3 ms·

> 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 arg

by 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/
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      That may buy a little time, but unless or until the numbers actually start falling it doesn't actually solve the problem. It's not asking them not to exist, I can't foresee compulsory euthanasia camps, it's merely asking them to limit procreation. China shows it's doable - though I'm sure there's better ways to achieve limits. At least that gives our future generations a chance of experiencing some of the things that make life interesting with still functional ecosystem and wildlands.
nickik 8y ago
With a 'few loons' you mean many of the founders of the environmentalist movement that are still highly respected today. These people were the founders of some of the larger organisations today. In fact these 'loons' were invited to give talks in popular TV. There are some of the early environmentalists who changed position and realized these issues, but the waste majority did not. See 'Russel Brand' who help start the environmental movement and has tried to tell them for years that nuclear is the way to save the world. Of course he was basically made into a traitor. > It's pro-human in that the ultimate goal is to avoid those long term negative consequences. No. Saying we should have less people and let more people die faster in order to delay 'perceived ' negative long term consequences, is a anti-humanist way of thinking. > 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. Clearly you have not actually read that stuff. They don't want to save for the future, they thought that there were already to many people on earth and they wanted fewer. Conservatives have made many mistakes in this as well, but not so fundamental as liberals.

by api 8y ago

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/
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    That may buy a little time, but unless or until the numbers actually start falling it doesn't actually solve the problem. It's not asking them not to exist, I can't foresee compulsory euthanasia camps, it's merely asking them to limit procreation. China shows it's doable - though I'm sure there's better ways to achieve limits. At least that gives our future generations a chance of experiencing some of the things that make life interesting with still functional ecosystem and wildlands.

nickik 8y ago

With a 'few loons' you mean many of the founders of the environmentalist movement that are still highly respected today. These people were the founders of some of the larger organisations today. In fact these 'loons' were invited to give talks in popular TV. There are some of the early environmentalists who changed position and realized these issues, but the waste majority did not. See 'Russel Brand' who help start the environmental movement and has tried to tell them for years that nuclear is the way to save the world. Of course he was basically made into a traitor. > It's pro-human in that the ultimate goal is to avoid those long term negative consequences. No. Saying we should have less people and let more people die faster in order to delay 'perceived ' negative long term consequences, is a anti-humanist way of thinking. > 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. Clearly you have not actually read that stuff. They don't want to save for the future, they thought that there were already to many people on earth and they wanted fewer. Conservatives have made many mistakes in this as well, but not so fundamental as liberals.