5 ms·
While taxing carbon usage is a good idea, there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of allocating so much resources, in servers, in power and in spac
by pyrale 6y ago
While taxing carbon usage is a good idea, there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of allocating so much resources, in servers, in power and in space, for what essentially doesn't improve people's lives.
That this craze receives so much attention and funding while we face very real existential challenges is maddening.
- dylan604 6y agoIf the owners of the miners are actually able to turn their coins into wealth that increases their lifestyle, then the mining did improve someone's life. Just because it affects a very small number of people isn't much different than most other "traditional" financial products in exsistence.
- whimsicalism 6y ago> then the mining did improve someone's life On net, was it welfare enhancing for our species though? If I make $1 off of emissions that cause external harm worth $2 distributed among the 7 billion people on this planet, I'm basically just laundering money through a loophole in what the law today considers to be harming someone else.
- seibelj 6y agoYou just keep moving the goalposts by using the most extreme argument you can muster. To be honest the sports industry uses tons of energy in lighting stadiums, streaming them, training players, it goes on and on. Entertainment could be done much more cheaply and effectively. I think society should outlaw sport - so many people are hurt in injuries, and the climate is just utterly demolished through all the energy waste. I can’t see a reason why society would allow sports. It’s ultimately beneficial to a very small amount of owners and their players (who are exploited!) that take all the cream off the top. Completely immoral honestly. The fact society wastes so much thought, effort, energy, focus, when we could instead be going to Mars or training STEM graduates is just criminal.
- whimsicalism 6y ago> You just keep moving the goalposts by using the most extreme argument you can muster. The most extreme arguments I can muster? There are tons of industries that produce negative net value when accounting for externalities. $1 in profit for $2 in external harm is not at all that ridiculous. > I think society should outlaw sport - so many people are hurt in injuries My argument is that we should price carbon usage to account for externalities. I highly doubt sports turns out to be net unprofitable, even once accounting for those externalities.
- pyrale 6y agoBitcoin is not advertised as entertainment, though. And if it was, gambling industries are heavily regulated. If you argue that bitcoin is essentially a new entrant in gambling, would you support similar regulation? Otherwise, there is not much besides whataboutism here.
- imtringued 6y agoOkay, lets say we agree that the sports industry causes externalities. The sports industry recognizes this and installs LEDs and other efficient electronics and cuts their energy consumption by 50%. If the sports industry and Bitcoin were equivalently bad the sports industry would immediately respond to the efficiency increase by doubling the number of stadiums and consume the same amount of energy in the end. Worse, they also had to construct new stadiums with concrete and therefore emitted CO2 during the construction process.
- pyrale 6y agoIt is wealth redistribution, though, not wealth creation. These people essentially take money from newcomers to the btc ecosystem, but btcs themselves are not tied to any tangible asset or value. More importantly, creating new bitcoins is not tied to the creation of new counterparts. Essentially, when someone mines bitcoins, they are not involved in a productive act.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> If the owners of the miners are actually able to turn their coins into wealth that increases their lifestyle, then the mining did improve someone's life Bitcoin is between high finance and casinos. Both are highly regulated.
- JoshTriplett 6y ago> While taxing carbon usage is a good idea, there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of allocating so much resources, in servers, in power and in space, for what essentially doesn't improve people's lives. There's something fundamentally wrong with the idea of deciding for people what might improve their lives and what isn't allowed to try, rather than letting them decide for themselves individually. People decide to allocate those resources, for something they consider worthwhile. Some of them think they'll get rich. Some of them think they're changing how the world does business or exchanges money. Perhaps some of them are right; perhaps none are right but a successor that learns from them will be; perhaps they'll solve a novel problem or perhaps they won't. The world needs room to experiment with interesting ideas.
- whimsicalism 6y ago> There's something fundamentally wrong with the idea of deciding for people what might improve their lives and what isn't allowed to try I disagree, I don't think this at all an a priori wrong. It's helpful to consider the limit case. If we lived in a world, for instance, where one person owned all of the food in the world and didn't want anyone else to eat it, it would be permissible for the other 7 billion people in the world to "decide for" that one that their food will be redistributed.
- vinger 6y agoPermissible by whom? The one who owns the food? By the mob of 7 billion? By your own Morality? What if you are the only one without, would the 7 billion agree the person is morally correct to steal from them?
- user-the-name 6y ago> There's something fundamentally wrong with the idea of deciding for people what might improve their lives and what isn't allowed to try, rather than letting them decide for themselves individually This is literally the whole point of having law.
- pyrale 6y ago
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea of allocating so much resources, in servers, in power and in space, for what essentially doesn't improve people's lives The track record of “for the people’s good” juntas is poor. When they aren’t venally stripping the populace, they’re squashing any hint of innovative challenge to the incumbency.
- pyrale 6y agoI don't believe we have discussed before. Maybe interpreting my words as a call for the establishment of a junta isn't the best start in a constructive discussion. Do you start like that with anyone interested in ethics?
- barneygale 6y agoWho suggested juntas?
- renewiltord 6y agoIt improves people’s lives, just likely not yours. Just like I don’t benefit from caps on medical professionals, or police unions, or health insurance.
- arrosenberg 6y agoHow? Beyond creating a few lottery winners, it has no utility for the average person.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y agoNeither does a multi-million dollar yacht or companies / foreigners buying billions in properties for investment displacing communities. In the real world, "utility" doesn't exist unless it benefits a select few.
- renewiltord 6y agoVanishingly few things have substantial utility for the average person. But clearly BTC has utility for those participating in transacting and mining it, or they wouldn’t be doing it.
- arrosenberg 6y agoIt's not "clear" BTC has utility for anyone. For most people it seems like a speculative investment vehicle (i.e. a lottery ticket).
- renewiltord 6y agoEven granting that, speculative investments have utility. That's why people participate in them.
- arrosenberg 6y agoWhat is their utility beyond being a lottery ticket? That was my original question. Lotto winners have mixed outcomes, so I'm not sure that its clear if those lives were improved. We may come find out they weren't. State governments have had a monopoly on lotteries for my entire lifetime, so if we've granted that crypto is nothing beyond a lottery ticket, then there is no issue with society regulating it to whatever degree we can agree on.