SvennoJ said:
While I don't disagree that vegans are mostly hypocrites, there are vast differences in the type of meat and produce:

 |
FWIW, per capita beef consumption has trended downward over the past 50 years, at least here in the U.S. While there has been a slight uptick from the 60-year lows of 2014-15, 2024 consumption was still down 37.2% from the 1976 peak of 94 pounds per person. I probably consume at most half the current national average and I feel like that's plenty. Most of the meat I eat is chicken and seafood. Because of how personally and culturally profound food is, I don't expect anybody to completely give up meat if they don't want to (and I haven't) and I would object to governments forcing people to give it up, but we could certain stand to eat less red meat, the worst of the bunch from an environmental perspective.
Pemalite said:
I still refuse to give up physical. - When I can't buy physical with consoles is the day I am strictly a 100% PC gamer.
|
Unless something changes in U.S. copyright/IP law that makes digital copies the property of the purchaser, then if consoles ditch physical entirely then I'm just done with video games entirely.
Cerebralbore101 said:
I clicked agree on with this, but I have to state for the record I do not believe Nuclear power is safe or cost-effective. Nuclear waste cannot be stored safely due to the extremely long time that it takes to become safe. Future generations will accidentally or intentionally uncover nuclear waste. Otherwise this entire post is on point. And this may sound really greedy, but if I have to poison people 200 years in the future with nuclear waste or suffer through extreme climate change, then I choose the nuclear waste. Ideally, we should just focus on renewables that are safe like Solar, Wind, and Wave power. |
Nuclear isn't perfect and has its own problems, but it's still better than fossil fuels. Potential damage from waste containment failure is localized, compared to fossil fuel pollution which affects the whole planet. Nuclear is still far less dangerous and polluting than any fossil fuel, and it's not even close. It is worth pointing out that if you take Chernobyl out of the equation (because that was the result of Soviet incompetence) more people have probably died falling off of roofs installing solar panels that have ever been killed, directly or indirectly, by nuclear power plants.
Hopefully there's sufficient storage solutions for renewables (which are mostly intermittent in nature) so that the issue of baseline generation is solved quickly enough to where we don't have to worry about it. But if that's decades away, then we should still consider nuclear as a stopgap. When several countries discontinued nuclear power in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, they replaced that capacity with fossil fuels, and that's going to cause far more deaths and pollution than those nuclear plants ever would. Humans suck at risk assessment, though, and radiation scares the shit out of people in ways that, say, automobile exhaust doesn't.
Of course, even an increase in demand for large batteries for electricity storage will put increased demand on other types of resources, with all the extraction and potential conflicts that entails. There may be no perfect solutions, but anything else we have the technology for right now is better than slow-roasting our planet through continued use of fossil fuels for electricity generation and transportation fuel.