Not at Waltz but on the Nintendo thing, even IF Nintendo were "not Green" it makes bugger all difference at our end. Really, if you want to be "green" reduce your energy consumption directly first, then look at your car and only then even think about looking at what you're buying. You think one small piece of electronics is going to make a difference? Go to the kitchen first.
By no means should we be singling out Nintendo, but any company that uses manufacturing should be forced to have a shedload more scrutiny attached to it. It's not so much the energy consumption at the product level that's the problem - consumers can help reduce the impact of that themselves. It's the making of the products where there's a big, unaccounted-for, problem. Manufacturing is one of the world's main polluters, and it needs to be held to account. If that does mean it becomes somewhat more expensive to do, then so be it - the 1 billion or so people on the planet in a position to benefit from manufacturing should wear some cost now for future sustainability.
For that reason I was all for the Australian carbon tax, and I hope there's international pressure on the rest of the world to follow suit.
And yes, in the mean time, consumers should be doing their bit at home to reduce their personal carbon footprint.
Edit: Chocobo, I highly doubt using plastic is going to destroy the Earth within 20 years. Besides, at this rate, artificial gravity can't be that far away.
People, being an environmentalist doesn't make you a "hippie," or any of those other derogatory terms you'd like to think of. I assume you all would like to still be on the planet 20 years from now. Environmentalists are trying to make sure that happens. Show a bit of respect.
I'll show a bit of respect when they can prove to me that we're actually in any danger. I do think the world should rely less on oil-based products, but not to "save the planet" or any other silly notions. It's because it's getting more and more expensive to utilize them. If we can find a proper alternative, or better yet, find better ways to produce and recycle plastics, perhaps the economy can get out of its downward spiral.
Ah, but enough ranting. Nintendo does intend to make the Wii U more cost effective, so I'm guessing it's using less plastic and other expensive parts. I suppose that'll make it more "green".
People, being an environmentalist doesn't make you a "hippie," or any of those other derogatory terms you'd like to think of. I assume you all would like to still be on the planet 20 years from now. Environmentalists are trying to make sure that happens. Show a bit of respect.
I'll show a bit of respect when they can prove to me that we're actually in any danger. I do think the world should rely less on oil-based products, but not to "save the planet" or any other silly notions. It's because it's getting more and more expensive to utilize them. If we can find a proper alternative, or better yet, find better ways to produce and recycle plastics, perhaps the economy can get out of its downward spiral.
Ah, but enough ranting. Nintendo does intend to make the Wii U more cost effective, so I'm guessing it's using less plastic and other expensive parts. I suppose that'll make it more "green".
unfortunately, by the time a crisis is as blatant as you seem to need it to be to believe in it, it will be far too late to undo. what's with all this 'hippy' bs?? how many here are even old enough to know what hippies were? how many are merely repeating talking heads that have made them a cliche? for those old enough, were you savaged by a hippy when young?
anyone who is in denial that the massive population of the world coupled with the fuel/manufacturing needs has impact on the environment is sadly/badly mistaken and naive.
of course there are things that people do that waste more energy than video games, but it's cumulative. as been said, it's more about how things are made.
People, being an environmentalist doesn't make you a "hippie," or any of those other derogatory terms you'd like to think of. I assume you all would like to still be on the planet 20 years from now. Environmentalists are trying to make sure that happens. Show a bit of respect.
I'll show a bit of respect when they can prove to me that we're actually in any danger. I do think the world should rely less on oil-based products, but not to "save the planet" or any other silly notions. It's because it's getting more and more expensive to utilize them. If we can find a proper alternative, or better yet, find better ways to produce and recycle plastics, perhaps the economy can get out of its downward spiral.
Ah, but enough ranting. Nintendo does intend to make the Wii U more cost effective, so I'm guessing it's using less plastic and other expensive parts. I suppose that'll make it more "green".
So when will you believe that toxic manufacturing process, massive landfill ruining ecosystems, overhunting and global warming isn't actually a good thing?
When we're all dead? Being a little forward thinking is a good idea in this case. Reactionism is a terrible approach to environmentalism.
Reactionism is a terrible approach to environmentalism.
Neither is sensationalism, which is all I've seen.
That's what tends to happen when you pay more attention to the mass media than the scientific journals. Which say much the same thing sans the sensationalism, and then provide scientific evidence to back it up.
Movement used to be a force that couldn't be replicated by a machine. Breathing as well. Countless others. I know my choices of example weren't the best out there, but we're hardly much more than primitive, even now. There is a lot to learn.
You are right about centrifugal force being the closest thing to artificial gravity we have now, though. It might even work. And hell, maybe there is no physical way to truly replicate gravity. But if there is, we can't be that far away from it.
If not, maybe there will someday be a way to enhance our body structure and be able to withstand zero gravity conditions. Or maybe we truly are confined to Earth. But if you ask me, there just has to be some possible method buried under all of these theories. If not, we truly do need to find a way to keep the Earth in a good condition. But most of the time I see people talking about needing to "preserve the Earth," they heavily exaggerate how dire it is. It should also be noted that global warming is a natural process, and that while we are one of the main catalysts, if not the main catalyst, it would most likely still be happening, albeit slightly slower.
I feel a bit bad that my post almost seems like a science-fiction short story... But you must also realize that science is all about what we haven't found out yet.
EDIT: Sorry, I posted after seeing your last comment on the last page. I didn't even realize there was a third page.
Anyways, I never tried to say that plastic production is NOT a destructive process. I think the main priority of keeping the Earth "preserved" is to find a way to make a less destructive substitute for a plastic be efficient to make. We need to find a substitute for oil regardless, as there isn't much known oil left to use. Maybe I overreacted initially, but as someone else stated, the condition is exaggerated. I can't tell you the amount of times in the past month I've heard someone who pretty much jumped on the bandwagon spouting nonsense about how the Earth is on the brink of destruction. Things aren't getting better, but we're hardly a few years from extinction.
I think the main priority of keeping the Earth "preserved" is to find a way to make a less destructive substitute for a plastic be efficient to make.
No, it's to consolidate production in general down as much as possible. Having one datacentre supply 10,000 customers with cloud/ downloadable gaming, which is stored on one (or possibly two, with extra hard drives) device per customer is substantially more sustainable than producing 100,000 plastic boxes to house 10 games per person.
tl;dr Best way to cut down on plastics production? Stop producing plastics. It doesn't mean consumers need to miss out any longer.
Maybe I overreacted initially, but as someone else stated, the condition is exaggerated. I can't tell you the amount of times in the past month I've heard someone who pretty much jumped on the bandwagon spouting nonsense about how the Earth is on the brink of destruction. Things aren't getting better, but we're hardly a few years from extinction.
You seem to know a bit about space, so here's an analogy for you: The event horizon. The moment you touch that it's all over, you're not "in" the black hole just yet, but there's no way you're going to be able to turn back.
Sustainability has its own event horizon. Hitting that point won't cause extinction immediately, or even in the short turn, but the damage to the earth would be irreparable. We are close enough to that point.
If nothing else, the denialists really should wake up and realise that doing right by the environment can't exactly be a bad thing.
It boggles my mind how people are actually against the environment. It's our home, and their is so much evidence thatsays what we're doing is harmful that nearly every scientist agrees we need to change things up. So what if there's a few extremist, their are extremist in everything, that immediately doesn't discredit something.
Notice I'm not comparing civil rights to environmentalism I'm just using an example. Just because the black panthers took things too far, doesn't discredit the civil rights movement. Ultimately we're working towards a healthier food, and a healthier environment. How do you say no to that? It doesn't have to hurt business like some people claim either, actually being environmentally friendly can actually benefit a business in the long term.
I think the main priority of keeping the Earth "preserved" is to find a way to make a less destructive substitute for a plastic be efficient to make.
No, it's to consolidate production in general down as much as possible. Having one datacentre supply 10,000 customers with cloud/ downloadable gaming, which is stored on one (or possibly two, with extra hard drives) device per customer is substantially more sustainable than producing 100,000 plastic boxes to house 10 games per person.
tl;dr Best way to cut down on plastics production? Stop producing plastics. It doesn't mean consumers need to miss out any longer.
Maybe I overreacted initially, but as someone else stated, the condition is exaggerated. I can't tell you the amount of times in the past month I've heard someone who pretty much jumped on the bandwagon spouting nonsense about how the Earth is on the brink of destruction. Things aren't getting better, but we're hardly a few years from extinction.
You seem to know a bit about space, so here's an analogy for you: The event horizon. The moment you touch that it's all over, you're not "in" the black hole just yet, but there's no way you're going to be able to turn back.
Sustainability has its own event horizon. Hitting that point won't cause extinction immediately, or even in the short turn, but the damage to the earth would be irreparable. We are close enough to that point.
If nothing else, the denialists really should wake up and realise that doing right by the environment can't exactly be a bad thing.
I was actually talking about plastic in general, not just in gaming. However, you are definitely right about digital storage being priority here. While I really love to see my collection of cases grow, it would help a lot if digital became the new way of game storage. It would make games more portable as well. But the thing is, there are a lot of things that require plastic to be made that we can't just stop making. Yes, game storage going digital would help a lot, but it would only be a small step compared to the big picture. We need a way to make these things that doesn't require such large amounts of plastic. I do like to see that cases to games these days have the holes in the now, though. Every little bit helps.
On your second point, I will start by saying that I have a huge interest in space. To be honest, though, I'm only 15, and I can't say I'm an expert on space. But since I can remember, I have spent a large portion of my free time studying basic physics and especially astronomy. Now, I'm quite a bit more educated on such things. But enough with the background, on to your actual point.
I do understand your analogy, but the thing is, I don't think we are really as close as many people claim we are to said "event horizon" of sustainability. I do agree that we should start now, and I personally think we are on target with where we should be in order to sustain, so I think the exaggerating should stop. I'm not necessarily referring to this topic. Not at all, in fact. As you said yourself, the mass media does not present the facts. We would be better off without that. Of course, anyone with a large interest in science would get there information from a scientific journal or other good sources. And if you ask me, the real progression is coming from the people who are educated on the matter at hand and not people who jump on a bandwagon and spread "the truth" to basically scare people into trying to fix things.
Nintendo - Where even first person shooters ooze creativity.
I think the main priority of keeping the Earth "preserved" is to find a way to make a less destructive substitute for a plastic be efficient to make.
No, it's to consolidate production in general down as much as possible. Having one datacentre supply 10,000 customers with cloud/ downloadable gaming, which is stored on one (or possibly two, with extra hard drives) device per customer is substantially more sustainable than producing 100,000 plastic boxes to house 10 games per person.
tl;dr Best way to cut down on plastics production? Stop producing plastics. It doesn't mean consumers need to miss out any longer.
Maybe I overreacted initially, but as someone else stated, the condition is exaggerated. I can't tell you the amount of times in the past month I've heard someone who pretty much jumped on the bandwagon spouting nonsense about how the Earth is on the brink of destruction. Things aren't getting better, but we're hardly a few years from extinction.
You seem to know a bit about space, so here's an analogy for you: The event horizon. The moment you touch that it's all over, you're not "in" the black hole just yet, but there's no way you're going to be able to turn back.
Sustainability has its own event horizon. Hitting that point won't cause extinction immediately, or even in the short turn, but the damage to the earth would be irreparable. We are close enough to that point.
If nothing else, the denialists really should wake up and realise that doing right by the environment can't exactly be a bad thing.
I was actually talking about plastic in general, not just in gaming. However, you are definitely right about digital storage being priority here. While I really love to see my collection of cases grow, it would help a lot if digital became the new way of game storage. It would make games more portable as well. But the thing is, there are a lot of things that require plastic to be made that we can't just stop making. Yes, game storage going digital would help a lot, but it would only be a small step compared to the big picture. We need a way to make these things that doesn't require such large amounts of plastic. I do like to see that cases to games these days have the holes in the now, though. Every little bit helps.
On your second point, I will start by saying that I have a huge interest in space. To be honest, though, I'm only 15, and I can't say I'm an expert on space. But since I can remember, I have spent a large portion of my free time studying basic physics and especially astronomy. Now, I'm quite a bit more educated on such things. But enough with the background, on to your actual point.
I do understand your analogy, but the thing is, I don't think we are really as close as many people claim we are to said "event horizon" of sustainability. I do agree that we should start now, and I personally think we are on target with where we should be in order to sustain, so I think the exaggerating should stop. I'm not necessarily referring to this topic. Not at all, in fact. As you said yourself, the mass media does not present the facts. We would be better off without that. Of course, anyone with a large interest in science would get there information from a scientific journal or other good sources. And if you ask me, the real progression is coming from the people who are educated on the matter at hand and not people who jump on a bandwagon and spread "the truth" to basically scare people into trying to fix things.
You are right - of course the plastics that go into the games industry is just a tiny piece of the pie, but gaming (and every other industry) needs to cut down on plastics production nonetheless.
Plastic bags need to stop going to supermarkets, alternatives need to be found to packaging, and biodegradable plastics need to become legal standards.
All the gaming industry can do is look after itself; the the broader IT industry is very heavy polluter, so it needs to do as much as possible.
As for your other points - if we expand the analogy further, we're currently in a space ship hurtling towards an event horizon at the speed of light. Simply stopping and reversing is not possible. You need to ease down to a stop. This slowing down process takes a while, and requires the space ship's crew to be working together.
We are currently consuming resources at a unsustainable rate. The question is - are we able to slow down in time? I'd argue not, principally because people don't want to.
Every time a Government tries to push forward a sustainability agenda - as Australia did with the carbon tax, a massive portion of completely uneducated people whinge because it either 1) impacts on their privledged lifestyle, or 2) costs them a nominal amount extra in taxes.
It's pathetic, but it's the way humanity is - utterly selfish. And for that reason I'd bet anything that the event horizon is something we're going to hit, sooner rather than later.
It is true that we are definitely going towards our "event horizon" quickly, and that to stop will require teamwork and we can't just turn around. But I was already suggesting that, as with the points on packaging. Though I wasn't very clear about it. Here, I believe, we have come to a point of agreement.
But what I am trying to say is not that we have turned around and are slowly progressing away from the event horizon. I am suggesting that at our current rate, we do have plenty of time to turn around. In fact, I would argue that we have already started the process.
Finally, I agree with you that the root cause is that humans in general are selfish. If people would sacrifice just a little bit of their luxury, they would get a lot more in return with the sustaining of the Earth.
It seems that the only thing we disagree on is how close we actually are to the event horizon. Unfortunately, anymore debate will have to continue tomorrow, as I have some geometry to get to.
Thanks, though. I really enjoyed this debate. There is nothing better than a good scientific discussion between intelligent minds.
Nintendo - Where even first person shooters ooze creativity.
Somehow, I don't think they think going 'green' will have any positive effect on their sales, (just my opinion). Maybe it might, but they aren't exactly shouting anything about it.
Not at Waltz but on the Nintendo thing, even IF Nintendo were "not Green" it makes bugger all difference at our end. Really, if you want to be "green" reduce your energy consumption directly first, then look at your car and only then even think about looking at what you're buying. You think one small piece of electronics is going to make a difference? Go to the kitchen first.
By no means should we be singling out Nintendo, but any company that uses manufacturing should be forced to have a shedload more scrutiny attached to it. It's not so much the energy consumption at the product level that's the problem - consumers can help reduce the impact of that themselves. It's the making of the products where there's a big, unaccounted-for, problem. Manufacturing is one of the world's main polluters, and it needs to be held to account. If that does mean it becomes somewhat more expensive to do, then so be it - the 1 billion or so people on the planet in a position to benefit from manufacturing should wear some cost now for future sustainability.
For that reason I was all for the Australian carbon tax, and I hope there's international pressure on the rest of the world to follow suit.
And yes, in the mean time, consumers should be doing their bit at home to reduce their personal carbon footprint.
I agree. There should be pressure on manufacturers and I also agree that things like the carbon tax are good for doing exactly that. Those sort of ideas are less about changing end user habits and much, much more about changing the way production is done. People don't seem to understand that for some reason.
The point I was making was that, as consumers, it's a small part of our impact. I'm now going to add to that by saying if it's not a small part it it's at the very least a small part of the impact we can change. Buying a 60" Plasma from the "Greenest" company in the world will still end with you having a much larger carbon footprint than your neighbour who got a 40" LED backlit screen. The inefficiencies of building your Wii U pales in comparison to the amount of energy wasted if you leave the aircon running overnight at 16C. We should consider how different companies make their products.... but we should probably look at the power usage first.
It's pathetic, but it's the way humanity is - utterly selfish. And for that reason I'd bet anything that the event horizon is something we're going to hit, sooner rather than later.
I will make that bet.
To blessed to be stressed.
80's music makes me feel fabulous.
What Would Duane Do? Rynoggery
Forums
Topic: Wii U green enough?
Posts 41 to 58 of 58
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.