3 ms·

Thanks I appreciate it. And how would you characterize/summarize the traditional framing?

Melting_Harps 5y ago
> Thanks I appreciate it. And how would you characterize/summarize the traditional framing? Characterization: Apt. Summary: It's written with a clear tinge of irony, but essentially it is saying we're playing Russian Roulette with a nearly loaded gun with the only place we know in this Solar System that is capable of maintaining Life, and a beautiful biodiverese one at that. My opinion: Is that Humanity must re-structure it's value system in order to survive on this planet; for some the notion of reducing consumption is akin to death, but the idea of doing nothing and greenwashing (much like Tesla's business model to sell affluent people EVs alone will save the planet) is not enough as ecological collapse and extreme weather as result of climate change is happening before our eyes. I read a few of your posts on cryptocurrency, and one of the reasons I as an environmentalist support Bitcoin is mainly because its is mainly using and thus incentivizing more renewable energy sources to be built. It's hard to explain but I could intuit this tech had this potential if it were to live up to it's potential when I started to take it seriously ~10 years ago--this was even before the whole wasteful energy FUD as it was mainly done by solo miners with GPUs. Alongside this was my time spent in sustainable, and regenerative Agriculture (biodynamic) with a major focus on hemp as a carbon sequestration solution to offset climate change as well as working in solar projects. I'm not trying to sell you on the token, but merely explaining how all the moving parts work in tandem to create a viable solution to a much needed problem: people seldom consider the wasteful nature of the legacy banking system, but this can and should be included wen confronting the reality of the current state of affairs.
- BoiledCabbage 5y ago
  > Summary: It's written with a clear tinge of irony, but essentially it is saying we're playing Russian Roulette with a nearly loaded gun with the only place we know in this Solar System that is capable of maintaining Life, and a beautiful biodiverese one at that. Thanks - and feel free to ignore if this is getting too tedious, but I feel like I may not be asking my question correctly, as the answer seems to be the same thing. I'm starting from an inability to hear the key difference between Musk's framing of climate change and the traditional framing of climate change that is presented. To me what Musk said sounds no different that what I normally hear. Now since a number of people are saying that Musk's framing resonated with them while the traditional one didn't, I'm looking to understand how it differs from the traditional one. And I appreciate your replies, but I keep seeing a summary of what Musk said (which is accurate and is also how I read it), but nothing on how people hear the traditional framing of climate change. To me the traditional framing is something like: "We only have one planet, let's stop destroying it before it's too late." To my ears those are essentially the same thing. Clearly I'm missing the difference, and I'm looking to hear how someone hears the traditional framing. And then specifically what about the traditional framing is missing. I'm looking for a compare and contrast between A and B. And I do appreciate your replies, but unless I'm missing something, they seem like two summaries of A and no discussion of B. And not how B is different from A. Which is what I'm trying to parse out. ---------- Regarding crypto I do understand your thinking that it has potential to be beneficial. And clearly it's something you've spent a lot of time thinking about. The two concerns I have are this: Crypto does have a high demand and growing demand for energy. That is mainly renewables. But to me, The second part, is that the novel part of the ecosystem to me are programmatic contracts primarily. A distributed database second. 95% of the benefits of crypto for larger society boil down to programmatic contracts once you strip out the hype (and any speculation / get rich quick aspects). [To be very clear bitcoin price appreciation in itself is not a net benefit for society. But it is something that entices people to purchase and spread crypto which has properties that are a net benefit for society.] If someone started from a goal of wanting smart contracts and possibly a distributed db they could come up with something significantly more energy efficient than crypto coin. But back to the first part which is my primary concern and I ask you as someone who does care about this. I'm assuming the reason you want to swap to renewables is because it will produce a lot of solar and provide us with a renewable energy surplus. Clearly this would be a benefit to humanity. The question I ask you, is that Bitcoin (for example) and many others all scale with difficulty. Meaning the more energy available, the more power people will use for mining. We will never have an energy surplus for the remaining future because any additional energy we add will now immediately be used for crypto to increase its difficulty. Solar could be an order of magnitude cheaper tomorrow, and as a result, people will just by 10x as much as they buy today. We won't get almost any surplus value from that hypothetical 10x surplus/improvement. Crypto will be an energy sink for society from now going forward. Do you see anything to contradict that? Because to me that is one of the largest flaws with the approach to crypto.
  - Melting_Harps 5y ago
    > I'm looking for a compare and contrast between A and B. And I do appreciate your replies, but unless I'm missing something, they seem like two summaries of A and no discussion of B. And not how B is different from A. Which is what I'm trying to parse out. Influencer effect, I suppose? Really, it's as you said: it's no different than what has been said by others. I supposed the caveat being that Elon is the darling of the tech World, particularly in the startup World with desires to replicate his success. I mean even Al Gore was saying the same thing if you think about it, albeit with the typical limousine liberal behaviour where he was flying all over the World in his private jet (like Elon, btw) talking about the perils of Climate Change, or as it was referred to back then: Global Warming. > Crypto does have a high demand and growing demand for energy. That is mainly renewables. But to me, Was there a part to this that segues into the following part as I feel that was critical to what was followed wasn't entirely substantiated? While I do not want to speak on behalf of anything other than Bitcoin, it must be said lot of cryptocurrencies are not based on a PoW system, but rather a PoS system, that doesn't require intense mining process that many of BTC's detractors point toward. Moreover, I think what is missing here is that the end (creating more renewable energy thus lessening the dependence of fossil fuels) is just being incentivized by the means (mining Bitcoin). We can sit here and debate if that's the best way, but I've been dissapointed with the Energy landscape for so long that I'll take the win how ever I can get it, and Bitcoin has and will likely continue to do so as it's no become institutional and mainstream. I'm not advocating for a surplus since practical storage is not here just yet, check my recent post on why as CA has had to turn off it's solar production in Sept 21' because of a skweed economic disincentive, because the energy created could have been used for mining which then could be coupled with heat capturing processes to yield other desirable but energy intensive practices: greenhouse warming, nursing incubating, aqua culture etc... which would help make it carbon neutral or ideally carbon negative. All of these things have been undertaken in some capacity in the BTC space, but clearly not enough since most of it was mined in China for most of it's history, I'm just saying that as it relocates to the West where it's more likely to occur is a net benefit. Smart contracts are a 3 hour conversation for me: I spent time at a Megacorp as a dev and consultant being forced to use ETH and solidity when LN and RTSK are now far more capable of doing anything it could do on the most secure network. And even as an advocate, I think it's only part of net benefit of Bitcoin's network: people simply don't seem to see the value of having an immutable pubic ledger that is backed by he most secure network man has ever devised yet. We'll get there.

> Thanks I appreciate it. And how would you characterize/summarize the traditional framing? Characterization: Apt. Summary: It's written with a clear tinge of irony, but essentially it is saying we're playing Russian Roulette with a nearly loaded gun with the only place we know in this Solar System that is capable of maintaining Life, and a beautiful biodiverese one at that. My opinion: Is that Humanity must re-structure it's value system in order to survive on this planet; for some the notion of reducing consumption is akin to death, but the idea of doing nothing and greenwashing (much like Tesla's business model to sell affluent people EVs alone will save the planet) is not enough as ecological collapse and extreme weather as result of climate change is happening before our eyes. I read a few of your posts on cryptocurrency, and one of the reasons I as an environmentalist support Bitcoin is mainly because its is mainly using and thus incentivizing more renewable energy sources to be built. It's hard to explain but I could intuit this tech had this potential if it were to live up to it's potential when I started to take it seriously ~10 years ago--this was even before the whole wasteful energy FUD as it was mainly done by solo miners with GPUs. Alongside this was my time spent in sustainable, and regenerative Agriculture (biodynamic) with a major focus on hemp as a carbon sequestration solution to offset climate change as well as working in solar projects. I'm not trying to sell you on the token, but merely explaining how all the moving parts work in tandem to create a viable solution to a much needed problem: people seldom consider the wasteful nature of the legacy banking system, but this can and should be included wen confronting the reality of the current state of affairs.

BoiledCabbage 5y ago
> Summary: It's written with a clear tinge of irony, but essentially it is saying we're playing Russian Roulette with a nearly loaded gun with the only place we know in this Solar System that is capable of maintaining Life, and a beautiful biodiverese one at that. Thanks - and feel free to ignore if this is getting too tedious, but I feel like I may not be asking my question correctly, as the answer seems to be the same thing. I'm starting from an inability to hear the key difference between Musk's framing of climate change and the traditional framing of climate change that is presented. To me what Musk said sounds no different that what I normally hear. Now since a number of people are saying that Musk's framing resonated with them while the traditional one didn't, I'm looking to understand how it differs from the traditional one. And I appreciate your replies, but I keep seeing a summary of what Musk said (which is accurate and is also how I read it), but nothing on how people hear the traditional framing of climate change. To me the traditional framing is something like: "We only have one planet, let's stop destroying it before it's too late." To my ears those are essentially the same thing. Clearly I'm missing the difference, and I'm looking to hear how someone hears the traditional framing. And then specifically what about the traditional framing is missing. I'm looking for a compare and contrast between A and B. And I do appreciate your replies, but unless I'm missing something, they seem like two summaries of A and no discussion of B. And not how B is different from A. Which is what I'm trying to parse out. ---------- Regarding crypto I do understand your thinking that it has potential to be beneficial. And clearly it's something you've spent a lot of time thinking about. The two concerns I have are this: Crypto does have a high demand and growing demand for energy. That is mainly renewables. But to me, The second part, is that the novel part of the ecosystem to me are programmatic contracts primarily. A distributed database second. 95% of the benefits of crypto for larger society boil down to programmatic contracts once you strip out the hype (and any speculation / get rich quick aspects). [To be very clear bitcoin price appreciation in itself is not a net benefit for society. But it is something that entices people to purchase and spread crypto which has properties that are a net benefit for society.] If someone started from a goal of wanting smart contracts and possibly a distributed db they could come up with something significantly more energy efficient than crypto coin. But back to the first part which is my primary concern and I ask you as someone who does care about this. I'm assuming the reason you want to swap to renewables is because it will produce a lot of solar and provide us with a renewable energy surplus. Clearly this would be a benefit to humanity. The question I ask you, is that Bitcoin (for example) and many others all scale with difficulty. Meaning the more energy available, the more power people will use for mining. We will never have an energy surplus for the remaining future because any additional energy we add will now immediately be used for crypto to increase its difficulty. Solar could be an order of magnitude cheaper tomorrow, and as a result, people will just by 10x as much as they buy today. We won't get almost any surplus value from that hypothetical 10x surplus/improvement. Crypto will be an energy sink for society from now going forward. Do you see anything to contradict that? Because to me that is one of the largest flaws with the approach to crypto.
- Melting_Harps 5y ago
  > I'm looking for a compare and contrast between A and B. And I do appreciate your replies, but unless I'm missing something, they seem like two summaries of A and no discussion of B. And not how B is different from A. Which is what I'm trying to parse out. Influencer effect, I suppose? Really, it's as you said: it's no different than what has been said by others. I supposed the caveat being that Elon is the darling of the tech World, particularly in the startup World with desires to replicate his success. I mean even Al Gore was saying the same thing if you think about it, albeit with the typical limousine liberal behaviour where he was flying all over the World in his private jet (like Elon, btw) talking about the perils of Climate Change, or as it was referred to back then: Global Warming. > Crypto does have a high demand and growing demand for energy. That is mainly renewables. But to me, Was there a part to this that segues into the following part as I feel that was critical to what was followed wasn't entirely substantiated? While I do not want to speak on behalf of anything other than Bitcoin, it must be said lot of cryptocurrencies are not based on a PoW system, but rather a PoS system, that doesn't require intense mining process that many of BTC's detractors point toward. Moreover, I think what is missing here is that the end (creating more renewable energy thus lessening the dependence of fossil fuels) is just being incentivized by the means (mining Bitcoin). We can sit here and debate if that's the best way, but I've been dissapointed with the Energy landscape for so long that I'll take the win how ever I can get it, and Bitcoin has and will likely continue to do so as it's no become institutional and mainstream. I'm not advocating for a surplus since practical storage is not here just yet, check my recent post on why as CA has had to turn off it's solar production in Sept 21' because of a skweed economic disincentive, because the energy created could have been used for mining which then could be coupled with heat capturing processes to yield other desirable but energy intensive practices: greenhouse warming, nursing incubating, aqua culture etc... which would help make it carbon neutral or ideally carbon negative. All of these things have been undertaken in some capacity in the BTC space, but clearly not enough since most of it was mined in China for most of it's history, I'm just saying that as it relocates to the West where it's more likely to occur is a net benefit. Smart contracts are a 3 hour conversation for me: I spent time at a Megacorp as a dev and consultant being forced to use ETH and solidity when LN and RTSK are now far more capable of doing anything it could do on the most secure network. And even as an advocate, I think it's only part of net benefit of Bitcoin's network: people simply don't seem to see the value of having an immutable pubic ledger that is backed by he most secure network man has ever devised yet. We'll get there.