Is Tesla a cult?

I responded this in the comments section of this video https://youtu.be/k6GeHnMwl1c :

[Name removed] That means the hysteria used to force people into similarly harmful (but much more expensive) EVs is entirely misplaced; causes environmental & economic & psychological harm.
A much better idea to continue using cheap internal combustion engines, to produce more wealth, so that people will be able to afford to switch to EVs when the time comes. Renewability is no argument: there is so much oil in the ground: banning current geberations from using it, will keep it there, for even further future generations to not use it, because even further future generations will have to leave it there for ad infinitum.
Oil is probably not even a fossil fuel, but the product of bacterial processes.
[Name removed] will you please stop ridiculing yourself with the worn paranoid slander of “big oil is afraid people will stop using oil, is behind ads like this” because first of all, the electrical cables (insulation) and modern plastic car chassis, are MADE OF oil, so people will continue to buy oil.
And even then: big oil wil eventually reinvent itself as big hydro, big windpower, big solar, big whatever it is your conspiracist mind wishes to accuse of being big and mean.
I’ve written about this earlier:
https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2017/11/25/sigh-conspiracists-drive-me-nuts-an-elaborate-treatise-on-big-oil/

About ships switching to nuclear power:

[Name removed] What a soothing solution: having potential 3mile island disasters floating all over the world’s oceans, and ships never sink, do they? #Greenpeace became famous for their protests against #nuclear #waste #dumping in the ocean, Medoubts they ought to support, the posible sinking of nuclear pre-waste fuels.

Advertisements

A government is needed to protect the environment!

Yeah, because it was a business that tried to deforest all of Vietnam with Agent Orange, not a government.
Governments blow up the environment in unprovoked vanity wars, before some mean business can pollute it, because they are are so cautious with it.

How to think about (non-)renewables and oil

Enviros want mankind to stop using #oil, because oil is a finite resource. Not #renewable. Which is bad, and apparently also a reason to stop using it right away, so that #future #generations also can leave it in the #ground, so that generations even further in the future have the chance leave it in the ground for generations ever farther in the future. I’m not in the mood to continue writing “even further in the future” until I run into a generation that gets to use the oil. That generation will apparently expect to be the last one, for some macabre reason.
Oil is a cheap source of abundant energy and can continue to help improve the lives of all people around the world.
Renewables are expensive now, so better to use oil to grow the wealth of humankind, so man can then afford to make the switch to renewables (and put money in developing them) Unless the state of mankind is of no concern to envirinmental activists.

Subsidizing obesity

You may have heard there is an #obesity epidemic going on in the USA (and to a lesser degree in Europe as well).
This is due to the government’s farm #subsidies, raising e.g. #sugar production. While at the same time the government has a ministry (department) of #health, spending lots of money on obesity related issues. That even goes so far as to claim that it’s #obesity which causes #diabetes, which of course is nonsense: they have a shared cause, namely excessive #carbohydrate consumption (in particular fast, or highly glycemic carbs like #sugar or even #grains), which are #subsidized by the ministry of #agriculture.
As is to be expected in a totalitarian regime, it likes to meddle with even the slightest details of all citizens’ lives. But there are so many aspects to all those lives, and only some citizens are #farmers, so the #subsidies benefit only one small segment of the population, while actively harming the rest (that has to pay the #subsidies through involuntary taxation). And justifying more taxation to fund higher health costs.
This is bull-excrement. And can only be happen with a #schizoid institution, like government, where information passes other information by, due to entrenched interests, and established practices (#policies)
Remember the #milkLakes and the #butterMountains? More reasons to ditch subsidies; they’re wasteful, and so harm the economy. As well as causing more farm animals to be kept, which according to the most political of politicians (the left), is a bad thing.

To close off, some writing about diet:
Excessive eating in general does not make one fat, because it’s not calories that deposit fat. If it were, fat would have to be able to make you fat (being the most highly caloric of the 3 macronutrients).
Since only carbs can do that, and #carbs are equally low in calories as protein (which ARE essential, unlike carbs), eating a diet of mostly carbs, may be low in calories, but that’s only the second part of fat loss; the first is to stop gaining #fat, ie cutting the carbs. At the very least the fast (subsidized) ones.
Otherwise, you’d starve yourself to death trying to lose some fat. Which is fought by the consumption of carbs, meaning you have to reduce food consumption to cripplingly small amounts.
Fat provides 9 #calories per gram, while carbohydrates and #protein each provide 4 calories per gram. (I guess those are #Kilocalories)
But finally, there is one small bit of the science of gaining fat that I am less certain about:
Sure, it takes carbs to trigger the release of #insulin, which shuttles nutrients into cells (protein into muscle or most commonly/frustratingly, fat cells) but what nutrients get shuttled into fat cells? Surely, they’re fat molecules that get deposited, fat molecules that first have to be ingested. (Similar for protein, obviously), which explains where Michel #Montignac’s diet came from (“Lose fat by not consuming fat and carbs at the same time!”)
Insulin can only be triggered by carbs, not by fat. Therefore, so long as you don’t consume (more than minor amounts of) (fast) carbs, you won’t get fat.
This suggests a fool-proof way to prevent the yoyo-effect following extreme caloric restriction: after having lost the desired amount of fat, undo the caloric deficit by eating more fat, after that, you’re quite safe to eat carbs again (but don’t overdo it or you’ll gradually regain fat again, though not in a short amount of time, like with the #yoyo-effect)

Trickle-up economics

One reason African dictators are subsidized by western economies, is because they buy Mercedes cars, supporting German jobs. So Germany has the entire European “union” indirectly subsidize German factories. Likewise, the Belgian FN gun factory (Fabrique Nationale) no doubt sells a share of guns to,fldictators, subsidized by the rest of the European so-called Union.
So not trickle down economics but trickle up (from the ductator’s victims to the European factory), similar to selling surplus food from European farms, bankrupting Afrivcan farners that cannot compete with the subsidized European food, dumped in that market. Instead of subsidizing the food, better to let the farms only produce what they can sell much less wasteful than subsidizing a milk puddle and butter mountain then either throw away the excess food, or dump it on unsuspecting foreign markets, bankrupting theocals, cauing them to need more aid.

A slight misquotation

https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory
In this great book Chaos Theory Bob Murphy partially quotes Thomas Payne: government is a necessary evil. Actually , the full quote is that government is atbest a necessary evil; at worst it is an intolerable evil. And going by what Professor Emeritus of management (bestuurskunde) Gabriël van den Brink reports,
http://nos.nl/l/2220754
government (esp. The Dutch one, but really all governments I know of) has made an effort to become as intolerable as possible, even going so far as attempting to kill the population, while blaming them for it! (After half a century, they surely know how to cure the traffic jams, that cause so much economic damage and such high emmission levels. One would be justified to expect that the CO2-hysteria would have them make an effort to cure the traffic jams, after 52 (!) years they know how to cure them, but they simply refuse to do it, wilfully causing high CO2-emmissions, which they condemn as harmful. That is not simply negligent, it is downright evil/murderous.
What is the “solution”? A travel ban per 2030, which must have been invented by GroenLinks (GreenLeft, formerly the, well, one of the communist parties), the party that was invited to negotiate to take part in the governing coalition, negotiations that (ostensibly) failed, but yet their wishes are made law, even though the voter voted against them. But such is the nature of dictatorships, that policies the voter voted against, get pushed through anyway. Per 2030 sales of cars with internal combustion engines are banned.
It’s the excise tax upon gasoline that is used to subsidize electric vehicles, public transport, and the soon equally banned hybrids too. So those already unaffordable cars will be even more expensive.
The claim appeRs to be that EVs don’t waste energy in traffic jams. Which is obviously patently ridiculous, as anyone with even a minor comprehension of physical reality will realize.
So in actuality, the way they hope to cure the traffic jams must be by bankrupting every single citizen. And so removing all traffic. As I said: beyond negligible, downright evil.

Revisiting veganism (voluntary limitation)

Follow up to: https://ludwigvanel.wordpress.com/2018/03/04/vegans-and-other-communists-are-so-tiresome/

It just dawned on me, that one mistake made by people who fervently promote veganism, is that they presume that the growth of the population is untenable, and must therefore be allowed to continue. (This phrasing is correct, even though it seems to make no sense)
It seems more likely that if food shortages become endemic, that people will stop breeding. As unlikely as that seems, given that even with the dire future (economic & political) prospects in the west, people keep breeding;
also Africans keep spawning starving offspring.
I’d propose the following explanations for that:
Africans are kept barely alive with foreign aid.
In the future when global starvation has hit, this will be imposdible. There will be no food available to ship to Africa, to alleviate hunger there.