4 ms·

> For every person that purchases a sandwich or cup of coffee they don't really need But that's also a toll to the environment.

by pjerem 10mo ago

lesuorac 10mo ago
That's easy to solve. Just encourage them to take part in some low-cost digital alternative like Sports Predictions.
lazide 10mo ago
Really the problem is that we are alive?
- komali2 10mo ago
  It's pretty easy to be alive and not harm the environment in the outsized way we do. We have the technology!
  - tsunamifury 10mo ago
    We do not. We simply moved your outsized impact to places you do not see.
    - komali2 10mo ago
      Hmm... no, not really, even considering rare earth mineral mining, the total elimination of fossil fuel combustion would dramatically reduce human environmental harm.
      - lazide 10mo ago
        There is zero way with current technology and economic development that we could support even half of the current worlds population without fossil fuels.
        komali2 10mo ago
        We certainly could not continue providing the current world with latest gen iphones, you are right. Feeding and housing them though? Absolutely doable. It would require a significant change in our societies, but we know enough things about the universe to accomplish this. If you're saying, politically, this is impossible, sure, you're probably right.
        lazide 10mo ago
        Ho man, the level of delusion here. Have you ever visited India? China? This isn’t a ‘latest gen iPhone’ (which, btw, is well out of reach of your typical Indian already). This is a ‘the entire world economy is based on fossil fuels, and attempting to redo the entire worlds economy to use non-fossil fuels is not currently doable’. Even the best case emergency scenarios would have to use even more fossil fuels to try. Germany and California have tried elements of it, but even despite massive investment they are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels for almost all the baseline parts of their economies (transportation, heating, industrial uses, etc). If we all went on a wartime footing and devoted our entire economies to completely retooling the worlds economies, maybe - but realistically, it’s clear that people would rather blow each other up (which will also solve this problem a bit !) than do that. And a big reason why is a lot of people are likely to starve to death or be pushed into poverty to attempt it.
        komali2 10mo ago
        Yes I agree with you that it would be politically probably impossible, since it would, as you imply, require dismantling capitalism. But, it's not like we need fossil fuels to farm, and there's already enough housing for all the humans. If we engaged in expropriation, it's certainly physically possible.
        lazide 10mo ago
        It wouldn’t require ‘dismantling capitalism’. Notably, none of the really big countries involved here are capitalist (even the CCP, which is very business oriented, is a authoritarian market economy, not a capitalist one). It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this? (And think for a second what you would do if you were on the other side of the equation.) It’s all fun and games until it’s taking your stuff to give to a bunch of currently homeless folks.

> For every person that purchases a sandwich or cup of coffee they don't really need But that's also a toll to the environment.

by pjerem 10mo ago

> For every person that purchases a sandwich or cup of coffee they don't really need But that's also a toll to the environment.

lesuorac 10mo ago

That's easy to solve. Just encourage them to take part in some low-cost digital alternative like Sports Predictions.

lazide 10mo ago

Really the problem is that we are alive?

komali2 10mo ago
It's pretty easy to be alive and not harm the environment in the outsized way we do. We have the technology!
- tsunamifury 10mo ago
  We do not. We simply moved your outsized impact to places you do not see.
  - komali2 10mo ago
    Hmm... no, not really, even considering rare earth mineral mining, the total elimination of fossil fuel combustion would dramatically reduce human environmental harm.
    - lazide 10mo ago
      There is zero way with current technology and economic development that we could support even half of the current worlds population without fossil fuels.
      - komali2 10mo ago
        We certainly could not continue providing the current world with latest gen iphones, you are right. Feeding and housing them though? Absolutely doable. It would require a significant change in our societies, but we know enough things about the universe to accomplish this. If you're saying, politically, this is impossible, sure, you're probably right.
        lazide 10mo ago
        Ho man, the level of delusion here. Have you ever visited India? China? This isn’t a ‘latest gen iPhone’ (which, btw, is well out of reach of your typical Indian already). This is a ‘the entire world economy is based on fossil fuels, and attempting to redo the entire worlds economy to use non-fossil fuels is not currently doable’. Even the best case emergency scenarios would have to use even more fossil fuels to try. Germany and California have tried elements of it, but even despite massive investment they are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels for almost all the baseline parts of their economies (transportation, heating, industrial uses, etc). If we all went on a wartime footing and devoted our entire economies to completely retooling the worlds economies, maybe - but realistically, it’s clear that people would rather blow each other up (which will also solve this problem a bit !) than do that. And a big reason why is a lot of people are likely to starve to death or be pushed into poverty to attempt it.
        komali2 10mo ago
        Yes I agree with you that it would be politically probably impossible, since it would, as you imply, require dismantling capitalism. But, it's not like we need fossil fuels to farm, and there's already enough housing for all the humans. If we engaged in expropriation, it's certainly physically possible.
        lazide 10mo ago
        It wouldn’t require ‘dismantling capitalism’. Notably, none of the really big countries involved here are capitalist (even the CCP, which is very business oriented, is a authoritarian market economy, not a capitalist one). It would require ignoring human nature. After all, why would the folks whose property gets expropriated go along with this? (And think for a second what you would do if you were on the other side of the equation.) It’s all fun and games until it’s taking your stuff to give to a bunch of currently homeless folks.