That’s a lot of heat for a pretty basic observation: Superman doesn’t kill, and that’s what makes him compelling. The idea that people today might expect more "pragmatic" or forceful solutions isn’t sociopathy—it’s realism. Look at public support for the death penalty, drone strikes, or stand-your-ground laws. The world’s more peaceful statistically, sure—but the instinct to use force "for the greater good" is still around.

The story doesn’t say Clark should kill. It says people might want him to, and he refuses. That’s the whole point: he holds the line even when it’s unpopular. That’s not out of touch—that’s what makes him Superman.

You mean it's holding a mirror up to OUR behavior, because lets face it no one can dictate Superman's moral compass. That's part of what makes him, him.

There's YT videos saying effectively the same thing. Not that blacks will. All of them can go out of business, and big ag can buy them up.

Yours is an example of shooting the messenger, while not addressing the message. At least someone recognized what's important.

Two amazing things. Growth of the charger network, kind of like what ICE had to go through especially in keeping with the technology of the time. The second is the ease of setting up a network. ICE equivalent would be a pumpjack/gas well with a miniaturized refinery. EV is basically drop a bunch of solar cells, some batteries, and a charger out in the middle of nowhere.

Kind of the way "always on" internet changed things for everyone even though the base offerings were the same.

I remember asking that a ways back.

Could Superman's ethics survive in this day and age?

ChatGPT said:
That's a great question—and it gets at the heart of how superheroes reflect and challenge the times they live in.

Superman's ethics, traditionally rooted in absolute moral clarity—truth, justice, and a kind of unwavering altruism—were forged during the 1930s and '40s, when the world craved idealism amid depression and war. But today's world is more cynical, fractured, and morally complex. So the tension between Superman's moral absolutism and the modern world's ambiguity is very real.

Could his ethics survive?
1. Yes, but they'd be challenged constantly.
Superman's unwavering sense of right and wrong would feel out of step in an era of moral relativism, political polarization, and public distrust of power. A Superman who says, "I won't kill under any circumstances," would likely face public backlash in situations where pragmatic, violent solutions are expected or demanded.

2. His example could be more important than ever.
Precisely because his ethics are out of sync with the times, Superman could function as a moral north star—a kind of aspirational figure who reminds people of the values we've lost or compromised. Writers like Grant Morrison and Mark Waid have portrayed him this way: not naïve, but principled in the face of darkness.

3. He'd need reinterpretation—not reinvention.
Superman's ethics could survive if they're presented not as rigid rules but as chosen commitments. For example, he doesn't kill not because it's easy, but because it's hard—and he chooses that restraint as a reflection of hope and accountability. That kind of internal moral struggle can feel deeply modern.

4. The world around him would change more than he would.
In good stories, Superman doesn't bend to the world so much as force the world to reckon with his refusal to bend. That dynamic—idealism confronting pragmatism—can still resonate today, especially when we’re saturated with anti-heroes and compromised protagonists.

TL;DR:
Superman's ethics could absolutely survive—but they’d face more resistance and scrutiny than ever. And that conflict could make his stories richer, not weaker.

You're absolutely right — and we’re already seeing it in the data. Fertility rates are dropping in some lower-income countries too, especially in urbanizing regions. That trend lagged behind wealthy nations but is now catching up, and it aligns with rising exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) like microplastics and PFAS ("forever chemicals") — both of which are now found worldwide, even in remote or poor regions.

A 2024 review of 3,000 studies flagged inhaled microplastics as a likely contributor to fertility disruption. And in 2025, scientists found microplastics in ovarian follicles — directly within the reproductive system.

Meanwhile, a study from Singapore found women with higher PFAS levels were 40% less likely to achieve pregnancy or live birth. These chemicals disrupt hormones in both men and women and are increasingly present in food, water, and even indoor air.

The Endocrine Society's 2024 report notes that low- and middle-income countries may actually suffer more from these exposures due to weaker regulations and higher levels of plastic waste or industrial runoff.

So yes — it's not just an economic or social issue anymore. There's a biological, environmental layer to the global fertility decline, and it's affecting everyone.

That’s a historical fact, but it doesn’t invalidate modern contributing factors. The global fertility decline has many phases and causes. Earlier drops were driven by access to contraception, education, and economic changes — sure. But that doesn’t mean newer environmental factors like endocrine disruptors in plastics and PFAS (forever chemicals) aren’t now compounding the issue. Fertility rates in many countries have now fallen below replacement levels, and that trend aligns with increased environmental contamination. It's not about what started the decline — it's about what’s accelerating or sustaining it today.

There’s good research out there showing decreased sperm counts and hormone disruption linked to these chemicals. This is an evolving, multifactorial problem — not a single-cause story.

Two words. Forever chemicals, and microplastics. Look it up, there are papers. That's why it's a worldwide problem because the cause is worldwide, much like climate change. We are the modern day petri dish unwittingly being experimented on.

Lovely. Did a litany of disasters and forgot earthquakes and diseases, not to mention environmental collapse. No, even bunkers will not be safe and the disasters will last for decades.

The funny thing is there's a sale on AI books that would clear up a lot of the misinformation people have about AI. But people would rather say ,"cars will always look like the model-T" and ignore the changes coming. Peculiar for those supposedly tech focused.

Fascism is very flexible hence it's easy adoption.

The phones belong to Apple. What do you think?

Companion (2025), shows replacement may not be a good idea.