[dontlaugh]

That sort of thing needs to be democratically decided. Currently it isn’t, most countries have a few rich people dominating media and politics.

Most poverty isn’t energy poverty at all, it’s a lack of control over the means of production in general. Energy is merely one aspect.

Some energy usage is clearly frivolous, like several ton cars with single occupants or vastly oversized armies. Alternatives that achieve the same goals with vastly lower energy usage already exist and in some places are even widespread. Life can be different without being worse.

[snapcaster]

What you're describing is a dramatic reduction in human freedom. Right now I have the freedom to use as much energy as I can afford and people like you don't get any say in how I use it. Why not focus on generating more energy efficiently than imposing controls on other people? This seems like more about having control over other people than an actual concern for the environment or energy usage.

Would you vote to ban video games?

[dontlaugh]

When lower energy alternatives are better and widespread, people use them. Why should we not strive for efficiency as a society?

I at no point argued for banning something, just offering better alternatives.

[snapcaster]

What do you think "democratic decisions" will do? You already hinted at banning certain types of vehicles you don't like. I'm wondering what other things other people enjoy you would like to ban?

[dontlaugh]

You’re the one that keeps talking about banning things. I’d much prefer efficient and better alternatives were developed, which would convince people to use them.

Ultimately what you think is fun is irrelevant to whether it’s sustainable for us as a species. Just because a small minority of humans insist on having fun destructively doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t be allowed to convince them otherwise.

[sidewndr46]

You do realize putting democracy in front of something doesn't make it OK or even a good idea right?