sweetpotato

Ayn Rand’s fountainhead, by a fat mile. I was young and didn’t know better

What in the world do you mean “you expect our energy demands to stay the same or decrease?”. What does expect mean??? I don’t expect anything, I’m stating what needs to be done if we want our planet to remain habitable…have you heard about climate change or…? Also how do you keep ignoring the fact that our wealth has increased by 500% in the last 30 years and the 1% gets all the profit? We don’t need to increase our economic activities for all the people to be able to live comfortably, we need distribute wealth fairly and when we get to a point where everyone can live well, (in the West we are way past that point) then we need to scale down unnecessary economic activities, if we want to meet the scientific guidelines to avoid the 3 degrees by the end of the century, which would spell absolute irreversible disaster.

I never said it’s a US problem, and I didn’t make it sound like so, I was only using some data from the US for convenience. It’s a worldwide problem, but the US dictates the trajectory and policies of a very big part of the world including Europe, Canada, Australia and the gulf countries, all of which are essentially controlled by them. Also the US has by far the most CO2 emissions historically, making that country the single biggest contributor to climate change, again, by far. So it bears the biggest responsibility of any country. But you are right, it’s a worldwide problem.

You have to understand that GDP and energy demands are intrinsically tied. That’s a fact, both theoretically and empirically verified with historical data. When the GDP rises, energy demands rise. And the reason why energy demands rise is not to meet people’s needs but because the 1% seek to increase GDP (through individual corporation stock values) which in turn increases their profits, since like I said they absorb all of it. That is why it is relevant, because it’s a matter of wealth accumulation by the 1%, not because people need more energy. That is backed both by the fact that the common people don’t get anything out of the increase in economic production(the bottom 80% like I’ve said have had a stagnant wealth since the 1990s in the US, although the global GDP has risen 5-fold, even though the population has risen and hence the people in that 80% has risen as well) and by the fact that the population increase has been just 50% and the increase in wealth ten times that.

It’s almost like you have no clue what you are talking about lol. The global population growth for the last 30 years is 50%, while the global GDP growth is 500%. Not only that but the wealth inequalities in the world have been steadily rising for the last 60 years. In the US alone (that we have data on) the wealth of the bottom 80% has been roughly stagnant since the 1990s while that of the top 1% has skyrocketed - it’s basically them that have absorbed this economic growth profit.

So yeah, you got a lot of confidence in things you clearly don’t know about.

Yes it’s obviously better than using fossil fuels, nobody’s arguing that. What I’m talking about is the direction the global economy and the people making the decisions are taking.

No matter how much nuclear energy you use, you are still putting a lot of additional strain on the environment. It’s not just the CO2 emissions that matter, that’s just one of the problems. It’s the increase in extracted materials for data centers, reactors and nuclear fuel, which causes the destruction of multiple ecosystems and the contamination of waters and soil from the pollutants produced(even radioactive waste in the uranium case).

It’s also that Google could have been taxed more(I’m sure they can take it) and the money the government gained could be directed to investments on nuclear plants that would actually replace fossil fuels instead of adding energy demands on top of them. Because the fact of the matter is that in 2024 we categorically cannot be talking about not increasing fossil fuel consumption, we have to be talking about how to reduce emissions drastically every single year and why we are already tragically behind on that regard.

So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn’t replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that…cool

On one hand I think it’s very positive that everyone starts using decentralised platforms that don’t run on profit, that work for their users and not their shareholders, but on the other hand having a space mostly without conservatives is great.

It’s almost as if oligopolies can manipulate prices regardless of availability

That’s fair, but I believe cities can’t be like that regardless. It’s where you live everyday, the forests do not fix that. Your surroundings everyday affect mental and physical health (and these two interact with each other as well) and although a Sunday walk in nature is important, it will be negligible.

You have a much higher chance of living a sedentary life because you have to be in a car all day, so statistically less exercise, more obesity, worse quality of sleep (shown in scientific studies) all of which lead to mental health deterioration. There is also more noise pollution the more cars there are and the less trees there are, not only in the house(let’s suppose you have good insulation) but also when you are out of the house. This is causing stress (you can’t always realize this but it’s happening), so high blood pressure, mental health issues etc. And of course air pollution. Besides all that, there are also less interactions with other people, less public spaces, so less socialization which is also a big factor in mental health and overall wellbeing. I personally really value the latter.

I’m not trying to throw shade to the country, I wish the way of life was better, cause I’d like to work there for some years and I’m not saying Europe is perfect, obviously the problems exist there as well but to a very lower degree. I could live almost wherever in Europe, but I can never live in the US.

Haven’t been there, I can imagine, but could it be any other way? I mean, what would the alternative be? Have no forests and green spaces in the entire country? That would not be sustainable.

Your urban planning. Your cities are unwalkable, the scenery makes me depressed af, everything is scaled up for cars, even restaurants are for cars, the highways are huge, all I can see is tar. I don’t know how you can live like that.

Ong, first they eliminate the competition and then they start going for profit, which always goes hand in hand with enshitification, for the very simple reason that if there was something they could add to increase profits and user satisfaction at the same time, they would’ve already added it.

They are not trying to make the app work for the user but against him, to take his data, privacy, attention, money etc.

Wait what do the android updates have to do with Graphene? Does the phone need to still be supported by Google and android for Graphene to be secure and work?

For how long will the older pixel phones be supported? Is it worth it to buy a cheaper older model like pixel 6 and have graphene in it?

Cause I’m not giving more than 200-300 for a phone. I’ll stick to cheap android phones that lack nothing compared to expensive phones for my needs.

Only the fact that he is able to say shit like that out loud is a sign of a rotting society. People are ok with being their slaves

Google and apple you can let us worry about our security ourselves, thank you, though I’m sure you have our best interests in mind and only that

Yeah, it happens to Spotify mods as well. This isn’t good

Probably the countries they themselves have ruined

So should we be fearing a new crash?

So we’re talking about de-extinction at a time when 70% of the planet’s biodiversity has been lost in the last 50 years?