4 ms·
The assumption that freed capacity would be gobbled up by other consumption (100% of it) is a strong one that I wouldn't agree on. Reducing consumption (e.g. in
by Tarsul 6y ago
The assumption that freed capacity would be gobbled up by other consumption (100% of it) is a strong one that I wouldn't agree on. Reducing consumption (e.g. internet, meat) means that less would be produced in the long run, thus it does have a positive impact on the climate. We can talk about details or exceptions but the general idea that less consumption = less consumption [sic] = less climate warming is firm. I think the greater point is that we have to look at a long time horizon with long lasting changes to really see this, that's why we as humans have trouble implementing these changes.
- t-writescode 6y agoI think it’s easily to correlate internet speed availability to road breadth. Increasing the number of lanes on a road does not reduce traffic, it adds more cars. It’s a common, unfortunate phenomenon.
- supertrope 6y agoCars, roads, and parking have bumped up against hard limits. There's no way to expand a lane of traffic to more than 2000 cars per hour and people generally resist multipliers like buses and subways unless driving is already painful. Broadband has expanded several orders of magnitude. There's still the ransition from copper to fiber, from 1G to 10G, and multiple wavelengths.
- t-writescode 6y agoBut we always fill it up to maximum we can. Higher throughput means more ads and larger images, for example. The more that can be fit in that 250ms or whatever it is, the more that will be fit into it.