This is when the argument can be reduced to absurdity, e.g. banning the Bible for the sexual imagery in it. Ban absolutely anything and everything even remotely objectionable to anyone (there are people with feet fetishes, ban all feet, and thus also all shoes), so there’s no Internet at all.

If you worked a shitty job that only earned $1 a day after accounting for work-related expenses (e.g. transportation, professional equipment, taxes, etc), it would be profitable, but not worth your time.

Efficiency of living is not static, I wouldn’t be surprised if it were possible to sustainably support 10B people with a relatively high standard of living.

I heard the following metric recently:

But in China, in 2013, China had terrible particulate air pollution. It was known around the world as the airpocalypse (ph) on a - a 700 on a scale of air pollution from zero to 500, the U.S. embassy reported. And, you know, over the decade after 2013, the size of the Chinese population grew by 50 million people. And so if more people were always worse for the environment, you might think that particle air pollution in China would have gotten worse. But, in fact, particle air pollution in China fell by half, even while the population grew.

Efficiency of living is only starting to come into the public consciousness, and we’re barely rewarding the exploration of that space. I think we’ll find there are a ton of improvements to be had.

That said, it’s a “after we survive the crisis” outlook. It seems hardship from climate change is already inevitable, especially in this upcoming century.

What about encrypted DNS?

That video is super, super wrong, and nowhere even close to “just a different perspective”. To demonstrate, Mercury and Venus should periodically come between the Sun and Earth, but that’ll never happen in that model.