Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 130 posts

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#11

Post by pedro_hab »

netizen-9748 wrote: post #7
pedro_hab wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! A lot of people don't even have access to electricity, even more don't use as much because of the price. We would need to be using way more fossil fuels / nuclear to have more equality. This idea to reduce our impact in nature forgets the most vulnerable, which could use some impact in nature in order to have more prosperity. Well, this is all way easier said than done.

What makes them vulnerable? What are they vulnerable to? Are there not indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature? Are they prosperous?

Nature, they are vulnerable to nature.

They could use cars, ambulances, hospitals and etc.

Nature is brutal, always has been, no one lives on harmony with it.

Look at the indigenous peoples death rate, child mortality.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#12

Post by throwaways885 »

ciconia wrote: post #8

There's no two ways about it: economic growth means more ecological damage. Technology will not save us. IMO the only way to mitigate the onslaught of climate change is to do a controlled contraction of the world economy. If we do not do this willingly, nature will force it upon us.

Okay, you first.

Being less facetious, we can grow the economy while reducing the resources we require with the right incentives in place.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#13

Post by LockAndLol »

eznzt wrote: post #2

I'd still rather have prosperity

That's shortsighted. Humanity will run off the proverbial cliff if that sentiment stays.

Sure, you might not suffer now, but at this point, probably your kids and/or grandkids will. If you don't have nor want kids, then you'll be hurting your friends' and relatives' kids.

If you really don't care, well ain't nothing that can be said to convince you otherwise unless you feel the actual effects.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#14

Post by konjin »

ciconia wrote: post #8

There's no two ways about it: economic growth means more ecological damage. Technology will not save us. IMO the only way to mitigate the onslaught of climate change is to do a controlled contraction of the world economy. If we do not do this willingly, nature will force it upon us.

We need to stop pretending that nature will survive. Once you start treating the natural world as just another finite resource all sorts of policies become common sense.

For example an oxygen tax to keep enough land set aside for plants of some description. Or better yet, fusion based co2 scrubbers.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#15

Post by pedro_hab »

jl6 wrote: post #9
netizen-9748 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes them vulnerable? What are they vulnerable to? Are there not indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature? Are they prosperous?

> indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature This is usually called poverty.

Yeah, they think its great to live in the jungle, seeing every other newborn dying, just cus your carbon footprint is low.

They couldn't care less for those forgotten children.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#18

Post by xenocratus »

> Covid-19 has shown us what can happen when we don't do this, he added. "Nature is our home. Good economics demands we manage it better."

I fail to see the link, can someone please explain? Is it that Covid-19 has shown us what could happen if we dampen our impact, e.g. less pollution, wildlife being more visible etc.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#19

Post by finiteseries »

pedro_hab wrote: post #3
eznzt wrote: post #2

I'd still rather have prosperity

Yes! A lot of people don't even have access to electricity, even more don't use as much because of the price. We would need to be using way more fossil fuels / nuclear to have more equality. This idea to reduce our impact in nature forgets the most vulnerable, which could use some impact in nature in order to have more prosperity. Well, this is all way easier said than done.

It’s not just having the fuel.

Nigeria is oil rich, absolutely bogged down with the stuff in the southern parts of the country.

Somewhere in the central/northernish part of the country is a family owned farm that runs entirely off of diesel generators out of a lack of decent power generation. An immense amount of money is spent simply on fuel.

Those costs naturally affect transport of their goods, and the price they get for them.

The most pressing issue by far in their micro region however, are herdsman from another ethnic group to the north intentionally running their cattle onto newly planted fields to graze.

Not power generation. Not prosperity. Not nature.

They’re planting melons near the approach to their land last I heard as cattle can’t eat the shoots? I’m not sure, but it sounded like a common solution.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#20

Post by pedro_hab »

Xylakant wrote: post #6
pedro_hab wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! A lot of people don't even have access to electricity, even more don't use as much because of the price. We would need to be using way more fossil fuels / nuclear to have more equality. This idea to reduce our impact in nature forgets the most vulnerable, which could use some impact in nature in order to have more prosperity. Well, this is all way easier said than done.

Our impact in nature also affects the most vulnerable disproportionately bad. Changing weather pattern, floods, droughts, poisoning the niger delta with oil leaks is a result of an economic system that puts (our) prosperity above all other goals. It’s no coincidence that China is actually making increasingly strong environmental demands and promises. They’re not doing it for some romantic notion of nature, but becaus…

This isn't true at the moment, it could be in the future.

Less people die because of nature disasters and such today that they did 100 years ago.

Technology and medicine helps us, they would, without a doubt, be better off with technology than they do without it.

Post reply on HN