5 ms·

Poor idea because energy generation environmental impact varies wildly, and also environment is impacted by far more factors than just energy generation. Do you

Poor idea because energy generation environmental impact varies wildly, and also environment is impacted by far more factors than just energy generation. Do your milking cows' methane emissions count as energy generated? Does your land clearing for crops count? If you somehow try to factor these things in then your "energy" currency is no longer tied to energy so you might just as well call it a dollar.

rektide 4y ago
It's easy to criticize I agree. But knowing how many kWh went into growing a cow is still a huge improvement. This is the real flow, describes something genuine & truthful. Your throwaway criticism suggests anything not actively hurting us isnt worth regarding or adding to human cognizance, and there I think we quickly depart. Whether we look at net intake (energy) or net cost (pollution, of ehich co2 is but one harm), I think there's a virtue here about seeing the world. Honestly even with it's faults, I think energy usage is a far more general universal concept. Sad to see even the presentation of such an interesting kdea get downvoted quickly. This isnt a perfect idea, it's wildly impractical, but I absolutely totally think it's worth putting in front of people, entering into the set of worlds they might consider, if not accept. It's a very interesting notion, still has a resonance now that it did then: there are universal physical truths about us that we could try to understand & gauge our society by. Im at -2 in under an hour. Mercy this feels so cheap & shitty, close minded. An idea doesnt hsve to be perfect to be worth thinking about. People 100 years ago were actively trying tk rethink how the world could comprehend itself: this is a fascinsting historical note, but no, downvote my interesting perspective out of existence. Shame on these downvoters.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > It's easy to criticize I agree. But knowing how many kWh went into growing a cow is still a huge improvement. About zero, if it was raised on pasture on land that was already cleared. I don't see that as an improvement. > This is the real flow, describes something genuine & truthful. Your throwaway criticism suggests anything not actively hurting us isnt worth regarding or adding to human cognizance, and there I think we quickly depart. My criticism does not suggest any such thing.
  - rektide 4y ago
    Ask how many farmers do not a single thing for their pasture fed cows. The pasture takes maintenance, the cows take tending & care & health services, then they are transported to a slaughter house, butchered, & packaged. These all have costs, energy costs. Just making the fences to hold them had energy costs: not big ones, but measurable ones. > My criticism does not suggest any such thing. It rather ran roughshod over considering energy & didnt recognize any worth that I could see.... yes it frigging did suggest inputs were irrelevant. Callously & with prejudice. I really dont get you agenda of disregard here. It's weirdly in denial, snubbing rudely. I dont think this energy is the ultimate way of viewing things, but it has value, it'a worth regarding. But you are playing this like a cheap game of Battleship, focused on blowing up a thing not without worth. Not without worth today, and certainly certainly not without worth as an interesting historical artifact of people actively working to expand humankind's self understanding. Why all the TNT?
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      It's a crap metric, end of story. You're the one dreaming up these baseless "agendas", I have no idea what you're on about there.
      - rektide 4y ago
        It's not crap. It's informative & interesting & useful to think of the energy flows embodied in our material world.
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        I mean for currency. Utter stupidity. Understanding energy usage and all other costs (human and environmental) is great, I have no problem with that obviously.

rektide 4y ago

It's easy to criticize I agree. But knowing how many kWh went into growing a cow is still a huge improvement. This is the real flow, describes something genuine & truthful. Your throwaway criticism suggests anything not actively hurting us isnt worth regarding or adding to human cognizance, and there I think we quickly depart. Whether we look at net intake (energy) or net cost (pollution, of ehich co2 is but one harm), I think there's a virtue here about seeing the world. Honestly even with it's faults, I think energy usage is a far more general universal concept. Sad to see even the presentation of such an interesting kdea get downvoted quickly. This isnt a perfect idea, it's wildly impractical, but I absolutely totally think it's worth putting in front of people, entering into the set of worlds they might consider, if not accept. It's a very interesting notion, still has a resonance now that it did then: there are universal physical truths about us that we could try to understand & gauge our society by. Im at -2 in under an hour. Mercy this feels so cheap & shitty, close minded. An idea doesnt hsve to be perfect to be worth thinking about. People 100 years ago were actively trying tk rethink how the world could comprehend itself: this is a fascinsting historical note, but no, downvote my interesting perspective out of existence. Shame on these downvoters.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
> It's easy to criticize I agree. But knowing how many kWh went into growing a cow is still a huge improvement. About zero, if it was raised on pasture on land that was already cleared. I don't see that as an improvement. > This is the real flow, describes something genuine & truthful. Your throwaway criticism suggests anything not actively hurting us isnt worth regarding or adding to human cognizance, and there I think we quickly depart. My criticism does not suggest any such thing.
- rektide 4y ago
  Ask how many farmers do not a single thing for their pasture fed cows. The pasture takes maintenance, the cows take tending & care & health services, then they are transported to a slaughter house, butchered, & packaged. These all have costs, energy costs. Just making the fences to hold them had energy costs: not big ones, but measurable ones. > My criticism does not suggest any such thing. It rather ran roughshod over considering energy & didnt recognize any worth that I could see.... yes it frigging did suggest inputs were irrelevant. Callously & with prejudice. I really dont get you agenda of disregard here. It's weirdly in denial, snubbing rudely. I dont think this energy is the ultimate way of viewing things, but it has value, it'a worth regarding. But you are playing this like a cheap game of Battleship, focused on blowing up a thing not without worth. Not without worth today, and certainly certainly not without worth as an interesting historical artifact of people actively working to expand humankind's self understanding. Why all the TNT?
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    It's a crap metric, end of story. You're the one dreaming up these baseless "agendas", I have no idea what you're on about there.
    - rektide 4y ago
      It's not crap. It's informative & interesting & useful to think of the energy flows embodied in our material world.
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        I mean for currency. Utter stupidity. Understanding energy usage and all other costs (human and environmental) is great, I have no problem with that obviously.