• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    617 hours ago

    I refuse to go to a public bath house. People are nasty and it could be easy to catch skin based diseases like warts.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 day ago

    We should bring back the public bathhouse but not for this, we should bring it back for the community building aspect

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    61 day ago

    Some of us just want to be naked around our neighbors!

    Is that OK with you, Larry? I don’t judge you for your little preferences, do I Larry?

    Now go heat up the bath.

  • Yer Ma
    link
    fedilink
    492 days ago

    I have solar, and electric water heat… I don’t want to share my bath with the community

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    322 days ago

    A hot bath being wasteful because you have to heat water and need a sewer is ridiculous.

    Solar water heaters are a thing and grey water reuse is also a thing.

    You don’t even need electricity to have a private bath.

    In addition, prior to the modern era regular bathing was often a privilege of the elite, not to mention the hygiene concerns of a giant bowl of people soup.

    Bathhouses still exist in the form of steam rooms and the like, and you could make an argument about the inefficiency of personal hot tubs, but those are more specific examples of “bathing” as a recreational activity and not a hygienic one.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    23
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The idea that most bathing throughout human history has been inherently communal is kind of absurd on its face.

    It’s not like every single whole town or tribe would go to the same spot on the same river at the same time to bathe. Communal bathing may be common amongst some cultures and peoples but the mass communal bathing of the Roman, Victorian, and modernish ages was driven by necessity once you had too many people cramped into too little space, and there were also huge health implications from that lack of hygiene.

    I also really do not trust the author napkin math about how much energy Roman baths used, nor does he even establish that household showering is a significant water or energy use compared to wasteful industry.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    152 days ago

    This is a hilarious take. Home efficiency absolutely needs improvement, but trying to force people together isn’t going to help win anyone over to a greener future.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    142 days ago

    That’s a ridiculous take.

    Cool article about bath houses though.


    My bet would be that it would be easier to relocate every major city in the sub tropics and further, into the tropics where the solar energy is available, than to convince people to give up hot water at home.

    We won’t do either.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    92 days ago

    Solarpunk is not about switching to a scrappy medieval lifestyle, it is about building a sustainable comfortable future.

    Why do so many people always assume that energy uses are necessarily unsustainable or scarce? It is the first part of “SOLARpunk”. You can have renewable and abundant energy.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      122 hours ago

      Why do so many people always assume that energy uses are necessarily unsustainable or scarce? It is the first part of “SOLARpunk”. You can have renewable and abundant energy.

      It’s not an assumption, it’s a calculation. There’s no way you can use the same amount of energy with solar and wind as you can with fossil fuels and nuclear. Cutting use is the thing. Anyone who’s looked at the numbers of the energy budget is forced to conclude this.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        211 hours ago

        Show me the calculation then. To me it is clear that we are heading towards 100% renewables now that batteries have reached prices that makes intermittence a solvable problem.

        To me the switch to renewable, on the contrary, will remove many scarcity constraints from energy production. We will have peak production times where energy will have a negative cost. This will radically change the way we think about energy consumption.

        There’s no way you can use the same amount of energy with solar and wind as you can with fossil fuels and nuclear.

        Renewables keep reaching “impossible” milestones. Recently in many places, including places in the US, renewables surpass coal so to create an “impossible” milestone you need to separate wind and solar from other renewables and lump together fossils and nuclear (which is not a problematic source for the climate)

        I mean, can you imagine telling people 15 years ago that even Texas, despite its toxic mentality of coupling fossil fuels and masculinity would produce more wind energy than coal energy by 2024? The trend is clear, the impossible thresholds are met one after the other and without electricity production dropping.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      62 days ago

      Right but even renewable and abundant energy is scarce, in that it’s not infinite and mismanagement or inefficient use can mean it’s not there when you need it.

      Communal kitchens, bathrooms and toilets mean that all the energy, materials and manpower saved from deduplicated construction and maintenance can go somewhere else.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 days ago

        Renewable and abundant is what we are going full speed towards. No need to mention infinity but we will clearly end up with more renewable energy production than fossil energy we are using now. Renewables are going to actually end scarcity of energy.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 days ago

          It doesn’t make sense to shift all consumption to renewables if there’s no thought for efficient consumption or reducing consumption. There’s a finite amount of renewable energy that can be extracted, if consumption itself isn’t managed we can be right back in the same boat of unmet needs in another century.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            12 days ago

            What do you think gets exhausted when we generate solar energy?

            The very point of renewables is to not consume resources to generate energy, but merely when installing capacities.

            And our current problem is not of unmet needs, it is of climate damage done by fossil fuels. Climate-wise, the planet would be better off if humans used 10x more energy in a sustainable way rather than using half as much without changing their energy mix.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 day ago

              Not when solar is generated. Creating and maintaining infrastructure, and using space for infrastructure.

              Maybe your current problem isn’t unmet needs, but there are plenty of people who do have that problem.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                Not when solar is generated. Creating and maintaining infrastructure, and using space for infrastructure.

                So, what do you think gets exhausted when we are doing this?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 day ago

                  Time, materials, and physical space? Ideally all of the last two is reusable/ renewable after the end of lifespan on the piece of infrastructure, but in current supply chain it is not.

          • AwesomeLowlander
            link
            fedilink
            22 days ago

            By current trends the world population will stabilise or begin shrinking in the next century or so

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      6
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      There’s a difference between “renewable and abundant” and “infinite”.

      It would take the resources of five Earths for everyone on the planet to live like an American. More solar panels aren’t going to change that.

      What will bring sustainability is Americans, and other people living wealthy Western lifestyles, learning to live comfortably with fewer resources. You can be comfortable without eating beef for dinner every night. You can be comfortable living in a resource-efficient apartment instead of a sprawling subdivision. You can be comfortable taking public transit instead of owning a car, or teleworking instead of commuting daily, or having a low flow shower in your home instead of a tub.

      Home ownership, car ownership, a meat heavy diet, fast fashion, disposable technology, plastic everything, are entitlements that you receive as a benefit of living in the imperial core. These are not necessities of life. You just think they are because patriotic and corporate propaganda has convinced you of it to make you a collaborator in its colonial extraction of the world’s resources.

      A sustainable comfortable future doesn’t just mean improving the standard of living of the poorest in the world. It means the world’s wealthiest need to check their entitlement and learn the difference between comfort and luxury.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        There’s a difference between “renewable and abundant” and “infinite”.

        The amount of energy required to heat bath water is not infinite.

        More solar panels aren’t going to change that.

        Well yes it will. That’s the whole point. To get out of fossil fuels. You get out of it by replacing things that require fossil fuels by renewable ones. You don’t get out of it by merely using less of it.

        That’s the mentality I dont get.