3 ms·
This is a bad argument. Just because something we currently do is worse than something we want to do, doesn’t mean the new thing is good. Nor does it mean we s
by 2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
This is a bad argument.
Just because something we currently do is worse than something we want to do, doesn’t mean the new thing is good. Nor does it mean we should add to our current burden unnecessarily.
It also ignores what we use the old thing for. Flight has enabled so much: fast response to disasters, faster shipping of goods, saving human lives. The entire planet can benefit from flight. Crypto is used by a small minority and seems pretty much fueled by speculation.
The only legitimate use of crypto is as a currency in places where the economy is poor, or the state can too easily seize your assets etc.
- friendlydog 5y agoAviation makes up only 1.9% of the big pie and bitcoin barely is a blip. It would be nice not to have those tons, but addressing big pollution first makes the most sense for triaging the problem. Personally I would enjoy the lower prices for graphics cards if bitcoin went away. No one said eliminate all air travel. Cutting it down to once a week for non-emergency use world wide would have a huge effect, but even then aviation is only 1.9% of the problem. Making tarrifs, even within the same country, on food grown by milage from consumption would reduce the transport and farming slice of the pie. Eat locally for the cheapest cost.