4 ms·

> to live how you like is being spoiled, individualistic and entitled If you're actively arguing against better alternatives for the collectivity, yes, it is.

• vasco 3y ago
  Who are you to decide what is better for the collectivity? You just decided on different tradeoffs. Should I link the amount of slavery that exists in EV supply chains? Everything has downsides and upsides and things change over time.
  • sgu999 3y ago
    No, sorry for the misunderstanding, I was referring to the comment I replied to: sharing more things is simply more efficient on used resources. I agree with you on the supply chain of EVs... in particular if we're talking about electric cars which are extremely wasteful compared to smaller vehicles and public transit.
  • Fricken 3y ago
    74% of Americans support action on climate change. The collective has decided what is better for the collective.
    • vasco 3y ago
      I support climate action too, but we're talking about someone being able to have a darn guest room or receiving family for a meal.
      • Fricken 3y ago
        We're talking about how those things are impossible to do without a gas car. Half the thread is stumped about how one might go about such things without one.
        • ExoticPearTree 3y ago
          Well, because the electric cars are not on par with gas ones. You're also missing the point about how much it pollutes to make one car battery. There was a YT video a while back and you break even pollution wise at about 60-70k miles - basically your fancy electric car is pre-polluted. The only advantage over a gas car is the feel good sentiment.
          • karolist 3y ago
            Even if it is pre-polluted, you can outsource the pollution to remote areas where the factories and electricity plants are instead of fuming around dense cities where the population lives.
            • ExoticPearTree 3y ago
              ... because winds are static and the greenhouse just affects the area where the pollution is created. And what about the people living there, aren't they entitled to some fresh air? And for the record, the areas are not that remote to local population centers. The main point about climate change and everything is that you can't play ostrich and if you don't see happening it means you're gonna be ok. If the US pollutes too much (for example's sake) and the ice shelf at the North pole melts, you're gonna feel it all over the world because the water will rise equally.
              • sgu999 3y ago
                > If the US pollutes too much (for example's sake) and the ice shelf at the North pole melts, you're gonna feel it all over the world because the water will rise equally. "If the US pollutes too much", droughts and other rare-ish weather events in South America, Africa and South Asia will displace more people and lead to more instability. That's a much more tangible threat in our lifetimes...
              • karolist 3y ago
                Negative health effects to large populations of city dwellers PLUS global environment impact or outsourced pollution to remote areas PLUS same global impact?
    • briandear 3y ago
      As an American, I don’t recall voting on that issue. Democracy doesn’t come from surveys.
      • Fricken 3y ago
        Most of the stakeholders aren't old enough to vote