4 ms·

I recently finished Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker and this exact point was made in that book. I'll paraphrase a salient quote from the book: poverty is th

by Expez 7y ago

I recently finished Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker and this exact point was made in that book. I'll paraphrase a salient quote from the book: poverty is the greatest polluter. Intuitively this makes great sense: when you're eking out a subsistence living you're not going to care about the environment, but when resources are plenty you can afford to consider other living things too.

new2628 7y ago
This seems to contradict the simple observation that, by and large, the poorer a country the more biodiversity it has.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Not necessarily- a poor country with high biodiversity or other natural resources are a known phenomenon [0]. Also, another known issue is that the most polluted rivers are often from developing countries, partially because developed countries are sending their trash there. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
  - new2628 7y ago
    Resource curse is an interesting phenomenon, but I think biodiversity (~ the healthiness/robustness of the remaining natural environment) and e.g. the amount of accessible oil/gas a country has are fundamentally different aspects.
briandear 7y ago
Simple Maslow is all this is.
drdrey 7y ago
That's just not true. The US emits 16 tons of CO2 per capita. For many African countries, that number is 1-2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#Annual_carbon_dioxide_emissions_%5Btonnes%5D_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... The greatest polluter is everybody living in large single family homes full of things manufactured on other continents, with AC, multiple cars, eating red meat every day.
- bro45 7y ago
  The greatest polluter is the economy where the only profitable business model is planned depreciation to make people buy new stuff. Nobody makes durable razors because it's a financial suicide. Nobody makes reliable cars, laptops, toothbrushes. People don't have a choice but to keep replacing things that break. Manufacturing these things wastes oil, coal and pollutes the environment. The businesses don't care because disposing the junk is not their problem. Change rules to make businesses accountable for stuff they sell: the recycling facility needs to do something with a mountain of broken fridges? Let it send an invoice to manufacturer. Many companies will go bankrupt. We'll see how reliable things replace the junk. The economy will slow down because people won't need to spend so much. There won't be much progress either if you drive the grandfathered car: no money for R&D, so engineers become repairmen. No more demand for STEM because the market for making new things is tiny. The big tech will collapse because its paid by ads and there will be nothing to advertise. Stagnation, deflation, unemployment, good stamps. As you see, the solution exists and it's called stagnation. TBH, I'm not sure if it's bad because currently the world is rapidly consolidating 99% of resources in the 1% people s hands (and make no mistake, they will survive any global warming that may come). P.S. Single family houses aren't the problem. They actually store CO2 in the form of wood, which is an easily replaceble resource. If houses were built from aluminium, I'd agree with you, but they are made from wood in the US.
  - jschwartzi 7y ago
    I actually disagree that we'd no longer perform R&D or build new things. Rather, there would be a significant increase in retrofits to existing equipment. For example even cars from 30 years ago used standard DIN slots with DIN rails to mount their stereo equipment. You could easily build something to replace that equipment and retrofit in-dash GPS. And replacing the HVAC and retrofitting AC onto old engines is also possible by modifying the serpentine belt routing and cutting holes in the firewall. Almost certainly what would happen is manufacturers would build more robust things and there would be more "ships of theseus" where you're running a 30-year old cabinet but with modern materials and components. People would generally have to be more technical and develop more one-off solutions.
  - 7y ago
lonelappde 7y ago
Pinker is an over-the-top neoliberal who specializes in motivated reasoning.

by Expez 7y ago

new2628 7y ago

This seems to contradict the simple observation that, by and large, the poorer a country the more biodiversity it has.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Not necessarily- a poor country with high biodiversity or other natural resources are a known phenomenon [0]. Also, another known issue is that the most polluted rivers are often from developing countries, partially because developed countries are sending their trash there. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
- new2628 7y ago
  Resource curse is an interesting phenomenon, but I think biodiversity (~ the healthiness/robustness of the remaining natural environment) and e.g. the amount of accessible oil/gas a country has are fundamentally different aspects.

briandear 7y ago

Simple Maslow is all this is.

drdrey 7y ago

That's just not true. The US emits 16 tons of CO2 per capita. For many African countries, that number is 1-2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#Annual_carbon_dioxide_emissions_%5Btonnes%5D_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... The greatest polluter is everybody living in large single family homes full of things manufactured on other continents, with AC, multiple cars, eating red meat every day.

bro45 7y ago
The greatest polluter is the economy where the only profitable business model is planned depreciation to make people buy new stuff. Nobody makes durable razors because it's a financial suicide. Nobody makes reliable cars, laptops, toothbrushes. People don't have a choice but to keep replacing things that break. Manufacturing these things wastes oil, coal and pollutes the environment. The businesses don't care because disposing the junk is not their problem. Change rules to make businesses accountable for stuff they sell: the recycling facility needs to do something with a mountain of broken fridges? Let it send an invoice to manufacturer. Many companies will go bankrupt. We'll see how reliable things replace the junk. The economy will slow down because people won't need to spend so much. There won't be much progress either if you drive the grandfathered car: no money for R&D, so engineers become repairmen. No more demand for STEM because the market for making new things is tiny. The big tech will collapse because its paid by ads and there will be nothing to advertise. Stagnation, deflation, unemployment, good stamps. As you see, the solution exists and it's called stagnation. TBH, I'm not sure if it's bad because currently the world is rapidly consolidating 99% of resources in the 1% people s hands (and make no mistake, they will survive any global warming that may come). P.S. Single family houses aren't the problem. They actually store CO2 in the form of wood, which is an easily replaceble resource. If houses were built from aluminium, I'd agree with you, but they are made from wood in the US.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  I actually disagree that we'd no longer perform R&D or build new things. Rather, there would be a significant increase in retrofits to existing equipment. For example even cars from 30 years ago used standard DIN slots with DIN rails to mount their stereo equipment. You could easily build something to replace that equipment and retrofit in-dash GPS. And replacing the HVAC and retrofitting AC onto old engines is also possible by modifying the serpentine belt routing and cutting holes in the firewall. Almost certainly what would happen is manufacturers would build more robust things and there would be more "ships of theseus" where you're running a 30-year old cabinet but with modern materials and components. People would generally have to be more technical and develop more one-off solutions.
- 7y ago

lonelappde 7y ago

Pinker is an over-the-top neoliberal who specializes in motivated reasoning.