your choice can't be outcome based. i.e., you can't want to choose an option where you obtain the same electricity and energy and comforts, but with no pollution and with the same cost. Because such a choice never existed at the time, and will likely never exist until we discover fusion.
Your choice was to just not consume. And you didnt take that choice.
You can choose to join a hippie farming commune. You don't have a choice to force Jimbo to get rid of his F-350 and to not get mad at the government whenever gas or prices rise.
> You can choose to join a hippie farming commune.
It is very difficult to reply to such a sentiment in a productive way
I want to live in my community, I want my community to exist in peace until it changes, by natural evolution, into something unrecognizable, and to keep doing until the end of time
True, I could abandon my community and go live in a monastery. Or I could gather up the greed heads and gun them down like dogs
I choose neither
I choose, chose, to do the work to change the world one Hacker News comment at a time....
You have all the choice in the world. If you want, you can literally go and do subsistence farming — there are plenty countries in the world with extremely lax visa situation and plenty of empty land.
Of course, doing this would extremely hard and dangerous. But living an easier and safer life is the whole point of the industrial revolution and it's consequences, so if you truly believe that it's the disaster for the human race, this should not be a problem.
Why don't you have the choice to not burn it if you are willing to pay the price? I can hardly think of anything for which there is no electric counterpart.
