I like this!

Perhaps you can help me explain to my captives that the guillotine is a good method for executing them. It is quieter than my shotgun (about 8Db vs 88Db) and the guillotine requires only 1/5th the amount of wood as the gallows requires (and only 25% of the rope). Guillotines can unintentionally amputate a digit or an appendage, but so can butcher knives, cars, hydraulic presses, lathes, CNC machines, augers, and this owes to operator error. At the end of their life cycle, guillotines are far more recyclable than gas chambers, and more sustainable with less carbon output and far less dependency on supply chains. And both MVCs and overdoses of prescription drugs kill far more people (4000% and 5200%, respectively) than guillotines kill each year.

Now you take it from here, please.

That's certainly a prevailing sentiment, but not my own, as I don't regard electrical generation as inevitable (or beneficial).

Presumably all my downvoters don't like all the destructive consequences I already mentioned, they simply don't want to prevent those things if it means forsaking electricity and modern gadgets.

Is manufacturing giant objects and transporting them faraway to stand them up so that they can generate electricity (and sometimes kill birds) good for the environment?

Is artificial lighting at night good for the human Circadian rhythm or for birds migration or hunting patterns, or for insects night-flight cycles?

Is powering gadgets and global communications and transports good for screen addiction and FOMO and social media nonsense and drug/human trafficking and spreading a local virus in short time to become a worldwide pandemic?

In an alternate universe, the Nazi war machine was zero-emissions, producing bombs with wind energy and fueling attack aircraft with ethanol and tanks with biodiesel! Was this good for the environment?

"The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race."