|
|
|
|
|
|
by myshpa
1149 days ago
|
|
|
> If you forced humans to stop eating meat, this would make billions of people very unhappy. Wealthy billions. The poor ones don't eat as much meat and dairy. And it's a good thing ... if they did, we would need not one, but 4-5 Earths to feed everyone. Eating meat is a culture. A story we tell ourselves. It cost us all of megafauna, half of our forests, it threatens thousands of animal species with extinction, and it should go. It can't go for much longer if we want to have any future. > Higher cost of energy Costs are human construct. Money is just a record in someone's database. Goverments can make as much as they want. It means nothing. > necessarily means we get to spend less on other things We will learn what has value when we'll eat the system to the ground. |
|
|
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying: less energy consumption pretty much directly translates to less human flourishing. You seem to be arguing that this is a good thing (which I disagree with), but you keep supporting my claim with more evidence, so please, concede this.
> Costs are human construct. Money is just a record in someone's database. Goverments can make as much as they want. It means nothing.
This is not so. If that was the case, poor countries could become rich by their governments printing more money. Zimbabwe tried, they did get more money, but did not get any wealth.
The point here is that money represents something very real and significant, which a claim on value produced in the economy. If you just “change records in someone’s database”, you’ll only have more money chasing the same amount of goods, ie. inflation. If you, however, force people to use different, more expensive sources of energy, the impact is very real: less of stuff in total gets produced, and so the society gets to consume less in aggregate. This means less flourishing.