Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature • Hacker News Board

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#21

Post by cabaalis » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 12:20 PM UTC

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.

It requires respecting nature as a new class of asset. I think anyone might understand who has had the beautiful field next to their home developed into a neighborhood, or watched the woods behind their house torn down and developed.

Had that beautiful field or wooded area been given a "nature cost" to destroy, maybe the developers would have made other choices.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#22

Post by graeme » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 12:21 PM UTC

xenocratus wrote: post #18

> 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.

The theory is that ecosystem destruction pushes animals into closer contact with humans, allowing zoonotic spread to happen.

However, as the origins of covid-19 are unknown it’s too soon to say this applies to the current pandemic.

Common alternatives for viral origin are hunting, animal husbandry and animal markets, but contra to early theories the wet market in Wuhan is not thought to be the origin. Chinese authorities tested and found no virus amongst animals there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigations_into_the_orig...

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#23

Post by mhh__ » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 12:21 PM UTC

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.

Clean power is often more expensive at least initially, contraction would not only kill people through poverty but also make the environment worse as jobs transition to agriculture and power is generated through things like Coal and Oil

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#24

Post by flyinglizard » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 12:22 PM UTC

legulere wrote: post #16

eznzt wrote: post #2

I'd still rather have prosperity

It’s not an either or question. A devastated nature will also lead to less prosperity. We’re more in the realm of takin on debt we can never pay back.

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.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#25

Post by littlestymaar » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 12:23 PM UTC

eznzt wrote: post #2

I'd still rather have prosperity

Those who would give up nature, to purchase a little prosperity, deserve neither and will end up losing both.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#26

Post by realusername » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 12:23 PM UTC

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.

> 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 referencing carbon removal technologies because everybody realized that's the only viable solution at that point.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#27

Post by ArnoVW » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 12:24 PM UTC

xenocratus wrote: post #18

> 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.

Generally when people say that about Covid, what they mean is that zoonotic diseases (diseases that spread between animals and humans) could be prevented by:

a) separating dense human populations from wildlife

b) having in place systems for the detection of outbreaks

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#28

Post by rimliu » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 12:24 PM UTC

nly wrote: post #5

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.

It is not new for any species. Others just have no means to reason about it.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#29

Post by guerrilla » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 12:24 PM UTC

nly wrote: post #10

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.

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.

> for most of human history

I think the problems of the poor today are quite different than those of people of the past. For most of human history, people were not trapped within borders and systems of private property and so could provide for their basic needs. They don't just not have resources, they are prevented from having them. Nor were people of the past going to be the effected the most (according to everything I read) by pollution and climate change. Things have changed a lot, I'd say.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#30

Post by cool_dude85 » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 12:24 PM UTC

eznzt wrote: post #2

I'd still rather have prosperity

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 choices you're making than you are! Why don't they get a say too?