3 ms·

Yeah, his wording is quite strong, but isn't it even more insulting to have your very existence declared problematic? Let's be honest here, some environmentali

Yeah, his wording is quite strong, but isn't it even more insulting to have your very existence declared problematic? Let's be honest here, some environmentalists really do see too many humans as a problem. I mean, it's phrased in terms of too many people doing too many things and owning to much stuff, which all implies there's to many of us. The next logical question is "ok, so which one of us will have to go"? Your points are mostly valid, but they were all solvable, had people wanted to solve them. The reality is that today there are jurisdictions (Ontario, France) that produce clean, safe, affordable, carbon-free energy because they built and maintained their nuclear plants. But the anti-nuclear crowd did not want to solve issues, they had one aim, which they achieved, and now we have a far bigger issue. The uncomfortable fact remains is that if the rest of the developed world looked like Ontario, climate change would be a far smaller problem. And what bothers me personally isn't that the anti-nuclear left fucked up so badly in the 70s - after all climate change was barely on anyone's register back then. What bothers me is that even today after we see these facts staring at us plainly in the face, they still won't admit they fucked up. This bothers me because even today they won't let you call yourself an "environmentalist" unless you sign up to their very specific implementation of environmentalism.

api 8y ago
> isn't it even more insulting to have your very existence declared problematic? A few loons might hold this view, but overall it's an extreme straw man to argue that this represents a majority view in environmentalism. Pointing out that our existence tends to generate negative externalities that might be very harmful to us in the long run is not anti-human. It's pro-human in that the ultimate goal is to avoid those long term negative consequences. Too many humans might indeed be bad for humans in the long run because too many humans might produce too many negative externalities. Is it anti-well-being to advocate living below one's means to save for the future? Saving implies spending less right now to realize a potential future gain. The environmental movement argues the same, but from the angle that we should spend less right now to avoid future losses. I've often found it intellectually inconsistent for conservatives to oppose environmentalism, since it really reduces to a form of fiscal responsibility. If conservatives are worried about the national debt they should also be worried about the buildup of excess CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean. That's another kind of debt being passed on to future generations. I sometimes wonder if our high monetary debt load and our high environmental debt load might not be directly related. Keynes' famous quote "in the future we are all dead" could turn out to be accurate in a way he did not anticipate.
- martythemaniak 8y ago
  Indeed there are probably a few loons who hold this view explicitly. But there are large numbers that hold this view implicitly - ie, they would never say they want fewer people, but if you actually followed their their preferred course of action, fewer people would be required. I should note that I'm not a conservative and I also find their lack of concern for the environment to be at odds with their own interests and ideology, but what I'm talking about is slightly different. To be an environmentalist doesn't mean sharing some goals, it means having to sign up to a very specific set of views, which ostensibly lead to that goal. Being anti-nuclear power is one of those specific views you have to hold, so being pro-nuclear puts you at odds with most environmentalists, even if both sides of the view lead to the same goal (less CO2 in the atmosphere).
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    We're on a finite planet and numbers are increasing rapidly. Very few countries have a reducing population - Japan, and well, that's about it. At some point the solution has to be fewer people. Looking at the world's pressing problems with loss of species, diversity, soils, climate change etc; all are hugely exacerbated by numbers. Even if we were to perfect interstellar or interplanetary travel we're unlikely to be sending billions. So what is your solution? Anyone who doesn't hold the view that the planet needs fewer humans, in the foreseeable future, is simply ignoring the problem.
    - martythemaniak 8y ago
      The numbers are increasing, but leveling off. High fertility rates only exist in a few regions of the world (Africa, South Asia) and even there they are falling rapidly. The "solution" broadly speaking is higher intensity - of energy, land, everything. If you have compact energy sources (nuclear) powering compact food production (high-yield agriculture, some vertical farming) feeding people living in compact cities (higher density, more ridesharing), then it's doable. You can already see lots of signs of this in the developed countries. This will still require lots of adjustment from people, but asking them to live in duplexes, share rides and eat less meat is much more doable than asking them no you know, not exist. The Breakthrough does lots of great research on this topic: https://thebreakthrough.org/ https://thebreakthrough.org/

api 8y ago

> isn't it even more insulting to have your very existence declared problematic? A few loons might hold this view, but overall it's an extreme straw man to argue that this represents a majority view in environmentalism. Pointing out that our existence tends to generate negative externalities that might be very harmful to us in the long run is not anti-human. It's pro-human in that the ultimate goal is to avoid those long term negative consequences. Too many humans might indeed be bad for humans in the long run because too many humans might produce too many negative externalities. Is it anti-well-being to advocate living below one's means to save for the future? Saving implies spending less right now to realize a potential future gain. The environmental movement argues the same, but from the angle that we should spend less right now to avoid future losses. I've often found it intellectually inconsistent for conservatives to oppose environmentalism, since it really reduces to a form of fiscal responsibility. If conservatives are worried about the national debt they should also be worried about the buildup of excess CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean. That's another kind of debt being passed on to future generations. I sometimes wonder if our high monetary debt load and our high environmental debt load might not be directly related. Keynes' famous quote "in the future we are all dead" could turn out to be accurate in a way he did not anticipate.

martythemaniak 8y ago
Indeed there are probably a few loons who hold this view explicitly. But there are large numbers that hold this view implicitly - ie, they would never say they want fewer people, but if you actually followed their their preferred course of action, fewer people would be required. I should note that I'm not a conservative and I also find their lack of concern for the environment to be at odds with their own interests and ideology, but what I'm talking about is slightly different. To be an environmentalist doesn't mean sharing some goals, it means having to sign up to a very specific set of views, which ostensibly lead to that goal. Being anti-nuclear power is one of those specific views you have to hold, so being pro-nuclear puts you at odds with most environmentalists, even if both sides of the view lead to the same goal (less CO2 in the atmosphere).
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  We're on a finite planet and numbers are increasing rapidly. Very few countries have a reducing population - Japan, and well, that's about it. At some point the solution has to be fewer people. Looking at the world's pressing problems with loss of species, diversity, soils, climate change etc; all are hugely exacerbated by numbers. Even if we were to perfect interstellar or interplanetary travel we're unlikely to be sending billions. So what is your solution? Anyone who doesn't hold the view that the planet needs fewer humans, in the foreseeable future, is simply ignoring the problem.
  - martythemaniak 8y ago
    The numbers are increasing, but leveling off. High fertility rates only exist in a few regions of the world (Africa, South Asia) and even there they are falling rapidly. The "solution" broadly speaking is higher intensity - of energy, land, everything. If you have compact energy sources (nuclear) powering compact food production (high-yield agriculture, some vertical farming) feeding people living in compact cities (higher density, more ridesharing), then it's doable. You can already see lots of signs of this in the developed countries. This will still require lots of adjustment from people, but asking them to live in duplexes, share rides and eat less meat is much more doable than asking them no you know, not exist. The Breakthrough does lots of great research on this topic: https://thebreakthrough.org/ https://thebreakthrough.org/