4 ms·

Humans are by nature self-serving. For example, it's easy to to point at blockchain as a burden on our environment, but of the people that do so - how many will

by doopy1 5y ago

Humans are by nature self-serving. For example, it's easy to to point at blockchain as a burden on our environment, but of the people that do so - how many will needlessly consume meat on a regular basis, or by single servings of items in plastic wrapping? It's all just cognitive dissonance.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"or by single servings of items in plastic wrapping?" Bought a smartphone for $200? You are supporting modern slavery in China with your consumerist demand for cheap goods! Oh, you bought a premium smartphone for $2,000? Congratulations, you are still supporting slavery, the company lied, have a nice day! Stop this charade, it's only purpose is to shift blame while those that created the problem are making a killing. There is nowhere I can buy food without plastic within a 5 mile radius. What am I suppose to do, buy a cow, slaughter it myself in my apartment?
- doopy1 5y ago
  Well if you care enough in the first place, you won't be eating beef at all.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    Replace beef for cucumber, now what? It still comes in plastic. Whats's the point of this criticism that does not address the substance of my post whatsoever? What's next on this train of thought, 'if you cared about the environment you would commit seppuku and save the world your carbon footprint'
    - doopy1 5y ago
      My point is that the beef farming industry makes bitcoin's carbon footprint look like a drop in the bucket in comparison, so it's disingenuous for folks to shit on crypto because of it's environmental impact if they are going to be hypocrites and put a burden on the planet in every other way imaginable.
  - mejutoco 5y ago
    The logical conclusion of this is that not existing is the best for the environment. We can do something, but it is ok if it is not the absolute best. The absolute best for the environment might not be too healthy for you :)

by doopy1 5y ago

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"or by single servings of items in plastic wrapping?" Bought a smartphone for $200? You are supporting modern slavery in China with your consumerist demand for cheap goods! Oh, you bought a premium smartphone for $2,000? Congratulations, you are still supporting slavery, the company lied, have a nice day! Stop this charade, it's only purpose is to shift blame while those that created the problem are making a killing. There is nowhere I can buy food without plastic within a 5 mile radius. What am I suppose to do, buy a cow, slaughter it myself in my apartment?

doopy1 5y ago
Well if you care enough in the first place, you won't be eating beef at all.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Replace beef for cucumber, now what? It still comes in plastic. Whats's the point of this criticism that does not address the substance of my post whatsoever? What's next on this train of thought, 'if you cared about the environment you would commit seppuku and save the world your carbon footprint'
  - doopy1 5y ago
    My point is that the beef farming industry makes bitcoin's carbon footprint look like a drop in the bucket in comparison, so it's disingenuous for folks to shit on crypto because of it's environmental impact if they are going to be hypocrites and put a burden on the planet in every other way imaginable.
- mejutoco 5y ago
  The logical conclusion of this is that not existing is the best for the environment. We can do something, but it is ok if it is not the absolute best. The absolute best for the environment might not be too healthy for you :)