[QasimK]

I was recently thinking about why bitcoin shouldn't just be banned to help mitigate the ongoing climate catastrophe which led to my recent article [0] which equated banning bitcoin to banning ice cream, which I hope helps to illustrate the absurdity of picking and choosing versus just charging for carbon more directly.

[0]: https://qasimk.io/2021/bitcoin-and-ice-cream/

[chronial]

Your analysis has one major flaw: It would only make sense if ice cream had as severe a climate impact as bitcoin. I have no reason to believe that it does.

You would have to find a list of things that people enjoy but don't bring societal benefit that add up to bitcoin's climate impact. I assume that list will then either:

• contain things that should actually be banned or

• add up to way more utility for way more people than bitcoin

[QasimK]

The idea of societal benefit is very nebulous. It sounds like your idea of it is very different to mine by the fact that you believe in an absolute answer to it.

How do you measure something like societal benefit?

I'm sure we could agree that eradicating disease is very beneficial, but would we disagree about the entire tourism and entertainment industry as a whole?

I can guarantee we have different opinions about the value of things. That's why we should be free to make our own choices. We don't need everyone in the world to help define what "societal benefit" is for them, they can do it every time they pay for something out of their own pocket.

(There is one thing that I think fulfills your criteria though, flights for holidays. They contribute more, and increasingly more, carbon emissions than bitcoin does while delivery little "societal benefit" - whatever that means. However, I'm not arguing anything here because I think it's morally wrong to focus on specific activities that affect a minority of people. And yes, banning taking flights for holidays would only affect a small minority of people globally.)

[chronial]

> The idea of societal benefit is very nebulous. [...] How do you measure something like societal benefit?

That is indeed a very hard problem and one of the mayor challenges of any society. But that doesn't mean that any endeavor that includes this notion is to be avoided. You gave the example of eradicating disease.

> I can guarantee we have different opinions about the value of things. That's why we should be free to make our own choices. We don't need everyone in the world to help define what "societal benefit" is for them, they can do it every time they pay for something out of their own pocket.

But now you are not arguing about ice cream anymore. You seem to be just generally skeptical of a strong centralized government. And you can of course argue that and there are no simple answers here. I was just pointing out that your ice cream argument doesn't hold water.

Unless it is "Any kind of government interference is bad. This is why we shouldn't ban ice cream. Therefore we also shouldn't ban bitcoin." If that is your stance, then ice cream and bitcoin are indeed equivalent for your. But that is probably not the worldview of the people asking for bitcoin to be banned. Then your post does not argue against their view, but against your version of their view.

[meiraleal]

gaming wastes more energy than crypto and add less utility