Green Capitalism: The God That Failed

[wili]

No amount of "green capitalism" will be able to ensure the profound changes we must urgently make to prevent the collapse of civilization from the catastrophic impacts of global warming.

Agree or disagree, the track record for "green capitalism" is dismal indeed. The most damning passage, to me, was the investigation of the greenest of all green capital venture: Interface carpet tile manufacturer.

Interface has "cut waste sent to landfills by more than half while continuing to increase production," "reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30%," "reduced energy intensity by 45%," while "over 25% of raw materials used in interface carpet are recycled and biobased materials in 2007" and non-sustainable materials consumed per unit of product have declined from 10.2 pounds per square yard in 1996 to 8.6 poujnds per square yard in 2008.(82) Read that last sentence again.

Make no mistake: These are impressive, even heroic, industrial-environmental achievements. But if, after more than a dozen years of sustained effort, the most environmentally dedicated large company in the United States, if not the entire world, can manage to cut non-sustainable inputs from 10.2 pounds per square yard to only 8.6 pounds per square yard of finished product, to inject a mere 25 percent recycled and biobased feedstock into its production process, so still requiring 75 percent of new, mostly petroleum-based nonsustainable feedstock in every unit of production, then the inescapable conclusion must be that even the greenest businesses are also on course to "destroy the world."

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21060-green-capitalism-the-god-that-failed

Naomi Kline, iirc, has concluded that science itself is essentially telling us that an immediate global revolution against industrial capitalism is a requirement for any possibility of future complex life on earth.

Wadya'll think?

[JimD]

Wili

One of the best finds of the last year.
 
And "What I have been saying."  In a variety of ways in a host of posts.  Except for the conclusion which I think is way off reality.

If after reading this article one cannot understand the point I have been making that, "No problem we have can be solved unless there is an immediate and dramatic reduction in world population.", I guess that information just cannot get through.

Thus in its 2010 Report, subtitled "Transforming Cultures From Consumerism to Sustainability," The World Watch Institute tells us that:

Preventing the collapse of human civilization requires nothing less than a wholesale transformation of dominant cultural patterns. This transformation would reject consumerism ... and establish in its place a new cultural framework centered on sustainability. In the process, a revamped understanding of "natural" would emerge: it would mean individual and societal choices that cause minimal ecological damage or, better yet, that restore Earth's ecological systems to health.(92)

A wholesale change in basic human nature is called for immediately.  Sorry.  That is a change that comes from evolution not reason.  It will not happen.

...but to save the world, corporations would have to subordinate profit making to environmental goals. ..

The corporate/capitalist world cannot do that. You have to get rid of it and work from a new foundation.  Capitalism has certainly failed.  Spectacularly.  But there is no means to get rid of it either.  Its elimination would in short order eliminate most of the jobs on earth.  What do you do with those people?  Where do they go?

Getting down to the conclusions of the article I run into this however.

...In the final analysis, the only way to align production with society's interests and the needs of the environment is to do so directly. The huge global problems we face require the visible hand of direct economic planning to reorganize the world economy to meet the needs of humans and the environment, to enforce limits on consumption and pollution, to fairly ration and distribute the goods and services we produce for the benefit of each and every person on the planet and to conserve resources so that future generations of humans and other life forms also can live their lives to the full. All this is inconceivable without the abolition of capitalist private property in the means of production and the institution of collective bottom-up democratic control over the economy and society. And it will be impossible to build functioning democracies unless we also abolish global economic inequality. This is the greatest moral imperative of our time, and it is essential to winning worldwide popular support for the profound changes we must make to prevent the collapse of civilization. ...

I now have a fundamental disagreement with the author.  Yes, we need to stop using the capitalist free market economic system as it is suicidal.  BUT, the goal is not to build bottom up democratic control of the economy, nor build functioning democracies, nor abolish global inequality.  The author here is falling into the same ideological traps as the people blindly supporting capitalism (whether Green or not).  It is obvious that the old paradigms will not work in the future and that includes the favorite ones of the progressive left or the anarchists; equality, fairness, democracy, etc.   Now is not the time to jump in with your own rigid ideological concepts just when you see the other sides concepts failing.  It does not mean that yours have been proven to be the right ones at long last.  None of those ideas can fix this.

The GOAL is to "survive" in as best a fashion as possible.  Nothing less.  Nothing else is even slightly important. This means, if you are actually going to try and fix things, you have no choice but to institute dramatic programs to reduce population.  That is job one.  That cannot be done democratically or fairly or equitably in any way that I can think of.  But it must happen or nothing else can be fixed.  Whether we make a serious attempt to solve our problems, or likely not, as the case may be, democracy is not in our future.  Democracy will always work, in concert with basic human nature, to take the easy way out.  Democracy is not concerned with equality or fairness either.  In a democracy the competing power blocks have to have their interests at least partially satisfied unless they are small groups which the majorities can ignore.  We don't have time for that kind of stuff and democracy does not produce equality in any case.  Nothing does.  And when survival is at stake all of that feel good stuff is pretty unimportant after all.

Our future political structures are going to be increasingly authoritarian and dictatorial, no matter which path we take.  The Green and standard BAU paths will just run us down towards collapse while dithering away and as the stresses ratchet up authoritarian control will be continuously increased.  As is being done today.  A prerequisite to making a wholesale and immediate push to really prevent this coming catastrophe would be the implementation of a global government with powers to dictate on an epic scale.  You want to eliminate coal consumption or dramatically reduce carbon emissions you have to sacrifice jobs, industries and lives.  And be capable of enforcing decisions.  Democracies cannot do any of those things.

Is either the authors approach or mine practical in this world.  I think not.  I cannot conceive of any approach to government, or appeal to reason, or possible change in human nature which could get us to either solution in a timeframe to make a difference. 

So I ask you.  Given the state of the system of human civilization and the dire need to act right now to prevent catastrophe, what is going to happen? 

[wili]

I'm glad you found some points of value in the article. I, too, found the ending disappointingly narrow and dogmatic.

I certainly don't know 'what's going to happen,' but I want to devote most of the coming year to talking to people about just that question in the context of all we know about the dire straights we're in now, and challenging myself, my family (immediate and extended), my friends, my students, my places of employment...on up to government levels...to take K. Anderson's challenge and institute cuts that amount to at least 10% reductions.

The good news (if any can be had) is that I'm seeing more and more articles that take as given what has seemed up till recently a rather fringe view: that we are totally and utterly f*cked.

This essential message is often followed by various added notes about "unless we immediately make radical changes," but those are almost always changes that just seem just impossible to conceive happening, especially with the kind of immediacy that is required. For me, that makes this the make-or-break year.

People like to point out how Apartheid and the Iron Curtain looked like permanent feature on the political landscape--how it was inconceivable that they would ever fall without very bloody very massive wars--until they suddenly did, and mostly with out, at least, massive bloodshed. But even the fall of the Soviet Union and its satellite states was small potatoes compared to the world wide realization/revolution that must happen essentially now.

For now, let me say that a minor, perhaps, quibble I have with your position is that fairness always matters. Even a dictator will have better luck getting things done if it can be done in some way that suggests that it is fair, at least tot he majority. If everyone in the world is required to, for example, not have kids unless they are over 30 and have not had kids yet--such a policy is much more likely to be accepted (if it has any chance at all) than if you say: "The rich can have kids, but not the poor." or "Whites can have kids but not people of color."...

But I do share your skepticism that something like universal grassroots democracy and perfect economic equality can precede or even coincide with the required immediate move to vastly reduced carbon emissions.

On the other hand, perhaps those are exactly the carrots that would make the stick of drastic carbon reductions bearable?

ETA: One other slight quibble--One of the points of the article is exactly that capitalism is ill equipped to employ all the people that will be kicked out of work by the rapid transition away from carbon-based fuels that is now required. Presumably he is implying that some sort of socialism would be better able to do so. Certainly various more or less 'socialist' modifications of capitalism in the US and elsewhere have helped take some of the brutal edge off of it in the past (work program during the depression). Presumably the same could be implemented even without totally and officially doing away with all of capitalism (if that's even what we have these days).

[Tom_Mazanec]

Capitalism is the cure to AGW:
https://www.channel4.com/news/mark-carney-capitalism-is-part-of-the-solution-to-tackling-climate-change

[TerryM]

Capitalism is the cure to AGW:
https://www.channel4.com/news/mark-carney-capitalism-is-part-of-the-solution-to-tackling-climate-change

I'm sure that if Mr. Carney had been trained as a carpenter he'd have found that the proper application of nails was essential to solve AGW.
Terry

[blumenkraft]

From Wikipedia:

"Mark Joseph Carney (born March 16, 1965) is an economist and banker ... has been Governor of the Bank of England since 2013 and was Chairman of the Financial Stability Board from 2011 to 2018."

I wonder why he is a fan of capitalism... 

[gerontocrat]

Could always try "sustainable development". (Been there. Done that. Sigh. Hollow laughter emoji required.)

[blumenkraft]

Found the one that represents such people quite well.

[Tom_Mazanec]

More capitalists on why Capitalism is good for fighting AGW: 
http://www.ekathimerini.com/243228/article/ekathimerini/news/bank-of-greece-at-the-forefront-in-the-battle-against-climate-change

[oren]

Tom, thank you for digging up another old thread from slightly before my time here. I miss JimD's sharp analysis of the state of the world and what to expect in the future. It also pains me how so little has changed in five years, despite the solutions being well known back then as now (though impractical of course). At least wili is still around.

[NeilT]

Jim D, I echo your views on population.  I even, to some extent, agree that in order to meet the 21st century challenge of Climate Change, there needs to be some fundamental change to the way we do politics in the world.

I also agree that to fight Climate change we must reduce, first, the increase in population, then, second, start to reduce it.

So far so good.

Now my personal view from a few years of viewing it.  One of the largest risks to population growth is India.  Yet my view from the last decade of working with and making friends with, Indian IT people; is that capital economic growth has changed the viewpoint of Indian families form many children to keep them in their old age onto one or two children who will not suck the capital form them that they intend to live their lives on...

Hard to reconcile isn't it.  But it worked in the transition from Victorian Britain to the Britain of today.

[nanning]

<snippage>
I also agree that to fight Climate change we must reduce, first, the increase in population, then, second, start to reduce it.

Strange, I'd say a reduction in consumption is way more important. The richer people HAVE to change, the high consumers and high carbon footprint people. Why divert away from the right view? Sorry, but it seems these arguments are excuses for not changing yourself. Political change is not realistic, personal change is.

[blumenkraft]

Sorry, but it seems these arguments are excuses for not changing yourself. Political change is not realistic, personal change is.

Nailed it!

[gerontocrat]

Sorry, but it seems these arguments are excuses for not changing yourself. Political change is not realistic, personal change is.

Nailed it!

I agree completely, but.....

I want / need / demand a faster internet connection and a bigger broadband budget  so I can play on the RAMMB slider.

[blumenkraft]

I want / need / demand a faster internet connection and a bigger broadband budget  so I can play on the RAMMB slider.

Good news: If your internet gets faster, i don't think you could even measure that in your CO2 budget.

It dosn't matter much if the machine delivers slow or fast bits, it runs anyway.

[gerontocrat]

I want / need / demand a faster internet connection and a bigger broadband budget  so I can play on the RAMMB slider.

Good news: If your internet gets faster, i don't think you could even measure that in your CO2 budget.

It doesn't matter much if the machine delivers slow or fast bits, it runs anyway.

Not on my machine, but when loads more people put loads more traffic on the system, then the system has to grow, and it then needs loads more energy to run, so replacing fossil fuel electricity with renewables becomes just supplying some of the extra demand. I guess that is already happening.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[rboyd]

I want / need / demand a faster internet connection and a bigger broadband budget  so I can play on the RAMMB slider.

Good news: If your internet gets faster, i don't think you could even measure that in your CO2 budget.

It dosn't matter much if the machine delivers slow or fast bits, it runs anyway.

I used to work in IT in one of the major Canadian banks. To support that faster internet we built a new data center that used more electricity than the local large town. There is no free lunch.

[DrTskoul]

There is no free lunch

...

Universal law of thermodynamics...

[TerryM]

There is no free lunch

...

Universal law of thermodynamics...

With a little bit of Jevon's Paradox thrown in for good measure.
Terry

[DrTskoul]

See LEDs

[rboyd]

Joseph Tainter was a great theorist on this - seeing that like biological entities, as civilizations get more complex they use more energy. Therefore, increasing levels of civilizational complexity will need increasing levels of energy and a fall in available energy will lead to a reduced level of complexity. No amount of "green capitalism" will solve this, and therefore renewables will always be competing with an ever increasing level of energy usage. A capitalist focus on accumulation (required to increase profits) just exacerbates the problem.

Statistics which show a disconnect between economic growth and energy usage in richer countries ignore the embedded energy in imports as they use production based measures instead of consumption based measures.

His seminal book "The Collapse of Complex Societies" is available online for free.

https://wtf.tw/ref/tainter.pdf

[rboyd]

Why We Need Publicly Owned Energy for a Green New Deal

We don’t own much of our energy, individually or collectively. The UK is rich in offshore wind, but only 7% is owned by UK entities and only 0.07% is in UK public ownership. We’ve flogged off our nuclear to China and France – for ‘£17 billion of risk and not much benefit’ as Aditya Chakrabortty points out. Our energy infrastructure is owned by National Grid and other private companies owned by investors from Qatar to China, to US to Hong Kong. The Big Six supply companies (British Gas, E.ON, EDF Energy, nPower, Scottish Energy and SSE) are owned by UK, French, German and Spanish investors.

These investors aren’t interested in clean, green, affordable energy. They’re interested in their profits. That’s why since energy was privatised we’ve seen rip off prices, burning of fossil fuels and a lack of investment in the infrastructure we need. The government needs to set the pace and start the race. Bringing energy into public ownership would save us around £3.2 billion in dividends and a lower cost of borrowing – money that could be reinvested in getting us to our carbon targets quicker.

The transition to a low-carbon, sustainable future cannot be left to the investor class, CEOs of multinational companies, or governments that refuse to break with the current paradigm of endless growth, the imperative of profit, and the enforced chaos of competition in strategic sectors. Acting alongside other social movements, unions can begin by explaining the challenge in clear terms. Unions must then develop transformational strategies that are anchored in a paradigm of sharing, solidarity, and sufficiency. This is perhaps the only way to ensure a Just Transition for workers, and survival for human society as a whole.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/08/why-we-need-publicly-owned-energy-for-a-green-new-deal.html

[DrTskoul]

Private for profit utilities are greedy and public utilities with government employees can be corrupt and complacent. What you need are private not for profit utilities with government backed loans and a sustainable financial base...

[TerryM]

It works even on a localized level.
I've a home in So. Cal. and the municipality owns and operates electricity, water garbage collection and gas.


Rates, infrastructure and service are all preferable to the surrounding communities.


Nationalized would be great, State or Provincial ownership would be wonderful - but even at the local level the change can be felt and appreciated.
Terry

[petm]

Bitcoin alone produces 20+ million tonnes of CO2 per year, for no reason whatsoever, expect possibly a grand bad joke.

Does anyone care? Nope.

[nanning]

I care. I don't like it one bit.

[blumenkraft]

I invite everyone thinking Bitcoin is oh so wasteful to read up on the topic.

Hint: It's not!

Link >> https://medium.com/@danhedl/pow-is-efficient-aa3d442754d3

[blumenkraft]

For everyone not interested in reading the article, don't run away.

Here is a very short tl;dr:

If you don't have banking and money, CO2 consumption rises globally (imagine you had to go to where the bill has to be paid).

Still, banking and money are expensive (CO2 wise).

But, compared to the legacy system, bitcoin only uses a fraction of the energy. Most power used for bitcoin is (otherwise unused Chinese) hydropower.

[blumenkraft]

BTW, in winter i heat my apartment with a bitcoin miner. I buy 100% renewable electric power.

By that, i save ~300 bucks in heating cost a year and also i lower my CO2 consumption because regular heating here is via (natural) gas.

[SteveMDFP]

I invite everyone thinking Bitcoin is oh so wasteful to read up on the topic.

Hint: It's not!

Link >> https://medium.com/@danhedl/pow-is-efficient-aa3d442754d3

Actually, it is.  The article throws out a lot of facts and numbers but the actual information here undermines his argument, severely.  It's all an elaborate rationalization for a wasteful use of human and electrical energy.  Look at the energy use table:
https://medium.com/@danhedl/pow-is-efficient-aa3d442754d3

Currency can be used as a store of value (e.g., money in piggy bank).  Bitcoin's value is extremely volatile, making it a poor choice for this purpose.  Money is subject to inflation, but when converted to low risk bonds, yields approximately equal inflation (at least in the US).

Currency can be used as a hedge (e.g., buying Swiss Franks when your own nation seems to be headed into inflation).  The same kind of transaction can be speculative.  There's no net economic gain in speculation, however.

Most importantly, currency is a medium of exchange.  This is where Bitcoin needs to be compared to dollars.  There's a value presented for all the energy cost of creating currency in that table, and it compares *very* favorably to Bitcoin, especially when you consider all the actual currency in the world, compared to all the Bitcoin in the world.

But even that table is misleading.  Most "currency" isn't minted, it isn't physical, it's electronic.  The close to zero cost of currency creation currently needs to be contrasted with the very steep cost of creating bitcoin.  That's *all* wasted energy.

The argument that there's some benefit to Bitcoin mining activities buying up the cheapest electricity isn't an argument in favor of bitcoin, it's an argument that maybe that energy use isn't quite as profligately wasteful as using pricey electricity for the purpose.

Cheap electricity can be totally wasted by producing Bitcoin, or it can be used for economically valuable work---pumping up hydro, charging batteries, sending long distance over HVDC lines, desalinating water, producing hydrogen.  There are all kinds of productive uses for time-flexible cheap energy that don't result in zero net economic benefit.

Bitcoin mining should be banned globally.  Bitcoin transactions are also bad energy wasters, but not as severely.

[blumenkraft]

I invite everyone thinking Bitcoin is oh so wasteful to read up on the topic.

Hint: It's not!

Link >> https://medium.com/@danhedl/pow-is-efficient-aa3d442754d3

Actually, it is.

Because you are obviously giving it no value. That's fine. You can have this opinion.

10 The problem starts here: Porn watching via internet uses up more energy than bitcoin

So, what now? Do we prohibit porn on the internet?

The article throws out a lot of facts and numbers

Yes, it's a great article.

but the actual information here undermines his argument, severely.  It's all an elaborate rationalization for a wasteful use of human and electrical energy.

Wasteful for you because you don't see the value. Goto 10.

Money is subject to inflation

Bitcoin is subject to deflation.

In an economy where the currency is inherently deflationary, CO2 consumption goes down dramatically because you slow down the consumption of goods and resources.

Who buys something that's not really needed when you can just wait and get a better quality of the same item next year way cheaper? It's the opposite of capitalism and therefore more sustainable.

There's no net economic gain in speculation, however.

Agreed. How is this a counterargument?

Most importantly, currency is a medium of exchange.  This is where Bitcoin needs to be compared to dollars.

Dollars? Why is that? I pay with Euro.

Anyway, bitcoin is the internet of money. You can use it as a medium of exchange.

  There's a value presented for all the energy cost of creating currency in that table, and it compares *very* favorably to Bitcoin, especially when you consider all the actual currency in the world, compared to all the Bitcoin in the world.

goto 10

Most "currency" isn't minted, it isn't physical, it's electronic.

Which implies that banks have data centres too, right? They do computing on an industrial scale. The thing you don't like with bitcoin is now a good thing? That makes no sense.

The close to zero cost of currency creation currently needs to be contrasted with the very steep cost of creating bitcoin.  That's *all* wasted energy.

The generating of new coins is an incentive for users to participate and therefore secure the network. It's game theory, and it works. I don't see the counterargument here.

Also, goto 10, please.

The argument that there's some benefit to Bitcoin mining activities buying up the cheapest electricity isn't an argument in favor of bitcoin, it's an argument that maybe that energy use isn't quite as profligately wasteful as using pricey electricity for the purpose.

I never said anything about buying cheap energy, did i?

What i said was "Most power used for bitcoin is (otherwise unused Chinese) hydropower."

Unused is not cheap nor expensive. It's there if you use it or not.

pumping up hydro, charging batteries, sending long distance over HVDC lines, desalinating water, producing hydrogen.

Agreed. All this is not really done to mine bitcoins as far as i'm aware of.

There are all kinds of productive uses for time-flexible cheap energy that don't result in zero net economic benefit.

Goto 10, please.

Bitcoin mining should be banned globally.

Sure, and porn should be banned globally, right? Please goto 10.

Bitcoin transactions are also bad energy wasters, but not as severely.

LOL no. If you had read the article, you would know this is wrong.

[nanning]

I don't like porn one bit.

[blumenkraft]

I don't like porn one bit.

Nanning, if you don't like porn and you don't like bitcoin, your CO2 budget is fine.

Because it's these two things in life that really matter CO2 budget-wise.

[gerontocrat]

Green capitalism? Bitcoin?
Is there a connection, no matter how spurious, that I've missed? Please DON'T enlighten me.

But what do I hear ......?

" Cuckoo..... cuckooo.... cuckoooo....."

Ah, I'm in Cloud Cuckoo Land, and I thought I was in the ASIF. I must be smoking some really bad shit.

[blumenkraft]

Green capitalism? Bitcoin?
Is there a connection, no matter how spurious, that I've missed? Please DON'T enlighten me.

But what do I hear ......?

" Cuckoo..... cuckooo.... cuckoooo....."

Ah, I'm in Cloud Cuckoo Land, and I thought I was in the ASIF. I must be smoking some really bad shit.

Oh wow, what a thoughtful and interesting rebuttal Gerontocrat.

My dear friend, from the two of us, i'm the one who knows how it works. I'm the one who studied the topic for a long time, not you.

I'm not the one who just repeats what he heard, this is you. When you oftentimes express your disgust about people who are telling the experts what they are doing wrong, right now, you are that guy. Don't be that guy, please.

[SteveMDFP]

but the actual information here undermines his argument, severely.  It's all an elaborate rationalization for a wasteful use of human and electrical energy.

Wasteful for you because you don't see the value. Goto 10.

My point should be further clarified.  Cryptocurrencies have some useful characteristics.  I'm not opposed to cryptocurrencies in general.  It's Bitcoin in particular.  Many crypto alternatives have mechanisms other than profligate energy use to limit supply.  Many crypto alternatives have vastly lower per-transaction energy costs.

If a financial system can be operated on kilowatt-hours instead of megawatt-hours, it's damaging to the world to pick the latter.  An utterly needless use of resources.  Eliminate the needless extra energy costs, and you also eliminate the quite nasty theft of other people's electricity and computing hardware that comes with Bitcoin.

[blumenkraft]

My point should be further clarified.  Cryptocurrencies have some useful characteristics.  I'm not opposed to cryptocurrencies in general.  It's Bitcoin in particular.

In this case, i have bad news for you. They are dying as we speak.

Bitcoin is the de facto internet of money. Since there is no need for two internets, there is also no need for two internets of money.

Many crypto alternatives have vastly lower per-transaction energy costs.

You mean proof of stake? The game theory doesn't work here. It's not secure. If you want that, a MySQL database is even cheaper than POS networks.

IMHO, there are no applications for POS networks.

If a financial system can be operated on kilowatt-hours instead of megawatt-hours, it's damaging to the world to pick the latter.

Ok, then use what you think is better for you and fits your CO2 budget.

But please allow others to do the same. My CO2 budget is below 3tones/anno for over 20 years now - even with bitcoin mining in winter.

[DrTskoul]

Hey , the bitcoin mining provides for your heating... double use of electrons

[blumenkraft]

Hey , the bitcoin mining provides for your heating... double use of electrons

This is the idea.

Not that i expect to find a block with my lousy hashrate, but one can try, right?

[Gumbercules]

If green capitalism can't solve the problem nothing can. Meaning if green capitalism can't solve it, nothing will. The chaos that would ensue with any significant overturning of capitalism would make anything bad happening from climate change look like a walk in the park, and at a much higher rate.

[Tom_Mazanec]

For several decades you could buy a better computer by waiting a few years. People still bought computers.

[petm]

I'd rather give up flying than porn... 

Bitcoin uses a huge amount of power for no good reason, other than they just didn't consider or care about power consumption when they designed it. And bitcoin is no kind of replacement at all for banking, it's more of a get rich quick scheme. How is anything of real value being created by all this computation?

[TerryM]

I'd rather give up flying than porn... 

Bitcoin uses a huge amount of power for no good reason, other than they just didn't consider or care about power consumption when they designed it. And bitcoin is no kind of replacement at all for banking, it's more of a get rich quick scheme. How is anything of real value being created by all this computation?

A porn site exploiting "working" stewardesses, while mining bitcoin, as it's servers broadcast from the hold of the airplane where the porn is being produced.


Why settle for dual use when full spectrum is possible?
Terry

[NeilT]

Sorry, but it seems these arguments are excuses for not changing yourself. Political change is not realistic, personal change is.

Nailed it!

Really?

Can you spell clueless?  I hope you find that as insulting as I did the the statement you have just made there about me.

India, alone, will emit, by 2050, simply by having 400 million more people in the country, 720 million more tonnes of CO2 annually, based on 2017 figures where Indian CO2 emissions rose by 6% year on year.

If you are not aware (I assume you are not), 720 million tonnes of CO2 is more than the EINTIRE 2015 emissions of France and the UK combined.  Since 2015, UK emissions have dropped, not increased.

Which means that every single person in France and the UK could drop their emissions to 0% and the simple population growth in India would overwhelm their contribution.

My emissions continue to fall.  Especially this year where they are virtually halved.  My home country continues to diminish emissions.  India, simply by creating more people on the planet, will make those efforts completely useless.

So, please, don't insult my intelligence any more than you have to.  Try actually doing some reading on the matter!

[NeilT]

For several decades you could buy a better computer by waiting a few years. People still bought computers.

I build my own desktop computers, I have done this for decades.  I use older, depreciated, tech at lower rates.  I lived with the performance lag till computers became so powerful that my unchanging needs were met with older kit.

I do a similar thing with my cars nowadays.  My cars are rarely less than 8 years old when I buy them.

[NeilT]

I'd rather give up flying than porn... 

Bitcoin uses a huge amount of power for no good reason, other than they just didn't consider or care about power consumption when they designed it. And bitcoin is no kind of replacement at all for banking, it's more of a get rich quick scheme. How is anything of real value being created by all this computation?

I'd rather just giver up flying as soon as I can.  I'm working on that.

If you look up FIAT currencies you will see that there is very little of inherent value in the world anyway, bitcoin just takes it to a new level with the ability of computers.

Back in 2013 I managed to mine half a bitcoin.  It was worth $20 then.  Sadly I stored it in MT Gox and lost it when they were hacked.  Back then an Alienware Crossfire laptop would mine fairly well.  Nowadays it isn't worth the power to even try unless  you have an asic worth thousands.

[TerryM]

<snipped>
I build my own desktop computers, I have done this for decades.  I use older, depreciated, tech at lower rates.  I lived with the performance lag till computers became so powerful that my unchanging needs were met with older kit.

I do a similar thing with my cars nowadays.  My cars are rarely less than 8 years old when I buy them.

Before my first laptop I built/updated increasingly antiquated desktops - I refused to endure the learning curve that laptops seemed to require.


Old cars maintained/repaired under a shade tree still bring fond memories - age, health and apartment living dictate that I now must rely on the kindly ministrations of dealership mechanics.


The latest is a 3 year old VW with a transferable warranty that covers everything but the tires and the windshield wipers. 5 more years on everything but the paint job - it's covered for another 9 years.


No more 20 year old Fiat's that required hours/month, no more decades old pick-ups that bounded over sand dunes perhaps twice per year. Old age ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Terry

[nanning]

Sorry, but it seems these arguments are excuses for not changing yourself. Political change is not realistic, personal change is.

Nailed it!

Really?
<snip>

So you just wait and worry for the global population to go down? The population of poor people of course.
You don't have to do anything because you are 'the master from above'?

Billions will die, don't worry, the human population will go down. Because richer people like yourself will not change enough, the train is unstoppable. Accelerating.

I have my eye on the Keeling curve and am disgusted. You watch the poor people procreate and are disgusted. Walk a mile in their shoes; try empathy.

I'm sorry if I used too strong wording. Now please try to change yourself and not just superficial changes. Yes you try but not enough. Hard decisions need to be made by all richer people. But never mind, it won't happen. Have some heart for the poor and otherwise deprived of this world. They didn't start this !!!!!!!!

Human population increase is temporarily a positive 'feedback' until it's not and then living Earth is healed from a cancer.

[SteveMDFP]

My point should be further clarified.  Cryptocurrencies have some useful characteristics.  I'm not opposed to cryptocurrencies in general.  It's Bitcoin in particular.

In this case, i have bad news for you. They are dying as we speak.

Bitcoin is the de facto internet of money. Since there is no need for two internets, there is also no need for two internets of money.

Yes, just as VHS eclipsed BetaMax, despite the latter being a superior system.  Until DVDs made them both obsolete.  I think we'll see this analogy hold.
 

[blumenkraft]

Sadly I stored it in MT Gox and lost it when they were hacked.

NOOOOO!

Sorry for your loss Neil.

Always remember, not your keys, not your bitcoin!