Overnight, Bitcoin made a strong leap from the 26.5k level and rebounded to the 27.5k level.
Recently, some people in the United States are applying double standards to Bitcoin’s carbon emissions. They claim that Bitcoin mining consumes a certain amount of electricity and results in a corresponding amount of carbon emissions, thus should be subject to a certain emission tax. However, they fail to apply the same standards to Tesla’s electric vehicles, which also consume a significant amount of electricity and generate a substantial amount of carbon emissions. Tesla, on the other hand, receives carbon emission credits from the US government every year and sells them to other companies in need, profiting from it.
Both Bitcoin mining and Tesla’s electric vehicles consume electricity, yet Bitcoin is being taxed while Tesla is being rewarded. If the standard is based on the carbon emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed, then both should be taxed. If the standard is based on a reference value, such as carbon emissions from burning coal or oil, and the actual electricity consumption is from cleaner energy sources, then the same rewards should be given based on the emission reduction. This blatant double standard of punishment and reward is evident.
This issue of carbon emissions and double standards is not new. In a 2010 interview by Chai Jing with Academician Ding Zhongli and Professor Qian Weihong from Peking University, Ding questioned the Western viewpoint of setting emission limits based on countries rather than population, asking, “Are Chinese people not human? Why should the same Chinese person emit less?”
These two cases of double standards may seem different, but they are based on the same underlying logic: using value judgments as a fig leaf for double standards.
In the case of Bitcoin and Tesla, the illogical argument is that Tesla’s new energy vehicles represent the future and have great value, while Bitcoin has no value. Therefore, Tesla’s electricity consumption should be rewarded, and Bitcoin’s electricity consumption should be punished.
In the case of Chinese and American people, it’s the same flawed logic: how high is the value created by each American? Chinese people engage in labor-intensive work, so their value is considered low. Therefore, a Chinese person is deemed unworthy of enjoying the same carbon emission credits as an American.
This logic has caused countless human tragedies throughout history. Eugenics is a product of this logic: able-bodied individuals are considered valuable for their labor, while those who are sick, elderly, or disabled and unable to work are deemed low in value. Thus, forced elimination is advocated for low-value individuals. Racial discrimination is also a product of this logic: white people are considered high in value, while black people are considered low in value. Therefore, white people should be masters, and black people should be slaves. Hitler’s fascism is likewise a product of this logic: the noble Aryan race is deemed high in value, while the inferior Jewish people are considered low in value. Thus, genocide is advocated against the latter.
The philosophical basis of this logic is closely related to Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism. Utilitarianism aims to maximize overall value. However, is there really a unified standard for value? Can value be objectively judged? And is there truly such a thing as “overall value”?
A classic criticism of utilitarianism poses a thought experiment: You, healthy and well, happen to pass by a hospital where five people lie, each with a damaged organ (liver, heart, spleen, lung, kidney) urgently needing replacement. The doctor says that sacrificing you would save the lives of these five people. Moreover, the work positions of these five people are more important and have higher value than yours, and sacrificing yourself would undoubtedly increase the overall value of society and make society better as a whole! Would you be willing?
Value itself is inherently diverse. Something that one person treasures might be considered worthless by another person. What you perceive as having no value, I might consider as valuable as the sky. If you don’t like something, you simply don’t engage with it. But if you refuse to engage with it yourself and also prevent others from doing so, that is sliding towards fascism.
Comments