Sharing this post from mildyinteresting Community because I think you’ll be interested in it over here in the solarpunk community

Sorry if I have accidentally reposted it

        • Platomus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right… And you don’t see any glaring differences between to two?

          • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are differences, obviously, but I don’t know which of those differences would make one of them natural. Nature didn’t create either of them; they are both man-made constructions.

            • Platomus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              But using your intuitions, which one do you think the person responded to above meant as more natural?

              Probably the one that doesn’t use electricity, right?

              It feels like being obtuse for no reason.

              • x4740N@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are correct

                I used the words “natural technology” because it felt like the best word to describe natural solutions like the air tower in the image

              • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                So, electricity is unnatural and hence bad? Is that the point being made here? Because the original opinion was that we should focus on natural solutions over artificial ones, and I asked the question in an effort to understand why they would say that.

                Instead of arguing against a guess (or “intuition”) of what they mean, I think it’s constructive to find out exactly what they mean first. That way we’re not just talking past one another in the typical, polarized internet fashion.

                • x4740N@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s not what being said at all

                  Electricity is a form of energy but its created using other forms of energy and there are losses from conversion becsuse we don’t have 100% efficency so it would be better to use other forms of energy that are naturally present when possible to avoid losses of energy from converting them to electricity

                  Then you only need to use electricity as necessary

                • Platomus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Where did I say any of that?

                  I’m not arguing for good or bad anything. What do you think this conversation is?

                  Reread this discussion. I was exclusively talking about how it’s blatantly obvious that a tunnel with water to chill air is more natural than an AC unit - and you’re pretending to not understand that.

                  Stop trying to fight and we wouldn’t be taking past each other.

                  OP didn’t even say one was worse or better. He just said to look for lower maintenance and energy use. And again - that’s blatantly obvious between an AC unit and a TUNNEL WITH WATER.

                  • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not claiming you said anything was good or bad. The very top comment, which is what I responded to, said “we should really use natural technology first amd supplement it with artificial technology”. That’s not your comment. And then you got into the discussion with all these non-answers to my question, implying that something is “blatantly obvious” instead of actually answering my simple question. It only needed to be a single plain answer, but here we are knee-deep in noise and passive-aggressive attacks.