4 ms·
I wouldn't say so. There is a spectrum of eco-friendliness. Not existing is probably on the high end of eco-friendliness, although someday perhaps an Elon Musk
by asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
I wouldn't say so. There is a spectrum of eco-friendliness. Not existing is probably on the high end of eco-friendliness, although someday perhaps an Elon Musk of fixing the environment will be born who will have a net positive impact. Then there are people who travel around the world via airplanes who will probably go to eco-hell. If you're alive and living in a first world country, you have some amount of detrimental effect on the environment. So it is sensible to compare relative levels of harmfulness.
- noobermin 7y agoWhich is my point. This is like the arguments around cars. Cars and the design of cities that requires people to drive to do anything are one of the larger contributors to ghg's in the US, but we can't expect people in those cities to essentially die tomorrow in order to fix things. This argument that blames people who essentially live in cooler areas seems even worse, you're blaming things outside their control. You can change street design and work on public transit because those are things we built. You can't change where people live without displacing them. Just like you said, not existing would save the environment too, like bulldozing every spawling suburb and exhurb in the US would save a lot on GHG but it would be pretty cruel.