PS5 will be a "greener" console than PS4

[EricHiggin]

curl-6 said:

EricHiggin said:

It's political because if we are destroying the environment, then we are potentially dooming future generations, and in the most severe cases suggested, like runaway greenhouse effect, the right to life. That ties directly into politics.

Something people would have to ask themselves, like the type of people who believe 'saving' and 'protecting' the environment is absolutely necessary, for reasons such as future generations, is what about abortion? If a mother has the right to decide if what's inside her lives or dies, based on how it will impact her future, then men and woman surely have the right to decide how they want to treat the environment. If a woman is willing to end a potential life one way, then a woman or man should be able to ruin a small piece of the environment, because it's their body, their mind, their future, and their choice.

Now while you can say others and future generations could be harmed by destroying a small portion of the environment yourself, killing a fetus could also fall under that. That fetus could be the best thing that ever happened to someone, or humanity overall, yet nobody will ever know if it's not allowed to live up top it's full potential and make it's own choices. To say we know exactly what will happen to the environment if we keep doing what we're going would be dishonest. The smartest individuals have used the data to come up with predictions many times, and have never come close the the actual results, while almost always overshooting by a mile.

If we don't know what a fetus will become, which means whatever could happen if it's born doesn't matter if the mother feels it will negatively impact her life, then the same would apply to the environment. If we don't know exactly what will happen if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, then the future doesn't matter as much as the people who choose to emit CO2, because of how it would negatively impact them if they didn't or couldn't.

What if that fetus is the next Einstein and Musk rolled into one, who will easily solve man made nuclear fusion, also solving climate change for the most part, along with poverty? Should we take the risk or let people decide for themselves?

You've lost me here I'm afraid, comparing Sony promoting sustainability to the totally separate issue of abortion just seems to be jumping the shark to be frank.

If you're talking about the future, and what could be, or what should be, based on how it will impact individuals or people in general, then abortion fits along with the environment here. They both tend to be a belief held by a portion of one side of the political spectrum, yet in this instance would be a contradiction, but may not apply to you specifically based on your own beliefs. I'm just making a point in general.

The decisions made in these situations, will effect the person themselves, as well as others, and potentially the masses. For the people who believe that a persons body is theirs to do with how they please because of how it may be effected by something, then they would likely agree with abortion, but should also agree with emissions. If a person is forced to pay more, which they can't afford because they are poor, for renewable sources of energy, is that ok? If it causes them to eat much less, low nutrition food, aside from the fact they aren't eating healthy already since they are poor, just to keep the power on, is that ok? That's one of many outcomes that could harm people physically or mentally if they were forced to use more expensive, less dependable, renewable energy, at this point in time or in the near future.

On the other hand, if we find out CO2 is the major contributor period, that we are the main source emitting it, and that it's certainly going to cause life changing harm to the masses worldwide, well then extremely tough choices are going to need to be made. Making those changes before we are certain however, would be like sentencing some people to do time for a 'crime', even though based on what evidence was presented, we can't ascertain whether or not they are definitely guilty. Innocent and free until proven guilty.

The 'easy' answer is to create or significantly upgrade a product that's renewable, that's quick to manufacture and install, and much cheaper than anything CO2 related. Which of course is much easier said than done. If that ever comes about, climate change awareness won't really matter much, because there will be little to no reason to use carbon emitting fuels.