That sentence would have a different meaning if the conclusitory (looking for real word here) word "pointless" was not there.
Abundant reliable on-demand energy has enormously improved the human condition. I'm also glad the Dutch no longer dig up peat bogs for dirty fuel.
Yeah, but ... how much of it was pointless? Who decides if a use-case is pointless? You? Me? The government?
Burning fossil fuels can of course also be meaningful.
We're talking about driving to work when you can work from home.
I dunno.
There's a lot of PHBs who have petty tyrant syndrome. They desire their employees in the office.
Then there's a lot of people in the CBD who desire to continue selling their wares to the people working in the CBD.
There's letting companies who desire income from the letting arrangements, landlords who desire income enough to pay the city tax ...
On the whole, I agree with WFH; I just don't think it's a good exercise to justify anything based on what people desire.
Someone selling wares don't usually desire selling wares. They desire income. Everybody wants income. Buying something we don't want/need is waste + redistribution of currency.
Redistribution of currency is a zero sum game unless we have some reason to particularly value the desires of the ones receiving. I don't see why we should particularly value the desires of landlords.
> I just don't think it's a good exercise to justify anything based on what people desire.
What alternative do you propose?
Because this presumes that the people in government will do what is preferable to the masses. My conception of government is that of a tool or weapon that various powers vie for control over. Why should I expect benevolence from such?
It's clear that the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need. Then the question becomes: is the distribution of currency caused by the buying and burning of the fuels preferable to the alternative distribution if the currency had been spent elsewhere? If it is preferable, does that offset the waste of fuel for no purpose except redistributing currency?
Any time I hear these kinds of reasonings the question comes to mind: if some distributions of currency are preferable to others, and we know what such distributions look like, why not let the government do the distribution directly?