Quote: (05-06-2015 12:18 AM)Samseau Wrote:
Quote: (05-05-2015 11:15 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:
"you either adapt and become part of the new "natural," or you die."
So will you become a tranny? That's the new normal I hear.
If you just want to be a willow flapping in the wind, sure, convictions are superfluous.
Does it matter? If you don't mind obesity, ugliness, death, injury, wasted time, poverty, no, I suppose it doesn't matter.
Those are the opposite of adaptations. Those are mal-adaptations. They are the ones who cannot handle current society and adapt:
The obese: those who cannot handle having unlimited food in front of them
Ugly: Probably not going to be reproducing much
Tyrannies: These guys are freaks and may be celebrated but they won't last
Most social malfunctions are probably the result of humans who aren't able to handle the modern world as it wasn't what their ancestors evolved for. And so, the next generation of people who live successfully will be those who can live in this world and not succumb to it.
My point was that basing cities around cars yields obesity, ugliness, death, injury, wasted time and poverty. Mal-adaptations, you could say, to human nature.
------------------------------------
For a more detailed exposition of why electric cars are a non-solution to very real problems, see this article:
Unclean at Any Speed
It's fun to troll people who think electric cars are a real solution - especially if you already drive less than they do. People just want to hear they can go on doing the exact same thing with a green spin on it and salve their soul.
There's a certain kind of mentality I will call techno-fetishism. The techno-fetishist has an eternal restlessness about him, a hole, an emptiness. His eyes are always to the horizon ahead, to future technologies that will put him at peace. Technology will never and can never fill this hole; this hole was created by a lack of enduring social relationships and spiritual connection, connection to his people, to his ancestry, to his family, to his sexuality, to his work, to his home, to his god - all the things that root a man. He has disowned his past; he is repulsed by it. To suggest that, instead of refining provably flawed technologies like the car further, he must step back a moment and take a page from something beyond himself and his era is to grossly offend him. This is merely the technological equivalent of telling a modern feminist that assigning men and women to different roles, as in days past, had merit. You can find analogs in architecture as well - a movement suffused with people who blanch and convulse at the prospect of reviving traditional architecture, forms that served men effectively for centuries, for the silly reason that they date to a time when patriarchy and traditionalism reigned.
Admittedly, in modern society, with the constant cascade of new technologies altering our life daily, and an absence of connection, we are all increasingly techno-fetishists, myself included.