3 ms·
Your argument hinges on two assumptions, both that I'd argue are flawed. First, you're assuming that our current use of power is efficient and there isn't enou
by _heimdall 3y ago
Your argument hinges on two assumptions, both that I'd argue are flawed.
First, you're assuming that our current use of power is efficient and there isn't enough unnecessary or inefficient use of power to make a difference. Do you believe that there aren't changes we could make to reduce power use without noticeably reducing human well-being?
Second, you're assuming that increased growth is always a good thing and developing more stuff by using more power is always an improvement. There are changes that consume more power without making a clear improvement to human flourishing, and worse there is progress that consumes more power while actually making our lives worse.
Why do you believe that power consumption can't be reduced without meaningfully reducing human well-being or happiness?
- kiba 3y agoWalking would improve lifestyle of most humans on Earth.
- gottorf 3y agoMost humans on Earth walk all day, every day, even when they really don't want to, because there isn't an alternative. Almost all of that subset yearn to go to developed countries that don't require them to walk in the rain or sweltering heat, carrying heavy burdens. Walking would improve the lifestyle of the ~1% of humans that live in developed countries and press keys for a living. Everybody else would like to sit in a car every now and then.
- gottorf 3y agoPerhaps I didn't make myself clear: I'm advocating for the increased ability of humans to harness more energy per capita, not that increased actual consumption of energy per capita is always a good thing (though I'd say the latter is almost always true). That conscious privation in the face of abundance is good for you in certain cases does not mean that as a matter of public policy, we should strive for privation instead of abundance.