/cyb/ - cyberpunk and cybersecurity

>>3363
Thank you for sharing this with us .

I did my part in spamming emails and will continue to do is in the following days until I get eventually bored of it .

Is there another way to help the cause , like signing a petition or anything else ?

I would like to be of more use.

What happened to the forest ?

>>4106
Still standing thanks to people occupying it.

OP are you from Germany? Have you been to the forest?

>>4106
More information here
https://hambachforest.org/
>The Hambacher Forst is an ancient forest near the city of Cologne (Germany). This autumn, the forest is to be clear cut in order to expand a climate-destroying open pit coal mine. Since September 13th RWE is evicting the forest occupation and destroys vast parts of the woods.
It seems to be a double reeee'ing of coal=bad + muh trees
Except trees grow back and coal is critical at this stage of human development.

Climate autists fail to understand the consequences of cutting carbon emissions.
Fossil fuels are the only way we can support the population levels we are at right now.
What they're actually advocating is mass genocide.

This is supposed to be a cyberpunk board, where technology is the cause of and solution to all problems.
Humanity needs to push technology past where we are now, not give up on everything we've built because "muh evimoment" and revert to pre-industrial civilization.

>>4129
Cyberpunk is critical of technology. Your post is basically pic related but with cyberpunk and technology.

>>4129
funny how retards are flooding the site just after the fall of pedochan

>>4129
Green enegery technologies are the future, supporting antiquated energy technologies hold back inovation and technological progress.

You make the mistake of thinking nature is the opposite of technology and therefore what hurts nature is good for tech, this isn't true.

>>4134
>supporting antiquated energy technologies hold back inovation and technological progress.
How does it hold back exactly?
The "antiquated energy technologies" is the only thing keeping you alive right now.
You need to innovate first then get rid of the old stuff.
Not kill what we have now then pray something better comes along before we all die.
Do you not see how fucking retarded that is?

>You make the mistake of thinking nature is the opposite of technology and therefore what hurts nature is good for tech, this isn't true.
The post you're responding to doesn't say that.

>>4129
>You make the mistake of thinking nature is the opposite of technology and therefore what hurts nature is good for tech, this isn't true.
In this specific case the trees need to be destroyed to get the coal. But trees are much less precious and easy to replace. So what's the problem? Is there an objective argument here besides "muh evimoment" emotions?

>>4129
Coal is critical at this stage of human development?? Wait what year do you think it is? This is hilarious.

Germany fucked up when they went and shut down all their nuclear reactors. Shoulda just kept those going, way better. Less radioactive even. But nah, optics is apparently more important than, oh I dunno, the human race surviving. Whatever.

Sure, cutting emissions is "mass genocide." You dunce. And I suppose acidifying our oceans and destroying all our arable land is just totally gravy. So so stupid. If you don't wanna revert to pre-industrial civilization, you better take care of muh environment. It's not fucking optional. Got any space colonies? No? Didn't think so—take care of the environment.

>>4144
>objective argument here besides "muh evimoment" emotions
As if DRILL BABY DRILL OR DOOMSDAY WE IS CYBERPUNK wasn't totally based on emotions. Anyway >>4146 said it better than I could ever do, to believe we still are clinging on coal for other reasons than dirty money at the expense of our environment (which matters even if you're locked in the basement) is downright retarded. I remember how back then politicians and LARPing Greens were hating on nuclear power (everything is plutonium with minimal security according to them) for little other reason than deflecting attention, which is totally rational, if you follow the real goals, that is.
Also unlike what your popstar idols Ben Shapiro and Bill Nye the Science Guy might tell you, there is no "objectivity" in our subjective need to live in a breathable, natural environment. There is no Man vs Wild dynamic despite what the highly dysfunctional murrikan culture might tell you. Also there was no 30yo life-expectancy hunter-gatherer who discovered the microwave two centuries ago, the development of technology is a steady, if accelerating, process. The industrial revolution changed our way of living, not life itself, and not in a linear way from OONGA BOONGA towards ROBOTS AND PEW XD. We are still part of nature and we need our green, our air and our vegetables, we make our place in the system instead of replacing it which is why every fucking city has its park and trees in order not to look like a meaningless hellscape, we can't live like in your fantasies ingesting GMO pills on Rust Planet
>b-b-but muh cyberpunk!!
Fucking USA always spamming words like reason, objective or without even understanding what they mean. Burning trees to trigger the libs isn't the path of reason.

>>4142

> How does it hold back exactly?
The "antiquated energy technologies" is the only thing keeping you alive right now.
You need to innovate first then get rid of the old stuff.
Not kill what we have now then pray something better comes along before we all die.
Do you not see how fucking retarded that is?

Solar, hydroelectric, wind, nuclear, there are many alternatives with several advantages over coal and oil. Whether it's in yield, minimilization of adverse side effects, or future potential.

As for how the support of coal and oil as a energy source holds back development in renewables?

If a company is traded publicly than new developments like in op are going to most likely increase the value of said company, this will in turn increase the amount of investors who will buy into the company, and creates a feedback loop. Now even if a form of renewable energy could provide more energy at a lower cost and at at less impact to the environment, the incumbency of the coal and oil industry can stifle there progression.

Secondly theres actually only a limited amount of energy needed so when one company fulfills the needs of the local area, theres now less or no opportunity for renewables to come in.

Third the continued inovation and development of renewables is linked to the development of the sector, the less profit and investment into renewables the the longer we wait for technological improvements in them.


> The post you're responding to doesn't say that.

I took that as the implied additude, unforchantly there are many who do think like that.

>>4146
>Germany fucked up when they went and shut down all their nuclear reactors.
So you agree that letting the same eco-autists shut down coal usage would be a similar mistake.

>>4148
>we still are clinging on coal for other reasons than dirty money at the expense of our environment
How do you think your extra soy veggie burgers are processed and arrive in your local supermarket? Teleportation? What happens if tomorrow there is no food in your supermarket? That should be a much scary prospect to you than "in 50 years the sea temperature will go up by 1 degree" or some soykaf. They're both bad but one is much much worse.

This is the problem with progressive types. they don't take 5 seconds to think how things currently work before reeeing for changes.

>Also there was no 30yo life-expectancy hunter-gatherer who discovered the microwave two centuries ago, the development of technology is a steady, accelerating, process.
A common fallacy. Progress is not linear or even a given. It's very easy to go backwards and lose technology. See Byzantine flame throwers, Aboriginal bow and arrows or feudal Japan and firearms.

You need to stop taking things for granted. Everything is not going to magically stay the same minus global warming if we stop burning coal. That's just a childish fantasy.

I'm not smart enough to understand anything else from that wordsalad sorry.

>>4150
Ah, someone who actually passed grade school English, welcome.

>Solar, hydroelectric, wind, nuclear, there are many alternatives with several advantages over coal and oil.
Fair enough, why don't you campaign for that then? Instead of ree'ing over some trees and soykafting on things that actually work and keep us alive, why not use the alternatives and show us how much better they are?
>inb4 activism is about asspats and not actually about getting soykaf done

>Now even if a form of renewable energy could provide more energy at a lower cost and at at less impact to the environment, the incumbency of the coal and oil industry can stifle there progression.
This doesn't follow. If you can deliver a better product and/or be cheaper than the incumbents then you steal their customers and who invests where is irrelevant.

>Secondly theres actually only a limited amount of energy needed
>Third the continued inovation and development of renewables is linked to the development of the sector
You've got to beat the competition before you can innovate? Sounds like you've got things backwards again.

>I took that as the implied additude, unforchantly there are many who do think like that.
I refer you back to >>4144 though. Rationally the coal is more important than the trees in this case so objectively what's the problem?

>>4151

>Fair enough, why don't you campaign for that then? Instead of ree'ing over some trees and soykafting on things that actually work and keep us alive, why not use the alternatives and show us how much better they are?
>You've got to beat the competition before you can innovate Sounds like you've got things backwards again.
>This doesn't follow. If you can deliver a better product and/or be cheaper than the incumbents then you steal their customers and who invests where is irrelevant.

I'll elaborate on what I said before, simple supply and demand aernt the only elements at play here. The renewables industrys are entering into a game where their competition has a massive headstart. simply using the enormous amount of capital and influence they've already accrued they can put the breaks on their competition.

This happens in multiple ways, I'll start with the most basic:

1 the fossil feul industry I's stupid BIG, and they have the kind of money to play around with that most renewable energy startups can only dream of. This alone is a huge advantage.

2 investors often aernt logical, so even if renewables are currently superior prior group consensus causes a loop where the value of a company's stocks rise and thereby more people invest, a bubble. And to keep it from popping the fossil Feul industry will use their many other advantages listed here.

3 when it comes to electrical energy its often the case that cities cant just change their provider's on the fly, if a fossil feul company is already providing energy to an area than it's highly likely that by the contract they'll have the exclusive right to provide energy to that area for x amount of years.

4 money (the fossil feul industry has alot) buys influence, whether its plain or and simple bribes, Or lobbying for tighter regulation against the renewables, Or bringing frivolous lawsuits against your competion to drain there resources. And of course theres always the option to always just buy your competion and then sell it off.

5 to many investors the renewables industry is new, complex, and confusing. Nevermind whats the better form of energy, they'll stick to what they know.

What all of the above adds up to, is that the fossil feul industry has built up a huge amount of momentum behind it and can far out live its natural life span. (Natural life span here meaning: its lifespan in a world where the quantity and cost effectiveness of a company are the only determining factors as to its survivability)

Last of all I'll say that I do support renewable energy in what little ways I can. And I believe renewables will inevitably win, But that ideally the fossil feul industry which is artificially prolonging its existence should be ended sooner rather than later.

Also Reeeeeee! Is a dead meme from 2016.

>>4151
>So you agree that letting the same eco-autists shut down coal usage would be a similar mistake.

Totally different autists. If you think that all ecological preservation is stupid, you're the one who's detached from reality. Nuclear is great, coal belongs in the nineteenth century.

This guy's a dumbass everyone, stop wasting your time. Just another filthy 8ch refugee

>>4151
>I'm not smart enough to understand anything else from that wordsalad sorry.
Thanks for directly admitting you're retarded. I write this for the chan, so don't think you're a snowflake.

>It's very easy to go backwards and lose technology
>See Byzantine flame throwers, Aboriginal bow and arrows or feudal Japan and firearms
Recipes with no other use than pure destruction are "technology" and losing them is "reverting backwards", great. Do you think you're playing Civilization while get up the Technology Tree and unlocking new perks? Also thanks for mentioning military tools as your exemple for progress, allows to confirm "tech" is nothing for you but dick-weaving and power fantasy.
>You need to stop taking things for granted. Everything is not going to magically stay the same minus global warming if we stop burning coal. That's just a childish fantasy.
Talking like a steampunk redditor does not hide the deep retardation behind these lines, Europe is functioning at an energy surplus right now, it's not even about burning coal, it's about the coal industry getting money at the expense of the environment for little to no reason. Countries, let alone regions, never worked in an isolated environment, even in the "old good times" /pol/ and Hideo Kojima are talking about. Germany could easily buy its energy from France or other exporting neighbour countries, but the system of wealth concentration is inciting instead to a short-sighted politics of destroying the environment to make use of antiquated power tech. It's not a about "technology", it's about cartels destroying our common environment under pretenses of "technology".

>How do you think your extra soy veggie burgers are processed and arrive in your local supermarket?
I don't eat organic food and soy is not a profitable garbage in Europe, retard. Thinking in terms of binaries once again, it must be gratifying to think you're a legionnaire fighting against the fat irrational masses for the sake of SCIENCE!™, but in the end you're just an undersocialized tard (a normal person would not have dared throwing this one).

Your genius "argumentation" never mentioned only once the magic of networks, cartels, whole different competings industries for not-always profit but sometimes social reasons, human relations and globalization. Instead of thinking in terms, you think in terms of binaries, scales, power levels and technology trees. Just as expected from a basement-dweller who knows nothing but videogames and 8chan before googling his way to here. Go play some Cyberpunk mobile apps and get the fuck out of here, you're a waste of time.

>>4155
>1 having money is an advantage because it just is
No.

>2 investors again
The stock market isn't real, Neo.

>3 when it comes to electrical energy its often the case that cities cant just change their provider's on the fly
That's an actual argument. I'm sure there are smaller energy customers than entire cities though.

>4 lobbying for tighter regulation against the renewables
Example?

>4 Or bringing frivolous lawsuits against your competion to drain there resources.
Example?

>4 And of course theres always the option to always just buy your competion and then sell it off.
Example?

>5 investors again
sigh

>Also Reeeeeee! Is a dead meme from 2016.
Oh no, you were so close to winning the maturity award then you started ree'ing about ree'ing.

>>4162
>Thanks for directly admitting you're retarded. I write this for the chan, so don't think you're a snowflake.
Iit-'s not like I w-wanted you to read this. B-baka.

>Recipes with no other use than pure destruction are "technology"…
Not the point.
You said the development of technology is a steady, accelerating, process.
Here are some historical examples to show you are wrong.

>it's about the coal industry getting money at the expense of the environment for little to no reason.
The reason is food production which is more important than some trees.

>I don't eat organic food
You sure sound like you have too much soy in your diet.

>Your genius "argumentation" never mentioned only once the magic of networks, cartels, whole different competings industries for not-always profit but sometimes social reasons, human relations and globalization.
I realize now that English is not your first language. This sentence doesn't make any sense. Try again.

>>4163
>I don't have anything to say so here's some memes with reddit spacing!!
must be pretty sad being that autistic

>>4166
>reddit spacing
just go back to 8chan already

>>4168
>trollkastel
just go back to /seacats/ already

>>4166
must be pretty sad being autistic about spacing

>>4175
Kinda like how easy is to spot that kind of pointless posters if I'm honest. They all love throwing their unfunny jokes and boring "hot takes" as if it was a badge of merit

>>4177
It's okay if you can't smell your own stench, good sir

>>4129
delete yourself from this world