12 ms·

Would you accept 0 pollution if it meant you had no electricity, electronic devices, or access to transportation? All of those things create pollution.

estimator7292 10mo ago
Hey, you probably don't want to sympathize with a guy that everyone around you thinks is irredeemably evil. And if you do still want to sympathize with such, maybe examine that motivation for like three seconds.
- Dracophoenix 10mo ago
  "Bad" people can still have good ideas or well-thought arguments. It happens often enough to have become became a clichéd meme. https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/ https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-kno...
- JuniperMesos 10mo ago
  > Hey, you probably don't want to sympathize with a guy that everyone around you thinks is irredeemably evil. > And if you do still want to sympathize with such, maybe examine that motivation for like three seconds. This sounds like a theat - "hate the person we all hate too, or maybe you yourself are a threat to the group's values, and since we can't actually get to the guy we hate, we'll punish you in his stead for being a sympathizer"
- datatrashfire 10mo ago
  No sympathy for Larry here! Just the point that development is going to coincide with some level of increased pollution. Even an electrified economy with 0 carbon emissions is going to be ecologically devastating after all the mountain top removal mining has gathered the materials to make it possible.
ben_w 10mo ago
That's the great thing about "invention", there are other ways to 0 pollution besides historic ones. Worse than that, actually: to get to 0 pollution by only deleting things, you'd also need to remove one of the main sources of pollution in third world countries: cooking with fire. Invention has already given us renewable electricity, and using that to cook is much better than inhaling wood smoke.
- datatrashfire 10mo ago
  Electrifying the economy is not a path to 0 pollution.
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    Electrification is a necessary but not sufficient step to zero pollution. Necessary, because using any other way to cook is polluting, and no matter what else you eliminate you can't eliminate cooking. (And good luck convincing everyone to not live where heating is needed). Even wood fires for cooking is a way to get all the lung damage of heavy smoking for all the same reasons, just without the nicotine addiction. Not sufficient, because while renewables can be made in non-polluting ways, those might not be the cheapest, and people vote with their wallets. That, plus all the chemical processes that just pollute directly, like cement and steel currently do.
defrost 10mo ago
A good many people I know and have known for 60+ years would, do, and yearn for civilisation as you know it to back the f off and get its foot from their neck. Yes, they are fully awar of what that means and they have lived without electricity, devices, and transport. Embrace of bleeding edge tech isn't universal, hell even the embrace of the past 100 years of tech isn't for every human.
- Gud 10mo ago
  They have not lived without society not using u those things though, unless they live in Siberia or something.
  - defrost 10mo ago
    Contrary to your thoughts on the matter the Pintupi Nine and their relatives the Richter family spring to mind as the most extreme examples. Both groups from my neck of the woods, both groups I've spoken to, both groups with significant time spent sans modern society. Both groups with members that turned back to isolation and non western lifestyle after a few years exposure. Many more similar people have been exposed to society with electricty, phones, etc and happy to live as far apart from that as they can still manage - it's hard to escape such things - Starlink has polluted the skys once untouched in the Murchison.

estimator7292 10mo ago

Hey, you probably don't want to sympathize with a guy that everyone around you thinks is irredeemably evil. And if you do still want to sympathize with such, maybe examine that motivation for like three seconds.

Dracophoenix 10mo ago
"Bad" people can still have good ideas or well-thought arguments. It happens often enough to have become became a clichéd meme. https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/ https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-kno...
JuniperMesos 10mo ago
> Hey, you probably don't want to sympathize with a guy that everyone around you thinks is irredeemably evil. > And if you do still want to sympathize with such, maybe examine that motivation for like three seconds. This sounds like a theat - "hate the person we all hate too, or maybe you yourself are a threat to the group's values, and since we can't actually get to the guy we hate, we'll punish you in his stead for being a sympathizer"
datatrashfire 10mo ago
No sympathy for Larry here! Just the point that development is going to coincide with some level of increased pollution. Even an electrified economy with 0 carbon emissions is going to be ecologically devastating after all the mountain top removal mining has gathered the materials to make it possible.

ben_w 10mo ago

That's the great thing about "invention", there are other ways to 0 pollution besides historic ones. Worse than that, actually: to get to 0 pollution by only deleting things, you'd also need to remove one of the main sources of pollution in third world countries: cooking with fire. Invention has already given us renewable electricity, and using that to cook is much better than inhaling wood smoke.

datatrashfire 10mo ago
Electrifying the economy is not a path to 0 pollution.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  Electrification is a necessary but not sufficient step to zero pollution. Necessary, because using any other way to cook is polluting, and no matter what else you eliminate you can't eliminate cooking. (And good luck convincing everyone to not live where heating is needed). Even wood fires for cooking is a way to get all the lung damage of heavy smoking for all the same reasons, just without the nicotine addiction. Not sufficient, because while renewables can be made in non-polluting ways, those might not be the cheapest, and people vote with their wallets. That, plus all the chemical processes that just pollute directly, like cement and steel currently do.

defrost 10mo ago

A good many people I know and have known for 60+ years would, do, and yearn for civilisation as you know it to back the f off and get its foot from their neck. Yes, they are fully awar of what that means and they have lived without electricity, devices, and transport. Embrace of bleeding edge tech isn't universal, hell even the embrace of the past 100 years of tech isn't for every human.

Gud 10mo ago
They have not lived without society not using u those things though, unless they live in Siberia or something.
- defrost 10mo ago
  Contrary to your thoughts on the matter the Pintupi Nine and their relatives the Richter family spring to mind as the most extreme examples. Both groups from my neck of the woods, both groups I've spoken to, both groups with significant time spent sans modern society. Both groups with members that turned back to isolation and non western lifestyle after a few years exposure. Many more similar people have been exposed to society with electricty, phones, etc and happy to live as far apart from that as they can still manage - it's hard to escape such things - Starlink has polluted the skys once untouched in the Murchison.