When I eat meat, it nourishes me, and keeps me alive for a period of time. There are valid criticisms of the meat industry for sure, but generally speaking, meat keeps humans alive.

The power consumption of the crypto ecosystem is not comparable. The power consumption of the crypto ecosystem is sobering when you dig into the details.

Now, couple that with the very dubious value of the things built on top of that ecosystem, and this is not a "meh, just a little more waste" kind of conversation.

Your meat consumption is excessive to your needs and produces excess GHG. It is a want.

And that is why I mentioned there are valid criticisms of the industry.

I personally don't eat meat often, but that's not the point. The broader point is that meat, while wasteful, still provides clear value. That doesn't mean emissions aren't also a problem.

> The broader point is that meat, while wasteful, still provides clear value

What clear value compared to a less emitting alternative?

Meat has a history going back to the dawn of man as a primary source of sustenance. It's delicious, and thousands of millennia of evolution predisposes me to enjoy it more than less emitting alternatives.

The fact that meat has value is unrelated to the current state of the industry, which as I have said, is problematic.

The point I'm making is about the intrinsic value of the thing, because the GP wants to compare meat to cryptocurrency.

My point is that they're not comparable, regardless of the realities of mass produced meat and that industry's sustainability problems.

Dismissing issues with crypto as "meh, meat is a problem too" is a little bit like watching the Amazon burn down and concluding "meh, driving cars are a problem too".

Let's say I enjoy trading crypto. What puts that enjoyment as lesser to an equivalent amount of meat consumption that creates the same GHG emissions compared to alternative?

This time without appeal to the naturalism fallacy.

Admittedly not my greatest comment, and my point was lost in the shuffle. But since we're shifting the goalposts now and comparing activities to commodities, let's say the only meat I choose to eat is sourced by hunting wild game. Let's say I did the hunting myself with my own bow.

Will you at least acknowledge the value of meat as a basic form of sustenance?

Are you saying that trading crypto as a hobby (or crypto itself) is equivalent somehow?

> Will you at least acknowledge the value of meat as a basic form of sustenance?

Given that you can sustain yourself with alternatives that are less GHG emitting, you are basically trading GHG for your own personal satisfaction/enjoyment. How is that different from me trading an equivalent GHG to get some enjoyment out of my hypothetical crypto hobby?

> Are you saying that trading crypto as a hobby is equivalent somehow?

Both things that you only do because they make you happy and something you want, not something you need to survive.

What makes a unit of enjoyment gained from trading crypto somehow a less worthy preference than the unit of enjoyment gained from eating a steak rather than a plant-based alternative?

> Given that you can sustain yourself with alternatives that are less GHG emitting...

You and I can, sure, since I assume we're both having this conversation from our smartphones or computers and don't have to hunt for our food.

But again, that was not the point, nor was it the foundation of the question I asked.

If you're interested in having the same conversation, I'm happy to continue, but until then, I'm out. Ciao.

We're not talking about abstract metaphysics here. These are objectively measured metrics that correlate to direct physical impact on the planet.

Yes, so does meat eating. Nobody said anything about metaphysics, but whether something is wasteful is a normative question.

There is research demonstrating that the lowest-impact meat produces significantly more greenhouse gas than the worst, highest-impact vegetable. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216

If you're arguing that excess greenhouse gas emissions is not a waste product, then it seems like you're either embracing climate change or you know something about greenhouse gasses that nobody else knows.

> There is research demonstrating that the lowest-impact meat produces significantly more greenhouse gas than the worst, highest-impact vegetable. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216

Yes, that is my point.

> either embracing climate change

I'm making the very basic claim that all of these are based on normative facts, not metaphysics.

It is wasted. I can send you a JPG without using more energy than a EU resident will go through in several years. This isn't a philosophical or moral question. We have ownership models and financial systems that are flawed but at least on paper accountable to democracies and not mining consortiums.

Meat consumption is wasteful, sure, but at least the end product feeds humans. I don't get why we have to burn more energy than entire countries to power a speculative asset. Or buy contraband online.

even a vegan should see the value of the resulting nutritional calories from meat consumption, even if they tout alternatives.

I haven't yet been pointed at the value with regards to the thread topic (except in vague 'it's art!' kind of ways), even by extremely enthusiastic crypto-nuts -- so it makes the 'waste' w.r.t the thread topic a bit more egregious feeling, personally.

Well, a vegan and an honest meat eater would bring up trophic levels and needs vs. wants, though I don't want to get into that.

But I liken that incendiary debate to this one over who is "allowed" to waste energy and for what reason. It doesn't seem as simple of an argument as people in these comments suggest.

If I buy $100 of energy, what exactly am I allowed to do and not do with it? Can I not use all of it to power my vibrating butt plug? I think anyone who wants to go down the route should be ready for a much bigger conversation than the (seemingly) kneejerk, narrow-focused reaction lets on.

I mean, if the point of bringing up energy waste wrt crypto is to just marvel at the waste, then fine.

Let's say you have a friend who is always in debt. He knows it. You know it. Everyone you both know knows it.

He has a few friends, also deeply in debt, who try to pretend it's not an issue, but most people roll their eyes in frustration at that subgroup.

One day, your friend comes over in a brand new high-end Mercedes. You and all of their friends are appalled. Why on earth would they buy a Mercedes when they are already so far underwater that it's unclear if they'll ever be debt free.

To me, this is the problem with the crypto space. The world is full of problems that are threatening the planet. The world can't yet agree on how to solve those problems, (and some people pretend that problem doesn't even exist).

And along comes this new thing that consumes more energy than entire countries. And it's not really clear if it'll ever provide enough value to warrant the cost.

Yes, this will require some difficult conversations along the way, but people are quick to jump all over this because quite frankly, it's exactly the kind of problem the world doesn't need on top of the existing problems that still haven't been solved. There's a kind of exasperation that comes with the feeling.

When people bring up climate change, it's rarely just to marvel.

"Murder isn't a problem because people die all the time."

I don't think analogies are helpful, but if murder were rampant while we narrowly focused on the murders of a single subset group, mainly due to visibility reasons because they've only started murdering recently, then I would have the same problem with that inconsistency.

To reverse out of the analogy, we've decided that the solution is to simply illegalize murder, and it generalizes over any group doing any kind of murdering.

But what is the equivalent for energy waste? Illegalizing energy waste, for example, isn't quite as open-and-shut as murder.

Imagine how hard it would be to actually etch out the details (operationally, ethically) of an energy policy that generalizes over waste in the crypto space but also any other place we waste energy for things we don't actually need.

> Imagine how hard it would be to actually etch out the details (operationally, ethically) of an energy policy that generalizes over waste in the crypto space but also any other place we waste energy for things we don't actually need.

Does the fact that this is hard somehow make the problem go away? Yes, it will be hard. Like many factors contributing to climate change, changes are required that will make people unhappy.

The only question is whether humanity will take the steps to change on their own, or if the Earth will make those decisions for us.

It's also not necessary to implement an all-encompassing policy about every possible form of energy waste to take aim at emerging trends that are a clear threat to the climate.

Taking just one example, unwinding the problems with the meat industry is going to be incredibly difficult because of hundreds of years of precedent and expectations of the population. In that regard, focusing on curbing new threats first while still in their early stages sounds a lot more viable and at least in the short term, valuable.

> but if murder were rampant

I didn't say murder was rampant.