Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[The Conservative]

There was an article a while back that stated that Harvard or a university found a honeycomb pattern using old fashioned car batteries, non-lithium, that lasted longer than lithium at the time.

Personally, I hate how lithium is used for batteries. I personally think we are going at the electric car in the wrong direction.

But what do I know? I don’t have a degree or sheepskin to give me credence.

[Speaker to Animals]

They are worse because there really is no way to power an industrial nation on renewable energy, and these same envirodummies block the transition to nuclear. This is why allegedly "green" nations need to import power from coal or build nuclear power.

The manufacturing process is demonstrably worse for the environment than the manufacturing process of gasoline automobiles.

Nowhere in the world are electric cars better for the environment for this reason.

I think they are a good idea for the sake of energy independence, though.

Not enough rare earth metals for 10 Billion Proles to own cars....In theory, electric cars powered by fusion plants would be ideal....better find environmentally friendly battery technology.

Real solution is to reduce world population - WE DO NOT NEED 10+Billion people at this point in our development....yes it will crash our ponzi crone-capitalist systems...but they're crashing already...

What will surban liberal do when they're pillaged by billions of illiterate, poor and desperate Africans (from Africa) in the next 50 years? - this may or may not happen depending on whether Africa can slow down its dangerous population growth....

Natural law man will rape a white liberal women if he wants to...and the women will not be able to stop it....what happens then?

The world population literally is reducing. Right now there is still growth only because the life expectancy is increasing, but that initial growth is mirage. The global fertility rate is below replacement. The "OMFG we have to reduce the population" is self-destructive leftism in a nutshell.

[Speaker to Animals]

Electric cars are actually worse for the environment all around.

It is true about the power production that runs them as has been stated. Also, just the process of manufacturing them is worse for the environment.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/scien ... efits1.htm


Like pretty much everything progressive, buying electric cars and penalizing the more environmentally friendly alternatives is pure virtue signalling by ignorant NPC urbanites.

That is not to say that electric cars are bad. Just that, if your motivation is environmentalism, then you are fucking retarded for buying one. If, however, your motivation is to transition your nation from oil dependency, then they are good options. You still have to couple that policy with something like a strong nuclear energy program (maybe a shit ton of thorium reactors when they become viable), and major public investments in infrastructure.


Using punitive taxes is for total cunts, though. If you have to take that route, then you should not be in the government business due to manifest incompetency

Wouldn't say they're worse for the environment all around. They're worse than conventional cars at this moment, mainly due to power production, and secondarily due to manufacturing those cars in the first place.

But they can be more environmentally friendly in the future, if we can have an efficient and fully fossil fuel independent electrical grid. For example 100% renewable, and maybe some nuclear, without any carbon based fossil fuels in the grid, would make electric cars pretty great compared to diesel and gasoline.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Also, WORSE is the enemy of good.

[Otern]

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Gasoline and diesel is far from perfect. But it's better than coal.

To get to "good", we'd need to transit from coal to renewables. Then we can work on "better". But going electric cars, before solving this goes from "bad" to "awful".

[The Conservative]

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Gasoline and diesel is far from perfect. But it's better than coal.

To get to "good", we'd need to transit from coal to renewables. Then we can work on "better". But going electric cars, before solving this goes from "bad" to "awful".

Coal is better than gasoline as a whole. They have found how to do more with coal than gasoline as a whole in the last 20 years, and solar and lithium in the same instance.

[Zlaxer]

The world population literally is reducing. Right now there is still growth only because the life expectancy is increasing, but that initial growth is mirage. The global fertility rate is below replacement. The "OMFG we have to reduce the population" is self-destructive leftism in a nutshell.

Population reduction is a good thing right now - it won't be a problem as long as we don't let go below 1-2 Billion.

Why do you think we need 10+ Billion?

[Speaker to Animals]

The world population literally is reducing. Right now there is still growth only because the life expectancy is increasing, but that initial growth is mirage. The global fertility rate is below replacement. The "OMFG we have to reduce the population" is self-destructive leftism in a nutshell.

Population reduction is a good thing right now - it won't be a problem as long as we don't let go below 1-2 Billion.

Why do you think we need 10+ Billion?

It doesn't work that way. Go read up on demographic science. The technological society you have today is a product of population density. If we fell down to 2 billion, we'd basically enter a new dark age for real (not just an academic and innovative one like I describe we are in now, but straight up dark age).

Innovation comes primarily from white and East Asian men in their thirties and forties. The more of those guys you get, the more innovation and technology you get. Meanwhile, to maintain the infrastructure, you need enough men in general. Dropping to two billion total humans, assuming it's an even distribution of population loss, means you have very few white and Asian men in their thirties and forties, and not enough men in general to maintain the infrastructure.

Meanwhile, you essentially slashed your human capital by I am guessing fifty to seventy-five percent. You will have all these problems coming too, such as peak oil and possibly climate problems, and you will lack the ability to do fuck all about mitigating them. Peak oil alone, combined with the demographic winter, has the potential to send the world back to the 18th century if we do not start innovating right the fuck now when we still possess the human capital.

Arguing that you can have your cake (high technological society) and eat it too (70+ percent population reduction) is truly ignorant of demographics and what makes a technological society possible. At 2 billion humans, we are going straight back to subsistence farming and local warlords.

[Zlaxer]

Arguing that you can have your cake (high technological society) and eat it too (70+ percent population reduction) is truly ignorant of demographics and what makes a technological society possible. At 2 billion humans, we are going straight back to subsistence farming and local warlords.

How? Why couldn't 10-20 million white/Asian men innovate at the same and/or faster rate as we are now? Especially as we approach the singularity?

[Speaker to Animals]

Arguing that you can have your cake (high technological society) and eat it too (70+ percent population reduction) is truly ignorant of demographics and what makes a technological society possible. At 2 billion humans, we are going straight back to subsistence farming and local warlords.

How? Why couldn't 10-20 million white/Asian men innovate at the same and/or faster rate as we are now? Especially as we approach the singularity?

Are you being serious here? Read your question and try to imagine the logical response.

Or just apply it to any other economic activity. Why couldn't 10-20 million men build as much infrastructure as they are now?

The level of production in intellectual activities is a factor of demographics alone. Tools and automation can only augment innovation to a small degree.

Furthermore, we are probably right now at about 10-20 million white and Asian men in this country. If we reduced population by 70%, at best you'd have 3-6 million Asian and white men. But it's even worse than that, because now you are looking for white and Asian men in their thirties and forties, which is even less.

Most of the innovation is being produced by a relatively small demographic as it is. Slash that demographic at your peril, unless you like growing turnips and fighting off bandits for your local warlord.

[Zlaxer]

Arguing that you can have your cake (high technological society) and eat it too (70+ percent population reduction) is truly ignorant of demographics and what makes a technological society possible. At 2 billion humans, we are going straight back to subsistence farming and local warlords.

How? Why couldn't 10-20 million white/Asian men innovate at the same and/or faster rate as we are now? Especially as we approach the singularity?

Are you being serious here? Read your question and try to imagine the logical response.

Or just apply it to any other economic activity. Why couldn't 10-20 million men build as much infrastructure as they are now?

The level of production in intellectual activities is a factor of demographics alone. Tools and automation can only augment innovation to a small degree.

With a smaller population, we don't need the same level of infrastructure - I'm not buying your argument.