Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuds
Perhaps. It just feels like you have formed a vision of the future based on what you have read because the trends and data makes sense to you. So it makes sense logically that you expect those trends to continue. You cannot actually predict the future with certainty, yet you are so sure of certain aspects because of past data and understanding that you have gained. To me that indicates that you have faith that the trends will continue in part because the universe works according to understandable laws, and through understanding those laws one can reach enlightenment. You have faith that the people actually driving that future know what they are doing, and are doing the right thing, despite not actually knowing them. Im just guessing, considering I am similar, it may be that is what motivates you to do all the research, to profess the new findings and exciting news, and to contest assertions contrary to the universal laws, such as miracles or supernatural happenings. Similarly it may motivate scientific professionals to further their understanding of the universal laws because they believe it is a worthwhile pursuit.
Here is something to consider. Faith and trust are two different concepts but are linked in that someone who you believe to be aligned with your faith is seen as more trustworthy. Would you say that you more heavily scrutinize the motives or judgement of someone who does not share your beliefs than someone who does?
Something else to consider, the smartest person I've ever met, who graduated at the top of our class with an engineering degree and had offers from all of the big aerospace firms, decided to become a Franciscan monk. I can assure you he knows the mechanics of the universe as well as anyone else and I staked my own degree on his judgement more than once. Just an anecdote that might contrast your perception of religious people.
|
There are a few premises I accept about the future of cars, irregardless of transitioning for global warming reasons, but that is definitely part of it. These things aren't based on faith. What you call faith, I would say it is based on the probability or reality of the situation. I don't need to have faith that if I keep eating food in my fridge without replacing it that it will be empty:
--Fossil fuels have a finite number of known reserves.
--Our rate of finding new reserves has drastically dropped despite improvements in our science of knowing where to look and having the ability to find reserves. Unless there is an ocean of oil under Antartica, the odds seem near zero that the world will find more oil. It is at a trickle at this point.
--Unconventional (fracking/shale) reserves can last the US several hundred more years, but this is still nothing, and if you research the process of extraction compared to conventional reserves, even if slave robots were doing the work, it would never be as cheap as conventional reserves. Most people can't afford a dramatic increase in petroleum products.
--Hydrogen requires electricity from renewables to make hydrogen to be turned back into electricity in a car, which is an inherently less efficient process. It requires more grid storage to do the same job. It requires far more infrastructure compared to EVs in terms of stations, retrofitting, transport, costs, etc. It has storage issues that can't be overcome with liquid hydrogen (physics).
Considering above, I believe governments are making the right investments to stimulate the market in the right direction. I believe the market is moving well. I'm sure there will be some mistakes and lessons learned in hindsight, but overall, I think the world is making tremendous strides that will pay off in economies of scale to lower prices of EVs (they should be cheaper and last longer). It is an exciting time, full of competition and innovation.
I'm a skeptic, so I'm judgmental and critical of everything, including myself. I regularly question my own ideas all the time, and I look forward for others to question what I say. Make me think! Make me argue! I look forward to being wrong because I would rather be proved wrong than to continue to think I am write when I am not. I don't appeal to authority from any source, which includes atheists, liberals, or progressives. There are some points Jordon Peterson, Andrew Tate or Ben Shapiro might say that I agree with, even if many more things I don't agree with. I'm more like Joe Rogan, someone who voted for Bernie, who thinks the war on drugs is stupid, who supports gay marriage, but who thinks many gun control laws are stupid. For these reasons, it isn't who is saying them, but what they are saying. Fortunately, I tend to be educated and well read, and I like to research, so I don't need to accept anything someone says, needing to appeal to their "authority/expertise" when I can recognize BS or do my own research.
I don't know what is the point of your anecdote. Plenty of smart people and high IQ people in applied sciences aren't very versed in natural sciences or in philosophy such as engineers and medical doctors. Many of these people fall into the same poor thinking patterns as people with less intelligence. For instance, ask them why they go to the church they go to, and you will get, "Because I was raised there," not "Because I researched and experienced all religions and concluded this one was right". Ask them if they would be Muslim instead of Christian if they were born in the Middle East, most will deny this or shrug it off. Maybe your friend was already religious and thought his knowledge gained in school was pulling him away from his faith, so he took the extreme route. I don't know. This is why these anecdotes are failures at making any points.