4 ms·

what have we done to this world :(

Waterluvian 8y ago
If we feel guilty enough maybe we can work on seeding other planets. If we just miss nature for our own enjoyment maybe we can throw a bunch of science at it. I think there's this desire to cling onto what's original or authentic. I'm trying to see past that because it's so delicate that it's basically transient.
- bigiain 8y ago
  <cynical response>I wonder what historical and eons-old natural wonder on Mars we're going to ruin when we start driving around on it in a fleet of Tesla Model S and growing potatoes by burning surplus rocket fuel?
  - Waterluvian 8y ago
    I understand the concern but I just see it as two equal choices: preserve what's there or make something new. Perhaps easier to understand if it's "let's take some time to understand what's there before we go make something new." Surely this is an unapproved perspective. It goes against the popular will of science and really goes against our inherent desire not to muck stuff up. I just can't bring myself to really see it being wrong.
    - bigiain 8y ago
      Yeah - the 13 year old scifi reading nerd in me would prefer we build a Dyson Sphere or a Niven Ring - I'd mind much less about environmentally fucking up something we built ourselves... (The downside being that probably requires dismantling both Mars and Earth for construction materials... But hey - we've fucked The Great Barrier Reef already, so why not???)
taberiand 8y ago
We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability. I used to have hope; now it seems past the point of no return. I figure we should just try to enjoy it all while we still can, like everybody else.
- dmichulke 8y ago
  > We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability No. Damage to the environment is done because it's cheap. And why is it cheap? Because the owner of the thing (the state, the town, the "community") doesn't care. Now if there were a real market driven cost (throwing away a plastic bag or a TV would actually cost something), you would reconsider. Next in line is consumption: How about the houses built everywhere on the planet with low interest rates that will never be inhabited because there are not enough people nearby to inhabit it. Next is (as an example) military production in the US (>= 10x the military budget of Germany or Russia), using up money to destroy even more things of value. There are a million reasons and most of them lead down to - low interest rates (incentivizing producers to produce things people wouldn't want, disincentivizing consumers to save) - a lack of democracy and/or accountability of the people in charge (those wars weren't exactly a consequence of people protesting on the streets) - "public ownership" which basically translates to "no one gives a f* because it's not theirs'" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons I suppose the last point is probably the least orthodox, so here are two sources that discuss the issue: Audio: https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism PDF: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%...
  - opportune 8y ago
    You seem to think nobody would ever damage the environment of land they owned. Except that oil companies and other industries do that constantly, across the world, to make money. And in addition to that, throwing things away does have a cost, that’s what we have garbagemen for. It just turns it to be extremely cheap for the most part. Honestly people like you that worship the free market as a panacea confuse me. How does a free market prevent me from dumping toxic waste in the ocean? How does it prevent micro plastics from flowing down rivers into the ocean? How does it prevent me from releasing however much CO2 into the air as I want? I just don’t see it.

If we feel guilty enough maybe we can work on seeding other planets. If we just miss nature for our own enjoyment maybe we can throw a bunch of science at it. I think there's this desire to cling onto what's original or authentic. I'm trying to see past that because it's so delicate that it's basically transient.

bigiain 8y ago
<cynical response>I wonder what historical and eons-old natural wonder on Mars we're going to ruin when we start driving around on it in a fleet of Tesla Model S and growing potatoes by burning surplus rocket fuel?
- Waterluvian 8y ago
  I understand the concern but I just see it as two equal choices: preserve what's there or make something new. Perhaps easier to understand if it's "let's take some time to understand what's there before we go make something new." Surely this is an unapproved perspective. It goes against the popular will of science and really goes against our inherent desire not to muck stuff up. I just can't bring myself to really see it being wrong.
  - bigiain 8y ago
    Yeah - the 13 year old scifi reading nerd in me would prefer we build a Dyson Sphere or a Niven Ring - I'd mind much less about environmentally fucking up something we built ourselves... (The downside being that probably requires dismantling both Mars and Earth for construction materials... But hey - we've fucked The Great Barrier Reef already, so why not???)

taberiand 8y ago

We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability. I used to have hope; now it seems past the point of no return. I figure we should just try to enjoy it all while we still can, like everybody else.

dmichulke 8y ago
> We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability No. Damage to the environment is done because it's cheap. And why is it cheap? Because the owner of the thing (the state, the town, the "community") doesn't care. Now if there were a real market driven cost (throwing away a plastic bag or a TV would actually cost something), you would reconsider. Next in line is consumption: How about the houses built everywhere on the planet with low interest rates that will never be inhabited because there are not enough people nearby to inhabit it. Next is (as an example) military production in the US (>= 10x the military budget of Germany or Russia), using up money to destroy even more things of value. There are a million reasons and most of them lead down to - low interest rates (incentivizing producers to produce things people wouldn't want, disincentivizing consumers to save) - a lack of democracy and/or accountability of the people in charge (those wars weren't exactly a consequence of people protesting on the streets) - "public ownership" which basically translates to "no one gives a f* because it's not theirs'" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons I suppose the last point is probably the least orthodox, so here are two sources that discuss the issue: Audio: https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism PDF: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%...
- opportune 8y ago
  You seem to think nobody would ever damage the environment of land they owned. Except that oil companies and other industries do that constantly, across the world, to make money. And in addition to that, throwing things away does have a cost, that’s what we have garbagemen for. It just turns it to be extremely cheap for the most part. Honestly people like you that worship the free market as a panacea confuse me. How does a free market prevent me from dumping toxic waste in the ocean? How does it prevent micro plastics from flowing down rivers into the ocean? How does it prevent me from releasing however much CO2 into the air as I want? I just don’t see it.