4 ms·

'Don't try to downplay the role of internet, mobile devices and social media' Exhibit A people: we have impeding total collapse of the ecosystem, and they blam

'Don't try to downplay the role of internet, mobile devices and social media' Exhibit A people: we have impeding total collapse of the ecosystem, and they blame 'too many phones'. Have you spoken to a teenager lately? All my younger colleagues are convinced they are the ones that will have to deal with the mess, and they are probably right

antisinguIarity 5y ago
It's funny how people don't associate the endless stream of shiny gadgets they own, that are stuffed full with the latest and greatest in rare minerals, with the destruction of the ecosystem. Just to pick a recent-ish story at random: https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/nickel-deforestation https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/nickel-deforestation
- adrianN 5y ago
  Buying a smartphone every year or two absolutely pales in comparison with having to rent a poorly insulated flat that is heated with oil in a city that forces you to own a car to get to work in a country that mostly burns coal and gas for electricity. Individual choices can only save a small part of your emissions. Blaming individuals for problems that need state policy is an effective tool of fossil fuel interest groups.
  - antisinguIarity 5y ago
    Ah so I'm a shill for the fossil fuel industry, because I believe in the power of individual choices? Fantastic. FWIW I had made no mention of emissions - I was talking purely about destruction of the ecosystem (which was the phrase used in the parent comment). I believe that (in some cases, deliberately) ignoring those impacts of our consumer habits makes us in the West the greatest force for planetary destruction. It won't matter if the planet is a few degrees warmer in a few decades, if there are no trees left. The embodied energy of a person's collection of tech absolutely does sit in the same ballpark as heating and transportation energy costs. Once you've added up your smartwatch, phone, laptop, tv, monitors, etc, I wouldn't be surprised if it was about the same energy as that required to heat your home for a year. PS. Move. There are plenty of places.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      "because I believe in the power of individual choices? " "The embodied energy of a person's collection of tech absolutely does sit in the same ballpark as heating and transportation energy costs." You believe in silly ideas like this because you never bothered tp grab a calculator. If you did, you would know that embodied energy of all you electronics in a couple 1000 megajoules. Thats the same as two tanks of petrol, and all you life choices add up to nothing. We've been at this 'individual responsebility' crap for 50 years. They've got you right where they want tou.
      - antisinguIarity 5y ago
        >If you did, you would know that embodied energy of all you electronics in a couple 1000 megajoules. A very quick Google will tell you that a laptop alone is 4500MJ, or about 4 tanks of petrol (although I'm not too sure about that source, as it claims that a refrigerator is even more than that). Once again, I'll point out that I started out discussing the overall environmental impacts. CO2 emissions and energy usage are only part of that - how do you justify the mineral extraction techniques that are necessary for all of the nice shiny things we own? Using your argument back at you, who benefits from claiming that it's ok to continue consuming as we are because the government isn't forcing us to behave better? They've got you right where they want you - a righteous eco warrior with all the gadgets. Yes, the embodied energy of our gadgets and toys isn't everything (and is not the only "life choice" I make). However, it's significant, especially coupled with the other environmental harms. If it's so essential to save the planet that we must all switch to EVs (and for about a 50% reduction in CO2 output over the lifetime of the car), where's the argument that we need half the number of TVs? Edit: >a couple 1000 megajoules. Thats the same as two tanks of petrol Yes, hydrocarbons are unreasonably energy-dense and cheap. I hope you're ready for them becoming very expensive/unavailable.
        ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        > a laptop alone is 4500MJ, or about 4 tanks of petrol Doesnt matter, make it 10. My laptop is 5 years old. So, how it even close to the amount tou spend on transport or heating in 3 months. You claim is preposterous! They are small objects, they don't add up to much! "how do you justify the mineral extraction techniques that are necessary for all of the nice shiny things we own?" The younger generatuon owns less stuff than the generstion before. Car ownership is down, home ownership is down, tb owneship, fancy camera owneship. How many hundreds of smartphones do you think it takes to make up the resources consumed by one car?

antisinguIarity 5y ago

It's funny how people don't associate the endless stream of shiny gadgets they own, that are stuffed full with the latest and greatest in rare minerals, with the destruction of the ecosystem. Just to pick a recent-ish story at random: https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/nickel-deforestation https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/nickel-deforestation

adrianN 5y ago
Buying a smartphone every year or two absolutely pales in comparison with having to rent a poorly insulated flat that is heated with oil in a city that forces you to own a car to get to work in a country that mostly burns coal and gas for electricity. Individual choices can only save a small part of your emissions. Blaming individuals for problems that need state policy is an effective tool of fossil fuel interest groups.
- antisinguIarity 5y ago
  Ah so I'm a shill for the fossil fuel industry, because I believe in the power of individual choices? Fantastic. FWIW I had made no mention of emissions - I was talking purely about destruction of the ecosystem (which was the phrase used in the parent comment). I believe that (in some cases, deliberately) ignoring those impacts of our consumer habits makes us in the West the greatest force for planetary destruction. It won't matter if the planet is a few degrees warmer in a few decades, if there are no trees left. The embodied energy of a person's collection of tech absolutely does sit in the same ballpark as heating and transportation energy costs. Once you've added up your smartwatch, phone, laptop, tv, monitors, etc, I wouldn't be surprised if it was about the same energy as that required to heat your home for a year. PS. Move. There are plenty of places.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "because I believe in the power of individual choices? " "The embodied energy of a person's collection of tech absolutely does sit in the same ballpark as heating and transportation energy costs." You believe in silly ideas like this because you never bothered tp grab a calculator. If you did, you would know that embodied energy of all you electronics in a couple 1000 megajoules. Thats the same as two tanks of petrol, and all you life choices add up to nothing. We've been at this 'individual responsebility' crap for 50 years. They've got you right where they want tou.
    - antisinguIarity 5y ago
      >If you did, you would know that embodied energy of all you electronics in a couple 1000 megajoules. A very quick Google will tell you that a laptop alone is 4500MJ, or about 4 tanks of petrol (although I'm not too sure about that source, as it claims that a refrigerator is even more than that). Once again, I'll point out that I started out discussing the overall environmental impacts. CO2 emissions and energy usage are only part of that - how do you justify the mineral extraction techniques that are necessary for all of the nice shiny things we own? Using your argument back at you, who benefits from claiming that it's ok to continue consuming as we are because the government isn't forcing us to behave better? They've got you right where they want you - a righteous eco warrior with all the gadgets. Yes, the embodied energy of our gadgets and toys isn't everything (and is not the only "life choice" I make). However, it's significant, especially coupled with the other environmental harms. If it's so essential to save the planet that we must all switch to EVs (and for about a 50% reduction in CO2 output over the lifetime of the car), where's the argument that we need half the number of TVs? Edit: >a couple 1000 megajoules. Thats the same as two tanks of petrol Yes, hydrocarbons are unreasonably energy-dense and cheap. I hope you're ready for them becoming very expensive/unavailable.
      - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
        > a laptop alone is 4500MJ, or about 4 tanks of petrol Doesnt matter, make it 10. My laptop is 5 years old. So, how it even close to the amount tou spend on transport or heating in 3 months. You claim is preposterous! They are small objects, they don't add up to much! "how do you justify the mineral extraction techniques that are necessary for all of the nice shiny things we own?" The younger generatuon owns less stuff than the generstion before. Car ownership is down, home ownership is down, tb owneship, fancy camera owneship. How many hundreds of smartphones do you think it takes to make up the resources consumed by one car?