> the people producing and selling solar panels don’t give a fuck about the environment
They sure as hell are incentivized to at least make others do. An increased awareness for environmental issues is profitable. I would go further and think that genuine interest in the future of humanity is more plausible than the required cognitive dissonance.
Why on earth are solar panels seen as righteous? You’re so indoctrinated that it borders on worship. Go look into who makes them and how.
Producing solar, batteries, wind farms EMITS carbon and has large environmental impact. The energy sector will sell you whatever…
> > Neither do you.
> Completely needless accusation.
99% of environmentalists are just posturing. I guess it’s possible you’re different, but just remember you probably emit more carbon than almost every person who’s ever lived.
The environmental impacts of these technologies are well documented and reported. However the emissions are negligible compared to the running emissions of fossil fuels which you don't seem to actively dislike. Assuming that the world's power usage does not dramatically shrink in the future, especially solar farms will have to be built on a massive scale because we simply can't emit as much carbon as would be required for fossil power plants. Again, you can check the numbers for yourself.
> you probably emit more carbon than almost every person who’s ever lived.
That seems exaggerated. I live a vegetarian diet and do not own a car, my home electricity is 100% local renewables and I am very mindful of the carbon impact of any products I buy. While the Western industrial lifestyle is still unsustainable, I do think these small-scale changes are beneficial. Of course the ambient societal carbon emissions are incomparable to pre-Industrial timeframes, but that is widely known.
Thanks for the response! I am not anti-solar, and the technology absolutely has it's niche. It's just not suitable for base-load power generation.
> However the emissions are negligible compared to the running emissions of fossil fuels
This is untrue but for the record, I'm referencing climate impact, not just emissions.
Solar has great emissions compared to FF in VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. Its obvious that solar only works intermittently, and only provides efficient power in places where we have lots of sun next to large demand (think population centers).
Most of the worlds solar panels are produced in China, where they burn coal for the bulk of their industrial energy. Burning coal to produce panels, and placing them in non-sunny regions creates extra emissions, not less...frequently not even breaking even on the carbon cost of the initial production/distribution during the lifespan of the panel.
> fossil fuels which you don't seem to actively dislike
Of course I don't actively dislike inanimate substance. This is what freaks me out about the cult-like support for solar. Without fossil fuels, we would lose access to food, shelter, medicine, infrastructure, etc. The way some people talk, I'm starting to think the renewable crowd believes it's "worth it."
> Assuming that the world's power usage does not dramatically shrink in the future, especially solar farms will have to be built on a massive scale
1. We could use other forms of power generation...solar is not the only game in town.
2. The materials required for solar production are finite. It's unsustainable to extract/process all the materials required for such a feat, barring some sort of physics breakthrough in hyperconductivity. We literally do not have the materials OR the technology.
> That seems exaggerated. I live a vegetarian diet and do not own a car, my home electricity is 100% local renewables and I am very mindful of the carbon impact of any products I buy.
That's all well and good, but once you start taking flights, using infrastructure , electronics, ML workloads, developing software, etc, you've already beaten most others today and historically.
How many african peasants worth of emissions do you think your lifestyle produces? How do you think the food you consume is produced and distributed? Why aren't you considering the emissions required to pour concrete and produce steel?
Well lowering market spreads is all about increasing the returns for capital, and incenctivising overfinancialisation. It's hardly curing cancer is it?
At worst it's actively harmful if you believe that the current state of turbo-financialised capitalism has its drawbacks.
> Network latency
Not really sure what you're talking about but surely spending billions of dollars to bring rtt latencies to 50 micros or whatever is not really a great use of money and top engineering talent. Again, it's playing an arbitrage game but not really delivering any value.
lol I said "closeted dictator" for the record. But alrighty why don't we start over and see if we can both argue in good faith. I can certainly be a dick on the internet sometimes.
I honestly can't tell what your concrete points are. I come from the position that economies are naturally occurring phenomena which cannot be centrally planned or controlled. If people can find ways to profit off market inefficiencies, they should! The HFT/Quant firms make their arbitrage money (value for them) and all market participants in return see: (non-exhaustive list)
If your bar is that "all smart people should be working on curing cancer or andrepd-approved endevours" then almost nobody in the economy is providing value. Is my lowly SecEng job at $MEGACORP good enough? What about my buddy who writes firmware for toothbruhes? Are professional starcraft players wasting their talents?
> EDIT: The funny part is even the exchanges and hft firms agree with me see PLP/speed bumps on exchanges like Eurex lol
This debate has been going on for ages, and it's silly to pretend that it's been settled and everyone agrees with you.
> I come from the position that economies are naturally occurring phenomena which cannot be centrally planned or controlled.
This is a challenge to untangle. It sounds like you're saying that there is no point trying to regulate, legislate or control what happens in the economy at all. But that sounds bonkers to me.
For starters, there are (and should definitely remain) absolute limits to business activities. We've moved on from Victorian-era child and slave labour for good reasons, even though such a situation was "naturally occurring" at the time. Moreover economic activity is dictated by cultural mores - if your service is morally reprehensible in some way then you won't get much business whatever your matgins are. Economies are inherently subject to the laws and customs of the agents.
Secondly, some regulation is pretty clearly beneficial. For example, there's a recurrent tendency for market power to concentrate in modern economies; we need robust anti-trust regulation to prevent consumers from getting ripped off and to prevent fragile supply chains. A well-conisdered balance of public and private provision supports the least well-off in society while allowing room for the fruits of individual flourishing.
Thirdly, we must consider what makes one economic system better than others. One way to measure this is to look at how efficiently it converts resources to social utility. I'm far from convinced that it's efficient to employ our brightest minds to build trading models with brief lifespans so that investors who are already well-off become slightly more so. It's worth investigating what regulations and incentives could put those minds towards things of greater value - solving climate change, cancer, sending humans into space etc... .
> This is a challenge to untangle. It sounds like you're saying that there is no point trying to regulate, legislate or control what happens in the economy at all. But that sounds bonkers to me.
I really do not appreciate this mischaracterization of my position. Focus on my actual words. I don't care about 'winning' this online argument. I take effort to engage because I am disturbed by the number of intelligent people who believe if only _THEY_ were in charge (or at least the right person), we would be able to fix all of society's problems.
> For starters, there are (and should definitely remain) absolute limits to business activities...
I agree with everything that follows. Government needs to be around to keep the peace. I want to be explicit: When I say "centrally planned/controlled economies" I am NOT talking about the general concept of regulation. If you are debating in good faith, this should be obvious. Look at all the history of failed states who tried to implement top-down control of their economies.
Also, YSK that not all regulators are government entities.
> Thirdly, we must consider what makes one economic system better than others. One way to measure this is to look at how efficiently it converts resources to social utility.
Never before in history has mankind been so prosperous. What system would you like to emulate? The US capitalist system is not perfect (and never will be)...but it blows all of its peers out of the water in terms of economic prosperity. Here's a couple data points: (Please read the technical definitions if you are truly interested in this subject)
> I'm far from convinced that it's efficient to employ our brightest minds to build trading models...
This is where my "closeted dictator" quip comes from. Nobody is "allocating" these minds...they are acting on their own free will. Why should you or anyone else be the arbiter? What if individuals disagree with your beliefs? Space exploration is a great example of a debatable "worthy endeavor"
On the one hand, there's the moral argument: we need janitors and plumbers and warehouse workers and retail workers and nurses and teachers and truck drivers for society to function. Why should their time be valued less than anyone elses?
On the other hand there's the economic argument: the supply of people who can stock shelves is greater than the supply of people who can "create value" at a tech company, so the latter deserve more pay.
Depending on how you look at the world, high salaries can seem insane.
I don’t even remotely understand what you’re saying is wrong. Median salaries are significantly higher in the US compared to any other region. Nominal and PPP adjusted AND accounting for taxes/social benefits. This is bad?
Those jobs you referenced do not have the same requirements nor the same wages…seems like your just clumping all of those together as “lower class” so you can be champion of the downtrodden
Everyone is a libertarian until it’s their commons experiencing the tragedy. Strange to think that having regulations around large scale electrical loads is a dictatorship. It’s okay for us to collectively say no, depending on the circumstances.
> Everyone is a libertarian until it’s their commons experiencing the tragedy.
Yeah sure and everyone is a socialist utopian until its their own money/liberty on the line.
If we cannot “collectively” reach a consensus what happens?
Im just pointing out that the original suggestion of “ban ML for environmental reasons” is extreme/ham-fisted. This is what dictatorships do in real life all over the globe “for the greater good”.
Should crypto be a government-approved use of energy? What about manufacturing semiconductors? Building data centers? Producing EVs, solar farms or batteries? Are flights for vacation allowed?
You aren’t thinking about the second order impact of having a government that has the ability to gatekeep energy production for specific use cases…
Economies are a naturally occurring phenomenon and also a prerequisite for a functioning society. No group makes a decision to “create” the economy (especially not the government).
That’s an understatement. Billions would perish in the name of “the greater good”