I want back the decades of stem cell research opportunities wasted by hand-wringing conservatives who placed the potential for life above the actuality of life.
What is the antidote for activism theater? As a motivated-to-contribute American, where do we find the resources for us to help out in a way that is meaningful?
You need to join an organization that is doing more than activism theater. This is surprisingly hard to do. For one thing, because of COINTELPRO infiltrating leftist groups, there have been a couple generations of activists who have never known anything other than activism theater. For another, our hyperindividualized society tends to disincentivize collective action.
It's probably easier to find an organization doing good work in one area than one looking at the whole picture, so if there's an issue you particularly care about, you should probably compare the leading organizations focusing on that issue.
This feels like a tipping point problem where, once we hit a tipping point of available charging locations, there could be a snowball of currently-disenfranchised people buying EVs.
There are many things that are wasteful and yet not illegal.
Flying to Hawaii for vacation.
Recreational powerboats.
Keeping your thermostat at 72F in the winter and 68F in the summer.
Buying a house larger than 3,000 square feet.
Commuting to work in an SUV.
Having more than 3 children.
In general, we only make things illegal if they are harmful to others. Mere consumption of electricity is not harmful to others, except indirectly in the same way that the aforementioned activities are. Would you propose banning them too? If not, where do you draw the line, and who gets to interpret your prescription?
> If not, where do you draw the line, and who gets to interpret your prescription?
These are both things to iron out in law later, not now in some philosophical way.
Incandescent bulbs have been banned in countries around the world because of energy concerns. It's pretty clear that Bitcoin's energy usage is likewise a problem. Throwing our hands up and labeling calls for regulation around this a slippery slope doesn't help our climate criss.
If you're paying for the electricity fairly, why should someone have a say in how you are using it? Electricity companies could limit these people, but they choose not to.
I agree with your point in principle but there are numerous examples where this kind of approach reaches major roadblocks. If you have limited energy generating capacity and that energy is depended upon for life essentials (e.g. heat, light) then there comes a point that ramping up energy price due to people being able to make a profit off the back of it means cutting off other people's access to life essentials because they are priced out.
We see this elsewhere as well - For example, production of biofuel occupies productive farmland. If farmers can make more producing biofuel crops than food staples, they'll chase the money. This leads to a rise in food prices and pits the price and food against the price of fuel.
It would be difficult to make it illegal in all jurisdictions in the world, so a 51% attack by a fed up nation state or states working together could shut it down. I am not an expert by any means, but it seems within the realm of possibily.
With a per-unit consumption of 3250 W, that would put the electricity capacity needed to power all those ASICs at ~4.4 GW of power. That limits the possible candidates to pull off such a huge endeavor to powerful nation states who would work in coordination with large energy producers. (Jan 2020)
