3 ms·
The damage of bringing a billion people electricity?
by llccbb 9y ago
The damage of bringing a billion people electricity?
- all_usernames 9y agoA billion more people who can now participate in the system that's already polluted the planet to the brink.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoMuch better to keep them empoverished and undeveloped, right? /s This sort of argument is exactly why I see environmentalism as anti-human at its heart.
- e9 9y agoI agree with you, but can you talk more about this? Is there an article or some other resource that talks more about this topic?
- duncan_bayne 9y agoAn illustrative starting point is the Golden Rice fiasco: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
- mikeash 9y agoMost environmentalists want to bring a high standard of living to everybody in a sustainable way. Yes, there are some over on the "voluntary human extinction" end of the spectrum, but you shouldn't tar them all with that brush.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoCertainly, that's true of most people who support green policies of various sorts. But I'm not at all sure it's true of the majority of environmentalist organisations and parties. I think there is as much of a disconnect between green voters and the desires of green politicians and lobbyists, as there is between the interests of Trump voters and Trump's interests. It's fairly common to hear green orgs denouncing industrialisation, economic growth, free trade, etc. In New Zealand, the Green Party was in part founded by literal Communists, left adrift and unfunded after the fall of the USSR. To summarise, I think that most people who think they are supporting what you said - a high standard of living in a sustainable manner - are actually supporting anti-capitalists.
- mikeash 9y agoI guess it's just a question of how you label various groups? I wouldn't consider fringe Green Parties or similar organizations to be representative of environmentalism. If I should be using another term, I wouldn't object too much.