4 ms·
> Summary: If energy is free and doesn't impact anything then of course you would want to use more of it. I'm not convinced if this is always the case. I'm sur
by omega3 4y ago
> Summary: If energy is free and doesn't impact anything then of course you would want to use more of it.
I'm not convinced if this is always the case. I'm sure this is already a topic of interest in psychology but I guess that unless there is a reward for using the energy there wouldn't be consumption on the individual level.
As I'm writing this my CPU is at 2% and GPU at 1% utilization. I'm not actively looking for ways to utilize this even though it's (for the sake of argument) free.
- neltnerb 4y agoI am happy to concede that there are ways to spend energy that are neutral or negative, like, say, pervasive surveillance and limitless data retention. I think the point that energy substitutes for labor is generally fair though. But honestly what I'm trying to state is that this characterization of environmentalists as worried about reducing energy use regardless of how much harm the source causes to be a straw man. The point is sustainability and the health of ourselves and natural systems. If energy caused zero issues to generate then I think environmentalists would be banging the direct atmospheric removal drums harder than anyone.