site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34983 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

E.P.A. Is Said to Propose Rules Meant to Drive Up Electric Car Sales Tenfold.

The Biden administration is planning some of the most stringent auto pollution limits in the world, designed to ensure that all-electric cars make up as much as 67 percent of new passenger vehicles sold in the country by 2032, according to two people familiar with the matter.

That would represent a quantum leap for the United States — where just 5.8 percent of vehicles sold last year were all-electric — and would exceed President Biden’s earlier ambitions to have all-electric cars account for half of those sold in the country by 2030.

...

The proposed rule would not mandate that electric vehicles make up a certain number or percentage of sales. Instead, it would require that automakers make sure the total number of vehicles they sell each year did not exceed a certain emissions limit. That limit would be so strict that it would force carmakers to ensure that two thirds of the vehicles they sold were all-electric by 2032, according to the people familiar with the matter.

To me this looks like they failed to make electric vehicles attractive to consumers compared to gas ones, so they're giving up on that and instead are going to effectively make gas vehicles illegal to manufacture. It's absolutely insane to me that the EPA can just destroy a major industry like this, and have a massive effect on the lives of every American, and they don't have ask anyone. Congress doesn't vote on it, the president doesn't sign it, it just happens because they said so.

I think that's a trend that's common with environmental regulations. Whether it's CFL bulbs, paper straws, gas stoves or low flow toilets, consumers get stuck with an inferior substitute and the alleged crisis never seems to actually get solved. It's always just a prelude for the next demand. And by doing it through the administrative state elected officials never have to take any flack for it. If congress had to pass a bill outlawing incandescent bulbs and the president had to sign it then voters would have someone to get mad at. But when it's a new DOE regulation that just appears, people don't know who to blame. Nobody ever has to argue for it or stake their career on it.

So I don't think things will change. Just like the CDC can declare themselves dictators of all apartment rentals because of the Covid crisis, the EPA can declare itself king of all energy because of the climate crisis. Year after year, more things will be banned, prices will go up and life will get worse. But most people will either not realize the reason or will have entirely forgotten that things used to be different.

I've soured on the concept of ubiquitous electric vehicles very quickly in the past few months.

  • The risks of batteries spontaneously combusting are high enough, and they're hard enough to extinguish, that you probably don't want to store them in close proximity to each other for very long.

https://prospect.org/environment/2023-01-26-firefighter-hell-electric-car-battery-fire/

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/11/1162732820/e-bike-scooter-lithium-ion-battery-fires

Comparatively, internal combustion engines are probably the most well-understood tech on the planet and thus one of the safest.

  • Electrification of bus fleets is probably impractical/impossible because of the scheduling issue: to keep consistent service when individual buses will need HOURS of time to recharge, which means MORE busses to maintain service, which means more space to store them while they recharge, thus more infrastructure investments etc. etc.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221721009140

https://whyy.org/articles/septas-cracking-battery-buses-raise-questions-about-the-future-of-electric-transit/

https://twitter.com/christofspieler/status/1643325106368704514

https://twitter.com/DavidZipper/status/1643261155106799616

Let us not even speak of Semitrailers, Boats, and Jet Airplanes.

  • It poses multiple issues for anyone off-roading or driving far off the grid, all the more so if they haul heavy loads. They also do NOT tolerate water very well. Good luck fording rivers.

https://www.topspeed.com/the-rivian-r1t-is-considered-the-most-off-road-capable-electric-pickup-truck-yet-but-is-it-really/

https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1636023947224555520

They're also heavier because of the battery weight, and consider the aforementioned fire issue. Add in that if your area experiences a blizzard, hurricane or other disaster that takes down the power grid, you're double fucked if your only transportation is an EV.

  • They literally won't be able to extract the necessary resources quickly enough to replace the current cars on the road. Maybe that's the plan.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/making-the-entire-u-s-car-fleet-electric-could-cause-lithium-shortages/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42417327/lithium-supply-batteries-electric-vehicles/

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qf85EuQKWeQ

And finally:

  • Even if everyone is driving an electric car, it won't do much for emissions if the power sources are still emitting carbon.

In short, it is hard to see the heavy push for full electric vehicles as anything other than a virtue signal (since it is a very visible sign of 'progress' even if it does little to address the alleged problem) and a bit of a punishment for industries that would otherwise probably resist the Cathedral's will.

But nobody I've seen is willing or able to make the compelling case that the goals being set are likely to be achieved on schedule, nor is anyone willing to suffer any consequences if they're not.

So basically for this plan to work it's going to assume some incredible leaps in technology and resource availability in the next 5 or so years. OR for people to accept a major decrease in their standard of living in order to afford new EVs. HMMMMMMMM.

And if EVs are going to be more expensive than internal combustion vehicles (they are) it just slams the poorest with an expense they can't easily handle.

If it proceeds as I expect, then they'll maintain the strict requirements on emissions but just add in various carveouts on the basis of various favored groups 'needing' to keep using ICE or for 'equitable' reasons.

But these are not things that will actually confront the Biden Administration. They won't have to accept responsibility for consequences that are nearly 10 years off, nor will any of their constituents take them to task over this, and for some reason the major auto manufacturers seem to be rolling over and playing along.

So I guess I just plan to keep my little gas powered car working for as long as possible, and assume they won't make gas powered vehicles that are already on the road illegal just yet.

But these are not things that will actually confront the Biden Administration. They won't have to accept responsibility for consequences that are nearly 10 years off, nor will any of their constituents hold them to task over this, and for some reason the major auto manufacturers seem to be rolling over and playing along.

I think auto manufacturers are taking EVs as an opportunity to change what owning a car even means. Which is to say, you don't. Ever. EVs will increasingly have all but the most core functionality, and possibly even that, tied to monthly subscriptions. Which might sound like a lease, except it'll be far, far worse. You'll still need to pony up the $40,000 for the EV, plus the subscriptions that make it a car you'd actually want to drive like you used to own, plus you are still responsible for replacing the $20,000 DRM'ed unrepairable OEM batteries in it after 10 years.

There is plenty in it for auto manufacturers. They aren't rolling over, they are slathering at the mouth to make more money off doing way less, and effectively abolishing meaningful car ownership forever.

I could see them trying to adopt Apple's business model, in that event.

Making cars into something that you EXPECT to replace every 5 years (if that) rather than something you drive until the wheels fall off or that you pass on to your kids so they can drive it until the wheels fall off.

And, like Apple products, make them near impossible to repair on your own or through third-party shops, so you're locked into their environment from the time you first buy, and then eventually 'force' you to upgrade to keep receiving support.

And of course the fact that with electric cars you can make people pay to unlock certain performance capabilities once they already own the car.

Seems like the goal would to dissuade aftermarket modification of any kind.

I actually do expect to see 'kit cars' make a resurgence in the relatively near future.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats