• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    but to minimise the cost

    What about the cost to the environment? That cost is just a negative externality to them and you, apparently. Yet I’m the one accused of thinking “conservatively.”

    Burning ten times as many fossil fuels to “minimise the costs” is literally fucking stupid and short-sighted.

    • ich_iel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      In the end it’s about money. If one had to pay for environmentally damages (e.g. a new tax on $energyUnit, $resourceUnit,…) and you’d not only pay for the resources + some markup for the producing company and just external externalize the “worth” of the damages (read: the taxpayer,…), then it’s cheaper to use these services instead of humans.