91–100 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where? Could you quantify that in hectares or acres?
The trend is upward over the last 40 years (about 7% more global forest cover now than in 1982[0]) but I don’t think the data exist to extrapolate further back to, say, the beginning of the 20th century. [0]: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offse... Edit: oh god 1982 was almost 40 years ago not 30. Tempus fugit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's a natural phenomenon?
Uh, yes. No other animal species pontificates about living in harmony with nature, or preserving the balance, or anything of the sort. They're all fighting tooth and nail to survive and, if successful, outcompete. We're only exceptional in that we're so successful, and that we sometimes contemplate deliberately limiting our growth.
Non-human animals seem not to be inclined not to, in general, exhaust existing resources. They seem to have no interest in this, even where it would give them a monopolistic economic advantage over their competitors. You don't see animals hunting for sport.
On the other hand, bacteria and viruses will exhaust the resources given to them, and thus end up limiting their own growth. Humans are not so exceptional in this regard.
All technological revolutions require more energy and consumption. Remember that the infinite source of societal wealth is technological progress. If you limit technological progress then economics becomes zero sum. This cannot happen, it is a precursor to endless world wars and our inevitable doom by our own hands. Prosperity vs nature is not a question. There is no path backwards, there is only forward. The only ho…
The problem is overpopulation. Who cares if economics is zero sum when there is more than enough for everyone? It's only when there's scarcity of the necessities that war becomes a foregone conclusion. The path backwards is depopulation, and living as stewards of nature who help the land flourish rather than viewing it as a resource to be raped for the benefit of the few.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prosperity is about having an abundance of the things in life that really matter. That only requires economic growth when there aren't enough of those things to go around. Right now, there are enough of those things to go around, and way more, if all the people doing stupid useless shit like working in advertising became farmers and makers. Our society is being held hostage by plutocrats.
This is a fantasy that sounds good in practice, but sucks in reality. You’re dying of incurable cancer. Do you have enough or do you want more economic growth so we can try and cure it? If you're willing to die from stepping on a nail, then ok. I'm not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where? Could you quantify that in hectares or acres?
The trend is upward over the last 40 years (about 7% more global forest cover now than in 1982[0]) but I don’t think the data exist to extrapolate further back to, say, the beginning of the 20th century. [0]: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-forest-loss-years-offse... Edit: oh god 1982 was almost 40 years ago not 30. Tempus fugit.
The forests that have grown back are not as healthy as the old growth. In the NE of America, the oaks and transitional maples have greatly diminished. Faster growing, and invasive species have taken their place. Less diversity in the wildlife, as the new trees don't provide the same amount of shelter.
The importance of grasslands are overlooked. The prairies in NA have been turned into a monoculture nightmare. Grasses grow fast and are great at capturing carbon, providing food, and habitat for animals.
Crapping on nature isn't new for our species. As an example consider how we deforested Europe over the last five centuries, or drove boney whale species to the brink of extinction. The difference this time (with severe climate change) is that actually might upset our way of life. Maybe it's a lesson we need to learn.
I don’t think the forests will (soon) return to what was there in Roman times, though. There’s a lot less, and of lower age (I don’t think Caesar’s men would find it as easy to find the huge trees they used to build a bridge over the Rhine in today’s forest as they found it two thousand years ago)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was framed as an either-or choice in the headline. Between nature and prosperity - I’d absolutely pick prosperity; my hopes are that we’ll come full circle and use prosperity to repair nature (green tech and all that), so that perhaps ecologically destructive actions taken during the last few centuries will be more of a loan from nature to us than a permanent grant.
The enlightened caveman, after whacking some other poor guy upside the head with a big club: "My hope is to use this food I took from you to develop new medical technologies to fix your shattered skull. This is more of a loan than a grant."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.w…
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in your second paragraph. Maybe you could elaborate?
[0] https://e360.yale.edu/features/paris-conundrum-how-to-know-h...