1590
consider the implications for a post scarcity future (slrpnk.net)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/solarpunk@slrpnk.net
382 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

We could do so much good with excess power generation if we wanted to. We could produce hydrogen. We could electrolyse CO2 out of the air. We could filter the plastic out of ocean water. We could analyse space radiation. We could run recycling plants. We could flood the bitcoin market. We could run a desalination plant. Why does this have to be a problem?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because we're not doing those things at the moment?

    Having a solution available doesn't make it not a problem.

    Something having a problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing, and not all problems are bad things, they're just things that need figuring out.

    People too often think that identifying an issue with something means that it's being argued that we should abandon it or that it's unfixable.

    Solar is not a perfect technology, because there are no perfect technologies. It has solvable problems are or will need to be addressed as we keep using it. That's fine and normal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It is normal, but this particular "problem" looks more like an opportunity than most. Seems silly to be complaining about it.

    Anyway, is it "Fish and a ..." ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Who's complaining? Read the article I linked, it's what the quote came from. Informing people about an issue, discussing it's consequences and listing some solutions is hardly complaining.
    I'm not sure why you put problem in quotes, it's an issue that has to be resolved which is the definition of a problem. It's not silly to me to talk about an issue.
    You think we should do carbon sequestration with the power. That's a great notion. Should we tell the solar plants they need to do that, should the public build them, or should we incentivize companies to do it somehow?

    I just can't see how people are this upset about an article explaining how "more than we can handle" means "people might stop making more" and "we need to figure out how to handle it".

    I'm not sure what you're talking about with the fish?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent