thibr wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWsP0I3JMws
A tough debate is taking place over 5G. Mediatically, we are trying to create 2 camps: the Amish on one side and those who see themselves as progressive on the other. The debate is very broad if we take into account all the criteria. In this video, we offer you tools to better understand this debate on the energy criterion. What if we get out of this false dilemma?
The author of the video does not say that bullshit, but unfortunately still a little too much, and he believes he needs to qualify the facts subjectively. For example, they explain to us that 5G will lead to a 2% increase in electricity consumption, and he adds twice that this is "huge". It's not "huge", it's weak. The switch from lighting with filament lamps to LED ones has lowered consumption by more than that, and here we never hear the advocates of anti-growth congratulating themselves on it. This does not mean that we should waste on one side what we save on the other, but it should be put into perspective.
Then it anticipates the evolution of uses which, with 5G, will certainly lead to much more data exchange, therefore an increase in data centers and consumption. But according to him, and I agree, we have it under control since 95% of the expected traffic would be generated by smartphones.
So since it is us, the users, who will have this control, it attacks us. He claims first that the smartphone is for "entertainment", I do not see him talking about professional use or teleworking. And so since it is for entertainment, then we get out the hackneyed argument that once again demonstrates the total lack of ideas among the slayers of progress: the tax. We need a tax on large volumes of data, we have to tax subscriptions ... in short, we have to curb uses, and we don't care why people would indulge in new uses. We must not let them do it, we must bully them. We find the recurring ecological message: impose, but never propose alternatives that would win the spontaneous support of people.
"
Mediatically we are trying to create 2 camps: the Amish on one side and those who see themselves as progressive on the other"is it written under the video, and the author presents himself as someone reasonably between the two. He is not: he is an Amish. It is through imposition that he intends to regiment customs, such as Amish parents with their children.
Progress cannot be controlled, because it is a synergy. No one can predict the interest of this or that sector. For example the video game, which seems futile, is what has led to considerable progress in the processing of images and their flows, which benefit networks (less data to store or transmit for images or videos), or 'medical imaging.
Progress is born from the initiatives of groups or individuals, it is offered to people, and people take it or not. If at a pinch everyone can express as the author of the video did, whether or not would be good for people or not, no one has to decide for them. When it comes to the forced taxation of progress, it is because we want to regiment everything and decide for people, it's good that we are an Amish: stopping progress at the level of our experience, that reassures .
Another Amishian objection that I anticipate and which I respond to preventively, in the same vein, is that this progress would generate false needs. People wouldn't need these new features since they lived without them before they were offered. This is obviously a fallacious argument, or you have to accept the consequences: people do not need electricity since they lived without it in the 19th century, people do not need books since most do not. could not afford to pay for it before Gutenberg ... Does that sound cartoonish? Not at all. Should companies electrifying countries at the start of the 20th century and their customers be taxed in order to limit the impact of electricity production on the environment? Should companies printing books and their customers be taxed to limit the impact of book production on the forest? Affirming that we must limit the uses of 5G through taxes, that's exactly it, in the pure Amish spirit.
Progress is like freedom of expression, it does not have to be controlled a priori, with great blows of prejudices or cookie-cutter judgments from some about the future to be imposed on all. Progress is controlled and regulated when we take advantage of it. If people want to take advantage of it, that's their business, even if it means paying some consequences, which is always better to live under the yoke of those who claim to decide for you what is good for you, and who are always the most badly placed, since it is the same people who, when they came to power, have always made the "best" dictatorships.