1/ The Problem w/ Moralizing Energy Consumption & Bitcoin
There are many who consider the energy spent on Bitcoin Proof-of-Work (PoW) hashing for the purpose of security an unethical activity on moral grounds. I believe this to be flawed (& relative) argument w/out resolution.

2/ Please bare with me as I believe this line of thinking to be an argumentative dead-end. Let me preface by stating that I am NOT a conservationist but an extreme environmentalist. I don't believe that the solution to humanity's environmental problems reside in energy austerity.

3/ The entire premise of LIFE itself is the multiplicative exertion of energy to manipulate it's environment for propagation. I won't argue this point since it is self-evident, fundamental & unarguable based on the sheer volume of evidence. Moving on.

4/ The idea of energy conservation is an affront to the instinct of all living things (& frankly a strong negative in the environmental movement as the countless hypocrisies from advocates are exposed). The truth of the matter is that evolution ascends a ladder of energy leverage

5/ As you move up the evolutionary scale it becomes abundantly clear that life-forms that can manipulate matter/energy in the most efficient manner possible are ultimately the most successful (strength / speed / intelligence, etc.). Bacteria/Viruses are bifurcated counter-ex.

6/ So the problem w/ taking a moral / ethical stance against energy consumption is that ultimately you're forced to defend any arbitrary manipulation of energy/matter w/out any evolutionary ground for/against otherwise. This is anti-life by definition.

7/ I would go even further and suggest that conservation is only a stop-gap measure for slowing down an inevitable rate of ever-increasing energy & matter consumption driven by the human condition. This slow-down is at the expense of present vs. future life.

8/ Please don't misconstrue anything I've said as justification for environmental ruin. That is clearly counter to life in an even higher measure & the opposite of what I'm stating. In fact, conservation ultimately undermines environmentalism because it is contrary to our nature.

9/ The real problem that needs solution isn't better ways of stop-gapping our nature, but rather higher levels of energy / matter manipulation w/out impacting our environment. This is an extremely tall order but that is the root problem after all. I promise I'll get to the point.

10/ So if energy consumption in of itself cannot be a moral negative (anti-life), the issue resides in matters of efficiency & waste. One would not compare the energy consumption of growing corn to marijuana w/out pricing externalities (even though we know neither are).

11/ Comparisons have to be made based on consumptive desire for a given outcome. In theory a market would drive to the lowest natural cost for a given unit of output if all things were fair & accounted for. We know we are far from that. Engineers seek efficiency as an end.

12/ Back to my point. Bitcoin & other PoW blochains may consume massive amounts of energy, may consume less than banks / FIs, may consume more than Colombia or less than cigarette makers. That's not the relative point. The point is that the problem it solves does so inefficiently

13/ If you consider blockchains as living ecosystems they resemble organisms (sometimes mutating, growing, aging, even splitting!). As in my original thesis, the most successful organisms are those that manipulate matter / energy the most EFFICIENTLY for the same result.

14/ All other factors being equal, a competitive ecosystem is therefore required to seek the lowest energy state possible for the same outcome otherwise it will naturally, & eventually, be subsumed by a more efficient competitor. This is the logic. This is why PoW is dead.