The US is using 40% renewables, China a bit more, many smaller countries are testing 100% renewable days, ozone was mostly fixed iirc. Progress may be slow, but to say it’s not happening is factually very false.
Not to make perfect be the enemy of good, or to poo-poo that progress…but electricity is only 1/3 of GHG. And demand for electricity goes up with the move towards EVs, so while we take the energy out of the “transportation” column, we put it into the “electricity” column, at a 60% discount.
Thats…good. It’s progress. But it’s honestly such a baby-step in the grand scheme. We should be using green energy and EVs exclusively by now, and significantly cut down on meat and dairy consumption. We should be a lot further by now.
I blame Nader, the hanging chads, and Bush v. Gore…but mostly Nader. Had he not run in 2000, the majority of his voters, particularly in FL, would’ve voted for Gore. Nader got 97,488 votes in FL. Bush won by five hundred and thirty seven votes. That…the spoiler effect that resulted from an idealist candidate (and the shortfalls of FPTP, not to mention electoral college), is making perfect the enemy of good.
The same could also have been said of NH, by the way. 22,198 votes for Nader, Bush won by a margin of a third of that. Either FLs 25 or NHs 4 EC votes would’ve flipped the election and the course of history.
All probably true, but all the technological progress has done little to change the fact that we continue to destroy the world we live in with our eyes open. This is my point: technology is generally not used for the good of humanity, but for monetary gain. If we wanted to, the world could be a better place, but we don’t use our resources that way - they are not managed by the general public, but by people who don’t have the good of humanity in mind. I think the Internet is a good example of this: Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the www protocol, didn’t earn a cent from a patent or something like that - he was just interested in scientific exchange at the time. In my opinion, that’s a true hero, not Steve Jobs (he was a great businessman tho).
This is a very pessimistic view, and with a fallacy. The fallacy is to consider that greed will always win and yadayada. The fact is that it is a product of liberalism, it makes states resign from doing things to the profit of companies. Even in liberal countries liberalism is being contested though, and power countries are opposing it (for better or worse).
Internet is still there. And in some places, it won true victories against liberalism, like in Europe where net neutrality did won some battles and big Internet companies are being contained, if only to fight US espionage.
My opinion is that Internet companies are incapable of sustaining their tools, because they’re too greedy to provide a good service long term. Free solutions will appear, and ultimately they will prevail. Lemmy is a example that is at a baby stage yet. Most of the innovation and infrastructure relies on free softwares today. It’s just in the background. Computer and Internet technologies are still in their infancy, it will evolve.
In Europe, legislation is like this because it was enforced by institutions (meaning the state(s)). This is an achievement of a still halfway functional democracy. The source is myself, a European. However, I can also tell you that things like the GDPR don’t actually matter in practice. I am also the source, who has implemented both tracking and corresponding opt-in solutions for several companies - nobody gives a fuck; neither the companies nor the institutions. It is actually more expensive to comply with the legislation: There are no adequate penalties whatsoever. If you hear in America that meta/facebook had to pay a substancial fine, you can assume that meta/facebook has gained that many times over from the infringement. Greed rules the world, I’m afraid. That’s the reason for my pessimism and also one of the reasons why I think the merits of neoliberalism are a fairy tale.
I meant 2 things: first, companies don’t have complete free reign in Europe, that’s just wrong, and you’re mistaken if you think rgpd has no effect. Second, Internet cannot be killed, and companies only take over it because liberal states ask them to do so.
Liberalism is highly contested everywhere. I would argue that it is actually collapsing. Even in the US, as Trump shows, it’s showing cracks and weaknesses. In Europe, most parliaments have 30 to 60% of the representation against liberalism (although fascists tend to be elected to be against liberals, but actually l’y with them when they take decisions).
Things are changing. Things will change. When it comes to Internet and computers, no innovation comes from companies anymore. Innovation comes from free softwares. Linux usage is rising. Iot will further push this. That’s my bet at least. You could say I’m optimistic.
I essentially agree. I just come to a different, admittedly pessimistic conclusion. I simply don’t believe that things will change for the better on their own. In my opinion, this requires regulation that is actually enforced so that the powerful of this world cannot do as they please. The GDPR is of course a step in the right direction. In practice, however, it is unfortunately nowhere near as effective as it could and should be.
The US is using 40% renewables, China a bit more, many smaller countries are testing 100% renewable days, ozone was mostly fixed iirc. Progress may be slow, but to say it’s not happening is factually very false.
Also the rate of change is accelerating.
No sign of slowing down yet. Except maybe for wind but hopefully floating comes into its own in the next couple of years.
Wow, I’d never heard of floating solar panels before. Very cool!
I actually meant floading wind.
I think floating solar will come to nothing. Too much added cost for little benefit.
40% renewables for electricity.
Not to make perfect be the enemy of good, or to poo-poo that progress…but electricity is only 1/3 of GHG. And demand for electricity goes up with the move towards EVs, so while we take the energy out of the “transportation” column, we put it into the “electricity” column, at a 60% discount.
Thats…good. It’s progress. But it’s honestly such a baby-step in the grand scheme. We should be using green energy and EVs exclusively by now, and significantly cut down on meat and dairy consumption. We should be a lot further by now.
I blame Nader, the hanging chads, and Bush v. Gore…but mostly Nader. Had he not run in 2000, the majority of his voters, particularly in FL, would’ve voted for Gore. Nader got 97,488 votes in FL. Bush won by five hundred and thirty seven votes. That…the spoiler effect that resulted from an idealist candidate (and the shortfalls of FPTP, not to mention electoral college), is making perfect the enemy of good.
The same could also have been said of NH, by the way. 22,198 votes for Nader, Bush won by a margin of a third of that. Either FLs 25 or NHs 4 EC votes would’ve flipped the election and the course of history.
All probably true, but all the technological progress has done little to change the fact that we continue to destroy the world we live in with our eyes open. This is my point: technology is generally not used for the good of humanity, but for monetary gain. If we wanted to, the world could be a better place, but we don’t use our resources that way - they are not managed by the general public, but by people who don’t have the good of humanity in mind. I think the Internet is a good example of this: Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the www protocol, didn’t earn a cent from a patent or something like that - he was just interested in scientific exchange at the time. In my opinion, that’s a true hero, not Steve Jobs (he was a great businessman tho).
This is a very pessimistic view, and with a fallacy. The fallacy is to consider that greed will always win and yadayada. The fact is that it is a product of liberalism, it makes states resign from doing things to the profit of companies. Even in liberal countries liberalism is being contested though, and power countries are opposing it (for better or worse).
Internet is still there. And in some places, it won true victories against liberalism, like in Europe where net neutrality did won some battles and big Internet companies are being contained, if only to fight US espionage.
My opinion is that Internet companies are incapable of sustaining their tools, because they’re too greedy to provide a good service long term. Free solutions will appear, and ultimately they will prevail. Lemmy is a example that is at a baby stage yet. Most of the innovation and infrastructure relies on free softwares today. It’s just in the background. Computer and Internet technologies are still in their infancy, it will evolve.
Before any Americans get upset at this comment, keep in mind that liberal ≠ progressive for much of the world.
I’m French. Liberals are very conservative here.
In Europe, legislation is like this because it was enforced by institutions (meaning the state(s)). This is an achievement of a still halfway functional democracy. The source is myself, a European. However, I can also tell you that things like the GDPR don’t actually matter in practice. I am also the source, who has implemented both tracking and corresponding opt-in solutions for several companies - nobody gives a fuck; neither the companies nor the institutions. It is actually more expensive to comply with the legislation: There are no adequate penalties whatsoever. If you hear in America that meta/facebook had to pay a substancial fine, you can assume that meta/facebook has gained that many times over from the infringement. Greed rules the world, I’m afraid. That’s the reason for my pessimism and also one of the reasons why I think the merits of neoliberalism are a fairy tale.
I meant 2 things: first, companies don’t have complete free reign in Europe, that’s just wrong, and you’re mistaken if you think rgpd has no effect. Second, Internet cannot be killed, and companies only take over it because liberal states ask them to do so.
Liberalism is highly contested everywhere. I would argue that it is actually collapsing. Even in the US, as Trump shows, it’s showing cracks and weaknesses. In Europe, most parliaments have 30 to 60% of the representation against liberalism (although fascists tend to be elected to be against liberals, but actually l’y with them when they take decisions).
Things are changing. Things will change. When it comes to Internet and computers, no innovation comes from companies anymore. Innovation comes from free softwares. Linux usage is rising. Iot will further push this. That’s my bet at least. You could say I’m optimistic.
I essentially agree. I just come to a different, admittedly pessimistic conclusion. I simply don’t believe that things will change for the better on their own. In my opinion, this requires regulation that is actually enforced so that the powerful of this world cannot do as they please. The GDPR is of course a step in the right direction. In practice, however, it is unfortunately nowhere near as effective as it could and should be.
The prisoners’ dilemma explains why people prefer personal profit over benefitting mankind.
Do you really believe that?
deleted by creator