I'd still rather have prosperity
The title should say economic growth and not prosperity. You can have prosperity in a system whose objective is not infinite growth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPUogXUkr7I
Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
61–70 of 130 posts
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
A question for you - are you one of the relatively few people on Earth who actually gets a part of that prosperity? Like, access to electricity on demand, enough food to eat, clean water to drink, health care, the whole deal? Cause there are a lot of people who don't get to have prosperity and still are seeing the effects of your choices. In fact, many of them are even more impacted by the harmful effects of the choi…
Developing nations pollute more than developed nations. They are mostly seeing the effect of their own choices. (yes, you could argue they don’t exactly have a choice, but still it’s not like they’re suffering from GP’s personal choices)
This is not true. Per capita, the highest polluters are developed nations. On absolute terms, the highest polluters are also developed nations.
Most pollution comes from industry, not individuals. As far as I'm aware you cannot choose what another industry does, because they have private rights. There is no 'but still', no one has a choice.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#63I'd still rather have prosperity
If given the choice between not dying of a tooth infection and the destruction of some not insignificant part of nature, I’d take not dying as well.
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#64I'd still rather have prosperity
The title should say economic growth and not prosperity. You can have prosperity in a system whose objective is not infinite growth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPUogXUkr7I
I’m not watching your video but prosperity (as most people define it) and economic growth are very closely linked.
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not new for any species. Others just have no means to reason about it.
I don't think any other species has upset the ecological balance to such an extent that it becomes unlivable for them
Unfortunately, the overpopulation of some species can cause havoc to the environment as well and can even lead to an environmental collapse (e.g. desertification). From mammals to viruses and bacteria there can always be unaccounted dominant force. Two examples come to my mind, 1) the lack of predators can lead to overpopulation and total exhaustion of the habitat (currently happening in the central Europe), 2) world supply of bananas being endangered by Panama disease. Who knows, maybe one day humanity will be conquered by super-corona
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#66Is there a way to plausibly and without corruption just tax these externalities at least more than the cost of repairing the damage - and spend the tax money actually doing that?
There is some problem in competitive systems that somebody will have an advantage over you once you tax these externalities. For this to work you would need the world (or a big enough part of it) to cooperate on this issue.
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#67Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care. I know this will get downvoted, but it is the most popular position—most people simply don't care. I don't, either.
Given the actual attitude of most people, rather than their word, I believe you do represent a majority of humans.
Yes, that's the result of decades of shaming by the mass media. They make people feel guilty about not caring, so they won't say it out loud, but they still don't care, so they won't change their choices.
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#69There'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.
> IMO the only way to mitigate the onslaught of climate change is to do a controlled contraction of the world economy This straight up does not work, it's too late for that. It might be tempting as a philosophical thought but contraction just cannot work. It might have been a viable option in the 70s or 80s but we're past that point and it's too late to change the past emissions. Even the Paris agreements are referen…
Why do you think contraction "just cannot work"?
I think nobody really believes technology will not be part of the solution. Rather the question is if just technology will be able to solve the problem.
edit: added question mark
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#70I mean, one of the interesting changes that's soon happening is the transition from ICE to electric cars. I think the core issue is the concept of cars themselves . Storing them all over the road (they are everywhere!), people using them for very short journeys, their accessibility/cheapness to practically anyone and how much our society relies on them each and every day, even at the cost of the beloved hedgehogs whi…
"Maybe we deserve to be the chickens for once. "
Many people actually do live like those chickens.
Anyway, cutting the heads off of chickens is not really a problem with me. But how those chickens have to "live" before that. That bothers me.
Nature is not soft either btw., a wounded chicken in the forest would get eaten alive by ants for example. But before that, it usually had a intense life.
The chickens in the factory have no life. (and many of the people who eat them, neither)