People have kids at 22. That’s a really big permanent decision too that completely changes the trajectory of one’s life. If having a kid at 22 is ok, then taking steps to make sure that you don’t have one should also be ok. Otherwise that is promoting a double standard.

Hundreds of thousands

The OP isn’t about eugenics of any sort. No one was talking about (negative) eugenics either until someone shoehorned it into the conversation.

I think it is intellectually dishonest to mention one type of eugenics while completely ignoring the other type, hence my bringing attention to a topic which has already been broached.

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything here. Just explaining what the position is. You obviously disagree with it, as does the majority of the population. It is an unpopular position.

I’m not sure what percentage of workers could do their job from home if they were allowed to. It’s probably a small minority, though a quick glance of numbers from COVID would suggest 15-20%. I’ll use 15% for sake of argument but would welcome a more “confident” number if someone has it.

Reducing the number of miles is and important way to reduce impact. Additionally, even those who cannot work from home benefit from reduces congestion and reduces vehicle idling. Although idling has less impact on EVs (though they still have to run HVAC), ICE vehicles are still the majority of vehicles being sold today in most nations and will be in circulation for decades.

Not everyone can WFH, but it needs to be part of the strategy of reducing emissions from transportation. Not pushing WFH (for those who can) is leaving a lot on the table. This is not a replacement for EVs, rather in addition to.

Not “$50K” of equity, an entire lifetime(s) of equity. A child will have a lot more than $50K of impact of their lifetime if we are talking about first world developed nations.

Obviously it can make life easier on the would-be parents as well, but that isn’t really the main focus here.

My point is that if they were serious about protecting the environment, they would promote WFH (for those who can…not everyone can obviously) in addition to EVs. Instead, there seems to be a big push for return to office.

You (and a great many number of people) disagree with it. I’m simply explaining the concept.

The point for people adopting this mindset isn’t to win. It’s too avoid losing. It’s a risk management strategy.

No future workers. No future consumers (including being bent over a barrel for essential goods). No future taxpayers. No future people to fight their wars.

Yeah, I don’t think you can really apply eugenics to yourself. It’s more something that one exerts on others.

Alternately: choosing to reproduce for genetic reasons. Positive eugenics is still eugenics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter human gene pools by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.

Emphasis mine, though seems people rarely get called out for the latter.

“Positive” eugenics is also eugenics, i.e. nations that want more (insert racial or ethnic group) and encouraging those groups to reproduce are engaging in eugenics.

Getting a vasectomy is the biggest possible middle finger I could have hoisted to the parasite class

I went with a media center PC and haven’t looked back.

The resistance to allowing WFH really shows how bullshit the push for EVs “to help the environment” is.

I’m not anti-EV and do believe they are better than ICE. But even better than an EV-driven mile is a mile that isn’t driven at all.

I’m vegan, so I never get to truly vote my conscience and won’t be able to until someone takes a stand against factory farming. I’m not interested in debating factory farms here nor am I making a direct comparison to genocide, just noting that it is a significant moral issue for me and has never been up for a vote, just as the genocide in Gaza isn’t up for a vote.

This is a key point. Biden is playing a dangerous game if he is serious about winning this.

I have no stats to back this, but I’d wager that leftists are more willing to concede and vote for Biden than Muslims and Arabs.

If the only obligation of the DNC is to be not quite as bad as the GOP, how do you expect there to be genuine, positive change, rather than the continued slow descent into fascism?

That’s the problem, I don’t expect there to be genuine, positive change. Our system is such that I don’t see a way to break the cycle.

Our shitty election system is such that if one side puts in a crazed lunatic, this gives the other side a license to be as shitty as they think they can get away with. And the people who have the ability to change it benefit from not doing so.

The best we can probably do is chip away at states 1 at a time to get ranked choice voting or some other system that addresses our duopoly. That’s what we should be doing too, but it’s a long road (if it will succeed at all) and won’t help for 2024.

We are essentially painted into a corner.

it’s immoral to vote for bad people.

One could argue that it’s immoral to not vote in a way that prevents the worst choice from winning.

As I see it, the genocide is not up for a vote since neither candidate will stop it. It’s the other issues that are up for vote.

They’ve decided to do genocide regardless of what the voters want.