They also do all those things much worse than transitioning away from car dependence.
And they give people an excuse to not move away from cars.
And they are so much heavier and deadlier than ICE cars at the same speed that they may actually actively discourage other modes, like walking or cycling.
edit: Look, I think every car should be an EV. And I also think there shouldn’t be many cars because cars still suck. Both can be true.
But those cargo ships exist whether we’re also driving a bunch of cars or not. It’s just totally orthogonal.
If anything, switching to heavy EVs will increase the amount of pollution caused by cargo ships. Bringing up cargo ships makes no sense as a defense of EVs
New EV models tend to be heavier and quicker—generating more particulates and deepening the danger. In other words, EVs have a tire-pollution problem, and one that is poised to get worse as America begins to adopt electric cars en masse.
Tires were already a problem, but when we switch to electric cars, according to Michelin, we increase tire wear by up to 20%. According to Goodyear, it’s up to 50%. This is validated also in other research that we’ve seen.
edit: To be clear, EVs are better than ICEs and every car should be an EV. But EVs also suck and we still need to transition away from car dependence.
The comprehensive study has found that in everyday driving, particulate emissions from tires are 1,850 times greater than the equivalent exhaust emissions. This is only made worse by the heavier battery packs fitted to electric vehicles, which increase vehicle mass and, in turn, place further strain on the tires.
edit: this is not to say the tire particulate has the same greenhouse effect. Experts overwhelmingly agree that EVs are better for climate change. But EVs are still bad for the environment.
Tires were already a problem, but when we switch to electric cars, according to Michelin, we increase tire wear by up to 20%. According to Goodyear, it’s up to 50%. This is validated also in other research that we’ve seen.
I’m not seeing anything about how brake dust is nearly as big of a problem. Literally dozens of articles about how bad tire pollution is. I’m not even mentioning microplastics! Tires are the biggest source.
Your EV is worse, per distance and per capita, than any non-car mode of transportation. Compared to ICEs, it’s better in one particular way, worse in others, but still causes major environmental damage through bad land use. Cars are one of the biggest killers worldwide, and EVs may make that problem worse.
I was talking about tire dust being worse than brake dust. Was that a typo?
Literally no one is arguing that EVs aren’t better for the climate than ICEs. But a lot of the climate harm of cars is not just tailpipe emissions, but bad land use. Pavement, parking lots, urban sprawl, are major contributors to climate change. I don’t understand this idea that if we push to move away from cars, it will encourage ICE use. It’s an inane argument.
edit: I also haven’t seen studies of how much air particulate matter from tires contributes to the greenhouse effect. I don’t doubt it’s still better than ICEs, but it could still be significant.
You’re right, I wrote that confusingly. I mean to say that the research I linked to is just about air pollution from tires. There are also non-air pollution consequences, as microplastics leak into our food supply, drinking water, our environments, our oceans, etc. This is no small matter.
Everyone who cares about the environment is in favor of EVs over ICEs, but some bad effects will actually increase with EV use. We need to transition every remaining car to EV, but we also need to transition society away from cars.
The entire field of evolutionary psychology debunked? Do you mean the idea that our brains are subject to evolutionary forces like every other part of our anatomy? No, not debunked.
This is conflating specific methodological problems with theoretical claims. Yes, many have criticized the game theoretical methodology typical of evolutionary psychology. There are a lot of highly speculative junk claims out there. It’s also true that some (not all or even most!) cognitive scientists think that we cannot take the perspective that psychology evolved at all. But it is certainly untrue that there is some consensus that evolutionary psychology has been “debunked”.
This criticism is also a bit ironic given the highly speculative nature of the claims you put forward. Your guess sounds plausible I suppose, but I see no reason to think it’s any more methodologically rigorous.
That’s not how science works. I understand that you’re trying to criticize the field, but lack of predictions, even reliable ones, is not itself a problem it has. For one thing, even false theories can make reliable predictions, like Levoisier’s defunct theory of caloric in the 18th century which has now been replaced by modern thermodynamics. The caloric theory can be used to make mathematically accurate predictions, but the underlying theory is still wrong.
Similarly, evo psych can make a lot of reliable predictions without saying anything true. On the contrary, one criticism of the field is that it’s unfalsifiable because an evolutionary theory can always (allegedly) be proposed to fit the data. Which is to say, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
One example: it is proposed that the fusiform face area of the brain is a domain specific module evolved for face detection. It’s present in other animals that recognize conspecifics by their face. In humans, damage to the area leads to face specific agnosia. The theory makes accurate predictions, but is it true? It’s still being debated.
If you actually take a graduate level course on scientific methodology or on the philosophy of science, you will learn that “falsifiability” is no longer a viable standard for scientific validity. This is because, logically, no claim is falsifiable: one can always adjust background beliefs to evade a logical contradiction. See the Duheim-Quine thesis.
Moreover, if your argument were correct, we would have to reject evolutionary inferences altogether! What you say about the cognitive system is true for, e.g. the immune system or the endocrine system. But that’s ridiculous. Evolutionary claims are part of the bedrock of the so-called Modern Synthesis in the biological sciences of the last hundred years. Yours is similar to bad arguments made by creationists.
Your “No True Scotsman” response is just deeply confused about what evolutionary psychology even is. What a mess.
Ugh, your comments are everything I hate about the internet. Both of us know that only one us does research on cognitive science, and it’s not you. Yet, because it’s the internet, you think you can get by with bluster and false confidence.
Of the many mistakes you make: No cognitive neuroscientist would say, without huge caveats, that we can’t make deep comparisons between animal and human brains — not after all the groundbreaking work finding deep functional similarities between bird brains and human brains in the last 10 years. These are groundbreaking findings in comparative neurology, and it’s pretty obvious you know nothing about them. You go on to propose a standard of evidence which require that we can predict protein synthesis based on genetic variances, which is laughable. You also seem to be completely unaware of phylogenetic analysis, which is actually the standard way we make many of our evolutionary inferences.
Look, I’m not even an evolutionary psychologist. I have no skin in that game. But I do hate bullshit artists on the internet.
You seem to be confused. My claim is not that there are no challenges or criticisms to evolutionary psychology, or that the topic isn’t very hard to study. It’s that these are live debates in a live field because that’s how science works. It is misunderstanding and arrogance like yours that spreads misinformation online.
Your argument is akin to saying “something is hard to study so it doesn’t exist”. We can’t get evidence for how psychology evolved, so psychology didn’t evolve. This was the mistake of radical behaviourists like B.F. Skinner, who thought internal cognitive states were impossible to measure, so cognition must not exist. That is obviously an error in inference, but also a lack of imagination.
TL;DW: The “just buy everyone a car” instead of subsidising transit argument doesn’t work. Even on the least cost efficient bus routes it doesn’t make sense. Also “demand responsive transit” is worse than fixed routes.
This is a great take down of an idea so stupid that I didn’t realize people were pushing for it. The stupid idea being replacing fixed route public transportation with government subsidized on demand rideshare.
People should check again. After I decided to avoid Amazon, I’m surprised by how many things are cheaper and/or better quality at my local stores. I think Amazons reputation for lowest prices is less true every year.
Yes, sometimes Amazon is cheaper. But one reason I quit amazon was because, even when it’s cheaper, I got so much counterfeit and super low quality disposable junk.
Seriously, take another look at your local stores. I suspect many people aren’t and are just making assumptions. I was surprised to find my local pet store offers free delivery, and literally everything at my local mom and pop hardware store is cheaper and better quality.
Yes, also Teslas (media.mastodon.scot)
North America before illegal immigration (lemmy.ml)
My sense of humour is broken (i.imgur.com)
Get gud (lemmy.zip)
True next-gen graphics (feddit.de)
Todd Howard: “You may need to upgrade your PC for this game”
Just Buy Everyone a Car (www.youtube.com)
TL;DW: The “just buy everyone a car” instead of subsidising transit argument doesn’t work. Even on the least cost efficient bus routes it doesn’t make sense. Also “demand responsive transit” is worse than fixed routes.
Modern consumer logic (lemmy.ml)