Oddbean

If “green energy” (including w/ storage as needed) costs more than hydrocarbons and doesn’t win in the marketplace, then maybe it is more environmentally impactful than you think, with energy-intensive and materially-intensive supply chains. Likewise, if fake meat costs more than real meat, then maybe it too is more environmentally impactful then you think, with energy-intensive and materially-intensive supply chains.

I was listening to old JRE podcasts with Andreas A. Wherein they complained about the quality of early iPhones and apples walled garden vs early androids. It took time and interaction with the market for it to improve and become useful. I think the same is true in these meat experiments.

No, they were huge from the get-go. I remember it well. Android wasn’t really a thing at that point and in fact completely changed direction with its UX and form factor due to what they saw in the iPhone. There was a price reduction that occurred quite quickly though, which was a factor in increasing first year sales.

Une réalité auxquelles la plupart des gens ne se souvient du coup ceux de l'industrie alimentaire font ce qu'ils veulent avec les agriculteurs, les produits etc .de plus bien avant la COP 21 il y eu un groupe de lobbyistes qui amplifient la pollution des animaux au niveau des nappes phréatiques et l'air....De plus en plus d'agriculture et d'éleveurs vendent leurs terrains à des étrangers se débarrassent de leurs troupeaux ..c'est scandaleux

thanks to government intervention, prices and energy inputs are not so well correlated but it's mostly a clue. if it's expensive, it means more fuel was required. if green energy generators cost more to build, have shorter lifespans and produce less energy for all those inputs, then they probably also add to "greenhouse gas" emissions. energy is the most inelastic part of the prices in supply chains, and THE most liquid marketplace. its prices don't have as much flexibility since producers have to scale up and down to match demand. the entire edifice of green everything is a psyop that is essentially about making you tolerate the increasing theft of your purchasing power by governments and banks. that's all it is. nostr:nevent1qqsfyqa5hq7yu2l5ujcwy308ezragq3tfn8pcvdtd6jgvc9w68eh3pspr9mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuumwdae8gtnnda3kjctv9uq35amnwvaz7tmsw4exzanfv3sjumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgtcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhszymhwden5te0danxvcmgv95kutnsw43z7qgcwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxxatjwfjkuapwveukjtcpzemhxue69uhkummnw3ezumtfd3hh2tnvdakz7qg3waehxw309ahx7um5wgh8w6twv5hszrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz7qgmwaehxw309ahx7um5wghx7unpdenk2urfd3kzuer9wchszrthwden5te0vfexytnfduhs9mptn9

The market prices more energy intensive activity higher than low energy intensity. Sometimes that ends up being front-loaded. If we are to argue bitcoin mining energy is more efficiently applied than fiat banking, one should also consider the indirect costs of petroleum consumption. If we are to assume the CO2 scare is yet another misdirected concern, there are many other indirect energy expenditure related arguments against petroleum as a primary energy source. The market cures all, but only if left alone and superstitions are rejected. The same applies to automotive sector materials. As free marketeers, we should be ashamed of ourselves to use these short-term high-time-preference superstitious leftist arguments against innovation.

Have you ever spoken with Brian Gitt? I’m going through his book In the Dark, really accessible knowledge on big topics for smooth brains like me. It would be cool to listen to both of you run the numbers

I think they're missing the mark with all the plant based goo. Don't duplicate meat. Make goo tasty and healthy on its own. People will struggle with adoption of something's lesser variant, but may naturally coalesce around a delicious novel food made by science. Or they'll just call it soylent and we skip ahead to the doom part.

sustainability is just a euphemism for austerity. because the only fool proof way to reduce environmental impact ( including supply chain and other downstream effects ) is to impoverish the population until little is produced or consumed. about a decade ago i explained this to a liberal college girl i was dating at the time and she started crying. since then they brought in the lockdowns and "supply chain bottlenecks" and cancelled and blown up pipelines, and on and on - all with the same goal - to reduce the standard of living ultimately lowering expectations. remember how they polled people and everybody expects the current generations to live worse than boomers ? think about it - how is that even possible in a free market with the kind of productivity growth due to automation ? the answer is the decline is 100% engineered, but the masses were brainwashed to accept it as something that can just happen. it can't. you cannot have a slow and steady decline in standard of living coinciding with steady increases in automation and productivity. and yet we have exactly that and nobody asks how. even as the answer is obvious to those of us who are awake.

The point is correct, but the two examples are fundamentally different. The main reason for fake meat is to avoid animal suffering, not to improve the environment. To clearly see the point, consider this example: If wage labor costs more than slave labor, then maybe it too is more environmentally impactful than you think, with energy-intensive and materially-intensive supply chains.

Bitcoin attracts society to free green energy sources. This is a property that emerges because Bitcoin directly ties that energy to wealth creation. Thus, fiat currencies being replaced with bitcoin would be a real green initiative.

As bitcoiners we believe in free, open and unbiased economics. So let the market price the externality and the right things will happen. For the first time it is possible to price many such externalities, no assumptions necessary.

I’m curious how you arrive at the consequent of “more impact” from the antecedent of “costs more” or “lower market demand”. Not disagreeing necessarily, but I don’t see why one necessitates the other. Both the “if” and the “then” may be true (or not), but why is it an “if A, then B” statement?