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

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#121

Post by refurb »

lcamach84 wrote: post #106
refurb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have the example of the United States which has economic growth but has recently seen its average life expectancy fall. Many other countries have less GPD per capita but higher average life expectancy. What do you think of this?

Life expectancy is a crappy measure of healthcare, too many confounding factors.

And let’s ignore the US. For other countries with high life expectancy, how do you think they pay for it? By economic growth. Norway drills and sells a ton of oil.

Don’t kid yourself. People clicking on ads and buying new iPhones is the type of economic activities that pays for things like healthcare, welfare for the poor, etc.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#122

Post by taneq »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #115
Amezarak wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Non-human animals seem not to be inclined not to, in general, exhaust existing resources. They certainly do, if given the chance. Boom-bust cycles caused by resource overextraction are common throughout the animal kingdom. The only reason that it isn't apparent to you is because you don't pay a lot of attention to animal resource supplies, and because over a long enough timeframe new equilibriums are sometimes form…

> The only reason that it isn't apparent to you It is apparent to me that no other species (ever) has been implicated in a mass extinction event. I notice both commenters referenced cats - a domesticated and invasive species. > Humans are simply better at resource extraction than other animals. Claiming that humans are 'better' ignores my point that bacteria will happily exhaust whatever resources are given to them.

> It is apparent to me that no other species (ever) has been implicated in a mass extinction event.

Not for lack of trying. Usually another species or the limited size of its habitable area will stop a species before it has a global impact, but if you focus on smaller ecosystems, you get the typical rabbit-and-hare boom-and-bust cycle resulting in extinction of both fairly regularly.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#123

Post by refurb »

littlestymaar wrote: post #114
refurb wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just substitute “modern medical care” for “prosperity” and you’ll see how ridiculous your statement is.

Except in your sentence it doesn't make any sense because there is no arbitrage between nature and modern healthcare. When prosperity means “throwing away tons of electronic crap people give each other for Christmas because they have been exposed to ads and social pressure to buy crap” or “flying planes in circle in the sky because people are nostalgic of traveling during lock-down”, then you can't have “prosperity”…

All that crap people buy and flights people take generate economic value that helps pays for stuff like medical care. You can't have one without the other.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#124

Post by littlestymaar »

refurb wrote: post #123
littlestymaar wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in your sentence it doesn't make any sense because there is no arbitrage between nature and modern healthcare. When prosperity means “throwing away tons of electronic crap people give each other for Christmas because they have been exposed to ads and social pressure to buy crap” or “flying planes in circle in the sky because people are nostalgic of traveling during lock-down”, then you can't have “prosperity”…

All that crap people buy and flights people take generate economic value that helps pays for stuff like medical care. You can't have one without the other.

No. “Economic value”, that is GDP, means consumption. We are consuming plane trips, and that counts as valuable because we were ready to pay for it.

If I enjoy watching people dig holes and refill it in my backyard, and pay people to do so, this is creating “economic value” because “it bring you pleasure, and you were ready to put a hundred dollar in it, that means it gave you $100 of pleasure” (that's literally how GDP works), it doesn't benefit medical care in any way. And it fact, if I'm paying $1000/h for hole digging, I'm actually harming medical care, because some people would become hole digger instead of nurse / doctors / researchers.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#125

Post by refurb »

littlestymaar wrote: post #124
refurb wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that crap people buy and flights people take generate economic value that helps pays for stuff like medical care. You can't have one without the other.

No. “Economic value”, that is GDP, means consumption . We are consuming plane trips, and that counts as valuable because we were ready to pay for it. If I enjoy watching people dig holes and refill it in my backyard, and pay people to do so, this is creating “economic value” because “it bring you pleasure, and you were ready to put a hundred dollar in it, that means it gave you $100 of pleasure” (that's literally how…

I don’t think you said anything that contradicted what I said.

Consumption = creation of economic value = what pays for healthcare

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#126

Post by refurb »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #95
refurb wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Death will always be a thing. I'm not selfish enough to want to enslave the planet to buy me a few more years.

Ok, but don’t force your views on others. If you want to die because a tooth is infected, then go for it. I’ll trade “enslaving the planet a bit” for another 50 decades of life, thank you very much.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#127

Post by littlestymaar »

refurb wrote: post #125
littlestymaar wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. “Economic value”, that is GDP, means consumption . We are consuming plane trips, and that counts as valuable because we were ready to pay for it. If I enjoy watching people dig holes and refill it in my backyard, and pay people to do so, this is creating “economic value” because “it bring you pleasure, and you were ready to put a hundred dollar in it, that means it gave you $100 of pleasure” (that's literally how…

I don’t think you said anything that contradicted what I said. Consumption = creation of economic value = what pays for healthcare

You missed the point, being: “Economic value” can't “pay” for anything, because it's a “spending” (you pay with what you earn, not with what you spend). From an economic PoV, “economic value” is a spending, and “natural resources” (including work) is the earning. When someone is building/designing an iphone, he's not building a MRI scanner, and the energy consumed in the process isn't going to healthcare either.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#128

Post by marcosdumay »

netizen-9748 wrote: post #119
marcosdumay wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are there not indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature? Probably there are some somewhere. But most rely on completely unsustainable practices. > Are they prosperous? You've received some answers, but keep in mind that "poor" is a word we usually apply to people in much wealthier situations.

> Probably there are some somewhere. But most rely on completely unsustainable practices. In what way are the practices unsustainable? Could you give me an example?

Undiscriminating hunting, fire based agriculture, centuries of monocultures without any soil treatment... And always moving into another area because the earlier one isn't productive anymore.

It would really be easier if you explained why you think indigenous (to where?) people live in harmony with the nature.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#129

Post by refurb »

littlestymaar wrote: post #127
refurb wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you said anything that contradicted what I said. Consumption = creation of economic value = what pays for healthcare

You missed the point, being: “Economic value” can't “pay” for anything, because it's a “spending” (you pay with what you earn, not with what you spend). From an economic PoV, “economic value” is a spending, and “natural resources” (including work) is the earning. When someone is building/designing an iphone, he's not building a MRI scanner, and the energy consumed in the process isn't going to healthcare either.

You can’t create economic value without a buyer and a seller, so no it’s not just consumption.

And you cant get an MRI without exchanging something of value (whether paying or with your own money or through taxes).

Hence the creation of economic value on one hand feeds consumer desires and on the other hand creates value that can be spent on things like health care.

You cant have one without the other.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#130

Post by littlestymaar »

refurb wrote: post #129
littlestymaar wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the point, being: “Economic value” can't “pay” for anything, because it's a “spending” (you pay with what you earn, not with what you spend). From an economic PoV, “economic value” is a spending, and “natural resources” (including work) is the earning. When someone is building/designing an iphone, he's not building a MRI scanner, and the energy consumed in the process isn't going to healthcare either.

You can’t create economic value without a buyer and a seller, so no it’s not just consumption. And you cant get an MRI without exchanging something of value (whether paying or with your own money or through taxes). Hence the creation of economic value on one hand feeds consumer desires and on the other hand creates value that can be spent on things like health care. You cant have one without the other.

Here, you are talking about “money” and “transactions” which have very little link with the creation of “economic value”, sorry. Since you don't really understand what we are talking about, I can't do any better than advising you to learn a little bit about economics (any econ 101 on coursera would do the trick).

Good day.

Post reply on HN