4 ms·

I don't agree with most of those bullet points. Some of them don't follow at all, but in every category there is at least a 90th percentile change we could make

by dTal 3y ago

I don't agree with most of those bullet points. Some of them don't follow at all, but in every category there is at least a 90th percentile change we could make that wouldn't be some terrible imposition. It boils down to class war: the people who would have to make the most sacrifice are the people who are already using way more than their fair share. So for each of your points where you use words like "less" and "worse", we must ask: Less than, worse than? First world people eat entirely too much, and unhealthily. Not hard to imagine diets better for humans and the ecosystem. Hell, 1.5 billion people are already vegetarian and doing fine. People will complain about eating less steak but it's a first world problem. Worse than? Durable clothes are better for the environment, and classier. Disposable "fast fashion", made of plastic and sewn by quasi-slaves in sweatshops is the real problem. People will complain about losing a dopamine button but it's a first world problem. Smaller than? It's completely possible to improve thermal efficiency without altering size. Maybe, if you live in a sprawling poorly insulated McMansion, you should invest in better insulation - or a better house - instead of powering through by burning energy. Apartment blocks are already far more efficient for climate control (square/cube law), so it's squarely a rich person's problem. Fewer places than? Are people taking jet airplanes to work every day? Yeah, they should probably stop that. People taking the train are probably in the clear. This isn't even a first world problem, it's a superrich problem. Of course they'll complain... What "entertainment"? This doesn't follow at all. "Entertainment" isn't a particularly energy-hungry category. Maybe if you're entertained by mining bitcoin? The most entertaining thing I own, besides my laptop, is a Synthstrom Deluge Groovebox, which runs for 9 hours on a single 18650 lithium cell. Water: Another one that doesn't follow. I suspect the bulk of water for a given person is actually agricultural, so see point 1. But as important as it is to preserve freshwater ecosystems, I don't see the direct bearing on energy consumption. Most municipal water comes from reservoirs, not desalination.

sokoloff 3y ago
> Less than, worse than? Less than/worse than that person is doing now. (But I'm pretty sure you knew that.)
gruez 3y ago
>Less than, worse than? First world people eat entirely too much, and unhealthily. Not hard to imagine diets better for humans and the ecosystem. Hell, 1.5 billion people are already vegetarian and doing fine. People will complain about eating less steak but it's a first world problem. That might be true, but people also know they're eating too much and unhealthily, yet they continue doing so. Clearly getting them to stop requires much more effort and sacrifice than you make it out to be. >People will complain about losing a dopamine button but it's a first world problem. So you admit that it's actually worse? You're just hand waving it away by inserting your own value judgement. >Smaller than? It's completely possible to improve thermal efficiency without altering size. Maybe, if you live in a sprawling poorly insulated McMansion, you should invest in better insulation - or a better house - instead of powering through by burning energy. Apartment blocks are already far more efficient for climate control (square/cube law), so it's squarely a rich person's problem. See above. >Fewer places than? Are people taking jet airplanes to work every day? Yeah, they should probably stop that. People taking the train are probably in the clear. This isn't even a first world problem, it's a superrich problem. Of course they'll complain... You're ignoring going to far away places for tourism, visiting friend and family across the country, and going to the Costco on the other side of town.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
> What "entertainment"? This doesn't follow at all. "Entertainment" isn't a particularly energy-hungry category. You're disingenuous, or naive. One's as bad as the other. This isn't 400 BC. When anyone here wants to be entertained, they don't ride the donkey cart down to the stone amphitheater and watch a play in torchlight (and you probably wouldn't allow the torches either, too many particulates). For any sort of entertainment anyone might conceive, there is a manufactured good involved. > Less than, worse than? First world people eat entirely too much, and unhealthily. Not hard to imagine diets better for humans and the ecosystem. We're engineers here. It doesn't work like that. One parameter of the other, and we already heard you say which one you'd pick. > Worse than? Durable clothes are better for the environment, But they won't be durable. They'll just get worn out, but you'll wear it anyway because you can't get it replaced. As it was centuries ago. When someone dies, they'll fight over the clothes, they'll be that precious again. At least if you have your way. >Fewer places than? Are people taking jet airplanes to work every day? Those people are connected. It's the guy who drives a shitbeater car that you're worried about. All of my bullet points follow. They're just shining the poorest possible light on your political agenda.

by dTal 3y ago

sokoloff 3y ago

> Less than, worse than? Less than/worse than that person is doing now. (But I'm pretty sure you knew that.)

gruez 3y ago

>Less than, worse than? First world people eat entirely too much, and unhealthily. Not hard to imagine diets better for humans and the ecosystem. Hell, 1.5 billion people are already vegetarian and doing fine. People will complain about eating less steak but it's a first world problem. That might be true, but people also know they're eating too much and unhealthily, yet they continue doing so. Clearly getting them to stop requires much more effort and sacrifice than you make it out to be. >People will complain about losing a dopamine button but it's a first world problem. So you admit that it's actually worse? You're just hand waving it away by inserting your own value judgement. >Smaller than? It's completely possible to improve thermal efficiency without altering size. Maybe, if you live in a sprawling poorly insulated McMansion, you should invest in better insulation - or a better house - instead of powering through by burning energy. Apartment blocks are already far more efficient for climate control (square/cube law), so it's squarely a rich person's problem. See above. >Fewer places than? Are people taking jet airplanes to work every day? Yeah, they should probably stop that. People taking the train are probably in the clear. This isn't even a first world problem, it's a superrich problem. Of course they'll complain... You're ignoring going to far away places for tourism, visiting friend and family across the country, and going to the Costco on the other side of town.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

> What "entertainment"? This doesn't follow at all. "Entertainment" isn't a particularly energy-hungry category. You're disingenuous, or naive. One's as bad as the other. This isn't 400 BC. When anyone here wants to be entertained, they don't ride the donkey cart down to the stone amphitheater and watch a play in torchlight (and you probably wouldn't allow the torches either, too many particulates). For any sort of entertainment anyone might conceive, there is a manufactured good involved. > Less than, worse than? First world people eat entirely too much, and unhealthily. Not hard to imagine diets better for humans and the ecosystem. We're engineers here. It doesn't work like that. One parameter of the other, and we already heard you say which one you'd pick. > Worse than? Durable clothes are better for the environment, But they won't be durable. They'll just get worn out, but you'll wear it anyway because you can't get it replaced. As it was centuries ago. When someone dies, they'll fight over the clothes, they'll be that precious again. At least if you have your way. >Fewer places than? Are people taking jet airplanes to work every day? Those people are connected. It's the guy who drives a shitbeater car that you're worried about. All of my bullet points follow. They're just shining the poorest possible light on your political agenda.