@velartrill If you want energy use to go down, energy /prices/ have to increase.
Efficiency /buys more power expenditure/, because it effectively /lowers prices/.
Wm. Stanley Jevons, 1860s. The Jevons paradox.
We've made computers millions of times more efficient over the past 40 -50 years. That hasn't /reduced/ the number of computers or amount of computation, it's /increased/ it. And ... for comparatively little upside.
@velartrill Outlawing a thing is roughly equivalent to raising costs of production _of that one thing_. The problem is that this _doesn't_ affect the costs of production for _everything else_ that uses the same inputs, and specifically: energy (and fossil-fuel derived energy).
The real problem is that the costs of fossil fuels are far below the true economic and ecological costs.
That said: placing specific taxes or taboos on activities with high negative externalities is sensible.
@velartrill You are having an argument I'm not making. Good day.
@velartrill You're countering an argument I didn't make.
The law could be *perfectly* and *efficiently* enforced. But if there are cheap and wasteful applications of electrical power, or computational uses (say, hypothetically, tossing terabytes worth of Jquery code around the global infocomms network), you'll still be wastefully burning whatever it is you wastefully burn to get gigawatts.
@velartrill If that's what you're taking from my comments, I'm failing to express myself clearly.
This is not a crypto-libertarian argument or rant.
It was another party who'd started swinging wide of the original topic.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!