Permanently Deleted

    • corporalham [none/use name]
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      I agree with this, but I want to specify: inefficiencies, as I imagine it, would include a great deal of the luxuries we enjoy but do not need. McMansions, SUV's, ridiculous suburban lawns, excessive electronic and clothing waste, etc, need to go. I'm betting that certain systems of measurement would consider the loss of these things as a decrease in the quality of life, but I do not. In fact, I think relinquishing luxuries of these kinds would do a great deal of good for most Americans.

      And I don't want to be one of those consumerist wokescolds that attributes all climate change to the individual choices of people who do these things, the removal of these things will be the inevitable effect of a redistribution of power away from the McMansion-holders and towards others.

      • BookOfTheBread [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        A benefit of hitting a plateau with a lot of electronics will be that people wont be replacing them anywhere near as much. If you look at new TVs and monitors they are at a point that refresh rate and resolution improvements are pointless as they have surpassed the average humans perception.

    • CountryRoads [fae/faer,it/its]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Most of the things that actually improve our day-to-day lives aren't even that resource intensive, in the grand scheme of things. If we made basic urban planning changes (no setbacks, narrow roads, no parking minimums) and built more trains around it, that would cover a lot of our waste.