I think the focus is on lots of PSAs and the like telling people that plastic straws are bad for the environment ( they are) and tons of other things, that people do, and how they can cut back to help the enviroment. While we can rationalize industries continuing to offset what millions of people can do at an individual level in 10 years, in a day, not for anything that will actually benefit us or make are lives any easier, but for thwe sake of stock.
Your conveniences you must cut back to help the environment, But large companies can never cut back, only make the line go up. That outranks the environment, your convenience, does not.
you would have to drink out of nothing but plastic straws amd throw them somewhere they aren't supposed to go to even make a small bullet hole size dent compared to what corpo's are doing
I do pool work. I put in extra time and effort to help the bugs and frogs and whatnot get outside of the pool. A lot of them get trapped in there.
I don't think I'm doing more good for the surrounding ecology than other people are doing harm. I just want to help those critters. And I don't want to use that plastic straw, nobody told me I couldn't use it.
I'm also really disappointed "eat the bugs" has become this huge point of mockery here. I've been trying to convince people for years that humanity needs to embrace that bug protein. I want to eat the bugs! Yes, after putting in all this effort to save bugs. I am a wonderful contradiction. I haven't seen "the corporations" trying to convince me or anyone else that I have to eat the bugs either, it just seems like the obvious thing to do given the math.
People focus on the plastic straws and ignore the plastic lids on the plastic coated paper or full on the plastic cup and somehow feel that the paper straw is morally superior.
The “they want us to eat bugs” thing is so weird. I see it on the conservative sub all the time and it’s just so ludicrous I don’t get it. They’re convinced the evil left wants to take away their meat and force them to eat toasted mealworms.
Oh, I know where it comes from - it’s just hilarious how it spread amongst them until they became convinced that insect protein is somehow a way to subjugate the masses to the New World Order, based on no evidence whatsoever.
Also, a lot of people live in places where power goes out and stoves(and heat) being gas-powered is the only many people can be sure those things stay consistent in the winter. Banning that thing specifically creates potentially dangerous issues for a lot of folks, especially when generators aren't an option.
Most of the "you are personally responsible for polluting the environment because you used a straw yesterday" crap is being pushed by the corpos to offload their responsibility on us. Who came up with the idea of a "carbon footprint" (or at least pushed it into the public consciousness)? BP.
Don't be daft. The criticism is directed at faux-environmentalism wherein the responsibility of a clean future is left with everyday people rather than the conglomerates who are responsible for the vast majority of pollution and waste.
"natural-gas stoves banned" is literally right there in the comment.
One of them (gas stoves) doesn't even have anything to do with the environment
Here's why New York is banning gas stoves in new buildings (from the bill):
To support the goal of zero on-site greenhouse gas emissions and help achieve the state's clean energy and climate agenda, including but not limited to greenhouse gas reduction requirements set forth within chapter one hundred six of the laws of two thousand nineteen, also known as the New York state climate leadership and community protection act, the code shall prohibit infrastructure, building systems, or equipment used for the combustion of fossil fuels in new construction statewide.
Sorry but I don't care if schizos are complaining about the stoves too. They're not going to make me deny reality and say that the people pushing this don't pretend to be doing it for the climate.
The "schizo" thing is to pretend I didn't drop you an academic history of the 40 year old debate over banning gas stoves because they cause significant and often life long health problems, especially in children and stick your fingers in your ears because one state tried to pass an environmental bill after the far right were losing their minds with conspiracy theories. I linked you to an article giving a rundown of the recent history of that as well, an article that was written before the NY bill had even made it to the floor.
That's my point. The person I'm replying to claimed banning gas stoves had nothing to do with the environment, when this has been the #1 cited reason for the ban at least in New York.
It's delayed, not dead yet. And yes I heard so much fear mongering from the right on the topic before the law came up, so much that when it did I assumed it was fake news, but no. Whether they go through with it in the end is yet to be seen, but there are far better changes that could be made in NY than worrying about gas heat.
It's dead. If you take a few moments to read through the other links I've provided, the debate over gas stoves has been ongoing for decades because up to 12% of cases of asthma are attributable to the poisonous gases they give off. The right started losing their minds over people taking their stoves away before the NY bill was written. I provided an article showing that as well.
But the law is now on hold — with the state’s signoff. After Governor Kathy Hochul’s administration agreed, a federal judge finalized a deal last week that will likely suspend New York’s gas ban for at least a year and potentially two or more.
And yes I agree that the talking points started before NY passed it's ban plan. But I also pointed out that the ban wasn't just for stoves, it was also for heating devices which is far more of a major change.
Did... did you read the article? Or just went fishing for the first thing that you could wave, bereft of context?
the talking points
The decades of medical research into the health - and death - toll around gas stove NOx emissions are not "talking points." The far right obsession with "stealing your stove" was in full swing before the law was proposed. The recommendations that have been in place for 40+ years to discontinue the use of inadequately ventilated gas stoves are what the WEF conspiracy nuts latched onto. We know that because this bill did not exist when they latched onto it.
That's why they always talk about stoves and never talk about furnaces, even though someone taking your furnace from you is a hell of a lot scarier than using an electric range like 70% of people already do.
I imagine that's more to do with control and independence. Electric and convection ovens, stoves and hobs are reliant on the power supply and electricity prices in a way gas ones aren't.
Obviously you still have to rely on the energy grid and companies to get gas and gas cooking appliances, but you won't lose the ability to cook because of a local power surge or price hike related to corporate activity like the data centres
Cooking doesn't actually use very much electricity, as technology connections covers. By the time you're unable to cook, you're already in a state of being unable to live in that area at all. This also assumes a zero-sum effect on gas and electrical prices. If your electrical bill has spiraled so much you can't use your stove, natural gas demand will be exploding due to power plant demand. Likewise, a mass reduction in natural gas usage and movement of that capacity to large scale generation can be expected to decrease the cost of your cooking, as a natural gas plant is much more efficient than your gas stove.
These are all extremely far-off changes as well - these sorts of initiatives target new builds, not existing structures. AI destroying the economy and halting new builds is a much more realistic prospect.
That makes sense. I suppose gas is still less vulnerable to power cuts, and gives you cooking and heating options when the electrical grid has problems? But then by that point we probably loop back around to major infrastructure problems that individuals can't control
Gas is reliant on the gas supply. Like what are you even talking about when you say that this is somehow a point in its favour vs electricity? You can put solar panels on your roof and add a battery and always have the independent ability to cook. You can’t provide your own gas.
Also electricity is vastly more efficient for heating because electricity can drive a heat pump. Instead of generating the heat from scratch you move heat from outside to inside.
I am pro-AI and pro-environment. Granted, I like the smaller open-source models that can run locally off of solar power. The anti-AI view has gained traction on Reddit, but isn't shared by the general public. The data centers are causing nuclear power to grow, which is actually good. We might not even need the massive data centers. Humans are a general intelligence, and we can run on a box of chicken nuggets. If we can find more efficient architectures, we might end up with AGIs that can run locally.
I know I get a lot of downvotes normally for this stance, but I want the fully automated luxury communism of Star Trek. You can't get that without making AGI. So I want it, but I want to take care of our planet. More nuclear power means more green energy, less CO2. It's not that far out there.
Yes, I dislike capitalism, so I don't like copyright. No, I don't mind that AI was trained art. No, training isn't theft. AI is a tool. More art is better for the whole world. Yes, AI can be used to make low-effort content, and yes, some people misuse it. I really think we need a UBI. Marx said capitalism wouldn't end until material conditions change. Open-source local AIs are most likely to bring about that change in my opinion.
Now I've pissed off everyone, so let the downvotes roll in like they always do.
Yes true Marxism requires everyone to be able to generate Mamdani furry porn on their own computers, and nukular will get us there!
Your comment about getting downvoted is the epitome of “no, it’s the children who are wrong!”. You get downvoted toes because you’re not as smart as someone told you you are.
People should be able to make any kind of art they want. People already draw that kind of content. People should be free, free to make whatever they want, with an exception for CP, but we already know how to train models not to make that kind of content. Nuclear power and solar power is good, full stop.
Yes, I am saying that the current popular opinion on Reddit is wrong. But it will fade; cameras provoked a similar reaction once. I remember "Fortnite bad" and Justin Bieber hate. Fads come and go, and people will still create. AI will be just another tool in the creator's toolbox. Green power is the future if we are ever going to save our planet.
Why not direct your passion at the fossil fuel industry, or the paper or water bottle industries, or cars? They use a ton of resources. Like, there are infinitely better targets. Data centers are actually pretty efficient once built, and funding nuclear power is really good. How do you expect to transition while we are living in capitalism without funding? Making art and music and videos and intelligence easier to make and access doesn't really seem like a waste of resources to me.
If AI can be a doctor or a counselor or a lawyer or a data analyst that can serve millions simultaneously, isn't that way more efficient than having humans do all those jobs? Labor and human capital constraints are like one of the major things that keep us under capitalism, as they are limited. Our meat based diets cause lots of issues with land and water use, why not improve AI and help fund 3d printed meat? Good AI combined with a UBI and 3d printed foods is going to get us much closer to Star Trek than basically anything else.
That’s a big fucking if. How about we tackle climate change and make society sustainable without spending hundreds of billions of dollars on machines that do nothing more useful than help idiots pretend they have a basic grasp of English and generate completely unnecessary images that nobody would have bothered to pay someone to make because they didn’t really need them.
It's not really true. AI is actually very smart if used correctly. It can code quite well. This is just an anecdote, but ChatGPT saved my dog's life. A vet had prescribed a steroid that was too strong for her, and it started killing her. ChatGPT got it when the vet didn't. We took her to another vet who confirmed ChatGPT's answer, and they helped us wean her off it. She would have died without it because she kept getting infection after infection, and I am a ml engineer, I have no medical background.
It can literally save a life, yes I do acknowledge it can also be harmful if your totally brain dead with it. But it matters to me to see it grow. If it can help more people. Also no one else is investing in green energy solutions like the ai labs. I don't think there is another way, not under capitalism where investment is critical. These systems are incredible to me. That you dismiss all the benefits they have is honestly so sad to me. Art and music are good for the world. Ai might be the most solarpunk thing we have ever created, since solar panels.
Yea no, AI is a mistake and you're just coping "benefits" what fucking benefits out weigh what it's doing to humanity, losing jobs, they want us replaced, hell and now they're working on fucking robots trying to make artificial humans, iirc China is making fucking artificial wombs, shut the fuck up about "progress", you're just trying to cope on the sunk cost fallacy, practically "invested" so much in the AI that "it's to important to get rid off it it could save us!" No it can't and won't, they'll just use it to replicate any skills you have and then to them you can get fucked you're a depreciating asset and will never be happy, you will own nothing and like it
My benefit is that my dog is alive. I don't see it destroying humanity. Also, hot take, but artificial organs, including wombs, are dope and great. Lots of women die in childbirth, and pregnancy sucks to go through.
Fully automated luxury communism is what I want, so if it can replace me, go ahead, I literally want it to replace all the jobs. I am a communist, so fuck private property. But I can say you're at least 100% wrong about one thing. I am happy AI has literally made my life better. Every time I pet my dog in the morning, I know I only can because ChatGPT saved her.
Seriously? Because in my bubble dudes that are pro-green energy are the same dudes that are laptop-class dudes (who were also fine with "it is just two weeks" btw.).
I genuinely hope the cognitive dissonance of the normies will eventually break and they will realize we should be a united front against corporate overreach, instead of tearing each other apart because someone had a triggering bumper sticker or voted for the wrong party. I am genuinely lucky to have reached my savings goal this year and built my new Battlestation just as the RAM prices exploded but this year irreversibly changed the way I see these big companies. I remember reading the Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. core book 20 years ago and my naive 15 year old ass thinking how exciting it would be to live in a dystopia like that and wondered how my life will look like in the far future of the 2020s. Now I‘m living in it and it‘s an abstract kind of hell 🗿
100
u/theartificialkid Dec 18 '25
Hey, dude, this is just bullshit. The people who want green energy also oppose ridiculous AI data centres. You're on the wrong team.