I agree that cars are necessary in some countries and places. Why are you preaching to the converted?

That’s why I am suggesting things like Biodiesel because I know cars aren’t going away everywhere. I also know diesel trains aren’t going anywhere for at least a decade, hence why I also suggest biofuels here too.

If you want a new car that’s good for the environment, buy a second hand diesel then use it with biofuel. You can buy or make biodiesel yourself. Some engines can run straight vegetable oil too or can be converted to do so. This is handy because vegetable oil can be bought from any super market and many businesses throw away used oil that cane be reused for running a car.

The reasons you say environmentalists don’t like biodiesel seem relevant although I can’t weigh the environmental impact of those chemicals.

I am talking about why governments and environmentists dislike fossil diesel, not biodiesel. Though they also apply to biodiesel it’s worth it not to contribute to climate change.

I am not sure how easy it would be to convert a non-diesel engine to a biodiesel engine

I don’t think it’s possible. You would replace the engine. Still easier than replacing an ICE with an electric drive train.

We have reached the point in this discussion where it’s being said cars are still required for some people. I am trying to say how they can be made more environmentally friendly besides electric cars which are horrific to produce.

Electric trains don’t use batteries like electric cars use. Don’t know where you are getting this idea from. They take power from the grid via electrified railway.

Lots of trains run on diesel though. For these I think Biodiesel is also a good idea rather than trying to replace every single one. This is more for railcars than locamotives though, since all locamotives are electric anyway. Diesel locomotives have electric motors and drive train powered by a diesel generator; these are called diesel electric trains.

The issue with this is that electric car batteries cause lots of damage to the environment in their production. Manufacturing any new car is environmentally destructive. You may want to reconsider buying a new car if it’s just for environmental reasons as you may be doing more harm than good.

If you can convert it to run on biofuel that’s potentially a better option. This is easier if it’s a diesel vehicle and diesel engines are inherently more efficient to begin with. The reason environmentalists don’t like them is to do with nitrous oxides and carbon particles rather than carbon dioxide emissions.

They didn’t specify the ages when I first replied. Now that they have specified they are kids I think it’s even less of a generation issue and more of a teenager or child vs adult issue that’s being wrongly framed as a generation issue.

You might want to reword that. It’s not an obvious interpretation at least to me.

Hey I find Lemmy and Mastodon addictive enough. Then again I still use mainstream platforms too. Mainly because their are things I want to look at and people I folloe that haven’t or won’t move over.

Hey I was born in 2001 and use both Mastodon and Lemmy. Stop with the juvenoia.

The fact is most people of any age don’t care how things work and don’t like putting in any extra effort into tech. Imo old people are sometimes worse with this.

People who want to understand how technology works are a minority, and those who actually do understand are an even smaller minority. Nobody can understand how everything they use works to a reasonable level of detail anyway. You either have surface level details of lots of stuff, or more detail about some specific things. Modern systems are just too large and complex to completly fit in a human brain.

Edit: When the comment I was replying to was first written it didn’t include the age of the people they were talking about. Now that I know those it sounds less like a generation issue and more like the behaviour if children and teenagers. I think the person I am replying to needs to understand the difference between generations vs just still being a kid. Although personally I got into the technical side of things as a teenager.

The only reason I drink so much is that everything else is so much worse.

What do you mean? Alcohol is one of the harder and more addictive drugs you can do. Standard anti-deppressants aren’t nearly as bad and neither are many illicit substances like cannabis and ecstasy. There are a few that are worse (heroin, crack cocaine, maybe benzodiazepines) but I don’t think people would reach for these just to treat for anxiety.

Edit: Even Ketamine is only roughly as bad and dangerous as alcohol while being much better at treating things like depression and anxiety. It’s regularly used now to treat these disorders in treatment resistant patients. A course of treatment can last up to one month after the last dose. It’s can also be effective within one hour of the first dose.

If you know which jobs are bullshit then you don’t need to lower wages, you just eliminate the roles or at least stop hiring new people for them. None of this argument makes sense. I think you wanted to punish workers that did something you didn’t like and then got called out on it.

Also changing wages to encourage people into certain jobs is a capitalist economic technique. My idea of paying people for harder work (physical or intellectual work) is much closer to the socialist statement of “to each according to their labour”. Studying is a form of labour performed for free or even at cost to the person doing the labour. Higher wages for the educated are partially there to reflect this.

Essential workers would be paid vastly more while the vast quantity of bullshit jobs(read theory) would be paid the bullshit rates they deserve.

Denial isn’t going to get you anywhere

So why do you want to punish the workers with lower wages if it’s not their fault?

I can’t believe you actually think bullshit jobs are the fault of the workers. The whole point of bullshit jobs is that they are created by the inefficiencies of capitalism - not workers.

You don’t even know my age. I could be older than you for all you know.

No. If you have to resort to that it shows you lost. How old even are you to be telling me to grow up? You’re edgy enough still to support a dictators that killed real leftists. That’s why everyone calls you tankies. You can’t deal with the fact that your leaders come from middle class backgrounds either.

I’ve actually had enough of this now. Thanks for reminding me why people hate tankies.

That’s rich coming from someone who will likely kill other communists if a revolution is successful. That’s what MLs always do. Time and time again.

Also Lenin was born upper middle class. So clearly what you are saying is false if you actually follow Lenin.

Well that’s good news at least. Still dosen’t make sense why you would support a guy that killed Anarchist and Marxist comrades just because they disagreed with him

In all fairness you could fit a small helicopter in their if you wanted too. The 747 Freighters are used to move plane parts and they even based the dreamlifter off of it!

Mate your from a regime that failed every single time it was tried. You’re existence makes the whole cause look bad and is why the left has recruiting problems.

The best thing I could possibly do for socialism is get rid of Stalinists and Maoists. These leaders were about as bad as Churchil. There are plenty of anarchists that want rid of you too, who I am still considering joining. The anarchists were the ones that invented the term tankie to begin with!

Nobody will take the far-left seriously until we come up with something that isn’t Marxist-Leninism. Even Trotskists have some clue about this problem, and Trotsky was more radical than Stalin by some accounts.

Honestly I don’t know why I bother. As you have pointed out my parents are petty-burgeoise. I could probably become a petty-burgeoise or at least a high earning member of the proletariat if I put my mind to it. I have more chance of that happening than you guys actually causing a revolution and not have it collapse afterwards. I mean I already have a Master’s degree, it’s really not that difficult to move up in the world provided your not starving to begin with and you’re not an idiot.

Then why are you trying to call out “champagne socialists”? There are parts of the working class that have more than enough money to buy champagne and generally live a comfortable (or even affluent) lifestyle. There are even people who have made millions through labor alone, more rich than the petty-burgeoise. You’ve talked yourself into a contradiction.

I’ve also literally made the arguement that you are now making about working class not being how much you earn. I had to do this when someone tried to claim that programmers and police officers are not working class cause they earn too much. The difference is I don’t go around accusing people who work full time of being “champagne socialists” whatever that term means.

Not sure I’d agree with any study saying it is physically addictive, habitually I’d agree. So you’re willing to ignore science… that’s sounds like a river in Egypt to me mate.

Habit forming and addictive mean the same thing in medical terms. Cannabis has observed withdrawal symptoms like sleeplessness, appetite changes, and nausea that classify it as physically addictive. You’re ignoring these because it dosen’t suit your narrative and beliefs.

My point on the sugar though is it certainly does create addiction. I agree with this provided your talking about refined sugars. The point is though it’s not a drug. Sugars are a natural part of the human diet. They literally make up your DNA. Refined sugars are not natural though.