It is worthy of addition, that as individuals get on in age, they tend to become more sure of themselves. They often become less open to understanding or acknowledging the changing world around them. Old age tends to entrench learned belief systems(whether right or wrong), and increase the tendency to be more nostalgic of the past. The inflexibility to create new neuronal pathways(and the erosion of existing ones) leads to an inability to adapt to and compromise with, reality. This may explain the way that some become more bigoted as they move on in years, often in people who weren't before. A minimum age limit exists for the commanding office, it would seem logical that a maximum cutoff should apply as well. For example, a law exists that forces retirement of professional airline pilots at age 65. They can still fly, with increased medical scrutiny, just no longer for hire with paid passengers. This seems like a reasonable line in the sand. I would argue this standard is appropriate for congressional and supreme court members also. Alas, logic or reason do not have a place currently in our political battlefield. With the "Me Generation" in full effect -individual desire, personal gain, outright hubris, and familial enrichment supersede "the greater good". Lip service, team player mechanisms, and blatant fear driven propaganda belie the real motives and actions. It is tragic the way that both major parties have allowed the extremist views from both unrealistic ends to become their guiding and motivating forces. Aside from all this, we are still left with the decision of choosing between the "lesser of two evils". It is glaringly apparent to me which side continues to stand for inaction, regression, exclusion, racial and gender superiority, labeling(name calling or intentional miss-labeling), and outright disregard for and even desire to eliminate, their fellow humans and planet. If you step back and take the time to process and reflect on what is actually behind the communication, it becomes self evident.

Howdy BM, I hope you are well. A little off topic, but I am able to go down this path as well.  At first glance, I can agree with a bit of these assertions on the surface.  Some of the points -on their own are entirely true.  However, when I actually get into the underlying logic of the argument you make, it falls flat, and I must disagree.  I have a hard time seeing the crux of these common talking points as anything but -the technology is not perfect in every way, a detriment still exists, therefore screw it, lets just give up and let the world burn.  I would like to be wrong on this interpretation, I'm just unable to see any other endpoint in the logic. With regard to politicians staying out of technology, while a warm and fuzzy ideal, this blatantly ignores the history and mastery that this country has accomplished in this realm.  If it were not for "government interference in technology" we would not have the programs that funded, accelerated, and spearheaded the nearly innumerable technological advancements of the past century plus.  This is especially true when it comes to the tech that has provided an edge on historical and current war fronts, creating our world dominance.  This has allowed us to continue in advancing amazing and affordable tech for everyday life.   The system we have is cyclical and exponentially self accelerating.  We certainly would not have been first on the moon, first with nuclear weapons nor gained the dominant advantage we enjoy in the "tech industry".  I could go on nearly endlessly with examples, this mechanism has undoubtedly pushed boundaries on every front imaginable.  Is it a perfect system, of course not, a lot of inefficiencies, pitfalls, and shortcomings exist, mainly due to human factors and unchecked corporate greed.  I do believe it is far above any other out there, and it is essentially our "superpower" if you will. The irony of this ignorant stance, is that it blindly ignores the level of government subsidy or corporate welfare that props up the petroleum industry.  I understand that oil is not commonly viewed as "tech".  However, it is obvious that locating, obtaining, transporting, and "protecting the flow" are all forms of technology.  The amount of tax dollars that prop up this industry in order to keep the relative price at the pump effectively a quarter of what other nations consumers and companies pay is staggering.  This is aside from the amount of blood and treasure spent over many decades on these obtainment objectives.   I know-I know, the argument that follows is that "we just need to drill baby, and use our own -we have enough".  This is where it gets a bit strategic, the logic behind this globally tactical decision is not commonly discussed.  My understanding is it comes down to resource protection.  The theory is(and has been proven throughout recorded history with things like salt, steel, and land) that it is crucial to "use up" the opponent's resources first, while protecting and reserving what you have in store.  A belief exists regarding a nearly endless supply, this is far from reality and unreasonably foolhardy. Are the current production EVs ideal?  Certainly not, they are part of a trailblazing process.  The advancements that have been, and continue to be made are revolutionary and will continue to accelerate on the specific vehicular, energy infrastructure, and production fronts(much more than fossil fuel or nuclear power exists as sources by the way).  What has been pushed primarily so far, have been vehicles marketed to the "more money than brains club" as Jay Leno calls it.  They are chock full of features and comforts that the wealthy desire.  This has allowed these power-train systems to be tested and developed in real world environments while taking advantage of what is in effect a subsidy from the rich.  This is in addition to the actual government subsidies, which I do not "like" either, although I do understand the purpose is our standing in the likely future reality.  The efficiency equation is certainly not there yet, however the battery, control, and structure tech are advancing much faster than the normal auto industry design and production cycle can accommodate.  If you will excuse the pun, the battery mass reductions on the horizon are shocking. If electricity is the wrong method of energy consumption and portation, why do we use it in so many other everyday items?  Most everyone understands why we use batteries in cordless drills, laptops, and countless other portable items.  The efficiency advancements in cordless tools have been undeniable, to the point most auto techs have given up their air hose in favor of batteries for most uses.  It would be silly, and dangerous(though novel) to have to fire up a small combustion engine in order to use something like a phone, drill, or laptop.  I believe the day is dawning where we will see the gasoline engine as an ignorant method for normal daily transportation.  The same way we now view the use of a horse as time consuming, costly, and hazardous -nostalgic and fun for sure, but no longer practical for common use.   The average daily range of most folks is well under 50 miles all in, this is far below current range capabilities.  I think a flaw in common logic is that it must be either or, rather than both depending on use case.  I believe the reality that will come about sooner than we think is that realistic, less extravagant, practical EVs will become commonplace for most everyday commuting and errand running.  The long distance trip that occurs at most a couple times a year by average people will be done with a gas powered rental.  The all day long road warrior fleet vehicles will still be gas for some time.  The overuse of full size 4x4, ego stroking, rapidly depreciating, maintenance cost sucking, pickup trucks to make beer runs while providing the mental security blanket to be "ready for anything" yet never actually going anywhere but down the road will fall out of fashion in my view.  Especially if we have to pay anything near the real cost at the pump in the future.  Understanding, acceptance, and compromise are not detrimental, they are the ways in which we became great.   The real issue as I see it is the level at which the GOP is bought and paid for by the petroleum industry lobbyists.  They are far and above their largest contributors, and in turn own and control them and the core of any messaging.  It is telling that absolutely no real idea, productive method, or attainable advancement on any front is acceptable let alone put forth by them.  They have no objective or tactic other than foot stomping temper tantrums akin to a spoiled child.  I could get into the disregard for this planet that stems from the ideology of Christian Zionism, with their belief that Israel needs to be in a major war, in order to bring about the messiah which will supposedly elevate them to a better place, away from this wicked world.  But, that is also a bit off topic and better left for another time. I (and likely most others) have no intent of treading on you sir. The reality is that if you lay down on the path, and foolishly place yourself underfoot of people on the move, you may get trampled on, even if it is unintended.