another few decades and get better because technology gets better over time

Mass-produced consumer EVs are a relatively new tech and they will have problems for another few decades and get better because technology gets better over time (see: the past 1000 years). And I'm not a fanboy by ANY stretch of the imagination (I utterly loathe the CEO of Tesla.) You can't judge today what an EV will be like in 50 years the same way you couldn't judge what would happen from the first Model T (1908) to the best selling car of 1958, the VW bug. I mean, safety and mileage weren't even primary concerns in `58. It was still novelty. You have to jump almost 100 years for mileage to finally get significantly better in automobiles! As well as airbags, antilock breaks, shatterproof glass, seatbelts, crumple zones, etc. EVs are nowhere near internalizing all of the issues, let alone solving them. I think this is an opportunity to work on the problems, and not say EVs are dead because they aren't perfect. Maybe they only fill a niche in the future, and don't take over, but that's still a big deal for emissions. Hopefully the issues with lithium mining & recycling, and infrastructure, and chargers, and battery tech improves. It doesn't mean don't try to make it better. I'm glad more companies are exploring the tech. The one area I would think is a justified complaint would be if companies were getting unfair tax-funded subsidies to produce inferior products to make their shareholders rich rather than improving their technology for society.

encryptluks2 4y ago
If companies and government doesn't want people making judgments based on their experiences then they shouldn't overhype the vehicles and charge such high premiums unless they are going to be realistic that people are essentially spending 40k or more to beta test a city commuter car.
chii 4y ago
> technology gets better over time (see: the past 1000 years) > can't judge today what an EV will be like in 50 years i can't wait for 50 yrs to have EV be better than ICE cars. If they aren't better _today_, i cannot switch. I would assume the majority of consumers have this attitude. Therefore, in order to transition to EVs for environmental reasons, you either force consumers to have a lesser product by legislation, or improve EVs so that they are the natural choice to purchase. I don't believe consumers would be willing to suck up a legislated rule that forces them to consume an inferior product, and so they would choose not to elect someone that stand for such. Therefore, the only realistic way is to have EVs be _better_ than ICE. I think they are on the cusp today though, and soon will surpass ICE.
- FatActor 4y ago
  Musk's big win was making EVs luxury cars and having rich people subsidize his research (along with billions from the gov't). That gave him a lot of space to collect real-time research data for years. It is interesting that you managed to use three logical fallacies in one post: a strawman, a false dichotomy, and a no true scotsman. A strawman because you invented "legislation to have a lesser product." This is a deadly product we are talking about. It is a public safety issue. You should probably clarify what you mean by this because I only assume you referring to banning misleading labeling of dangerous products, like calling something ADAS5 that really isn't. A false dichotomy because there are more than two choices. You can have competing products that excel at different areas in and some cases are better, depending on the context. In this space you can have "inferior" EVs (I'm imagining cases where they are inferioir, like mileage and ease of use) to ICEs and still be a choice for short commuters. You don't offer that choice, and that's just one alt, hence the fallacy. No true scotsman because you made up the term "natural choice" to imply the answer is obvious without giving and justification: basically set it up so that whatever you decide as "natural" is the correct answer, and anything else is not a correct answer, and that can move based on your argument. This undermines the choice you give. I can go further: consumers will absolutely "suck up" (putting aside the issues with your framing). For example I'm fine with legislation that delegates the size, speed, and efficiency of cars, and so are hundreds of millions of Americans that vote for things like this. In fact I wish there were more laws to shrink the size of vanity trucks that are simply monstrous for no reason. There are decades of evidence showing the damage that fast, huge, inefficient cars inflict on society.

encryptluks2 4y ago

If companies and government doesn't want people making judgments based on their experiences then they shouldn't overhype the vehicles and charge such high premiums unless they are going to be realistic that people are essentially spending 40k or more to beta test a city commuter car.

chii 4y ago

> technology gets better over time (see: the past 1000 years) > can't judge today what an EV will be like in 50 years i can't wait for 50 yrs to have EV be better than ICE cars. If they aren't better _today_, i cannot switch. I would assume the majority of consumers have this attitude. Therefore, in order to transition to EVs for environmental reasons, you either force consumers to have a lesser product by legislation, or improve EVs so that they are the natural choice to purchase. I don't believe consumers would be willing to suck up a legislated rule that forces them to consume an inferior product, and so they would choose not to elect someone that stand for such. Therefore, the only realistic way is to have EVs be _better_ than ICE. I think they are on the cusp today though, and soon will surpass ICE.

FatActor 4y ago
Musk's big win was making EVs luxury cars and having rich people subsidize his research (along with billions from the gov't). That gave him a lot of space to collect real-time research data for years. It is interesting that you managed to use three logical fallacies in one post: a strawman, a false dichotomy, and a no true scotsman. A strawman because you invented "legislation to have a lesser product." This is a deadly product we are talking about. It is a public safety issue. You should probably clarify what you mean by this because I only assume you referring to banning misleading labeling of dangerous products, like calling something ADAS5 that really isn't. A false dichotomy because there are more than two choices. You can have competing products that excel at different areas in and some cases are better, depending on the context. In this space you can have "inferior" EVs (I'm imagining cases where they are inferioir, like mileage and ease of use) to ICEs and still be a choice for short commuters. You don't offer that choice, and that's just one alt, hence the fallacy. No true scotsman because you made up the term "natural choice" to imply the answer is obvious without giving and justification: basically set it up so that whatever you decide as "natural" is the correct answer, and anything else is not a correct answer, and that can move based on your argument. This undermines the choice you give. I can go further: consumers will absolutely "suck up" (putting aside the issues with your framing). For example I'm fine with legislation that delegates the size, speed, and efficiency of cars, and so are hundreds of millions of Americans that vote for things like this. In fact I wish there were more laws to shrink the size of vanity trucks that are simply monstrous for no reason. There are decades of evidence showing the damage that fast, huge, inefficient cars inflict on society.