|
I watch about half the videos linked by freebeard only because there's a limit to what I can consume while juggling other obligations and interests in a day.
As a thought experiment, let's envision humans going back to only what they "need". We're all living in caves, scrounging for food. Then we think, it might be nice to have a door on this cave so it isn't so drafty. Then we think it might be nice if there were some natural light, so we build our cave out of other materials. Then we think it would be nice if it were warmer in this man-made cave, so we convert stored energy into heat to warm it up. Then we figure it would be nice if the cave were cooler in the summer, so we expend energy to do so. It could be bigger, it could have running water...
There is no limit to what would be nice to have, and there is hardly a distinction between need and want once you move past very rudimentary shelter, air, water, and some minimum amount of food. One man's worthless object might be another's "need".
Back to what I'm always saying: if burning too much fossil fuels is a net detriment, we need to precisely define at what level burning fossil fuels is most beneficial, and target those levels... and it would need to be universally accepted otherwise those that participate in limiting their consumption are at a disadvantage in every sense of the word.
|