What can Gamers do to save energy?

[DinnerX]

I fail to see how a relatively small group of people can possibly efficiently manage earth's resources or how they could even manage the resources better than they currently are being managed. Governments are full of waste and inefficiencies. Sure individuals can be stupid and wasteful too. Generally people are at least a little better at managing resources than the government is simply because a person has only their own resources to worry about.

Furthermore, while a rich guy could be more of a philanthropist, the money is still his. You seem to be saying it is morally wrong for him to use his money as he wants. Do you think the government has the power to decide where money is morally owed?

[cookie monster]

My earth day will encompass changeing my oil over a storm drain after setting fire to the old pile of tires out back. Then i might go shoot a endangered species. Other than that i got nothing planned.
If the rain holds off i will most likely plant some flowers outside along with hang out laundry instead of using the dryer.

[Menegrothx]

I fail to see how a relatively small group of people can possibly efficiently manage earth's resources

So 100 uneducated average Joes are better at making decisions than 2 educated specialists who actually know something about the subject?
I think that in some major issues its better to have meritocracy and technocracy rather than democracy for the same reason why parents and teachers make decisions for the children.

or how they could even manage the resources better than they currently are being managed. Governments are full of waste and inefficiencies.

In theory capitalism and profit seeking reduces wastefulness and its true in many cases and governments certainly can be inefficient (again, its better to have technocracy than bunch of special intrest groups and bureaucrats running things), but that doesn't mean that modern society isnt full of examples how many resources are spent on unnessecary things while many good ideas, projects and minds don't get the support they need. In some cases corporations are against increased efficiency. They make more money if the average light bulb has a smaller lifespan. Pharmaceutical companies dont want to find a cure for AIDS or cancer because they make a lot more money if you have to keep on using their medicine. In fact corporations will do what ever they can to stop any innovative products that would lower their profits, even if it helps mankind a lot like that cancer/AIDS medicine example.
You can see the effects of catering to the lowest common denominator in movies, TV shows, music and video games.

Generally people are at least a little better at managing resources than the government is simply because a person has only their own resources to worry about.

True

Furthermore, while a rich guy could be more of a philanthropist, the money is still his. You seem to be saying it is morally wrong for him to use his money as he wants.

Nope. I'm saying that if you look at society or mankind as a whole, those resources could be spent in a more rational manner that has a larger positive effect on a bigger group of people. That Veyron only helps the guy who buys it and it will rot in a landfill in 30 years. If the money was spent on education, it would help more people currently and you can see it as an investment that grows over time as those educated kids start contributing to society once they grow up. Although I guess you could argue that super cars and other luxury items like that drive corporations to improve technology, but the effect on products like that is quite minimal and its more efficient to allocate those resources to actual research.

Do you think the government has the power to decide where money is morally owed?

Government is an artificial system made to service the needs of the people, so of course it serves which ever purporse the public wants it to. Sadly any constitution, no matter how well written, goes into the trash can as soon as majority of people are fed up with the system and want a change.
And isn't that what government already does? Taxes people and puts the money to infrastructure, education and public services, defence and military, environment, science and technology, arts and culture and so on.

[YoshiEgg25]

Wait, people actually celebrate Earth Day unironically?

[Menegrothx]

Wait, people actually celebrate Earth Day unironically?

Could ask the same thing about My Little Pony fandom
I've heard that many businesses, schools etc close down their lights during Earth Day or something like that so I guess quite many people are into that stuff. I dont recall going outside during this time of the year for the last couple of years so I'm not sure though.
Fun fact: the founder of Earth Day was called Gaylord Nelson.

[DinnerX]

I fail to see how a relatively small group of people can possibly efficiently manage earth's resources

So 100 uneducated average Joes are better at making decisions than 2 educated specialists who actually know something about the subject?

One, there'd be more than two specialists. Two, the specialists probably won't agree on the best course of action. In the end, you have a group of people who don't agree trying to decide what 100 other people should be doing. It's even worse for situations that should be decided on a case by case basis.

I think that in some major issues its better to have meritocracy and technocracy rather than democracy for the same reason why parents make decisions for their children.

So you feel this theoretical government, will be smarter than and superior to the average person. Thus, it can help the simpletons make better decisions. Who will decide who gets to make the big decisions?

Generally people are at least a little better at managing resources than the government is simply because a person has only their own resources to worry about.

True

If this is true then we should not try to make a great move away from individual control.

Furthermore, while a rich guy could be more of a philanthropist, the money is still his. You seem to be saying it is morally wrong for him to use his money as he wants.

Nope. I'm saying that if you look at society or mankind as a whole, those resources could be spent in a more rational manner that has a larger positive effect on a bigger group of people. That Veyron only helps the guy who buys it and it will rot in a landfill in 30 years. If the money was spent on education, it would help more people currently and you can see it as an investment that grows over time as those educated kids start contributing to society once they grow up. Although I guess you could argue that super cars and other luxury items like that drive corporations to improve technology, but the effect on products like that is quite minimal and its more efficient to allocate those resources to actual research.

Of course money could be spent in ways that benefit more people. I could sell all I own, live in a small apartment, and donate most of my wages to the charities and research. But I don't want to, and its my money so why should anyone else be able to tell me to do so? You're deciding how someone else's money should be spent simply because you think it would do more good if it was spent your way.

Do you think the government has the power to decide where money is morally owed?

Government is an artificial system made to service the needs of the people, so of course it serves which ever purporse the public wants it to. Sadly any constitution, no matter how well written, goes into the trash can as soon as majority of people are fed up with the system and want a change.
And isn't that what government already does? Taxes people and puts the money to infrastructure, education and public services, defence and military, environment, science and technology, arts and culture and so on.

For most of that, it's not so much "I think your money could be better spent elsewhere so I'm going to take it" as it is "we need/want this ___ so we're going to tax you." There is a difference in attitude. A government that thinks it knows more than the people is dangerous in my opinion.

[Menegrothx]

If this is true then we should not try to make a great move away from individual control.

But taxes already exist. Do you make a national vote for every single thing politicians decide in America? Or do you vote in politicians who do the decisions for you? Are there any committees or jobs within government that are not chosen by an election? Federal judges or similiar titles? Having a direct democracy over representive would mean that all citizens would have to spend all their free time educating themselves and discussing politics so that people would have the knowledge that is required for big decisions.

Of course money could be spent in ways that benefit more people. I could sell all I own, live in a small apartment, and donate most of my wages to the charities and research. But I don't want to, and its my money so why should anyone else be able to tell me to do so?

.
I seriously doubt you are wealthy enough to be included in this list of people that I was talking about. It's not the middle class people who buy a couple of video games with their money who we are discussing here, it's people who have so much money that you cant really rationalize or justify it. People who make 10 000 times more money in a year than the best scientists in the world, just because they have a lot of stocks, not because their skills are so unique or because their contribution to society is so large.

You're deciding how someone else's money should be spent simply because you think it would do more good if it was spent your way

.
If I had your money, I would spend it on myself. People are selfish and short sighted by nature, so it's better to have an organized group handling the money than individual people wasting it on frivolous crap. Of course there is corruption in government and charity organizations, so you can never be sure that the money actually goes to where it's supposed to be, which is why all actions of the government should be made more transparent and there should be serious consequences for corruption, like helping special intrest groups - it's an act of treason. This should apply to all of government. Investment groups is another similiar option.

For most of that, it's not so much "I think your money could be better spent elsewhere so I'm going to take it" as it is "we need/want this ___ so we're going to tax you." There is a difference in attitude..

I'm not saying that everything that is in anyway unnecessary or luxurious should be spent more rationally. But in order to help prevent a future crisis, some poorly spent resources should be, and in the future must be, reallocated to more useful purporses. Disaster prevention.

A government that thinks it knows more than the people is dangerous in my opinion.

Arm the population and make the government more transparent.
Average truck driver or lumberjack does not have the education required to make big budget related decisions which require heavy knowledge of some particular field of science, so why should he be allowed to have a change to screw up something that affects the whole nation and its future? Just like your average statistician or biologist does not know how to operate heavy machinery, so why should they be allowed to endanger other people by operating one? It's impossible to be a jack of all trades in modern society. People work more efficiently as a big team with each of its member having one particular specialization area. That's how human societys have always worked. The more science and technology progressess, the harder it becomes for people to have more than one specialization field. Being both a hunter and a gatherer at the same time was a tad bit easier than being a nuclear physicist and a welder at the same time.

[MrPopo]

Having a direct democracy over representive would mean that all citizens would have to spend all their free time educating themselves and discussing politics so that people would have the knowledge that is required for big decisions.

Right, that's why we have politicans who spend all their free time educating themselves on the issues they are responsible to vote on.

Oh wait...

I seriously doubt you are wealthy enough to be included in this list of people that I was talking about. It's not the middle class people who buy a couple of video games with their money who we are discussing here, it's people who have so much money that you cant really rationalize or justify it. People who make 10 000 times more money in a year than the best scientists in the world, just because they have a lot of stocks, not because their skills are so unique or because their contribution to society is so large.

So because you don't see their contributions as worthy enough you get to decide that you can take most of their income and spend it on what you consider to be worthy pursuits. As arbitrary criterea go, this one's pretty terrible.

If I had your money, I would spend it on myself. People are selfish and short sighted by nature, so it's better to have an organized group handling the money than individual people wasting it on frivolous crap. Of course there is corruption in government and charity organizations, so you can never be sure that the money actually goes to where it's supposed to be, which is why all actions of the government should be made more transparent and there should be serious consequences for corruption, like helping special intrest groups - it's an act of treason. This should apply to all of government. Investment groups is another similiar option.

You do realize that organized group is just a collection of selfish and short sighted people. Everything slides into decadence and corruption because that's just how people are. There is no force in nature that can stop it.

I'm not saying that everything that is in anyway unnecessary or luxurious should be spent more rationally. But in order to help prevent a future crisis, some poorly spent resources should be, and in the future must be, reallocated to more useful purporses. Disaster prevention.

Again, this is arbitrary to the core. When you think about it, the species doesn't actually need much to survive. What you see as scarcities are actually just things that enable our current standard of living.

Arm the population and make the government more transparent.

Right, transparent autocracy held in check by civilian militias. I can see no contradiction there.


[edit]And since I didn't see them until now:

The population is already shrinking in many industrialized nations, with out any help from the government. Educated people who live in a safe, stable society who have access to birth control methods simply don't breed like rabbits.

Very true. The problem is that human stupidity is a commodity in abudance.

If you cut foreign and and most of immigration from third to first world countries and manage to reduce corruption and increase education and economic growth in third world countries, then the problem would solve itself.

Oh, is that all? I thought it'd be hard.

I'm sure that once global overpopulation actually starts to affect the quality of life of the global elite, then you will start see sudden drops in the population. It's not like some dirt poor Indians and Africans with their great breeding super powers can defeat the people who own majority of worlds resources.

I'm pretty sure you just implied that at some point the industrialized nations will engage in the largest organized genocide since WWII if the world population grows too large.

[ZeroAX]

To bring this back on topic: don't leave your current gen (and PS2) consoles on standby, shut them down completely. I read in a study online that having your 360 (original model) on standby costs you an extra 12-20$ a year in electricity. Mind you the 360 was the biggest energy consumer, so the others shouldn't be as bad (specially the previous gen PS2) but still it's a good idea I guess. My Wii and PS3 can go an entire month without being turned on. Though the PS3 is annoying cause I have the fat model and I have trouble turning it on from those stupid buttons they have.

[TheyCallMeTheSwede]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4