I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here. Just explaining what the position is. You obviously disagree with it, as does the majority of the population. It is an unpopular position.
EndlessNightmare
joined 1 year ago
It's all over the board. Most don't melt, in my experience. Some become crispy.
I'm not sure what percentage of workers could do their job from home if they were allowed to. It's probably a small minority, though a quick glance of numbers from COVID would suggest 15-20%. I'll use 15% for sake of argument but would welcome a more "confident" number if someone has it.
Reducing the number of miles is and important way to reduce impact. Additionally, even those who cannot work from home benefit from reduces congestion and reduces vehicle idling. Although idling has less impact on EVs (though they still have to run HVAC), ICE vehicles are still the majority of vehicles being sold today in most nations and will be in circulation for decades.
Not everyone can WFH, but it needs to be part of the strategy of reducing emissions from transportation. Not pushing WFH (for those who can) is leaving a lot on the table. This is not a replacement for EVs, rather in addition to.
Not "$50K" of equity, an entire lifetime(s) of equity. A child will have a lot more than $50K of impact of their lifetime if we are talking about first world developed nations.
Obviously it can make life easier on the would-be parents as well, but that isn't really the main focus here.
My point is that if they were serious about protecting the environment, they would promote WFH (for those who can...not everyone can obviously) in addition to EVs. Instead, there seems to be a big push for return to office.
You (and a great many number of people) disagree with it. I'm simply explaining the concept.
The point for people adopting this mindset isn't to win. It's too avoid losing. It's a risk management strategy.
No future workers. No future consumers (including being bent over a barrel for essential goods). No future taxpayers. No future people to fight their wars.
Yeah, I don't think you can really apply eugenics to yourself. It's more something that one exerts on others.
Alternately: choosing to reproduce for genetic reasons. Positive eugenics is still eugenics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter human gene pools by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.
Emphasis mine, though seems people rarely get called out for the latter.
"Positive" eugenics is also eugenics, i.e. nations that want more (insert racial or ethnic group) and encouraging those groups to reproduce are engaging in eugenics.
Getting a vasectomy is the biggest possible middle finger I could have hoisted to the parasite class
The OP isn't about eugenics of any sort. No one was talking about (negative) eugenics either until someone shoehorned it into the conversation.
I think it is intellectually dishonest to mention one type of eugenics while completely ignoring the other type, hence my bringing attention to a topic which has already been broached.