[markburns]

YouTube is one of those things that consumes more energy than bitcoin.

That is bad, but it doesn't seem part of the public narrative that YouTube is bad because of global warming. Also the general narrative posits that electric cars are good. They also use a lot of energy. There's nothing inherent about EVs versus bitcoin that suggests one uses clean energy versus another. They both use a lot of electricity.

But so does the banking sector. And entertainment, farming, travel and a lot of the other things 8 billion people choose to do or depend on.

Any usage of fossil fuels should rightfully be a target and held to the same standards.

There is another narrative that we need continual growth and that inflation aids this. And deflationary currencies are bad because they don't help growth. This seems so ingrained in modern politics and economics that I slightly hesitate to question it in public.

Well maybe unbounded growth and exponential usage of resources is the actual problem.

I hope we reach the social limit on unbounded growth before it destroys everything we have. It's literally in physical terms unsustainable. My only hope here is that nuclear fusion gives us a respite for a hundred years or so. But we'd still have the same problem at a different scale if we used that to grow to a trillion people.

I can see that a deflationary global currency could be part of the solution to the problem. And I can see why suggesting deflation is good can be seen as a threatening thing to those that have resources.

So I feel in that light, the bitcoin = global warming narrative is really convenient, even if a little ironic.