Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Sunday June 06 2021, @03:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the good dept.

Reducing poverty can actually lower energy demand, finds research:

[...] We found that households that do have access to clean fuels, safe water, basic education and adequate food—that is, those not in extreme poverty—can use as little as half the energy of the national average in their country.

This is important, as it goes directly against the argument that more resources and energy will be needed for people in the global south to escape extreme poverty. The biggest factor is the switch from traditional cooking fuels, like firewood or charcoal, to more efficient (and less polluting) electricity and gas.

In Zambia, Nepal and Vietnam, modern energy resources are extremely unfairly distributed—more so than income, general spending, or even spending on leisure. As a consequence, poorer households use more dirty energy than richer households, with ensuing health and gender impacts. Cooking with inefficient fuels consumes a lot of energy, and even more when water needs to be boiled before drinking.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 06 2021, @12:22PM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 06 2021, @12:22PM (#1142341) Journal

    What do you do with billions of people who are no longer needed to produce, assemble, and distribute goods?

    It has to happen first before it's worth answering that question! When centuries of such automation have resulted in wealthier, more productive people, maybe it's time to see what is wrong with that narrative? The big one is that automation makes human labor more productive - resulting in an application of Jevons paradox [wikipedia.org].

    Soon humans will no longer have to earn their right to exist. There will be machines that do it for us. What then?

    Then go for a higher quality of work - assuming we're allowed to do so. I don't see the point of worrying about it when employers throughout the developed world are punished for employing people. Society clearly doesn't see it as a problem worth addressing. Fix the regulatory environment, then we'll be able to see what the effects of AI and other advanced automation are.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06 2021, @04:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 06 2021, @04:32PM (#1142401)

    It always ends up with more managers.

    I work in science and there's barely a single actual scientist. It's mostly managers, rules, rule-enforcement managers and leadership committees. Then a thin, thin layer of science (down to 1 person here) and an assortment of the cheapest foreign, barely English speaking interns / students.