Debate the merit of banning less efficient technologies.

Romaniac said:
Or perhaps X86 computers?
Click to expand...
They are not much different in efficiency than ARM, especially when the wattage is scaled up. Most of the ARM turds out there can't run mainline Linux. The death of x86 is extremely exaggerated.

It's better to let money determine what happens. Incandescent using ~5x the energy were going to lose eventually.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG, Combustion Engine and Crabpuncher
Incandescent bulbs are stupid. Just get a LED bulb that is dimmer and at a lower temperature. I hope they get banned just to piss off incandestards.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: ToroidalBoat and Core Theorist
The Mass Shooter Ron Soye said:
It's better to let money determine what happens
Click to expand...
I'd say this sums up why we shouldn't ban it, let the markets decide. Business will inevitably move to more efficient processes to save their own bottom line.
Juan starts his lawn cutting career with a less efficient push mower, Few years later Juan buys a ride on mower so he can mow lawns quicker.
austin-texas-usa1988-hispanic-boy-13-mowing-lawn-with-gas-powered-mower-mr-rr-0092-bob-daemmri...jpgistockphoto-542097134-612x612.jpg
I think you have to be very specific around a regulation or outright ban, like regulation towards oil drilling, you want to encourage more efficient capture at a lower cost. less waste be it environmental or financial refinement etc, while also not making it nigh impossible for smaller businesses. Unless its a process that's Extremely wasteful or harmful, should it be regulated. You could stretch the efficiency idea so far that any work not done by a massive corporation or Government with more advanced tech could be deemed inefficient and banned.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Gog & Magog, ⚞⛇⚟, Irrational Exuberance and 2 others
There are benefits to keeping less efficient things around, either for the sake of it, or purely because you might look at it further down the line and come up a use for it that wasn't intended.
We can also keep old things serviced and working just because, as Marjorie Bouvier puts it : I just think they're neat.
Romaniac said:
What about banning gas stoves?
Click to expand...
Electricity can get super expensive and it's best not to put all your eggs in the same basket. The power goes out and you're ordering takeout, if it's widespread, you're eating crackers or you might just have sleep for diner if you didn't prepare.

With a gas stove all you need to start cooking is a way to produce a spark. A cylinder can last a while and the price doesn't get too crazy unlike electricity (or even a direct gas supply). You might need a candle or two to look at what you're doing. Yet another obsolete tech.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Gog & Magog, ToroidalBoat and Super Mario Brothers
Less efficient tends to coincide with lower tech, which in turn tends to be the more foolproof option IMO. For example there is much less that can go wrong with a push mower than a ride-on, and with a little know-how you can do most of the fixing on it yourself. Reliability is king.

If you like shit that breaks more often and requires specialised personnel to fix it, sure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Combustion Engine, Goose the Redeemer and Farsided
Another thing I noticed: it seems like newer tech is always crappier and more computerized.

For example, a Current Year toaster could have a touchscreen, firmware, internet connection, and control via a "smartphone" "app"... but it just toasts toast. And it breaks down relatively fast. A toaster from before Current Year may just have that slider thing and that push-down thing, and it just toasts toast. Yet, still works decades later.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TheGoodNamesHaveBeenTaken
ToroidalBoat said:
Another thing I noticed: it seems like newer tech is always crappier and more computerized.

For example, a Current Year toaster could have a touchscreen, firmware, internet connection, and control via a "smartphone" "app"... but it just toasts toast. And it breaks down relatively fast. A toaster from before Current Year may just have that slider thing and that push-down thing, and it just toasts toast. Yet, still works decades later.
Click to expand...
Reminder that planned obsolescence and enshittification are features, not bugs.
 
  • Horrifying
Reactions: ToroidalBoat
I'm pretty sure Murray Rothbard discusses the topic in Man, Economy, and State, but I can't recall where
Essentially, he argues that even if a better product/method/technique or simply technical solution comes along, that is not "free", because the previous state of affairs already exists. Changing it or implementing a new technological solution has its own costs and drawbacks - and sometimes these are sufficiently high to make it uneconomical to adapt the new process.
Consider this, did you tear down your house and rebuild it just because more efficient heat insulation methods and material techniques came up since your house has been built? If not, why not? Would you be able to ethically justify a prohibition that forbids you from keeping your house? Are you taking into account that every law, every regulation, every prohibition, is ultimately enforced with a gun to your head, and that things won't stop at strongly worded letters?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Verpa Teutonica Ingens, Gog & Magog and TheArtilleryman
Ban bows and arrows because those are less efficient than a gun?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back