3 ms·

we need to price this shit in to the goddamn market, having random unpriced externalities that can just be captured by whatever the base cost to obtain them, is

we need to price this shit in to the goddamn market, having random unpriced externalities that can just be captured by whatever the base cost to obtain them, is reckless. Not only is it not an equitable way to disperse resources, but there is an incentive to just absolutely destroy another key piece of the environment. I am not some tree hugging greenie either, not there would be anything wrong with that, but dispatching remote control bulldozers underwater in droves is going to be a great way to ruin an ocean that already has significant problems.

earlyriser 11y ago
I know I'm nitpicking, and I'm just using your phrase as an example, but it always surprise me how often we exclude ourselves for being green behind an utilitarian argument. I mean, is that a terrible thing? I don't hear often, "I'm not a business shark, but I guess this business should be profitable".
- hanniabu 11y ago
  I consider myself a pretty green person, but I have use the same language as the parent. The reason is because it prevents somebody from jumping to the anti green approach and calling or assuming you're a tree hugger. This way when you state that you aren't a tree hugger but still support a particular argument, it makes them weigh the argument in a reasonable way instead of going on the defensive right away. So it changes the logic from "I'm not a tree hugger, screw your point and ideals" to "I'm not a tree hugger but neither is this guy so his point may be reasonable, let me actually listen to this argument and see". It's a smoke rewording to get a person to be more receptive. (Typed on phone, hope it made sense)
seunosewa 11y ago
It's going to happen eventually. Humans will take over and destroy/transform the sea once we have exhausted the space and resources on land. The best we can do is delay it and try to minimize the impact. We're currently at the hunter/gatherer phase there, but eventually we will mine it more intensively, farm it, 'develop' it and live on/in it. That's why Elon Musk's Mars ambition is so misguided in my view. We'll be living on/in the sea long before settling on Mars becomes feasible.

earlyriser 11y ago

I know I'm nitpicking, and I'm just using your phrase as an example, but it always surprise me how often we exclude ourselves for being green behind an utilitarian argument. I mean, is that a terrible thing? I don't hear often, "I'm not a business shark, but I guess this business should be profitable".

hanniabu 11y ago
I consider myself a pretty green person, but I have use the same language as the parent. The reason is because it prevents somebody from jumping to the anti green approach and calling or assuming you're a tree hugger. This way when you state that you aren't a tree hugger but still support a particular argument, it makes them weigh the argument in a reasonable way instead of going on the defensive right away. So it changes the logic from "I'm not a tree hugger, screw your point and ideals" to "I'm not a tree hugger but neither is this guy so his point may be reasonable, let me actually listen to this argument and see". It's a smoke rewording to get a person to be more receptive. (Typed on phone, hope it made sense)

seunosewa 11y ago

It's going to happen eventually. Humans will take over and destroy/transform the sea once we have exhausted the space and resources on land. The best we can do is delay it and try to minimize the impact. We're currently at the hunter/gatherer phase there, but eventually we will mine it more intensively, farm it, 'develop' it and live on/in it. That's why Elon Musk's Mars ambition is so misguided in my view. We'll be living on/in the sea long before settling on Mars becomes feasible.