3 ms·

This would likely result in the opposite of the desired effect. History has shown that the only reliable way to make a people more environmentally-conscious is

This would likely result in the opposite of the desired effect. History has shown that the only reliable way to make a people more environmentally-conscious is to make enough of them wealthy enough to have the free time/energy/sentimentality to care.

diego_moita 8y ago
> This would likely result in the opposite of the desired effect. > make enough of them wealthy enough No, it is a very good idea. The champions on deforestation in Brazil are precisely the wealthiest plutocrats in the country, big farmers and the lumber industry. They are also the ones more susceptible to economic pressure. Blairo Maggi, a former agriculture minister in Brazil, was nicknamed "the golden chainsaw" for the huge deforestation he promoted. Some agricultural embargoes by the European Union were enough to get him a change of heart, defend more forest conservation and turn him into a critic of the environmental policies of the Bozo (our new president).
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
Aren’t wealthy people more responsible for consumption of the beef that is being grown on clear cut forest land?
- manfredo 8y ago
  Wealthy people may make more superficial choices regarding environmental impact, but broadly speaking energy consumption is directly related to one's standard of living. The reality is that what one eats and what kind of car one drives is not especially important in terms of environmental impact. Even you don't drive a car at all, you're still consuming fossil fuels for transport every time you buy goods that were shipped to you (or goods whose components were shipped at any point from raw resource extraction to final assembly, so basically everything). Even if you don't eat meat, a huge number of facets in one's life is contingent on converting land to be used by humans in some way (e.g. paving roads, clearing power lines for utilities, etc.). Impact of these superficial choices is minimal. The most environmentally friendly type of living is being a subsistence farmer or a hunter-gatherer in a part of the world that is not industrialized at all. Like Papua New Guinea. But of course few people would want to trade their first world lives to live like the average Papua. Our standards of living are directly correlated with energy consumption. Having a peaceful society with good healthcare, education, and employment means having a food production industry industrialized enough such that a small portion of society can maintain the industries necessary for survival while most of the rest of the population provides services to each other and there's still enough surplus to spend on welfare and other resources dedicated to those that can't contribute effectively. This cannot be done in subsistence societies - heck it can rarely be accomplished reliably even in industrialized societies, and it has only been achieved with a relative degree of stability in the wealthiest post-industrial societies. Not eating meat isn't going to stop deforestation in the Amazon - this is a fundamental misunderstanding of why the Amazon is disappearing. The Amazon ins disappearing because South Americans have decided that the economic growth provided by deforestation is worth the environmental impact. Growing cattle is only part of what this land is used for, and while lower demand for beef may reduce the rate at which the land is used to grow cows it doesn't fulfill the desires that is driving deforestation. The deforestation will stop when the people that are in a position to decide whether to convert forest to farm or pasture feels the preservation of the forest outweighs the bounties provided by the latter. Robust alternatives to agriculture as a means for economic growth are what will affect deforestation, but bringing wealth to hundreds of millions of people in South America is a tougher problem to solve. And if South Americans choose to prioritize economic growth over the environment are we in such a good position to judge them? When much of the first world was in South America's position in terms of industrialization and social development, we chose to cut down forests, exploit natural resources, and convert wilderness into agricultural land or for other uses. It's the easiest way to climb the ladder of development and become an industrialized society. It'd be better for the environment if other countries didn't follow our example, but it'd be hypocritical to judge them for making the same decisions our societies did when we stood in their shoes.
- tengbretson 8y ago
  If you look inside the refrigerators of 100 wealthy people and 100 poor people, in which group would you expect see more packaging with the following phrases: "Organic", "Sustainably Raised", "Cage Free", "Dolphin Safe"?
  - p1necone 8y ago
    But the poor people just wont have any meat in their refrigerators.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

diego_moita 8y ago

> This would likely result in the opposite of the desired effect. > make enough of them wealthy enough No, it is a very good idea. The champions on deforestation in Brazil are precisely the wealthiest plutocrats in the country, big farmers and the lumber industry. They are also the ones more susceptible to economic pressure. Blairo Maggi, a former agriculture minister in Brazil, was nicknamed "the golden chainsaw" for the huge deforestation he promoted. Some agricultural embargoes by the European Union were enough to get him a change of heart, defend more forest conservation and turn him into a critic of the environmental policies of the Bozo (our new president).

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

Aren’t wealthy people more responsible for consumption of the beef that is being grown on clear cut forest land?

manfredo 8y ago
Wealthy people may make more superficial choices regarding environmental impact, but broadly speaking energy consumption is directly related to one's standard of living. The reality is that what one eats and what kind of car one drives is not especially important in terms of environmental impact. Even you don't drive a car at all, you're still consuming fossil fuels for transport every time you buy goods that were shipped to you (or goods whose components were shipped at any point from raw resource extraction to final assembly, so basically everything). Even if you don't eat meat, a huge number of facets in one's life is contingent on converting land to be used by humans in some way (e.g. paving roads, clearing power lines for utilities, etc.). Impact of these superficial choices is minimal. The most environmentally friendly type of living is being a subsistence farmer or a hunter-gatherer in a part of the world that is not industrialized at all. Like Papua New Guinea. But of course few people would want to trade their first world lives to live like the average Papua. Our standards of living are directly correlated with energy consumption. Having a peaceful society with good healthcare, education, and employment means having a food production industry industrialized enough such that a small portion of society can maintain the industries necessary for survival while most of the rest of the population provides services to each other and there's still enough surplus to spend on welfare and other resources dedicated to those that can't contribute effectively. This cannot be done in subsistence societies - heck it can rarely be accomplished reliably even in industrialized societies, and it has only been achieved with a relative degree of stability in the wealthiest post-industrial societies. Not eating meat isn't going to stop deforestation in the Amazon - this is a fundamental misunderstanding of why the Amazon is disappearing. The Amazon ins disappearing because South Americans have decided that the economic growth provided by deforestation is worth the environmental impact. Growing cattle is only part of what this land is used for, and while lower demand for beef may reduce the rate at which the land is used to grow cows it doesn't fulfill the desires that is driving deforestation. The deforestation will stop when the people that are in a position to decide whether to convert forest to farm or pasture feels the preservation of the forest outweighs the bounties provided by the latter. Robust alternatives to agriculture as a means for economic growth are what will affect deforestation, but bringing wealth to hundreds of millions of people in South America is a tougher problem to solve. And if South Americans choose to prioritize economic growth over the environment are we in such a good position to judge them? When much of the first world was in South America's position in terms of industrialization and social development, we chose to cut down forests, exploit natural resources, and convert wilderness into agricultural land or for other uses. It's the easiest way to climb the ladder of development and become an industrialized society. It'd be better for the environment if other countries didn't follow our example, but it'd be hypocritical to judge them for making the same decisions our societies did when we stood in their shoes.
tengbretson 8y ago
If you look inside the refrigerators of 100 wealthy people and 100 poor people, in which group would you expect see more packaging with the following phrases: "Organic", "Sustainably Raised", "Cage Free", "Dolphin Safe"?
- p1necone 8y ago
  But the poor people just wont have any meat in their refrigerators.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]