5 ms·

I think this comment is being unfairly downvoted. I believe a lot of so-called environmentalists are actually opposed to civilization, and would prefer if human

by mrob 8y ago

I think this comment is being unfairly downvoted. I believe a lot of so-called environmentalists are actually opposed to civilization, and would prefer if humanity reverted to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. This is more "natural", and humans are generally happier living like that, so it's not a totally ridiculous idea. The main drawback is that it would require the deaths of billions, but by their revealed preferences, it seems a lot of environmentalists are actually okay with this. Why else would they oppose the only proven solution that could bring CO2 emissions to zero in time to limit the damage to something survivable?: nuclear power. I think climate change is the biggest current threat to humanity, and almost nobody is taking it as seriously as they should. Even the ongoing protests in London are a massive under-reaction. But how many of those environmentalists actually support a solution that isn't "wind down the economy?" Germany began a complete shutdown their nuclear power plants in response to a reactor containment failure in Japan that killed nobody directly, and even with the worst case assumptions, statistically caused few hundred excess cancer deaths at most. This is 0% of the deaths that will be caused when one of the alternative "wind down the economy" or "uncontrolled temperature rise" plans triggers World War 3.

diafygi 8y ago
It's wrong to assume that those of us fighting climate change are anti-nuclear. The only reason I didn't include nuclear in my parent comment is because it isn't currently competitive with either clean or dirty energy sources. Solar and wind plus storage is way cheaper than nuclear (and that gap is widening over time, not shrinking), so there's not much reason to include it in a pitch for getting a job fighting climate change unless the audience is primarily PhD physicists and researchers.
lazyjones 8y ago
> I think climate change is the biggest current threat to humanity, and almost nobody is taking it as seriously as they should. Here I disagree. We're trying to colonise Mars, but at the same time believe a somewhat warmer climate is an existential threat to humanity. How is that logical? Climate change will not destroy humanity, civilisation, or even the planet. We will adapt easily. Look to the 20th century for examples of actual threats to humanity... > This is 0% of the deaths that will be caused when one of the alternative "wind down the economy" or "uncontrolled temperature rise" plans triggers World War 3 Exactly, only that these aren't the only possible triggers for a WW3.
- tobr 8y ago
  > We're trying to colonise Mars, but at the same time believe a somewhat warmer climate is an existential threat to humanity. That’s an interesting non sequitur. How does the potential for colonization of Mars say anything about how big of a threat climate change is?
  - lazyjones 8y ago
    > That’s an interesting non sequitur. I'll have to write it in a more straightforward manner, since it's apparently a non sequitur if you don't understand it: if we are optimistic about living on a planet as hostile as Mars, how can we be pessimistic about surviving a temperature increase of a few degrees on Earth?
    - tobr 8y ago
      That is a very superficial comparison between two problems that are fundamentally different, especially with regards to what’s at stake. Going to Mars has no deadline, and barely any stakes. If it proves practically unachievable, it’s a failed dream, or maybe just an indefinitely delayed dream; no big deal. Earth is already inhabited by millions of species, and if it becomes even one percent less hospitable, that’s an existential crisis.
      - lazyjones 8y ago
        > Earth is already inhabited by millions of species, and if it becomes even one percent less hospitable, that’s an existential crisis. No, it's not. This is just the typical scaremongering and dramatisation I'm getting so tired of. Every populated region on Earth becomes much more than one percent less hospitable every winter and there is no crisis, especially not an existential one. We can cope very well with minor changes in weather and climate and we will. Stop obsessing about climate doom scenarios, it's silly.
        tobr 8y ago
        > Every populated region on Earth becomes much more than one percent less hospitable every winter No, winter is part of the baseline. Life has evolved to to survive during winter, and societies have been built to handle it. We do not have ecosystem collapses or widespread climate refugees every winter. Permanent and unprecedented changes cause completely different problems than a few months of winter.
jonathanstrange 8y ago
You're setting up an imaginary strawman. I grew up in the 80s in one of the most environmentalist households you could imagine. My mother was a local politician for the German Green Party, everything was ecological and fair trade in our household, from the food to everything else. She was fighting for windmills, against cars, etc. Our bread was baked by an ecological farmer with a long beard, for some time we fetched the milk directly from a local farmer, and so on. We participated in marches for peace and the protection of the environment, my mother helped voluntarily in the local fair trade shop ("3rd World Shop"). So I've had plenty of experiences with environmentalists over my life and heard many crazy stories, e.g. one of her friends really thought that honey is harmless for children but sugar essentially poison. Despite all this, even the most radical and craziest person I've ever heard of does not fit the description of an environmentalist that you attribute to this subculture as a whole. There are radicals like VHEMT but these are in a ridiculously small minority. The vast majority of all environmentalist believe that it is perfectly possible for a large number of humans on earth to life in harmony together with nature while sustaining high standards of living. It's all about reasonable consumption and studying ecological lifetime calculations of products. Where I grew up, Swabia in Germany, is a pretty good example of reasonable & realistic environmental politics. I used to make fun of many of her claims, proudly eating my bacon sandwich and visiting by plane, but it turns out in retrospective that she and her friends were right about most of the issues that most of the things my mother has been fighting for are now in the party programs of all major parties.

by mrob 8y ago

diafygi 8y ago

It's wrong to assume that those of us fighting climate change are anti-nuclear. The only reason I didn't include nuclear in my parent comment is because it isn't currently competitive with either clean or dirty energy sources. Solar and wind plus storage is way cheaper than nuclear (and that gap is widening over time, not shrinking), so there's not much reason to include it in a pitch for getting a job fighting climate change unless the audience is primarily PhD physicists and researchers.

lazyjones 8y ago

> I think climate change is the biggest current threat to humanity, and almost nobody is taking it as seriously as they should. Here I disagree. We're trying to colonise Mars, but at the same time believe a somewhat warmer climate is an existential threat to humanity. How is that logical? Climate change will not destroy humanity, civilisation, or even the planet. We will adapt easily. Look to the 20th century for examples of actual threats to humanity... > This is 0% of the deaths that will be caused when one of the alternative "wind down the economy" or "uncontrolled temperature rise" plans triggers World War 3 Exactly, only that these aren't the only possible triggers for a WW3.

tobr 8y ago
> We're trying to colonise Mars, but at the same time believe a somewhat warmer climate is an existential threat to humanity. That’s an interesting non sequitur. How does the potential for colonization of Mars say anything about how big of a threat climate change is?
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > That’s an interesting non sequitur. I'll have to write it in a more straightforward manner, since it's apparently a non sequitur if you don't understand it: if we are optimistic about living on a planet as hostile as Mars, how can we be pessimistic about surviving a temperature increase of a few degrees on Earth?
  - tobr 8y ago
    That is a very superficial comparison between two problems that are fundamentally different, especially with regards to what’s at stake. Going to Mars has no deadline, and barely any stakes. If it proves practically unachievable, it’s a failed dream, or maybe just an indefinitely delayed dream; no big deal. Earth is already inhabited by millions of species, and if it becomes even one percent less hospitable, that’s an existential crisis.
    - lazyjones 8y ago
      > Earth is already inhabited by millions of species, and if it becomes even one percent less hospitable, that’s an existential crisis. No, it's not. This is just the typical scaremongering and dramatisation I'm getting so tired of. Every populated region on Earth becomes much more than one percent less hospitable every winter and there is no crisis, especially not an existential one. We can cope very well with minor changes in weather and climate and we will. Stop obsessing about climate doom scenarios, it's silly.
      - tobr 8y ago
        > Every populated region on Earth becomes much more than one percent less hospitable every winter No, winter is part of the baseline. Life has evolved to to survive during winter, and societies have been built to handle it. We do not have ecosystem collapses or widespread climate refugees every winter. Permanent and unprecedented changes cause completely different problems than a few months of winter.

jonathanstrange 8y ago

You're setting up an imaginary strawman. I grew up in the 80s in one of the most environmentalist households you could imagine. My mother was a local politician for the German Green Party, everything was ecological and fair trade in our household, from the food to everything else. She was fighting for windmills, against cars, etc. Our bread was baked by an ecological farmer with a long beard, for some time we fetched the milk directly from a local farmer, and so on. We participated in marches for peace and the protection of the environment, my mother helped voluntarily in the local fair trade shop ("3rd World Shop"). So I've had plenty of experiences with environmentalists over my life and heard many crazy stories, e.g. one of her friends really thought that honey is harmless for children but sugar essentially poison. Despite all this, even the most radical and craziest person I've ever heard of does not fit the description of an environmentalist that you attribute to this subculture as a whole. There are radicals like VHEMT but these are in a ridiculously small minority. The vast majority of all environmentalist believe that it is perfectly possible for a large number of humans on earth to life in harmony together with nature while sustaining high standards of living. It's all about reasonable consumption and studying ecological lifetime calculations of products. Where I grew up, Swabia in Germany, is a pretty good example of reasonable & realistic environmental politics. I used to make fun of many of her claims, proudly eating my bacon sandwich and visiting by plane, but it turns out in retrospective that she and her friends were right about most of the issues that most of the things my mother has been fighting for are now in the party programs of all major parties.