4 ms·
Why are you assuming that a human would be more efficient and better for the environment than an electrically powered robot? It is very inefficient (approx 25%)
by whyenot 10mo ago
Why are you assuming that a human would be more efficient and better for the environment than an electrically powered robot? It is very inefficient (approx 25%) to use food as an energy source, and humans are always burning energy. They can't turn off at night or when they are idle. I think it is very likely that the robot would be better for the environment than the person.
- recursive 10mo agoWhat does "good" for the environment even mean? I always assumed it means "good" for human purposes. But if we replace humans with robots, then the goodness of the environment seems somewhat moot. Oceans filled with plastic would be "good" for something. Just probably not us. Maybe robots?
- dweinus 10mo ago...so, are assuming that the humans stop eating/existing after you replace them with a robot?
- AmbroseBierce 10mo agoUBI maybe? I'm joking, at least when talking about America, because maybe at least one of those Nordic countries will figure it out.
- dweinus 10mo agoSweet, let's do that, but it still will be more environmentally friendly to bike the burrito down the block than to build & maintain a robot.
- ipaddr 10mo agoUBI. $500 per adult per month (~$1.4T) - existing welfare. for $1000 per month it would cost $3.1T. What about the children? $1,200 for every adult + $400 for every child 4.1 trillion/year The federal budget is 6 trillion/year. There would need to be deflation for 1,200 a month to have the buying power of the average income now. Right now that's minimum wage.
- MereInterest 10mo ago> Why are you assuming that a human would be more efficient and better for the environment than an electrically powered robot? Because bicycles use 5x less energy per mile than electric scooters, which would be a reasonable analogue for slow electric delivery robots [0]. > It is very inefficient (approx 25%) to use food as an energy source, By comparison, fossil fuel conversions are about 30-45%, depending on the energy source [1]. > and humans are always burning energy. They can't turn off at night or when they are idle. I think it is very likely that the robot would be better for the environment than the person. That's a really, really weird baseline to use. Turning off a robot when not performing a task is standard procedure. Turning off a human when not performing a task is not standard procedure, and is frowned upon in polite society. [0] https://www.statista.com/chart/28710/energy-efficiency-of-modes-of-transport/ https://www.statista.com/chart/28710/energy-efficiency-of-mo... [1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html (Smaller numbers are better. To find efficiency, divide 3412 (1 kilowatt*hour in Btu) by the value in the column [2].) [2] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=107&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=107&t=3
- rubzah 10mo agoI live in a place with excellent bicycle infrastructure. All the delivery people ride electric bicycles. A robot would be that, minus the human. So probably better in terms of energy expenditure, cost, etc.
- MangoToupe 10mo ago> Why are you assuming that a human would be more efficient and better for the environment than an electrically powered robot? Well for one thing, the robot doesn't need to exist at all. Humans are going to be eating and breathing regardless of demand for burrito delivery.
- usefulposter 10mo ago>I think it is very likely that the robot would be better for the environment than the person. This is your mind on HN.
- card_zero 10mo agoWhich is the cheaper power source per mile, I wonder? Electricity or bananas?