We're going to talk about *books* being bad for the environment before we tackle AI, which consumes a small nation's worth of water and power to churn out garbage?
Yeah we should get rid of those too. Good for the environment, opens up space for parks and housing, and pisses off all the deeply shitty people obsessed with golf. Win win win
As *reading* is the source of all evil, we're all be better off without books, and AI will help to achieve that goal.
1. let AI shorten all books to 160 characters.
2. let AI read it out loud.
No more books needed, neither paper nor e-books.
So obvious.
OK, I mean we can still find documents written on paper thousands of years old. Tech items are often obsolete in less than a decade and if your format is unpopular a year or two. That means it just ends up in the trash. But a book can last decades easy even crappy bound books. Historian mode off.
he gang u know what's REALLY driving climate change?
that's right, the giant corporations paying your bills so you'll publish absolute garbage like this
lol
I'm so so so so sick of seeing people claim that if you care about personal harm reduction that means you're unaware/supportive of much larger corporate and societal environmental impact. Many (if not most) people who care about the former also take action about the latter. You can do BOTH.
If I put thought into something like this it doesn't mean I think big polluters are cool and awesome and shouldn't be held accountable for their various crimes. Absurd, condescending, bizarre, bad faith bullshit.
I'm just flashing back to the time I posted wondering about this exact issue last year and immediately had three dozen people informing me "just 100 companies are behind 71% of pollution blah blah blah". No shit. And?
Also, like, those corporate emissions are mainly producing goods and services *for* consumers. Like the beef industry isn't raising cows to drop into a volcano.
Don’t forget that they also tried to guilt trip asthmatics a couple of months ago for using inhalers (bad for the ozone layer!). It’s a running competition on how to best blame workers for the climate crisis.
Next up: "Libraries allow people to read books without paying publishers-I-mean-authors. Some authors we found are willing to be angry about that to get access to a platform."
/s
Plot twist: Libraries BUY the books, often at a premium for sturdy bindings. Anyone falling into that fallacy is cordially invited to check on the library edition price of their favorite books.
MAJOR error in this text that you need to fix. Paper book production isn’t 3rd largest greenhouse gas emitter - they are 3rd largest in *pulp & paper industry* and the ENTIRE pulp and paper industry’s GHG emissions is about 0.6% of US net GHGs, which makes it SUPER small.
I NO LONGER TRUST any digital products. I paid $ for tons of music that Apple will not longer let me hear. I will buy PAPER books as there is not way some tech co can take away what i BOUGHT.
the real problem isn't digital media, it's DRM and private property rights that leave what people spend their money on (pointedly didn't say "bought") in the control of the copyright owner (corporations)
because under our current legal framework that upholds capitalism we own basically nothing
I BOUGHT the CD's that I burned on my computer. My mistake was give them away when I burned them. Some Tech co could not and cannot repossess my books, CD's or albums. So NO, I disagree
you could (theoretically) have been charged and received huge fines or prison time for copying those CDs, you do not own copyrighted material in any meaningful way
same laws apply if you made copies of books
repossession is preferably to prison, but the same systemic problems exist
