A question [politics?]

[rebeccmeister]

Yesterday I wound up reading a NYT article about how an exorbitantly wealthy man who owns an electric vehicle company and a government tax dollar rocket ship siphoning company is trying to buy a cluster of houses in Austin, TX so all of his kids with different mothers will be nearby and have chances to get to know each other.

That is how I learned that there are certain people who are supposedly concerned about some notion of "depopulation," which basically involves thinking that demographic shifts that result from declining birth rates (or increased generation lengths) are going to cause massive problems for societies/economic systems.

But this notion seems in this case to actually be cover for supremacist/eugenics thinking, as part of it is apparently tied to the idea that "smart people in particular are having fewer babies." But in this case "smart" appears to be conflated with "economically and racially privileged," as there is mention of reproduction by more highly educated people, and there's bias in who has access to higher ed.

It does NOT appear to be "How can countries and the global population as a whole coordinate and reorganize to help each other based on our different demographies, and expand access to education?"

I guess my question is: WHAT FRESH HELL IS THIS?

And, HOW CAN ANYONE BE BUYING PRODUCTS FROM THIS COMPANY????

And, WHY DID THIS STORY HAVE TO GET WRITTEN IN THIS FASHION TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE?

Sorry for yelling. I just can't even, today.

By the way, it sounds like the house-buying and family aggregating efforts are going about as well as you might expect, as in, not well at all. Really, the Mormons seem to have done a better job of figuring a lot of that out. Not that they're any less patriarchal or potentially horrifying, mind you.

I have honestly been trying hard to avoid learning more about this person because I was so disgusted by the whole social media purchase maneuver.

I might have to take this post down at some point. On the other hand, perhaps there are rebuttals I should hear out?

Comments

[rebeccmeister]

I did actually want to get your thoughts on winter cross-country routes at this point, because we're looking at one in mid-December with the boat on the trailer, originating from the Bay Area near Sacramento. I'm planning on having as few time constraints as possible, so as to have some leeway on what route to take. But I've observed the aftermath of similar "freak winter storm" events in the southern US that were like what you experienced (although I wasn't there in the moment), so I'm giving that option the side-eye. On the other hand, multiple people have commented about the strong winds across Wyoming, so I'm not sure I want to experience that while in a car towing a relatively lightweight sail boat and trailer. S would like to go through Omaha. So in any case, thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated!

And: it is so very hard to avoid flying. I suppose it's in the same category as trying to avoid paying money to companies run by horrible people, when it gets down to it. I was a little disheartened to learn, not too long ago, that because Amtrak uses diesel locomotives, cross-country train travel has an even larger CO2 footprint than flying does. It *could* be more efficient, but we live in the USA, which has prioritized individual motor vehicle transit. Sigh.

But there are lots of good reasons for us to keep trying, wherever and whenever we can.

[ivy]

I worry that the majority of companies are run by horrible people, but I don't necessarily know the details of their horribleness, and it's a ridiculous (and depressing) amount of work to find all that out for everything. Having a lot of money is not generally amazing for peoples' characters, which also makes me despair of human nature. You'd think we'd be curing cancer more often than becoming fringe theory wait-WTFers.

Cross-country routes: I'd go all the way south on the least mountainous way possible, and then across the bottom. I think the biggest mistake I made was making my southward jag along the Rockies to accomodate seeing a friend in Denver. "Along the spine of the Rockies, the whole USian way" is a stupid stupid choice in winter if you don't have to. If I had it to do over again, I'd just go south immediately, and then east when I hit I-10. On that same trip, they closed the highways in Wyoming for just that high-winds reason, stranding me and Hazel overnight. We got through in the one available window before they shut it again... and we weren't trailering a literal sail. [rueful grin] So, probably I-5 south to I-10, and then I-10 the whole way across the bottom of the country. Once you get past New Orleans, your choice whether it's better to take 65/75/81 north up the Appalachians (less populated, less traffic, snowier) or I-95 north up through the cities (way more traffic but less snow).

I will keep trying! <3

[rebeccmeister]

There are also very real limits to how much energy a person can spend on figuring out the most ethical/sustainable way to live! I would just like to see better action by politicians when it comes to taxing the rich, argdarnit!

And, thank you so much for that recommendation! I've spent a good chunk of time driving I-10, so it's also a known quantity. I will have to see what S winds up wanting to do, since he has expressed interest in visiting family in Omaha and Iowa...so we might wind up cutting north sooner due to that. But once again I do have experience with that maneuver, too. No matter what I have a sense there will be some adventures for that leg of the journey, too...

[ivy]

I agree on better action by politicians... though, generally being rich themselves, I imagine they have a vested interest in not doing that regardless of its ethicalness. :/

No matter which route you take, I wish you all a safe journey, and I look forward to reading about your adventures. Fair winds and, er, no more following seas than one might reasonably expect. (I don't want y'all chased by an ocean all the way across the country!)