Another reason why porn is bad for us!
 

Watching porn videos certainly doesn't improve peoples' minds, and it often involves financial and sexual exploitation of the actors in these films. But it turns out to be bad for the environment too.

According to an article in last week's New Scientist, online video is responsible for 60% of all internet traffic, and it generates 300 million tons of CO2 per year. That's equivalent to the carbon footprint of Spain! Of this, about a third is porn. On-demand services like Netflix account for another third.

The figures come from The Shift Project, a European think tank for transitioning to a post-carbon economy.

What kind of lunatic scientist teacher made up that connection? Of course by simply watching pr0n won't turn dumbies into smarties, but same logic applies to anything else : by simply eating, by simply watching TV, by simply going to work, by simply doing any other single task does not improve people's minds. For this reason School of Life exists. But otherwise pr0n does help. Only thing that matters in those pr0n wideos is that those involved are all age of consent so they consent to that action and have safety word to stop.

How much CO2 is generated to make all those batteries for so-called "friendly" electric cars ?.
What a load of bullshit.

Hmm! Interesting. I seem to have hit a nerve...

Less than you think, and newer generations of cells that do not require rare earths will be even cleaner, but I really think a discussion of the ecological damage and benefits should not require the word "bullshit" unless you are discussing the contribution of domestic cattle.

It should be noted that the study by The Shift Project focuses on the effects of online video streaming in general. The article itself, [which The New Scientist does not link to] only mentions the word 'pornography' once. Additionally, in the accompanying video entitled "This video is bad for climate change" the word 'pornography' is only mentioned once. In the article the word is mentioned in the following context:

In other words, it is not the content but the method of delivery. Additionally, changing the delivery of such content should be collectively administrated in a way that still gives users choices in a free society. This goes in tandem with The Shift Project's mission statement which says:

Interest in depictions of sex and eroticism has been part of human nature for a long as our ancestors were able to paint on cave walls. The Shift Project's main concern is the reduction of carbon emission, not the ethical content of what is causing those emissions. If such content can be delivered in a way that impacts the environment less, there ceases to be an issue.

As is often the case, various publications have taken one aspect of the report and exploited it for their sensationalist gain. The report itself is not about pornography but video streaming in general and its effect on climate change.

Linux
 

And just what pray tell does this have to do with LINUX?

Intrinsically nothing. But then this topic has been posted in the "Non-*NIX Forums".

The article is not shown yet in the online edition of the New Scientist, or else it has already rolled off the start page. A link would be nice, when or if it turns up.

However, it sounds like the topic chosen as a target is a quite clever distraction from the real problem of wasted cycles in general at scale. There more relevant, prominent culprit in this context, and that is all the unnecessary javascript now found infecting most of the world's web sites. However, because the topic chosen as an example is so political and emotional, the topic will get discussed rather than power consumption.

Another problem child in the realm of power consumption is Vista10. As M$ and Intel take turns racheting up requirements, power consumption goes up. GNU/Linux systems, especially desktops, burn less electricity than corresponding Vista/Vista7/Vista8/Vista10 systems. I'm sure someone seriously interested could come up with real numbers but if we say that there are 1 billion desktop computers and that upgrading them to GNU/Linux would save 2 watts. If we say that electricity costs us EUR 0.2 per kWh, then that upgrade would save around 400 000 EUR per hour and if these are running for an average of 6 hours per day then the savings would be 2 400 000 EUR per day or
600 000 000 EUR per year, if I have not misplaced any decimal points or flipped any units.

However, since the media is dependent on M$ partners' advertising money and M$ has been able to place fifth columnists around the journalism community, The Shift Project would never be able to use that example.

And while going after big theives like M$ Vista10 is off limits politically, going after smaller theives like NTP, poor encryption agloritms with worse implementations, TCP stacks, and so on are too esoteric.

Not to mention the mining of cryptocurrencies!

I haven't read the article, but you quote "one-line video". There's a lot more to on-line video than porn: streaming, Youtube, etc. And what about all the power wasted on using things like twitter and facebook? This seems like an appeal to puritanism and religious extremism to me.

And just think of all the lost time at work, due to wrist injuries.

Porn does help. Porn's what keeps me from murdering people...

If one can't pay for and/or get any action, porn's all they've got :p

But honestly, the only difference is that you're watching others do it, and producing your own orgasm, rather then someone else being a party to it.

Or you could try some "sound wave therapy" if you don't like porn... :scratch:

It's a scam! Has to be. $2000 per session? And no reliable trials?

There's one born every minute.