Privacy (for robot vacuums) isn’t cheap. via the Verge.

  • volodymyr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I think 4kg over 3years is a huge difference for many people. Not for morbidly obese maybe. Anyway, here it matters that difference exists.

    There are many ways to make this difference in energy balance, by changing the kind of food eaten, while keeping the same intake volume, by changing the intake volume, or by adding an additional activity, like brooming.

    Reducing intake by 100kcal by changing volume while maintaining composition is always going to be carbon wasteful. Do we agree on this?

    There are many advisable ways to reduce the carbon effect. By changing the kind of food eaten, for sure. But also, but replacing manual brooming with less carbon-consuming process. One way does not cancel the other, does it?

    By the way, we should be clear that instead of brooming one should not go for a run on something. Conversely, replacing some of the health-motivated physical activity with brooming is not a bad idea at all, that’s a large part of the reason I still do it. Still, both sport and manual brooming are somehow wasteful.

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Reducing intake by 100kcal by changing volume while maintaining composition is always going to be carbon wasteful. Do we agree on this?

      Yes but I think it will be difficult to calculate and will still depend on the exact thing you’re eating. I think at this point you’re focusing on psychics while ignoring all the practical aspects of the issue.

      Yes, we can agree that brooming daily for years while eating exactly the same things will over many years result in reduced weight which for some individuals might be problematic and result in increase of the volume of food consumed and increased carbon footprint.

      Is the increase in carbon footprint greater than the energy used by roomba? Depends on the energy source and food source. It’s possible that in some specific scenarios the extra food consumed will have bigger carbon footprint than energy used by roomba. Is it greater than the carbon footprint of manufacturing a roomba? Definitely not.

      Your arguments are getting so specific that soon we will conclude that any physical activity is bad for the environment and we should just lay down as much as possible and avoid any excess movements.