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.

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

                  I want to to write out, so it’s in a permanent record on your account that you don’t know which one of those two is more natural.

                  Copy and paste this if you truly can’t tell: “I, tias, have no clue what’s more natural - an AC Unit or a tunnel with water.”

                  Because that’s what you’re saying right? You can’t tell right?

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

                  Can you honestly not tell which is more natural between an AC UNIT and a TUNNEL WITH WATER? You really can’t tell?

                  P.S. You 100% said I was arguing that electricity was bad.

                  You: “So, electricity is unnatural and hence bad? Is that the point being made here?”

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

                    Again, in that instance I wasn’t talking about what you are arguing. The only thing I’ve wanted to find out since the beginning of this discussion is what the original comment meant. This isn’t about you.

                    And no, to me “natural” means created by nature and “artificial” means created by humans. So neither is natural. But that’s not relevant because we’re not talking about my definition of natural. We’re talking about what they meant.

                    Do you not see that my whole point of asking is to understand the other person’s view instead of adding my own assumptions? That words do not mean exactly the same thing for everyone? I don’t know why this makes you so upset. Is it bad to try to understand the other person’s ideas before arguing about them?