5 ms·

Absolutely not. We would be moving backwards as a society. Increased energy usage is a bellwether of societal advancement. See the Kardashev scale and Dyson sph

Absolutely not. We would be moving backwards as a society. Increased energy usage is a bellwether of societal advancement. See the Kardashev scale and Dyson sphere for example. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

BrawnyBadger53 1y ago
I don't think we should be setting artificial limiters on energy usage or anything but you're using circular reasoning as justification. These scales use energy usage as the measure of progress which you are saying is proof that reducing energy use is reducing progress.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  Unless we hit a natural limit on how much energy we can access, any limit set will be artificial. I'd love for individuals to set their own limit, ideally one that pushes them a bit to step out of the endless chase for comfort and convenience that we're all stuck in. I definitely don't want a centrally planned and enforced limit though, that's never going to achieve the goals people would actually want.
_heimdall 1y ago
How do you propose we supplant all of our current energy use with green energy? What are the sources that work at scale, how do we store energy at scale assuming the green sources aren't 24/7 reliable, and how do we scale said systems without a net impact on the environment? Our current use of electricity per capita, at least in the west, is ridiculously unsustainable if we aren't willing to keep abusing fossil fuels as an efficient store and source of energy. I'm a for reducing our impact, but we have to stop kidding ourselves with the pipe dream that we just need the right source of energy to be able to grow our energy use per capita indefinitely.
HappMacDonald 1y ago
.. both of which are solidly science fiction. You might as well say "giant mechs are the bellwether of societal advancement, just look at Warhammer/Evangelion/Gurren Lagann". It can equally be argued that efficiency of use of power is a bellwether of societal advancement, since wasting it will always be easier than making efficient use of it. Case in point, few people realize that humanity reached 1.9 on the Kardashev/Sagan scale (EG, we output more power than the entire Trappist star that exoplanet enthusiasts have been so excited to colonize) for 39 brief nanoseconds on October 30, 1961. But that certainly didn't make us an entire Kardashev rung more civilized for the same brief moment as we erased another huge portion of our natural environment.

BrawnyBadger53 1y ago

I don't think we should be setting artificial limiters on energy usage or anything but you're using circular reasoning as justification. These scales use energy usage as the measure of progress which you are saying is proof that reducing energy use is reducing progress.

_heimdall 1y ago
Unless we hit a natural limit on how much energy we can access, any limit set will be artificial. I'd love for individuals to set their own limit, ideally one that pushes them a bit to step out of the endless chase for comfort and convenience that we're all stuck in. I definitely don't want a centrally planned and enforced limit though, that's never going to achieve the goals people would actually want.

_heimdall 1y ago

How do you propose we supplant all of our current energy use with green energy? What are the sources that work at scale, how do we store energy at scale assuming the green sources aren't 24/7 reliable, and how do we scale said systems without a net impact on the environment? Our current use of electricity per capita, at least in the west, is ridiculously unsustainable if we aren't willing to keep abusing fossil fuels as an efficient store and source of energy. I'm a for reducing our impact, but we have to stop kidding ourselves with the pipe dream that we just need the right source of energy to be able to grow our energy use per capita indefinitely.

HappMacDonald 1y ago

.. both of which are solidly science fiction. You might as well say "giant mechs are the bellwether of societal advancement, just look at Warhammer/Evangelion/Gurren Lagann". It can equally be argued that efficiency of use of power is a bellwether of societal advancement, since wasting it will always be easier than making efficient use of it. Case in point, few people realize that humanity reached 1.9 on the Kardashev/Sagan scale (EG, we output more power than the entire Trappist star that exoplanet enthusiasts have been so excited to colonize) for 39 brief nanoseconds on October 30, 1961. But that certainly didn't make us an entire Kardashev rung more civilized for the same brief moment as we erased another huge portion of our natural environment.