Stop talking about cashless society! Let us preserve mother nature!

[paramelton]

Honestly speaking, i don't see much point in becoming cashless. What happens if we go cashless and there is a shortage in power supply? Would we be able to still buy bread?

[1714094419]

1714094419

[1714094419]

1714094419

[1714094419]

1714094419

[Vs225655]

so it is necessary to preserve our nature. You need to save resources, everything is right. But we ocos must grow our abilities, intellect, etc. Therefore, every year there are super computers, artificial intelligence, etc. Electronic money is another step in our humanity, and despite natural disasters, I believe that they will stay in us.

[Slow death]

This is the problem with industrialized countries they are the one who are mandating that we need to preserve and conserve natural resources for the benefit of the next generations to come. However, they are not worrying when they use too much electricity or power with the ambitious move to make a cashless society. How will they do it without using the natural resources to power up their digital equipment? And then there is no absolute cashless society because anywhere you go you will going to need physical money for a medium of exchange especially in times if there are natural calamities like earthquake, floods, storm and etc. where power could be affected by these events. So they are just really ambitious and damaging our mother nature sir/maam.

This is a big problem that will be very difficult to solve, because industrialized countries will not stop polluting the environment and will not stop destroying nature, I will give a great example of the Chinese. A few years ago in my country there were many forests, there were many dogs, there were many types of fish. The Chinese have arrived in my country and since their arrival everything in my country has changed, the forests are dying today, today it has become very difficult to find some dog, today it has become very difficult to find fish in our sea and this is because the Chinese are the destroy the forests of my country, the Chinese eat the dogs of my country and the Chinese do illegal fishing in my country. This is to say that developed countries are depleting the natural resources of other poor countries

Honestly speaking, i don't see much point in becoming cashless. What happens if we go cashless and there is a shortage in power supply? Would we be able to still buy bread?

[audaciousbeing]

This is the problem with industrialized countries they are the one who are mandating that we need to preserve and conserve natural resources for the benefit of the next generations to come. However, they are not worrying when they use too much electricity or power with the ambitious move to make a cashless society. How will they do it without using the natural resources to power up their digital equipment? And then there is no absolute cashless society because anywhere you go you will going to need physical money for a medium of exchange especially in times if there are natural calamities like earthquake, floods, storm and etc. where power could be affected by these events. So they are just really ambitious and damaging our mother nature sir/maam.

I have not seen anywhere anyone have advocated for a total cashless economy because that in itself, is an unattainable objective but what is being advocated is that large portion of transactions should be done cashless. Aside of the obvious reasons which include convenience as I can stay in my room and order goods in China, pay for it then get it deliver to my door step and security as I don't have to carry huge bag of dollars to carry out a transaction as a transfer from my account would get it solved.

On the issue of nature, having a cash denominated economy would get rid of the green environment as we then need to fell more trees in other to house the notes, the vehicle that would transport the cash from one location to another would discharge exhaust in the atmosphere, the factory that the notes would be printed needs to be powered, the generator would be fuelled, and all these costs will need to reoccur this notes are to be replaced. Put all these together, cashless is better off.

[sheenshane]

This is the problem with industrialized countries they are the one who are mandating that we need to preserve and conserve natural resources for the benefit of the next generations to come. However, they are not worrying when they use too much electricity or power with the ambitious move to make a cashless society. How will they do it without using the natural resources to power up their digital equipment? And then there is no absolute cashless society because anywhere you go you will going to need physical money for a medium of exchange especially in times if there are natural calamities like earthquake, floods, storm and etc. where power could be affected by these events. So they are just really ambitious and damaging our mother nature sir/maam.

Hydroelectric power resources I think this natural resources will not harm our mother nature, and also there is a solar electric resource which is very safe to use even in your own house that is totally safe. Through these kinds of resources, we would able to run the digital money and having a cashless society which I until now it will never exist.
Yes, calamities will the best struggle in cashless society, without these resources it will never run the cashless society.

[cizatext]

It was difficult for me to actually figure out what you where talking about but if you talk about the next generation and how the use of the natural resources at the present may purse a threat to that generation you should also take into account that most resources being use by this generation for the quest of having a cashless society are all renewable resources and at that the next generation will still have something to build on.

[jaysabi]

This is the problem with industrialized countries they are the one who are mandating that we need to preserve and conserve natural resources for the benefit of the next generations to come. However, they are not worrying when they use too much electricity or power with the ambitious move to make a cashless society. How will they do it without using the natural resources to power up their digital equipment? And then there is no absolute cashless society because anywhere you go you will going to need physical money for a medium of exchange especially in times if there are natural calamities like earthquake, floods, storm and etc. where power could be affected by these events. So they are just really ambitious and damaging our mother nature sir/maam.

Crypto is really the only version of a cashless society that has such high energy demands. There are far more efficient and robust cashless systems already in place that beat the pants off crypto for a slim fraction of the power consumption. Digital fiat, ACH transfer, and other forms electronic payments through the traditional banking system work better than crypto currently does and doesn't require this constant churn of processors sucking up power to rather pointlessly solve algorithms. The world is moving towards a cashless society, but it's quite unlikely to involve cryptocurrencies in any significant way due to the simpler and less consumptive system already in place.

[Vaskiy]

What's been mentioned in the Op is true, preserving of the nature is a must. When we cannot do this surely the impact will be big on the global scale. When we makes plans for implementation, nature needs to be prioritized. If that is possible, we can easily benefit without disturbing the nature. The major cause right now is the need for a growth plan that will never Have any negative impact on nature.

[NavI_027]

As I first read the title of your thread, I'm clueless on how you co-relate our nature with crypto. But As I read to your post, I slowly understand what you are pointing about. Props to you sir.

Using large amount of electricity is not a problem but how they are making that electricity matters

Going back to the topic, sir St4yInTh3D4rk was right. There's nothing wrong of consuming too much energy because the real things which harm our environment are our means of extracting it and the byproducts after using it.

Yeah! There are solar, hydro and wind power generation present but still not widely implemented up to the extent that it finally replace crude oils. This is very hard to achieve because of the high demands of our world and due to the oil oligarchy itself because they want to exterminate the competition so that they can monopolize the market, a simple logic. Another problem, carbon dioxide emissions are inevitable especially to this era where everything was run by a machine. If we can be able to minimize this stuff, I'm sure that our world will now have some more time to heal itself and everything went into balance.

So they are just really ambitious and damaging our mother nature sir/maam.

Crypto revolution damages our nature? I don't think so, just being ambitious only . And I don't see any wrong with that because that's the nature of human — curious and never contented — we always seeking for further improvement and excellence.

[a4techer]

Yes your are right that we need to protect our mother nature by not consuming to much electricity but as we seeing the big picture we are coming for that way because the new technology like cryptocurrency was coming and after 40 to 50 years i think this is what happening. Not only for crypto but also those coming new technology that need electricity. Consuming electricity now is part now part of our daily lives.

[pitiflin]

This is the problem with industrialized countries they are the one who are mandating that we need to preserve and conserve natural resources for the benefit of the next generations to come. However, they are not worrying when they use too much electricity or power with the ambitious move to make a cashless society. How will they do it without using the natural resources to power up their digital equipment? And then there is no absolute cashless society because anywhere you go you will going to need physical money for a medium of exchange especially in times if there are natural calamities like earthquake, floods, storm and etc. where power could be affected by these events. So they are just really ambitious and damaging our mother nature sir/maam.

Preserving nature isn't an easy task. A lot of resources are wasted every day and crypto plays a big role in it. Mining consumes a lot of energy and not every mining farm uses renewable resources. If any country wants to preserve energy and wants to save their country at the very least, for the long run, they need to invest in renewable resources. While some countries have spent a few billion on this, the process on this is very slow. Governments are more concerned on other things at the moment, and preserving nature is no country's top priority. hard facts.  

If people like Bill Gates,Jeff Bezos and other filthy rich people could help in using more of renewable resources, it can help a lot. Also, people should stop chopping down trees. Sometimes I feel that modernization is a fucking curse on our own future.  

[hilawnasaging]

People are busy focusing on modernizing the world, thinking that someday they can help change the future. Yes they can change the future, but the result of risk are high. They are busy focusing on technology that they forgot our nature is slowly dying. Climate change are starting to kick in, polar bears are facing extinction, trees and plants are slowly loosing their population rate, green houses gases are spreading easily in our atmosphere. If we are not able to resolve it fast, then, maybe we have only a 150 years to live.

[maculeth]

yes, traditional markets must also continue to exist for the middle to lower income economies. and that all must happen with cash. let bitcoin only become an online transaction tool, and cash for offline transactions.

[hatshepsut93]

Printing paper money requires a lot of resources, both energy and materials. Same with coins, so regardless of what money we use - electronic payment systems, crypto, cash, we will still have to use resources. But the truth is, they are only a tiny fraction of our resource consumption, and many everyday activities have disproportionately higher negative impact on the environment than using money. It's really counterproductive to attack minor environmental threats when there are thousands of other threats that are way bigger, you only distract the public.

[hildacitra]

Don't you thing that creating or making the virtual currency such as Dollar, Rupiah, etc, is not consuming the electricity or even the main material of those currency is also from our nature. The matter is not how people consuming or using the electricity but how people can respect to the nature. If using or consuming the electricity for our life, it is no matter. In fact, now days many people explore and mine our nature, and they only take advantages.

 

[el kaka22]

Using large amount of electricity is not a problem but how they are making that electricity matters,if they are using electricity from renewable sources like solar,wind and hydro power plants then they can talk about the environment issues but electricity is the reason for transferring from physical money system into cashless system?

Yes, the way it is, it is more like the cashless society is actually the one trying to bring about the preservation of mother nature as the OP so called it, even though I find it a bit hard to understand his points with the likes of flood and seismic activities.

Printing cash alone requires a whole lot which sure also have an impact on the nature itself, since everything used is from nature anyway. In that case, I want to believe like you said, that having a cashless society where only electricity is required which I believe solar, wind, and some other means can be used to generate them, does not sound like a problem to me.

Moving toward a cashless society may seem not necessary as of now but when we enter into fully digitized lief style, it may become as a mandatory thing. I do see already many countries are preparing for cashless society but the success of it will be decided after some time. Moving into cashless society is a change in human's financial world, no one could stop that. Because in this world everything will change only "changing to advancement" will never change.

[cryptolandlords]

Cashless society cannot destroy our mother nature by any means. The electricity for running the cryptocurrency mining farms can be generated using methods that are environment friendly like solar energy.

[magneto]

This is the problem with industrialized countries they are the one who are mandating that we need to preserve and conserve natural resources for the benefit of the next generations to come. However, they are not worrying when they use too much electricity or power with the ambitious move to make a cashless society. How will they do it without using the natural resources to power up their digital equipment? And then there is no absolute cashless society because anywhere you go you will going to need physical money for a medium of exchange especially in times if there are natural calamities like earthquake, floods, storm and etc. where power could be affected by these events. So they are just really ambitious and damaging our mother nature sir/maam.

Digital currencies that compose the mainstream economy may actually be more beneficial to the environment, than previous types of currency.

Gold and silver were essentially one of the longest lasting forms of money. However, we all know that to mine them, huge resources are invested, whole landmasses are being exploited, all to produce this form of asset. Same with paper, you need actual physical resources in order to print the paper money, and also electricity to carry out the printing process.

By having a cashless society, especially on a decentralised blockchain, we could use completely renewable forms of energy while posing no physical harm to the environment whatsoever. It could even boost demand for renewable energy in some cases. Besides, the benefits brought by having a decentralised cryptocurrency as a global currency would far outweigh any increases in energy use, even if that was the case.

[pinoyden]

Cashless society cannot destroy our mother nature by any means. The electricity for running the cryptocurrency mining farms can be generated using methods that are environment friendly like solar energy.

yeah right. Being Cashless or using a crypto is eco friendly because we dont need to to cut trees or to mine a gold in order to create a fiat/regular money .

we can preserve our mother nature just by using a crypto alone but the problem is that we cant always use a crypto due to the fact that cryptos are fully dependent on some important factors like electricity and internet .

Thats why , we still need a fiat/regular money in order to keep us going .

[Omnipotent1]

I'm more against cashless society (as in from the government, not cryptos) because I feel it's a means to abuse power. Sure the government can use it to freeze 100% of a criminal's money, and what would a drug dealer do? (I guess put it into cryptos) But too many good people would rather not have banks or the government in their business.

Of course I feel preserving the environment is more important than a cashless society.