There are a lot of reasons WHY news agencies disproportunatly show the downsides of green energy
Electric cars are not "green energy" - that's utter bullshit.
the energy consumption of electric cars is about as clean as the power plant that produced said energy - if that happens to be a fossil fuel plant, it's dirty as fuck, just with the pollution in a different location from where the car is driving If you have renewable energy, then yes, they can be cleaner, but:
we don't have enough (mineable) rare earths to replace even a sizeable fraction of the world's car market with electric vehicles
Just because everything that can happen, will happen in the multiverse theory, doesn't make this a possibility. This was never on the table - that would just require way too many unlikely particle decay events ;)
haha - what a dumb insecure little pathetic fuck of a nazi dipshit....
I love the reporter not letting it go so the little manchild is losing it.
and i wondered: if women in the past were hunting and thus using their skill like men do and yada yada, not gender roles like today and stuff, does that mean that there was no patriarchy back then?
But you asked exactly that - and I gave you examples of women that "were hunting and thus using their skill" and there was no patriarchy in some of those systems - even into the present.
Also - let's be real - most men nowadays who talk about "men hunting" are fat slobs who couldn't hunt a chicken with a limp ;)
There are tribal people that live in matriarchy. If that answers your question. Also, the amazons are not just a myth.
I think you went off on a tangent. This is not what I was complaining about. Also, I do not have a problem with "gender stuff" - I just have a problem with a lack of objectivity.
The theory proposes that hunting was a major driver of human evolution and that men carried this activity out to the exclusion of women. It holds that human ancestors had a division of labor, rooted in biological differences between males and females, in which males evolved to hunt and provide and females tended to children and domestic duties. It assumes that males are physically superior to females and that pregnancy and child-rearing reduce or eliminate a female's ability to hunt.
Oh boy, what a load of bullshit to start an article that may very well have a solid point. I lost all interest in reading at this paragraph.
"It holds" - as if there was only one theory - and everyone who believes that men were mostly hunters and women mostly gatherers would be guilty of the assumptions mentioned thereafter.
I, for one, only ever heard that due to men mostly hunting (because women were busy with children), men evolved to have a better perception of moving images e.g. small movements of prey in hiding, and women evolved to have a better perception of details of inanimate objects (e.g. finding things to forage). And that explanation - while not necessarily correct - made sense, and is in no way the sexist bullshit that the article insinuates.
The author of that article is not doing feminism a favor by basically alleging "all who believe men evolved to hunt and women to gather are chauvinists".
he’ll vote for Trump but he’s not a True Believer.
If you support fascists, you are a fascist. Period.
And you felt like responding to me instead of the previous poster whose insecurities led him to lash out like that? Right on, nothing wrong with your brain, keep living your life just like that...
@raspberriesareyummy
@lemmy.world