The fact that you interpret fear of persecution and resistance to authoritarianism as a selfish act tells me everything I need to know about how you view the world. And I choose not to engage in this conversation with you. 👋
I don’t think fear of persecution and resistance to authoritarianism is selfish. I think some things are vastly worse than others, e.g. wiping out more than 50% of genera and more than 70% of species, and making the biosphere unlivable for most creatures larger than mice - is incredibly selfish; and being complicit in genocide is a line some people won’t cross no matter if it may benefit them personally in the short term. I understand most people have very different priorities, and care more about their own short-term goals even if those goals make them complicit in omnicide.
You’re contributing to making the biosphere unlivable. You’re using electronics to communicate on Lemmy. That means you’ve contributed a huge amount of CO2 in all kinds of ways- a significant amount was expended just to construct whatever device you’re using.
So you’re going to stop using electronics and the internet, right? Otherwise you’re just helping yourself in the short term, something you are implying you do not want people to do.
I’m not sure why you think that changes what I said. You’re making a contribution to making the biosphere unlivable by using that electronic device you’re using in multiple ways. What other people do or don’t do does not absolve your own culpability.
You just don’t want to live without the luxury of the internet, so you’re evading.
Some things are sustainable, others are not - by orders of magnitude.
Growing a tree, and then cutting it down to boil water is sustainable.
Producing more oil than any country ever has, is absolutely not sustainable.
Accessing the internet using an open source OS on hardware other people threw away, is sustainable, even when following the categorical imperative where the other 8 billion people also do it.
A single router consumes 10,000 watts, and a very large data center comes close to 100 million watts, or one-tenth of the output of a thermal power station. Plus, in addition to the consumption required to run the servers, electronic circuits have to be cooled using air conditioning. How about a web search? The search for a web address represents about .8g of CO2, but for searches that produce five or more results, that number rises to 10g. Consider a web user who makes an average of 2.6 web searches per day. That person is contributing 9.9 kg of CO2 equivalent per year. Finally, when browsing the web, an average person on a yearly basis needs electricity and water that equates to about the same amount of CO2 that is emitted when traveling 860 miles by car.
All of that carbon you’re responsible for just by being on the internet to do frivolous things like post on Lemmy doesn’t sound sustainable to me, but it sounds like you’ll come up with any excuse you can to avoid the fact that you’re being very hypocritical.
No one is forcing you to use the internet. It is your choice to contribute to that CO2 because you want the luxury of things like Lemmy. You want your luxuries but you also want to point your finger and blame others for doing the same thing.
So it’s okay to help yourself in the short term, and by doing so help make the biosphere unlivable?
The fact that you interpret fear of persecution and resistance to authoritarianism as a selfish act tells me everything I need to know about how you view the world. And I choose not to engage in this conversation with you. 👋
I don’t think fear of persecution and resistance to authoritarianism is selfish. I think some things are vastly worse than others, e.g. wiping out more than 50% of genera and more than 70% of species, and making the biosphere unlivable for most creatures larger than mice - is incredibly selfish; and being complicit in genocide is a line some people won’t cross no matter if it may benefit them personally in the short term. I understand most people have very different priorities, and care more about their own short-term goals even if those goals make them complicit in omnicide.
And your ability to be concerned about such things is your privilege
It is obvious that you are generally comfortable with little risk to your daily life riding on this election
Talk to me again when you’re sacrificing your own immediate safety instead of the immediate safety of others to uphold your high-minded values
You’re contributing to making the biosphere unlivable. You’re using electronics to communicate on Lemmy. That means you’ve contributed a huge amount of CO2 in all kinds of ways- a significant amount was expended just to construct whatever device you’re using.
So you’re going to stop using electronics and the internet, right? Otherwise you’re just helping yourself in the short term, something you are implying you do not want people to do.
https://interactive.guim.co.uk/uploader/embed/2017/07/co2_saved/giv-3902H9Q7lx2HE5M7/
I’m not sure why you think that changes what I said. You’re making a contribution to making the biosphere unlivable by using that electronic device you’re using in multiple ways. What other people do or don’t do does not absolve your own culpability.
You just don’t want to live without the luxury of the internet, so you’re evading.
Some things are sustainable, others are not - by orders of magnitude. Some of the former are not sustainable when done by billions of people.
And now you’re just trying to weasel out of the thing you are pointing fingers at others for.
This was you earlier:
That is exactly what you are doing right now. You just think it’s okay for you to do what you criticize others for in order to have your own luxuries.
Some things are sustainable, others are not - by orders of magnitude.
Growing a tree, and then cutting it down to boil water is sustainable.
Producing more oil than any country ever has, is absolutely not sustainable.
Accessing the internet using an open source OS on hardware other people threw away, is sustainable, even when following the categorical imperative where the other 8 billion people also do it.
https://shift.com/blog/news/the-carbon-footprint-of-the-internet/
All of that carbon you’re responsible for just by being on the internet to do frivolous things like post on Lemmy doesn’t sound sustainable to me, but it sounds like you’ll come up with any excuse you can to avoid the fact that you’re being very hypocritical.
No one is forcing you to use the internet. It is your choice to contribute to that CO2 because you want the luxury of things like Lemmy. You want your luxuries but you also want to point your finger and blame others for doing the same thing.
Hypocritical.
So about 0.272 tonnes of CO2e per year per https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-ton-carbon-dioxide ?
Of a total of about “2.1 tonnes per person annual emissions budget necessary by 2050 to meet the 2 °C climate target (Girod et al 2014)” per https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541#erlaa7541r22 (Girod 2014 seems to be paywalled).
That total seems below the 2.1 tonnes of CO2e per year sustainable target per person by 2050.