4 ms·

This won't work simply due to induced demand. We spend something like 2000x less energy per unit of light now than we did burning whale fat in the 1800s and al

This won't work simply due to induced demand. We spend something like 2000x less energy per unit of light now than we did burning whale fat in the 1800s and all the energy saved energy simply goes into producing more light. Hoping for technology to solve this mess is the same as hoping that adding an additional lane to a congested highway will solve traffic. It won't.

boxed 3y ago
That's just wrong on so many levels. First of all, creating light is irrelevant to the problem at hand. Secondly, LEDs have made your statement outright false as there's no one who lives in a house that packs their home with light enough to spend that energy budget AND KEEPS THEM ON AT NIGHT. Because they would GO BLIND. So that's just the light thing. 100% wrong. Saying technology can't solve the problem is speculative, as technology is a moving target. You just can't know what problems it can solve until it's too late and the problems are already solved.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  The point, which I can only assume that you intentionally missed, is the following: - Light is only a standin for any economic activity. The same argument holds for manufacturing, steel smelting, and basically any other economic activity you can think of. - We spend ~2000x less per unit of light but create much more than 2000x the amount of total artificial light now compared to the 1800s. Hence greater overall energy consumption. Now read my initial comment again and I will have the utmost - probably misplaced - faith that you'll understand it.
  - boxed 3y ago
    > Light is only a standin for any economic activity And yet for exactly light the entire premise is falsified. It's a hilarious own goal.
    - _Algernon_ 3y ago
      It's not which I just explained to you. If you are going to keep pretending to be the human embodiment of a brick wall, I won't engage any further. Have a nice day!
- lm28469 3y ago
  You might want to read about the rebound effect. If your toaster is 10% more efficient but you have twice as many toasters in the world you're still fucked, this is what we're doing right now. This new faith in technology as the great redeemer is closer to religion than science. At best it's wishful thinking at worst it's delusional
  - boxed 3y ago
    Yea, except if the toasters get a million times more efficient people won't in fact run ten toasters per person around the clock to make the rebound effect possible. This is the type of gains LEDs have made. I've seen left leaning people make claims like LEDs just mean people have their lights on more so the total consumption goes up. But that's absolutely not true, because LEDs are so much more important that if everyone kept all their lights on in their house 24/7 and also bought 5 times more light bulbs they STILL would use less electricity. That's why the specific example given was such an own goal. If the tech is good enough it can't be overcome by the rebound effect.
    - lm28469 3y ago
      > If the tech is good enough it can't be overcome by the rebound effect. Yeah: ifs, whens, maybes and "trust me bro"s On one side you have wishful thinking and on the other-side you have 200 years of technological progress that brought literally everything besides an energy or pollution reduction The entire history of technological progress is a rebound effect, if it wasn't we wouldn't be talking about it here and now.. so yes you're free to believe that in some hypothetical future the trend will automagically invert itself, but it isn't backed by anything at all. > people won't in fact run ten toasters per person around the clock to make the rebound effect possible. Asia + Africa's population will double by 2050, and they pollute way less than the average westerner by capita. Do you think they won't want their part of the cake ?

boxed 3y ago

That's just wrong on so many levels. First of all, creating light is irrelevant to the problem at hand. Secondly, LEDs have made your statement outright false as there's no one who lives in a house that packs their home with light enough to spend that energy budget AND KEEPS THEM ON AT NIGHT. Because they would GO BLIND. So that's just the light thing. 100% wrong. Saying technology can't solve the problem is speculative, as technology is a moving target. You just can't know what problems it can solve until it's too late and the problems are already solved.

_Algernon_ 3y ago
The point, which I can only assume that you intentionally missed, is the following: - Light is only a standin for any economic activity. The same argument holds for manufacturing, steel smelting, and basically any other economic activity you can think of. - We spend ~2000x less per unit of light but create much more than 2000x the amount of total artificial light now compared to the 1800s. Hence greater overall energy consumption. Now read my initial comment again and I will have the utmost - probably misplaced - faith that you'll understand it.
- boxed 3y ago
  > Light is only a standin for any economic activity And yet for exactly light the entire premise is falsified. It's a hilarious own goal.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    It's not which I just explained to you. If you are going to keep pretending to be the human embodiment of a brick wall, I won't engage any further. Have a nice day!
lm28469 3y ago
You might want to read about the rebound effect. If your toaster is 10% more efficient but you have twice as many toasters in the world you're still fucked, this is what we're doing right now. This new faith in technology as the great redeemer is closer to religion than science. At best it's wishful thinking at worst it's delusional
- boxed 3y ago
  Yea, except if the toasters get a million times more efficient people won't in fact run ten toasters per person around the clock to make the rebound effect possible. This is the type of gains LEDs have made. I've seen left leaning people make claims like LEDs just mean people have their lights on more so the total consumption goes up. But that's absolutely not true, because LEDs are so much more important that if everyone kept all their lights on in their house 24/7 and also bought 5 times more light bulbs they STILL would use less electricity. That's why the specific example given was such an own goal. If the tech is good enough it can't be overcome by the rebound effect.
  - lm28469 3y ago
    > If the tech is good enough it can't be overcome by the rebound effect. Yeah: ifs, whens, maybes and "trust me bro"s On one side you have wishful thinking and on the other-side you have 200 years of technological progress that brought literally everything besides an energy or pollution reduction The entire history of technological progress is a rebound effect, if it wasn't we wouldn't be talking about it here and now.. so yes you're free to believe that in some hypothetical future the trend will automagically invert itself, but it isn't backed by anything at all. > people won't in fact run ten toasters per person around the clock to make the rebound effect possible. Asia + Africa's population will double by 2050, and they pollute way less than the average westerner by capita. Do you think they won't want their part of the cake ?