Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
1–10 of 130 posts
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#2I'd still rather have prosperity
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#3I'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.
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#4I'd still rather have prosperity
[deleted]
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#5Crapping 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.
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#6I'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.
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 because it’s an issue that puts them at risk.
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#7I'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.
What makes them vulnerable? What are they vulnerable to? Are there not indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature? Are they prosperous?
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#8There'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.
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#9Earlier 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?
> indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature
This is usually called poverty.
Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature
#10I'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.
Exactly. Equality. People have had no electricity for most of human history. The the vulnerable and poor are considered vulnerable and poor only because, by definition, the wealthy and prosperous exist. The reason not having access to electricity or technology is inherently bad is because the majority do.
All we can do is hope the median moves up over time and, more importantly, and the spread doesn't get too wide.