3 ms·

Our planet is literally dying. The oceans are boiling [0], marine life is dying [1]. Land close to the water will be land under water soon [2]. The ice caps ar

• jve 6mo ago
  Have you ever made a decision to NOT download something, turn on your computer, experiment, etc based on your perceived impact on the planet? I mean this should (and is) be tackled at the source: 0/low emission energy generation and not consumer having to think about these decisions. Sustainable data centers using renewables etc. But not that the companies should associate/evaluate/consider bytes downloaded with environmental impact.
  • Aachen 6mo ago
    > this should (and is) be tackled at the source: 0/low emission energy generation and not consumer having to think about these decisions. Until we're at that point though, the 'winners' in this market society (that wield unimaginable amounts of money = resources) such as Google could certainly think about consequences of their choices. And they usually do to some extent, I'm not saying they don't, just that electric supply and demand has two sides to it
  • duskdozer 6mo ago
    >not consumer having to think about these decisions Consumers vote and advocate for what they want and don't want. There are many who say it's not an individual problem and should be dealt with broadly through regulation, then also oppose any attempts at regulation.
  • vrganj 6mo ago
    I'm going to assume you work in tech and know the issues that come with scale. Me, individually not doing something is gonna absolutely be drowned out by the scale of many other people not thinking of it or being incentivized against it. This is a systemic issue. A systemic issue needs a systemic solution, not a blame shift to the individual. We didn't get rid of lead in gas or asbestos in walls by telling people it was bad for them. We did so by banning it.
    • jve 6mo ago
      [dead]
• pu_pe 6mo ago
  Why do you attribute to capitalism an issue that is much more fundamental than it? People want more stuff and better lives, it's as simple as that. Even hunger/gatherer societies brought themselves to extinction multiple times in the past, and I doubt the USSR would have fared better against climate change. Technological progress is also societal progress. If we embraced degrowth in the 1800's (there was a ton of pollution back then, and a Malthusian belief in disaster!) we might not see slavery being abolished or women being able to vote.
  • vrganj 6mo ago
    Because capitalism ties together better lives an ideological belief in unbounded growth. Will people's lives really be better once they're drowning or choking on wildfire smoke? But hey, at least they had cheap junk! It's possible to have better lives as well as societal progress without endless growth. Technological progress, too, doesn't have to mean burning our oceans. We just gotta actually think about the costs and consequences of our actions. Not every technological development is inherently good. Sometimes the cost is not worth the result. I posit the cost of AI so far has been astronomical, higher than anything else in living memory. The results on the other hand have been rather middling. This is my issue. A cost/benefit analysis, not a strict no to progress.
  • Aachen 6mo ago
    > People want more stuff and better lives, it's as simple as that. Not everyone wants this at the cost of others. It's not as simple as that / not a necessary consequence of our desire to find clever solutions to solve everyday inconveniences
• lobito25 6mo ago
  You're also dying since you were born.