Why all the EV hate?

For the motorcar revolution, I don't think there is much value in looking at a time period starting before 1900, or indeed before 1908. It was the Model T being mass produced at a price that put it within reach of the middle class which caused the motorcar revolution; which exploded the population of motorcars to the point that it created demand for gas stations and paved roads everywhere, and cities altering their streets and putting in parking lots to accommodate motorcars. The Ford Model T was first produced in 1908; anything before that was the "innovator" stage of the motorcar revolution, during which the number of motorcars was an insignificant fraction of the number of horses in the nation.

For the EV revolution, what year will be the equivalent of 1908 for the motorcar revolution? I think it was 2018... but that's just my opinion. As I've said, it will become obvious only in hindsight.

* * * * *

3rd Salesman
Why it's the Model T Ford made the trouble,
made the people wanna go, wanna get, wanna get,
wanna get up and go seven, eight, nine, ten, twelve,
fourteen, twenty-two, twenty-three miles to the county seat

1st Salesman
Yes sir, yes sir

3rd Salesman
Who's gonna patronize a little bitty two by four kinda store anymore?

4th Salesman
Whaddaya talk, whaddaya talk,

5th Salesman
Where do you get it?

3rd Salesman
Gone, gone
Gone with the hogshead cask and demijohn,
gone with the sugar barrel, pickle barrel, milk pan,
gone with the tub and the pail and the tierce

-- "Rock Island" from "The Music Man" (set in 1912), lyrics by Meredith Wilson

 

Having the car charging is almost the equivalent of two clothes dryers running. That being said I use my clothesline until the level of snow in the yard makes it too awkward to get to. I've got a big assed dehumidifier in the basement. So in the winter when I use the dryer I vent it into the basement. The basement gets toasty warm with heat that would otherwise be lost to the outdoors and the dehumidifier sucks up the moisture. When I can I still put some items out on the line in bitter cold temps. There is nothing as beautful as the smell of clothes dried in super cold air. Trust me.

 

There are reports that educating girls reduces their future family size.

Bob Wilson

 

There are lots of things that can be done to lower the birth rate in developing countries. Education for girls is certainly one of the best, and arguably is by far the best because of the other advantages it brings to girls and women.

But the infant mortality rate has been going down much faster. Bill Gates was on the Steven Colbert show just a day or two ago, saying that the infant mortality rate has been halved (!!) in developing countries in Africa within the last... hmmm... 20 years? I don't remember exactly what he said.

The problem is that, at least according to what is said by those who know more about overpopulation than I do, the carrying capacity of the Earth is only about 1.4-1.6 billion humans, and that's assuming they're not all living at the high standard of living as Western Europe and the USA. So if we want to look at the problem in a realistic way, then simply reducing the birth rate to equal the death rate is insufficient; we need to reduce the global population by about 3/4 of its current level, and reduce it even more if we want everyone to have access to such things as electricity, modern medicine, and the internet.

It seems very hard-hearted to fault those trying to help developing nations for concentrating limited resources on reducing infant mortality. Yet are they really helping those nations in the long run, by reducing infant mortality so much that the populations explode? The unintended consequences of that is that in a generation or two, the number of children starving to death is even higher, and local/regional depletion of resources (including famines) become far worse... as we're already seeing happen in many third-world countries and/or conflict zones. And of course, what's driving those conflicts is mostly overpopulation... altho you'll very rarely see that cited as the true cause in news reports. The problem of overpopulation isn't "sexy" enough for the newsies; they like to concentrate on the symptoms of overpopulation, such as famine, armed conflicts over mineral resources, and refugee crises.

If we more developed nations really want to help out developing nations, then we should concentrate first on birth control, and only after that is under control should we spend resources on lowering the infant mortality rate, and other improvements such as clean water supply and modern medicine; improvements which will reduce the death rate.

Call it "tough love" on a global scale. Of course, that attitude won't win any popularity contests, which is why we don't see it happening in practice. (Those opposing such "tough love" would say "How could anyone with an ounce of compassion or even basic human decency possibly want babies and children to starve to death?") The Law of Unintended Consequences in action, making overpopulation even worse.

* * * * *

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
...

“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
​

-- A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens

* * * * *

Advocating Scrooge's solution to overpopulation isn't likely to win any popularity contests. That's an example of why it's so hard to have an honest discussion about the problem of overpopulation. Because if one actually suggests a solution which would actually reduce the problem in any significant way, and not just nibble around the edges of the problem, then people will react as if you are just as hard-hearted as Ebeneezer Scrooge.

 

Or we could just stop providing treatment to infants in our own countries.

 

Your obviously sarcastic comment is a perfect example of why it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion of possible solutions to the problem of overpopulation. If we can't even discuss solutions, then we'll absolutely never solve the problem.

This is definitely one of those situations where if we don't control events, then events will control us. With no organized global effort to control overpopulation, we are going to continue to see Malthusian outcomes. Mother Nature will control human population involuntarily if we won't do it voluntarily. Involuntary population control comes from such things as famine, widespread disease epidemics, and mass killings in wars and genocide, the latter often given the euphemistic label of "ethnic cleansing".

Personally, I'd prefer even draconican measures toward enforced birth control, rather than Mathusian "solutions" being imposed on us by Mother Nature. Malthusian outcomes involve depletion of resources and massive devastation and/or pollution of the environment. We're already seeing that in, for example, global die-offs of most of the world's coral reefs.

Imposing draconican birth control on a global basis isn't something pleasant to contemplate, but it's better than the alternative of damaging the Earth's ecosystem so badly that most humans will either die of natural causes (famine and/or disease), or die in wars or regional conflicts over the dwindling remaining resources. We are already seeing the latter happen in areas of widespread famine and so-called "conflict zones".

 

My comment was there to quickly point out the hypocrisy.

I'm all for population control. But devaluing the lives of infants simply because they live in a country that we deem underdeveloped is a **** solution that I won't get behind.

I'm pretty ****ing sure people in developed countries do more environmental damage than those living simplier lives. We are the problem. Let's fix our societies first, be the guiding light, lead by example, and all that jazz.

 

The rising problem of overpopulation is getting worse only in poor and "developing", not in first-world nations. How is that hypocrisy? In fact, the only current problems with overpopulation in first-world countries are a result of refugee crises which are a result of overpopulation in poor and "developing" countries.

Now, that's not to say that first-world countries don't already have a problem with overpopulation. But at least the problem isn't getting <i>worse</i> because of the birth rate in first-world countries.

Well, if you're trying to mis-characterize my remarks, you've certainly succeeded. May I politely suggest that you re-read what I posted. You are reacting emotionally, when logic is what's called for here.

Your reaction is exactly why nobody is having a meaningful discussion of the issue.

It's like you didn't even read anything I said.

​

 

Pushmi- the hypocrisy is that your argument focuses on overpopulation by relatively poor people in developing nations and completely ignores overconsumption of resources by relatively wealthy people in developed nations. The flip side of your tough love would be austerity measures in developed nations to allow for proper reallocation of resources to balance them across populations. But of course, that would require sacrifice by the few wealthy for the sake of the many poor so it’s not a popular argument. After all, most of the wealth of developed nations was extracted from the lands and people of developing nations. Your argument basically reads like a call for eugenics or a “Final Solution” for poverty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's most definitely not hypocrisy to point out that using limited resources, by charities and NGOs, to reduce infant mortality in poor countries is counter-productive, because it will inevitably lead to an even greater number of infants and children starving to death in another generation or two. In fact, we are already seeing this happen! To call that "hypocrisy" is nothing but denying reality.

As they say, if you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging! Using limited resources from charities and NGOs to reduce infant mortality in countries where there is no widespread use of birth control, is counter-productive. To call that "hypocrisy"... well, that's not even wrong. It's refusing to even look at the real problem.

* * * * *

At the most basic level, the problem is very simple: To reduce the human population to the carrying capacity of the Earth's ecosystem, the death rate must exceed the birth rate. That's simple math. Now, we can argue that it's better to concentrate on sharply reducing the birth rate as opposed to trying to increase the death rate, but the basic equation can't be altered.

On a slightly more complex level, we can look at various factors: Birth rate, death rate, consumption rate, and efficiency (in terms of pollution produced) of production.

Positive factors (leading to a more desirable outcome for future generations) would be:

1. Reducing the birth rate
2. Increasing the death rate
3. Lowering the consumption rate
4. Increasing efficiency (and lowering pollution) of production

You can argue until you're blue in the face about which is more "important", but that's a subjective or emotional argument, not an objective or rational one. The math doesn't care what your emotional reaction to the reality is.

If we're going to talk about hypocrisy... then there's a lot of hypocrisy in claiming that factor #3 is the only one which matters. What matters is not any one factor, but how the factors work together to produce an outcome, either good or bad. One factor or another may be easier to change, but to say that one should be "preferred" to another, as more ethical or moral... that is an emotional response, not a logical or reasonable one.

It reminds me of a scene from "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan":

CAROL (on viewscreen): What exactly is Genesis? Well, put simply, Genesis is life from lifelessness. It is a process whereby molecular structure is reorganized at he subatomic level into life-generating matter of equal mass. [...] Stage Three will involve the process on a planetary scale. It is our intention to introduce the Genesis device into the pre-selected area of a lifeless space body, such a moon or other dead form. The device is delivered, instantaneously causing what we call the Genesis Effect. Matter is reorganized with life-generating results. ...Instead of a dead moon, a living, breathing planet, capable of sustaining whatever lifeforms we see fit to deposit on it.
[...]

SPOCK: Fascinating! [...] It literally is Genesis.

KIRK: The power of creation.
[...]

McCOY: But, dear Lord, do you think we're intelligent enough to... Suppose, what if this thing were used where life already exists?

SPOCK: It would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix.

McCOY: Its new matrix? ...Do you have you any idea what you're saying?

SPOCK: I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications, Doctor. As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create.

McCOY: Not anymore! Now we can do both at the same time! According to myth, the Earth was created in six days. Now, watch out! Here comes Genesis, we'll do it for you in six minutes.

SPOCK: Really, Doctor McCoy, you must learn to govern your passions. They will be your undoing. Logic suggests...

McCOY: Logic? My God! The man's talking about logic! We're talking about universal Armageddon, you green-blooded, inhuman...

* * * * *

Those who focus on factor #3 (reducing the consumption rate) seem to want to make the entire world poor. I'd much rather see the entire world, with a much smaller global population, become rich... or at least comfortably well off, with a reliable supply of electricity and clean water, proper sanitation, access to meaningful education, the internet, and universal health care.

Of course, that runs counter to the goal of improving factor #3, since that means increasing the consumption rate in third-world countries. That would have to be balanced by even stronger applications of the other three factors. It would almost certainly have to be balanced by a lower total global population, altho spending resources on factor #4 will help mitigate that.

As I said: If there was an easy answer, then we'd already be doing it.

​

 

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/read-a-chapter-from-the-uninhabitable-earth-a-dire-warning-on-climate-change

It is worse, much worse, than you think. The slowness of climate change is a fairy tale, perhaps as pernicious as the one that says it isn’t happening at all, and comes to us bundled with several others in an anthology of comforting delusions: that global warming is an Arctic saga, unfolding remotely; that it is strictly a matter of sea level and coastlines, not an enveloping crisis sparing no place and leaving no life un-deformed; that it is a crisis of the “natural” world, not the human one; that those two are distinct, and that we live today somehow outside or beyond or at the very least defended against nature, not circumscribed and literally overwhelmed by it; that wealth can be a shield against the ravages of warming; that the burning of fossil fuels is the price of continued economic growth; that growth, and the technology it produces, will allow us to engineer our way out of environmental disaster; that there is any analogue to the scale or scope of this threat, in the long span of human history, that might give us confidence in staring it down.
. . .​

Bob Wilson

 

Again, y’all looking at the “others” and pointing the finger. Mr. Wilson, who is digging the hole? We all are. It truly is hypocritical, and bigoted, to say “they” need to curtail their population to accommodate “our” consumptive practices.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That is correct, we all should do what we can. Don't use the dryer for one pair of socks, don't drive just around the corner to pick up the mail, turn off your lights when you're not on the room.

That's the small scale. Then buy what is more environmentally friendly. Switch to a greener power supplier, and in the end: Go vote!

We can't turn off coal plants and get rid of gas cars, that's the job of politicians and people like Elon Musk ...

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

 

Aside from the one point that you seem to be caught on, immovably -- which certainly wasn't any attempt by me to point to "the" solution, but rather just a part of it -- you have some pretty good points there.

It's not "them" or "us"; there is only us. Not one "race" or another, but the human race. There is only one Earth, and we will all share the fate of poisoning our planet and depleting the Earth's resources. To avoid catastrophe will need to involve efforts in all nations, not just some here and there.

Finger-pointing is just one way of refusing to actually face the problem or to discuss possible solutions.

 

Not my analogy. An engineer, I'm fairly immune to questions of fault when there are curious facts and data in nature to understand. I would rather investigate the physics, chemistry, mechanics, and math of what is going on.

Bob Wilson

 

There's a great discussion going on here but it's gone really off the thread topic: "Why all the EV hate?". Maybe a new thread needed for those of us genuinely interested in reducing our "foot print" on the planet. Meanwhile the EV hate from a segment of the population is truly disturbing.

 

Yes, I would definitely be in favor of moving the environmental discussion/ debate to a different thread.... altho as I look back over the previous posts, it looks difficult to disentangle the two subjects.

But I never expected my remarks about overpopulation to spark such an extended discussion/ argument. That sub-thread, at least, should be moved elsewhere.

​

 

To interestedinEV, I believe you may be mistaken in your claim that EVs are more closely linked to autonomous driving. I agree that perhaps the most commonly mentioned instances of semi-autonomous driving is Tesla, a widely popular EV manufacturer. That being said, there are several ICE vehicles on the market that come with driving assistance on the same level. The examples that I found came from this website: https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/cars-that-are-almost-self-driving. In response to you saying that Tesla is promoting self-driving trucks (or cars), I must say that is incorrect. Though Tesla promotes its autopilot, they still directly state that drivers are to keep hands on the wheel and remain attentive at all times of operation. The link to that information is here: https://www.tesla.com/semi.

To Ron in New Mexico, I agree that in many cases, the people driving large trucks don’t always seem to be hauling much in their beds when you see them. I also believe that driving such a large truck without the need to be hauling something every day or very often at least seems wasteful. And living in a large city it doesn’t make very much sense to me either. But for those living in small towns with the need to take occasionally clippings to the compost heap, or get lumber every once in a blue moon, it is far more convenient and less expensive to own a truck rather than rent a trailer or borrow one from a friend anytime one is needed. All of that being said, I don’t understand your need to judge a man on his appearance, or the need to discredit a man just because he works in an office. Perhaps your claim his ego is fragile is a reflection of your own. All of my response aside, your post doesn’t address the topic of the forum, and rather hates on the owners of non-EVs.

 

Those types will come around once America starts becoming littered with unsustainable, poorly planned ghost suburbs, but most of them will be dead by that point.