2 ms·
> generally boil down to 'you' need to suffer (in concrete ways, e.g. a gas tax, not farming a rain forest, etc.) for the (vague) benefit of other people. That
by the8472 7y ago
> generally boil down to 'you' need to suffer (in concrete ways, e.g. a gas tax, not farming a rain forest, etc.) for the (vague) benefit of other people.
That reads fairly one-sided. Let's flip it and say you have to cut back on some luxuries today so our descendants don't die by the millions at the end of the century.
- thereisnospork 7y agoIt is one sided: its the view of the Brazilian logger who wants to cut down his rain forest. It takes a more credible argument than vague promises of '[his] decedents won't die by the millions' a century from now to dissuade him when his relatives live in favelas today[1]. [1] Which is exactly the sort of activity we 'first-worlders' have been benefiting from.