The counterweight elevator is -- by far -- the most energy efficient way for people to live and be supplied. As in, if you need to supply a few thousand people with food and services then cramming them in high rises and surrounding those with facilities in walking distance will consume the least energy. Even more efficient than moving around on bikes or trams. I do not have the book at hand where this was calculated in painstaking detail but I am not sure a human consumes less energy walking up a floor than the elevator does thanks to said counterweight.

Also, if you need to convince people to live in such circumstances then a little convenience goes rather far so that also needs to be considered.

Modern washing machines are certainly more water efficient than hand washing and I wouldn't be surprised, again, if they would be more energy efficient too. Once again: humans consume energy too. Edit: and as someone else noted, we look should look at the societal effect. Well, it's quite clear the washing machine is an extremely big plus as it automates a time consuming, hard physical task.

So far every order effect of LLMs are terrible as they are built on the backs of exploited workers and are used to further disenfranchise workers and also artists.

> As we continue to innovate, we must focus on consuming more energy rather than less.

I think in your fervor to put me down with a flippant comment you went too far. You know this is patently untrue, aren't you? I mean, since you mentioned washing machines surely you are aware both the United States and the EU are pushing hard for more efficient washing machines? https://energy-efficient-products.ec.europa.eu/ecodesign-and... https://environmentamerica.org/center/media-center/biden-adm...

As for lights, LED lights consume less energy and are safer than the old incandescent bulbs. That's once again progressing towards less energy.

Sure we consume more energy than we did pre-industrial revolution but that doesn't mean we must continue upwards.

> The demand for technology leads to advancements that meet our needs

The things you listed are "wants." Perhaps we could say that washing machines has turned into a need, in much the same way crude oil has. What would the world have been had we tamed nuclear power before oil was commercialized?

> You are eager to decide what is useful and what is not

I think GP is eager to decide what is net beneficial, which is a tradeoff between usefulness and cost (monetary, social, environmental.)

I don't personally care that much about Earth. It's a rock in space, and it will continue existing with our without a functioning ecosystem, but I try to be conservative with my actions, so that the people who do care, may continue enjoying it.

At this moment, AI is a "want," not a "need."

> The demand for technology leads to advancements that meet our needs.

Or does the desire for technology leads to advancements that meet our wants? Wants versus needs, and desires versus demands get confusing sometimes.

> It concerns me when some individuals attempt to control others' resource usage,

From a psychological point of view that's understandable. And it does portend an ugly authoritarianism. From a realist standing, it's inevitable if resources are limited. Right now we seem to be limited by the heat capacity of the planetary ecosphere. To avoid that becoming an open conflict I think we need to enrich the debate to talk about appetites rather than needs.

> The demand for technology leads to advancements that meet our needs.

A huge majority of tech advancements are driven by supply rather than demand. Capitalism and modern economics pushes companies to build whatever they can market and sell, they aren't designing new products and tech because consumers already asked for it.