Bud Nye

I think that the problem has a fundamental thermodynamic basis: Entropy. It is easier to break things than to make them. It is easier to destroy a culture or sub-culture than to construct one. It is easier to react in negative, hurtful ways than in positive, supportive ways. Life works at creating order at the expense of an energy input (ultimately sunlight, either present or "saved" in some way such as carbohydrates or oil). Also related to the problem: our likely fatal downfall as a species lies in the fact that the immediate consequences of our actions control our behavior much more strongly than the longer-term consequences do. Based on these principles, I think it highly unlikely that, given the immediate gratification that users have ALREADY RECEIVED from their use of the internet, many will subsequently expend time and energy giving positive feedback. Though I agree with you and would prefer that things did not work as they do, the results of your experiments to date and other similar experiments support this conjecture.

A point that no one has mentioned, which I consider important, involves the embodied energy in the machine's manufacture, transportation, installation, and so on. It's outrageous, using massive amounts of oil. I have decided to follow a path that I call "voluntary environmental sustainability" (VES), a term that I coined about a half-year ago. Over time I am working to live in more environmentally sustainable ways. To do this, I ask myself Richard Heinberg's four questions: (1) Will it work without oil and electricity? (2) Is it [environmentally] sustainable? (3) Does it build resilience? (4) Does it build community? I also ask myself, "If I answered no to one or more of these questions, why am I doing this? How can I do this in an environmentally sustainable way?" Obviously, dishwashers don't even BEGIN to pass the VES test.