5 ms·
Yes but if we start playing the “which energy use is more valid” game then quickly we realize energy is in the eye of the beholder, and the solution is a pollut
by seibelj 5y ago
Yes but if we start playing the “which energy use is more valid” game then quickly we realize energy is in the eye of the beholder, and the solution is a pollution tax. Bitcoin shouldn’t be outlawed anymore than video games (a totally useless tech from a society viewpoint) but HNers love their video games and Google paychecks.
- landemva 5y agoWould you consider having USA impose environmental parity tariffs as a way to tax over-polluting countries (which are used by Apple because of the lack of environmental and human protections which make things cheaper to manufacturer over there)?
- seibelj 5y agoI have nuanced and specific views on this, but to summarize, I don't think we can ever rely on that as a solution. I think a more realistic solution is more exotic - chemicals in the atmosphere, giant mirrors in space, some sort of carbon sequestration, etc. The majority of environmental damage is to the immediate vicinity (air / water) of the factories, and the citizens of the nation will have to demand change from their leaders, just as happened in England and then America throughout the industrial revolution. The global environmental risks we need to solve in more advanced ways.
- pnt12 5y agoI partially agree with the eye of the beholder argument. But video-games, useless? Hard disagree. How about movies, books, theater, paintings? We should not move into a soulless society that only cares about "productive" activities. Meanwhile, crypto and PoW are cool concepts that do the same as existing applications, just slower and at an enormous cost to everyone.