None of these are specific to EVs or necessary for EVs or really have anything to do with the car being an EV. You'll note that literally all of these things are both possible in an ICEV and are actually present in ICEVs.
I have never driven an ICEV with them, but I take your point.
My current daily driver is a 30-year-old Range Rover that has none of the annoying beepy flashy distract-o-trons. It's far safer for other road users than the Kia because there's not much to do other than look out of the very large completely unobstructed windows and observe other traffic.
That's the other thing I missed out about the Kia - the whole middle third of the windscreen is completely blocked by this huge camera pod thing with a tiny little mirror at the bottom, about a hand's width above the dashboard.
This camera pod takes up the space on the windscreen where I actually need to look for pedestrians at crossings.
I'm sure the doctor arrived at that treatment plan magically without and without any clinical evidence whatsoever. If insurers want to practice medicine they can go work in a hospital.
You don't update standard of care by not trying new treatments, and insurance companies also have financial incentives. It turns out they are the opposite of the incentives of their customers and the doctors.
There's nothing about MAD that requires few actors. This is a just-so story to justify the US and other major powers' monopoly on the weapon, ensuring smaller nations have no deterrence against us and other global nuisances.
It really doesn't have to be that way. The problem boils down to, as with practically all human systems, is human behavior. There is no system you can devise that is run by humans and not corruptible and exploitable by the worst of us. Or even just everyday people.
First: How do you know that every system is corruptible and exploitable?
And second: What if other systems are less corruptible and exploitable? How do you know whether all systems have the same potential for corruption and exploitation?
Capitalism is a system that explicitly rewards greed, and that gives the most power to the people with the most to gain from exploiting said power. Why is it unreasonable to believe that other systems are likely better on these fronts?
How do I know that a system maintained by people is exploitable by people? IDK, that's a real thinker, isn't it. That all systems are exploitable, in absence of human influence, isn't the argument I'm making. It's tautologically true that systems that humans design and implement and depend on the behavior of humans to continue to run would be exploitable by humans. You cannot design a system dependent on human action that is also immune to human nature.
As for the second, the more in control of the system humans are, the more they can exploit it. Your return on exploitation, which I think is really what you're getting at, is based on how diffuse the control and power is at the point that you exploit it. But the more diffuse control and power, the less responsive and effective the system is when working at full tilt. It's two sides of the same coin.
Capitalism is a system of decentralized resource allocation. Decentralized systems have their pros and cons, and other systems that would rely on centrally planned economies have pros and cons. Capitalism isn't the issue, unfettered capitalism is the issue.
After that opener I'm guessing this will be a waste of effort... yes, it might be a real thinker, because AFAICS the two statements don't form a tautology. Is this based on actual findings by research in game theory, or did you just decide that this must be the case?
Funnily enough, in my eyes it's obvious that capitalism in a globalized world must inevitably lead to unfettered capitalism, since the gravity effect of money along with competition between countries for their investments (with tax breaks etc. ) inevitably allows the capitalists to change the laws in their favor more and more. So I would ask for an objective measure of "how much in control humans are". I don't think it's a single dimension like you're implying, and I don't think capitalism is near any optimum due to the aforementioned effect.
Governments have power, not private companies. Private companies can influence the powerful, of course (as can you or I) but you're complaining about second order or third order power without caring about first order power.
Unfortunately this naive view breaks down as soon as lobbying is introduced, since it is a direct channel for private companies to influence governments.
> Unfortunately this naive view breaks down as soon as lobbying is introduced, since it is a direct channel for private companies to influence governments.
The naive view is to think that lobbying is automatically bad. Policymakers can choose who they talk to. If you're worried about corrupt policymakers, you've correctly identified where power resides: in government.
Is the alternative is to give the power directly to the powerful? Not only will they hold the guns, but they decide what the markets will bear - often-enough with food for the poor becoming optional, if history has any lessons.
Which non-capitalist system does not ultimately concentrate wealth and power even further? And, if nation-states are organisms, and survival of the fittest is a law, which of those systems can survive in the real world? Excepting perhaps those propped up by a disproportionate natural wealth and homogeneous culture, where it is easier for people to continue to believe in "our good" when hard times come.
Capitalism is the only system that pretends to respect human nature - gives us a lever that says, "want more stuff? provide more value." It gives the self-interested a healthy outlet that the other systems lack. It must be managed, though, by power, and when the two collude you get fascism. So, I guess maybe I share your view, that lobbying breaks the system.
Globally active/influential social systems are still very young. In the couple hundred years such systems have been able to form, we've only attempted a minority of realistically possible systems, and most of this data was collected under very specific sets of circumstances which most likely only cover a tiny subset of realistically possible circumstances.
IMO it's not possible to justify your claims without taking a whole tower of (IMO likely false) assumptions for granted. I'd love to go into detail on each assumption I see, but I've had similar comments regarding flaws of capitalist systems get derailed too many times by very angry commenters who insist that such thoughts are not worth discussing and MUST NOT be discussed.
There's absolutely no reason to assume that getting your hands dirty would be "good for you". Playing outside and getting dirty is fun and is arguably great for enrichment and character building, but I think it would come as a surprise to just about anyone that it has health benefits.
When I say "come as a surprise" I mean they would be unable to articulate the exact mechanisms behind the health benefits before being told what they are or that they exist. Liking a thing and presuming it must have health benefits aren't the same.
> The general rule of thumb I’ve encountered is closer to 100 - 150 pages.
Practically all novels I've gotten to page 50 on I've finished. The only book I ever made it anywhere close to page 150 without getting anything back was The Fellowship of the Ring, and I think I got to page 200 before giving up (because I felt that I should be a person who liked The Lord of the Rings). It was a grueling experience. I can't fathom putting in 100 pages of joyless reading on a regular basis.
reply