But apparently there is some point where a large enough majority converts an ethic from subjective into objective. For example "murder is wrong" is considered o

But apparently there is some point where a large enough majority converts an ethic from subjective into objective. For example "murder is wrong" is considered objectively true even though serial killers my disagree. And at least in broad strokes, it is possible to determine benefit to harm ratios. It is esntially uncontroversial to say "Coal Rollers"[1] do more harm relative to good than candy manufacturing or face lifts. And a cap/tax carbon emissions would be great. But that hasn't happened, effectively isn't going to anytime soon and is more complex than it seems. Consider that spikes in green energy use will drive its price such that petroleum becomes more attractive in spite of a tax. And there is no way to correctly price carbon emissions when the effect will be felt by hundreds of generations and the extent of the harm is still unknown. It is, after all, simpler to try to persuade a smaller interest just to stop mining (even though that too has almost no chance of happening). I have no idea whether Bitcoin is being unfairly singled out or not. But since the thread is about mining efficiency, it is the logical topic rather than say deforestation. So it's not a-priori impossible that it does more harm than good. And even if not a catastrophic problem, surely it would still be nice to reduce the harm if possible. [1]https://www.businessinsider.com/conservatives-purposely-making-cars-spew-black-smoke-2014-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/conservatives-purposely-maki...