Making The Wrong Choices For The Wrong Reasons

Life is full of examples where folks make bad choices for noble reasons. Not every decision is a winner: sometimes you make the right call, sometimes you don't.

  • In 1962, Decca Records passed on signing a young new band because it thought that guitar-based groups were falling out of favor. That band was The Beatles.
  • Napolean Bonaparte calculated he could conquer Russia by assembling one of the largest invading forces the world has ever seen. He marched towards Moscow in the summer of 1812 with over 650,000 troops. Less than six months later, he retreated in failure, his forces decimated down to a mere 27,000 effective soldiers.
  • 1985 217 separate investors turned down an entrepreneur trying to raise the relatively modest sum of $1.6 million to fund his vision of transforming a daily routine shared by millions around the world. That company? Starbucks.  

In these cases, those making the decision made what they felt was the best choice given the information available to them at the time. That's completely understandable and defensible. Fate is fickle, and no one is 100% right 100% of the time.

But what's much harder to condone -- and this is the focus of this article -- is when people embrace the wrong decision even when they have ample evidence and comprehension that doing so runs counter to their welfare.

Really? you might be skeptically thinking. Do people really ever do this?

Yes, sadly. Absolutely they do.

Because decision-making isn't just based on data. It's also influenced by beliefs. And when our beliefs don't align with the data, we humans can be woefully stubborn against changing our behavior, even in spite of mounting evidence that our beliefs are incorrect and possibly even detrimental to us.

The fascinating field of behavioral economics is dedicated to studying why people are capable of making bad decisions despite have access to good data (if you've got the time, listen to our past interviews with behavioral economist Dan Ariely here. They're riveting.)

So, yes, we humans are easily capable of being our own worst enemies.

For a prime example, let's turn to one of the greatest basketball players of all time.

The Curious Case Of Wilt Chamberlain's Free Throws

On a long drive I took recently, I listened to a podcast produced by Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point as well as a number of other intellectually enjoyable human interest books.

Gladwell's podcast tackled this same topic of Why do smart people make dumb decisions?, and it featured Wilt Chamberlain's free throw career to make its point.

Wilt Chamberlain is widely cited as the best forward to ever play the game of basketball. At 7' 1" and 275 pounds, with a ferocious attitude and athletic grace, he was a dominating force on the court during the 1960-70s. He won seven scoring titles, including the game he is best known for in which he single-handedly scored 100 points -- a record that still stands today.

That record 100-point game is even more interesting than most people realize, Gladwell points out. It's significant not just for the total number of points that Chamberlain scored, but also for the number of free throws that he made during the game: 28. 

Chamberlain was on fire with his free throws that night. He made 88% of them (28 of 32). That's a very high percentage versus the league average, and amazingly high given Chamberlain's career average of roughly 50%.

In fact, Chamberlain was widely regarded as a horrible free throw shooter. His overall stats certainly say he was, but this short video clip below does an even better job of hitting home how poorly he typically shot from the line:

So how did Chamberlain's free throw conversion get so much better?

To answer that, we need to look at another basketball great...

Rick Barry & The 'Granny Shot'

A contemporary of Wilt Chamberlain was Rick Barry, who played much of his career for the Golden State Warriors. Barry was a phenomenal free-throw shooter -- at the time he played he was the best in history.

His career percentage? 90%

That's over a 15-year pro career. Amazing. (His best year was in 1979 when he completed a freakishly high 94.7% of his shots from the line).

Why was Barry so successful at free throws? Why was he so much better than Wilt?

He shot his free throws underhanded.

Yep, that's right. This 12-time NBA all-star made 'granny shots'.

Barry approached the free throw as a physics problem, and had a willingness to "do whatever it takes" to improve his accuracy and precision:

"Physicists have done all kinds of testing and said it's the most efficient way to shoot because there are fewer moving parts. It's so much more natural to shoot this way," he says. "Who walks around with their hands over their head?"

As Barry has often explained, the primary benefits of Granny style are that it increases the likelihood of a straight toss, and it produces a much softer landing on the rim. [Shooting underhand] is also able to generate more backspin, which gives him more breaks on errant throws. 

Here's a clip of Barry in action:

He didn't always shoot this way. Barry started as an overhand shooter like everybody else. But when he realized that his completion percentage improved by adopting the underhand toss, he switched over and the rest is NBA history.

Which brings us back to Chamberlain.

As a notoriously bad foul-line shooter, Chamberlain was advised to adopt the granny shot. He did, and his free throw percentage soon rose to a career high 61% in 1961-62, the same season as his famous 100-point game. So, the change worked. His stats improved, his team won more games, and his amazing consistency helped him set a single-game scoring record that remains untouchable to this day.

But then something unexpected happened: Chamberlain stopped shooting underhanded.

Making The Wrong Choices For The Wrong Reasons

When Wilt gave up the granny shot, his free throw percentage proceeded to decline, plummeting to a career low of just 38% by the 1967-68 season.

So, the big question here is: Why? Why would Chamberlain willingly abandon a superior form of shooting, especially when he had already experienced direct personal gain from its benefits?

The answer goes back to beliefs: he felt "like a sissy" shooting that way.

Sure, in the early days of the NBA, underhanded foul shots were common. But by the time of Chamberlain's career, pretty much only female basketball players shot that way anymore.

Given the machismo of professional sports, it's understandable that a star like Wilt cared what the other guys thought of him. But was it important enough to abandon a solution that improved his quality of play so much? After all, isn't the most respected teammate the one who can be counted on to put the most points on the board?

Gladwell notes that it has been estimated that Chamberlain could have scored over 1,000 additional points in his career had he shot underhand from the foul line throughout.

In addition to that, he likely would have scored even more points by playing more minutes. Because he was such a poor free thrower, Wilt was often benched in the final minutes of play during close games -- as a poor foul shooter is a big liability under those conditions. The opposing team can foul him with confidence that he'll miss his shots and they'll then get possession of the ball.

Gladwell marvels that somebody so driven to win would deliberately abandon such an easy and advantageous solution as Chamberlain did the granny shot. Even after he had personally experienced its superiority. But he did, thus proving how belief can trump reason.

Later, in his autobiography Wilt: Larger Than Life, Chamberlain admits that switching back to an overhanded free throw was a clear mistake:

"I felt silly, like a sissy, shooting underhanded. I know I was wrong. I know some of the best foul shooters in history shot that way. Even now, the best one in the NBA, Rick Barry, shoots underhanded. I just couldn't do it."

What's amazing is that even though both Rick Barry and Wilt Chamberlain very visibly demonstrated the advantages of the underhanded free throw, half a century later almost nobody -- not in the NBA and not in college ball -- has adopted it. Think of all the additional points that could have been scored over that time, all the additional minutes played, all the additional team wins. It's not like players haven't had a powerful incentive to consider changing their behavior -- these are the very stats their contracts are based on. In great likelihood, many $millions ($billions?) of additional player compensation have been forfeited over the past 50 years simply because the athletes didn't want to look a tiny bit 'girly' at the line.

Later on in his podcast, Gladwell concludes that Chamberlain -- like virtually everbody else in professional basketball -- had a high threshold for overcoming conventional opinion. He wasn't comfortable being a maverick when it came to bucking social mores. Rick Barry, on the other hand, clearly had a lower threshold -- famously not caring what others thought of him (Barry was widely disliked across the league for his disregard of other's feelings).

He ends the podcast with this observation:

I know we've really only been talking about basketball, which is just a game in the end. But the lesson here is much bigger than that. It takes courage to be good, social courage, to be honest with yourself, to do things the right way.

A Lack Of Courage To Be Good & Honest

Which brings us back to the point of this article. Chamberlain's willful blindness to the ramifications of his clearly inferior choice is not unique. In fact, when we look at many of the decisions being made by world leaders in recent years, we see a depressing abundance of intentional bad choices.

Most emblematic of this, in my opinion, are the ZIRP/NIRP interest rate policies the world's central banks are implementing. As discussed many times here at, the endgame of these policies is easy to predict. History is replete with examples of similar attempts of governments attempting to print their way to prosperity. It's simply not possible. As Chris says, if it were, the Romans would have figured it out and today we'd all be speaking Latin.

The head central bankers are not morons (although a number of them may indeed be ivory tower academics too out-of-touch with the real world). Many of them realize that they have painted themselves into a corner by easing too much for too long, by flooding the world with too much cheap debt-based money. Many understand, perhaps today more than ever, Ludwig von Mises' rule that: 

"There is no means of avoiding a final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

But, like Chamberlain, they do not have the courage to re-evaluate their beliefs and chart an alternative course.

To 'voluntarily abandon further credit expansion' means letting natural market forces bring down stock, bond and real estate prices from their current bubble highs -- thereby vaporizing a lot of paper wealth. It means widespread layoffs as inefficient companies that have been kept alive by nearly free access to nearly unlimited credit have to start actually generating profits if they can. It means living below our means today, so that we can sustainably live within them tomorrow.

Instead, they simply double down on the policies that got us into this mess in the first place, claiming that their efforts to date just haven't been big enough yet to succeed. And they do this with the full support of our politicians, who want to avoid any unpopular austerity measures because they care much more about getting re-elected than the hard work of actually addressing our nation's structural problems. So interest rates go even lower, asset bubbles grow even higher, the wealth gap extends even wider, and the risks of a "total catastrophe of the currency system" become even more extreme.

The coming economic/financial/monetary reckoning can't be avoided at this point; only managed. But we can't position ourselves to manage it gracefully if we don't have to courage to even recognize its existence. And our current leaders do not have that courage.

Which is why we need to ready ourselves, as individuals. Charles Hugh Smith recently penned an excellent report Investing For Crisis which is an essential read for any investor who shares the concern that we will continue to see more wrong choices being made for the wrong reasons -- until the entire systems fails. If you haven't read it yet, you really should.

Click here to read Charles' Investing For Crisis report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Hey Adam,
I enjoyed this article, very thought-provoking. As an aside, in the Wilt Chamberlain video, it looked like he was back a couple of steps from the free throw line. I wonder why.




Good eye, Phil.
Yes, really tall shooters like Chamberlain were coached to stand a few steps back from where the "small guys" made their foul shots, in order to bring the dimension into alignment with their greater size and strength. This was done to "soften the shot".

Listen to the commentary that starts at the 33-second mark:

Interesting. Here's a thought: what if NIRP etc is actually being done intentionally? What if the whole financial system was constructed in its current form for the sole purpose of gutting the middle class' wealth, gradually at first over the inevitable decades of dropping interest rates, then finally at the end with one big catastrophic collapse? History would suggest so. 

Thanks Mark!  
This is the flaw with the whole article (sorry Adam)…This is being done deliberately.  As with 9/11, the overwhelming evidence is that the elite bankers are doing this on purpose to take complete control of the citizen.  They've done the same thing over and over throughout the centuries.  It's also been proven by their own writings, speeches, actions, etc…it's ALL there to see!  

These aren't "wrong choices".  These are "right choices" for the elite banking cartel.  

wake up.


I would agree LogansRun. The question I've always grappled with is how far does the scam extend. Obviously those at the top know what's going on but if you were to go to your local university economics department they probably believe in the Keynesian economic babble the Fed spews out. Every day I listen to economic news on talk radio just for fun; that guy seems to believe what he's saying. I'm sure they all believe in growth, falling interest rates, QE. And Yellen was once a university economics professor. Is it that the elite architects at the top have constructed this phony universe of Keynesian Economics over the last 100 years and the minions below them just eat it all up?

Hi Adam,
great article. As a European, I really enjoyed the education on basketball!

On a separate topic, I've been listening to some recent interviews with Michael Pento where he lays out his ideas for how things might play out. He seems to make a lot of sense, but I'd love to hear his ideas being teased out by yourself or Chris. Any chance of a Peak Prosperity interview?

Many thanks, E.

I have to agree with Mark and LogansRun on this one.  Its a little like someone telling John Perkins that all those third world infrastructure projects were just a mistake, or they really thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, etc., etc.  Bill Black has plainly said, with lots of evidence, about the whole subprime housing debacle, that they knew what the results would be, but it was done anyway because they knew they could walk away with millions and didn't care what would happen to the system or the greater society as a whole (the best way to rob a bank is to own one).
Of course what LogansRun and Mark are talking about is much more sinister than even what the crooks did in the subprime scandal, but is pretty much in line with what Perkins talked about.  Systematic exploitation under false pretenses.  Now that the third world has been robbed blind, the system is turning inward on itself.  And always the "stupid" excuse, yet we fall for it over and over and over again.

What was the price that Wilt Chamberlain had to pay, perhaps a few critics here and there, maybe?  What is the price that real whistle blowers pay?  Financial ruin, excommunication, death even.  I must admit that I am a little tired of the imperious condescending narrative we get from likes of Dan Ariely from the sidelines of their comfortable upper middle class lives. "Oh, if only Janet Yellen was a smart as me". It encapsulated what I hate so much about the supposed "liberal" NPR.

Chris Hedges nails it in my mind it in his critique, Death of the Liberal Class.  The liberal intellectual class are more responsible for our march towards fascism than Donald Trump will ever be, who they absolutely love to berate. Hillary is a much a fascist as Trump is as well, but that is whole other topic of conversation.

Which is worse?

  1. "They" are really morons and they have no clue what they are doing.
  2. "They" are super clever and know exactly what they are doing.
Honestly, I don't like the conclusion of either assumption because they both lead to the same place.

However, there's a third avenue here, one that Mark Cochrane keeps alive for us which leads to uncomfortable awareness that the global elites seem to have fallen for the false illusion that humans have transcended the natural world and don't need its services.

So they rig and scam within their corrupted financial universe unaware that it happens to be a subset of the natural world, not the other way around.  

Just look at the recent G20 meeting; nothing but frenetic statements about igniting even faster growth in a post-Brexit world.  Growth, growth, growth.

Good grief, how utterly and delightfully unaware.  I find that people on all political sides of the story share the same delusion that endless growth is both necessary and desirable.  

One side thinks we can just ignore the environment - damn the smelts! - because who cares.  Right?  The other side thinks that a few more Teslas and Uber aps and we're good to go; we'll get growth by other means.

Neither side has done the basic math.  We are literally eating fossil fuels.  There's no chance of displacing them any time soon.  Here's an article that will be ignored by nearly everyone because it does not support their pre-existing beliefs:

The contradictory and troubling nature of the energy landscape is on clear display in the 2016 edition of the International Energy Outlook, the annual assessment of global trends released by the EIA this May.

Renewables get prominent attention in the report, which includes projections of global energy use through 2040. “Renewables are the world’s fastest-growing energy source over the projection period,” it concludes.

Wind and solar are expected to demonstrate particular vigor in the years to come, their growth outpacing every other form of energy. But because renewables start from such a small base — representing just 12 percent of all energy used in 2012 — they will continue to be overshadowed in the decades ahead, explosive growth or not. In 2040, according to the report’s projections, fossil fuels will still have a grip on a staggering 78 percent of the world energy market, and — if you don’t mind getting thoroughly depressed — oil, coal and natural gas will each still command larger shares of the market than all renewables combined.


The cornucopians on both sides will stop reading at the first part in bold above.

The critical information is embedded in the second bolded part.  Fossil fuels will still represent 78% of our fuel mix in 2040.  Let that sink in a moment.  

Nearly 4/5ths.  And that's if and only if renewables continue on their expected high growth trajectory. If not, then fossil fuels will remain over 80%.

Business as usual is literally killing us and nobody in power can seem to formulate a reasonable plan of escape.  

Of course we could fashion a reasonable response, but only if we were willing to do the hard work of challenging our pre-existing beliefs, which is difficult emotional work, and not many are yet up to that task.  Then we could get on with deploying the systems and technology we already have to build a more beautiful future.

So our work at PP continues; changing the narrative is the best (and probably only) way to proceed.  Because it is the stories we live by that shape our actions, and the G20 shows that the wrong story is still 99.99% entrenched while the global ecosystems, and simple math/logic, are clearly telegraphing that it's time for a new one.

The new story has to include the ideas that infinite growth is neither possible nor desirable, that the natural world is essential and we are a part of it not apart from it, and that our human greatness is not measured by our ability to cleverly detach from life but to fully and consciously immerse ourselves in it.

I have to agree with that 3rd option.  The global elites might have a clever plan to maintain and increase their control at the expense of everyone else.  But they're still human and subject to the same strong tendency to stay stuck in the old story despite all of the evidence that a new one is needed.  It's just as daunting for them to step outside the rut and do the difficult emotional work as it is for anyone else - perhaps even harder because they have the most to lose. 

Unfortunately for them, the old story misses the most important issue - the fact that their economy is a subset of the natural world.  It also ignores the fact that our survival depends on true understanding of and interdependence with the rest of nature - and that we humans are wired to connect in this way - with our inner life, with each other and with the rest of nature - that it actually feels good to do this and makes us healthier in every way.

There might be some among them who get this on an intellectual level, a subset of those who shake the old story loose enough to take some steps in the right direction, and even fewer who do some real work to create and live a new story.  But those aren't the people we need to worry about.  Once they've gone that far along the path, they won't be interested in world domination any more.

Eannao -
Thank you for the kind words - I'm very glad to hear you enjoyed the piece.

To your question about Michael Pento: I've reached out to him several times to come on our podcast.

He's proven quite challenging to get a response from. Once, I actually did catch him via phone – he wasn't very familiar with us, though after some discussion indicated he was game. But since then I've received no response to my subsequent follow-ups trying to lock down a date and time.

Some folks are harder to land than others. I'm not judging here; everyone has their own set of priorities given what's going on with their own lives and businesses. I'll keep knocking on Michael's door (while trying to avoid being a pest). Polite persistence usually pays off in the end.

I'm talking about the top 3-5k elites in the world.  Could be even less.
What if, their agenda is to deplete the world to a point where starvation, war, pestilence, etc…deplete the population of the "unwashed masses", while they have hoarded all of the Power and wealth.  With this wealth, they've built "arks", gained control of the militaries, as well as the rest of the needed infrastructures in order that THEY and their chosen few, live through (in opulence) the dark age described above?  Then in the end, they still have control, just much more?


Not possible?  Hmmmm…



I enjoyed the article however I'm not sure ZIRP/NIRP policies is good example for irrationality.  I'll try to justify ZIRP/NIRP and welcome people to demolish my reasoning.
97% or so of money in circulation is borrowed into existence which ends up, for a verity of reasons which I won't get into now, concentrated as savings in a relatively small number of hands.  The only way that debts/money can be paid back is if the money that is currently being hoarded, as savings, get spent back into general circulation.   This is the purpose of ZIRP/NIRP.  It makes it less advantageous to save money and also to get saved money back circulating.

I welcome comments.

To Mark_BC:  The term "Ivory Tower" has been around for a while but I don't hear or see it used very often lately.  In the field if education it is used to describe the self contained world of tenure protected, better than average salary, benefits and pensions. This world has separated itself from reality while fighting academic battles that have little meaning for, or impact, on the average person.  It used to be that this term was used to describe members of the professorial class. With the advent of  "micro aggression" complaints and "safe space" demands it appears the students are buying into the same insulated, disconnected from reality, world view.  I would not wait too long for any meaningful help to our problems from these folks. 
To Chris:  I would add a fourth path here.  Human psychology.  Denial is a powerful force affecting all of us to a greater or lesser degree.  History is full of examples of powerful people, who had the means to discover the truth, and had the ability to change or mitigate what was happening, but could not take the mental steps to act.  Louis and Marie Antoinette, Nicholas and Alexandra, sat on their collapsing thrones until it cost them their lives.  Chamberlain and Stalin, in the face of all evidence to the contrary (including his own pronouncements) believed Hitler would never start a war.

Belief systems can account for part of our inability to look at or accept reality. I would contend, just as powerfully, our psychological makeup allows us to look directly at the truth, and with wonderful cognitive dissonance, lets us deny or ignore what should be readily understood.


I do appreciate all that is done here to bring a variety of perspectives and I understand all the work that is involved to make that happen.  I understand that I sit in a comfortable seat here, sometimes lobbing bombs from the bleachers. Let me first say a very load thank you for the site, Chris, Adam, and all the wonderful participants that have created this amazing venue for an open an honest discussion of ideas, daring to go where few have gone before, religion and politics discussed in a civil fashion, simply amazing. Perhaps I am a victim of your success, I am so comfortable here, tossing out opinions, perhaps I should rein it in a bit sometimes, thanks again.
Calculating evil doers or morons?  Is there a difference?  I think that it actually is a very complicated question and the follow on question is does it make a difference is just as complicated. I do believe actually that all evil is unconscious by its very nature and would agree that the separation of mind/body, humans/natural world, the self/the other is at the crux of the matter.  I am in total agreement, but I don't think option three deals with the first question.

How does a particular world view gain ground, and why do their champions become so single minded and intolerant of divergent opinions?  Why do you do see the purging of universities of alternative thought in economics (even though neoliberal economics is neither new or liberal) and agriculture(get big or get out)?  The neocon world view that seems to be driving us towards self destruction, based on the belief after the collapse of the soviet union the neoliberal Anglo-American empire should rule the world without exceptions.  Why are they so intolerant of diversity and complexity and have such an intense desire for power and control?  Why?  All this because they don't understand the limits of growth or are confused about the relationship between the natural world and we humans who inhabit it?  Perhaps that's true, but I would add that we have a more fundamental problem.

Lets take a real world example.  Suppose you are awoken in the middle of night by a load noise:

Moron scenario: Your neighbor is standing in your front hall, your front door is shattered, he's as drunk as a skunk.  Your response - Hey dude, you're in the wrong house, get your act together. Seeing you and hearing your words, eureka, enlightenment, he gets it. I'm drunk, I'm in my neighbors house, damn! You walk him home or just throw him out depending on how well you know him. Outcome - if he's a decent guy you may find a check taped to your front door for the damages in the morning.

Evil Doer scenario:  Some guy you never met before is standing in you front hall with a ski mask over his head.  If you responded the same way you did in the moron scenario you have a problem. Unlikely to be a eureka moment here. Outcome - if he's just a thief, he probably ran away, if he's a sociopath, your probably dead.  Either way your or your family is paying for the damages.

The problem with the liberal intelligentsia I think is worse than that. In the political and economic ecosystem they have fallen down or been bought out.  They no longer provide the proper check on power but have become apologists for the system, often blaming the victims, in a way becoming impediments to real change.  Weak intellectual arguments are often just poorly constructed rationalizations for their own cowardice.

Perhaps this is all necessary, it requires us to all step up, and do what needs to be done. First we need to change our own lifestyle and wake ourselves up and live in a way that does not support the thoroughly corrupt infrastructure we live under.


I like to shock people out of their complacency.  I recommend readers to try this.  I tell people  "by the end of this Century we will have burnt through all our fossil fuels and we will cease to an industrial society but will have reverted back to being an agrarian society. "  See how they react ?  
At first they think you are mad because NO ONE has ever said this to them.  Then they will come up with arguments which are easily refuted by regular readers of Peak Prosperity.  In most cases they will walk away unconvinced BUT never the less you will have planted that seed of doubt in their Cornucopian minds.

 Before Mankind can prepare for our impending energy descent they need to be made aware of it


PP is based on the idea of leading by example and taking individual actions in the hopes that others will follow suit to pursue a sustainable and prosperous future. Maybe it's my lack of understanding, but what I see when I look at what Tesla is trying to accomplish, it seems that company is on the same mission.  Sure, they have a huge cash burn and it is possible that some of Elon Musk's ideas are far fetched, but the money they are spending in my opinion is going to good use. They are building the alternative infrastructure we talk about here.  Not gas stations, EV stations (think solar EV stations in the years ahead). They want to acquire Solar City in the hopes that we use the sun as our main energy source and get off the dependence of fossil fuels (idiots, how dare they!).  They are now an energy company offering the Powerwall and Powerpack for energy storage.  Their car is the best I've ever driven (not an owner) and that's what every owner I've spoken to says. Maybe their other products will also be superior? The Gigafactory is supposedly going to be 100% run on renewables. Again, leading by example.

There are a ton of people who bash Tesla and Elon and think he's out to lunch and I'm sure those same people laughed at the idea of launching and landing a rocket and reusing it.  Well history was made December 2015 and those naysayers have been proven wrong and billions will be saved on future space projects.

I think if we're going to bailout banks with trillions then it makes sense that billions is spent on products with this type of vision. Even if what he says isn't 100% accurate, it's a step in the right direction isn't it?  How can you fault a company for actually trying to make a sustainable / prosperous future?  I'm not saying they are the best and I completely understand they lose money every quarter right now and that the government (taxpayers) subsidizes a lot of this.  Tesla could go bankrupt soon, but I hope they continue with their plans, reach the masses and help with a progressive change. I do support what they are trying to do and the concept, which is: have solar panels charge your electric vehicle and provide your home with electricity…makes sense to me. How do we get there?  If we ever get there, does that solve all of our problems?  Not by a long shot, however, it seems we would be better positioned than we are now. I also understand the sun doesn't shine everywhere all the time.

Watch this video to see their Powerwall and Powerpack products.


Why is this bad? What am I missing? 


Just look at that picture that you posted.   What are you missing you ask?  Look at that picture again.  Can you see it now ? No.  No ?   Ok, I'll spell it out to you.  Everything in the picture would not be possible without fossil fuels.  Nothing.  Add up all the energy imbedded of all the objects that you see.  It is massive.  None of it would be possible without fossil fuels.  Renewable energy supplies less than 3 kWh/day each in the US, where the picture implies a lifestyle that consumes at least 250 kWh/day each.  The picture does not represent life without fossil fuels, it's an illusion.
Do you get it now?

The question of understanding someone's motivation involves guessing.  We see the individual events then we must GUESS as to what the real goals are.   I imagine this is like watching a chess game and trying to guess the pattern being developed as we watch the individual moves.
One example:  Suppose I wanted to establish totalitarian control over Europe.  Well, I could do it for freedom, compassion, right wing resurgence and to establish law and order.  So, do you believe that sh*t?

1.  Freedom–bomb the crap out of lots of Arab countries to liberate them from dictators.  Millions displaced and homeless.  Infrastructure destroyed.  Water systems, roads, factories. cities unlivable.

2.  Compassion–they attempt to escape the shattered country on boats.  Some drown. Some trapped in inhumane refugee holding areas and border fences.  We must have compassion for these people and open our borders and hearts to fellow human beings in need.  They enter in the hundreds of thousands to millions.

3.   Right-wing nationalism:  Millions of un-assimilable Arab men (mostly) move into communities throughout Europe.  Speak different language, different customs, cannot be employed well.  Safe western cities suddenly have immense ghettos and gang rapes by migrants are common.  European's get really mad.  The situation is framed that not liking being gang raped by Arab men is "racism" and that patrolling the streets by indigenous European population is a "resurgence of right-wing nationalism."

4.  Conflicts break out and to preserve order, police / domestic military must escalate crowd and population control efforts with surveillance, check points, facial recognition software, detention without legal process, movement restriction, capitol controls, etc. etc.

A totalitarian transformation happens.  But we are good people and we don't believe that anyone could deliberately do something so harmful.  And we believe in freedom, compassion, right-wing reactionary groups and law and order.

So it all happens under our noses and we just don't get it.  We are lead like a cow with a ring in its nose using all of our most basic attitudes and assumptions.


Yes, I'm aware it was created with fossil fuels. Your response seems very condescending, no?  No? 
Ok, no I don't get it.  What your saying seems to indicate we should just give up.  It wasn't constructive at all and I think you've missed the point.  Telling me that everything in the picture would not be possible without fossil fuels does not help. Let's just forget about renewables all together and keep doing what we're doing, burn baby burn.  Thanks anyway climber.