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

71–80 of 130 posts

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#71

Post by aboringusername »

Part of me wonders whether Covid-19 was natures way of allowing it a little breathing space, there are many studies about the results of shutting society away for a time and the positive impacts it had on nature (in some cases)

Yet, when I think to what has actually changed, I can't think of much. There were supposed to be more cycle lanes, more pedestrianized areas and less reliance on cars/transport and more emphasis on greener ways of getting around, yet the truth is, the population is too lazy/fat for that and it'd be far too inconvenient (I would suspect the vast vast majority of those with cars would refuse to give them up and would angrily protest at the thought! including myself). Borris Johnson himself said he was too obese and vowed to make changes, yet they never materialized. Why are we so scared to experiment? Why not make it illegal to use a car in London for 1 month and study the impacts/effects?

Can anyone detail any global significant change since we were aware of the "climate emergency"? Cars are as popular as ever, roads are still accessible to cars even if they weren't for a very short time (some areas disallowed cars to enable 'social distancing'). In my view of the world, absolutely nothing has changed or will be changing since it'd require a substantial rethink of how everything works.

We're still warming the planet,

We're still producing far too much plastic,

We're still sending far too much into landfill,

We're still having far, far too many children who just consume for their entire lives and input/provide nothing of value back,

We're still consuming way too much of nature,

for no benefit to nature whatsoever.

And that will continue until the day humans are essentially extinct, no government is capable of reversing the damage already done and damage to come, they just want good "PR" to be see as "helping".

If we are serious about this, we need to implement laws now about population control, there are too many families who do not need kids which are causing the trouble (among other things)

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#72

Post by alexilliamson »

spodek wrote: post #54
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.

Sorry to see people downvote your statement, which is clear and obvious to those who can step outside the mainstream system and its values of material growth, externalizing costs, extraction, comfort, convenience, and efficiency. Many cultures have thrived with complementary values of personal growth, responsibility, sustainability, meaning. purpose, and resilience. Those values reinforce each other just as much and…

Well said.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#73

Post by CuriouslyC »

hvasilev wrote: post #33

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.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#74

Post by [deleted] »

eznzt wrote: post #51
ArnoVW wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the people that suffer the consequences but that do not have prosperity? What about the people that come after you? I think this cartoon sums it up quite aptly: https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

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.

[deleted]

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#75

Post by BiteCode_dev »

wombatmobile wrote: post #53
akvadrako wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also there is more forest than before.

Where? Could you quantify that in hectares or acres?

In France at least. Our forests have been growing faster than we cut them for a few decades.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#76

Post by 7952 »

hot_fuzzybear wrote: post #32
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.

Although humanity sucks for centuries, we could make the argument, that the 20th century was the century where there was more done for the environment than in the last millennia. Many species that were considered displaced or even extinct have returned to their natural habitat and reclaimed their native land. Science and education showed us the right way forward, making cities way cleaner than ever before. I do not k…

But the environment is deeply political! A seemingly simple decision can be fraught with unintended consequences across different groups of people. Just allowing or banning a pesticide could have impact on human health, insect population, birds, pollinators, the livelihood of farmers, and rural economies. Politics is the system we have invented to deal with this complexity, and we should accept that people will have conflicting views in the same way as any other issue.

I think people have tried to artificially de-politicize the environment into something technocratic. But there is no scientific formula that can justify destroying a coal miners livelihood in favor of renewables. That is justified because fighting climate change and air pollution is the right thing to do. That is a moral and a political choice.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#77

Post by A12-B »

eznzt wrote: post #68
brabel wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your justification for not caring is a circular "because it is the most popular position". You still know it's wrong and have no good justification for it, of course people are going to shame you. It's not some media agenda.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#78

Post by Xylakant »

pedro_hab wrote: post #20
Xylakant wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 becaus…

This isn't true at the moment, it could be in the future. Less people die because of nature disasters and such today that they did 100 years ago. Technology and medicine helps us, they would, without a doubt, be better off with technology than they do without it.

> This isn't true at the moment, it could be in the future.

Shell just lost a lawsuit because they did spill oil all over the Niger Delta https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jan/29/f...

Took only a decade and a bit to even acknowledge that they’re liable.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#79

Post by CuriouslyC »

refurb wrote: post #64
lcamach84 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Prosperity comes at 'devastating' cost to nature

#80

Post by realusername »

evilsetg wrote: post #69
realusername wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Because we still would be in trouble right now even if the emissions would reach an absolute zero. Additionally, contraction can make it worse because it destroys the budget needed for carbon removal.

I do agree that we've got some reduction of emissions during covid but the amount of public money spent to try to prop up the economy is massive across the world, I'm afraid that this will severely affect public spending for carbon removal technologies & public support for carbon taxes.

Post reply on HN