Not really. I think there's a misconception that we want to solve all the problems and be good and pure, and because we can't do that we've got to be pure evil. That's not how it works. We're not trying to solve inequality or anything. That's just capitalism. We're trying to stop (and now sink) the carbon in the atmosphere. That's all. We can keep our shitty unequal capitalist world where we exploit poorer nations etc etc. That's a separate problem.

Also, we don't really need to use the specific metals he's outlined. We can use others. There are plenty of chemistries available, and there's a lot of lithium (in Australia for example). As long as the global south doesn't get the bright idea to use as much energy as the global north, we'll be fine.

[–] stefanlaser 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There is a nice book on this topic, Against Purity:

Why contamination and compromise might be a starting point for doing something, instead of a reason to give up.

https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/against-purity

But the last comment on the global south is odd, for many reasons. Empathy and support was on your mind, I suppose. 🤓

[–] dillekant 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Added to my reading list.

The final comment was sarcasm but probably encompassing more than it should. See, UE is a nominally right wing channel (there's grey areas, I'm not trying to dismiss him, but it's important to see where he's coming from). His aim is somewhat to convince you to do nothing: You won't achieve global equality from electric vehicles, so why try? The unsaid bit is as though you could do this via fossil fuels.

This is what conservatives believe btw: We have infinite fossil fuel, stay on the current path and give access to the global south to that infinite fuel, and everyone prospers. You could create an equal but opposite response video where the global south gets access to that fossil fuel, and then see how long we go before we run out (it's within Greta Thunberg's lifetime) and how much it would cost (a lot, given conservatives are already pissed at the costs currently). DUN DUN DUNNNNN and then (unsaid) EVs look a lot more appetising.

So anyway, because conservatives gonna conservative, they'd obviously immediately pivot to "who cares about the global south this is why we have the nukes lol" because often they do not critically analyse their beliefs. So my comment was compressing all of that ^^ into "we can use EVs who cares about the global south lol".

[–] stefanlaser 2 points 1 year ago

Haha, great response, I somehow knew that you were exactly on that line of thought. Preach

[–] tinycarnivoroussheep@possumpat.io 3 points 1 year ago

I can whip up a nice lil homily about how purity is not actually a virtue. Originally intended for fundagelical Christians (about the sechs or about not hearing/looking at cusswords), it can be adaptable to quite a few circumstances because it is always easier to look good than do good.

[–] Kata1yst@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly this. If we keep spinning our wheels looking for a miracle we'll never get there. Growth happens incrementally.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[–] dillekant 1 points 1 year ago

I honestly don't like the term "don't let perfect be the enemy of good", and it's from what I'm going to call "Zeno's compromise". Basically, someone who wants to do nothing will always meet you "halfway" between you and a solution, which basically means you'll never reach that solution. I also believe this is the underlying reason for the "liberal ratchet".

Instead, I think of it as "a long journey begins with a single step". You cannot ensure you will reach the destination if you never actually leave.