Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bodyfour 1756 days ago
What a non sequitur.

The claim being put forth is that crypto's environmental cost FAR outweighs its utility.

Your counterargument is that such concerns are unraisable simply because one can avoid personally using BTC. Or to put another way "if WE destroy the environment it's none of YOUR business"

And that is wrong -- the atmosphere is shared by all. Changes to its composition are everybody's shared concern.

If you want to argue that some other business's activity are too damaging to the environment to be allowed to continue... fine, make those arguments. But don't bat away concerns about crypto's absurd environmental cost as "none of your darn business"