6 ms·

>Activism is threatening value destruction for all, not only the environment. how can you draw a distinction. destroying your environment is destroying yoursel

by ptah 7y ago

>Activism is threatening value destruction for all, not only the environment. how can you draw a distinction. destroying your environment is destroying yourself. does existing not have value?

jsingleton 7y ago
Yes. The cost of action is dwarfed by the cost of inaction, but that cost is felt (not so) far in the future. It's a problem with short-term thinking creating a false economy and building up a huge debt.
- turk73 7y ago
  The cost of action is 4 billion current human lives.
KoftaBob 7y ago
If you're of the baby boomer age group and older, it's likely you'll be gone before the worst effects of climate change are in effect, and they know that. For them, destroying the environment is not destroying yourself. It's prioritizing short term gain at the expense of their children and grandchildren. It's no coincidence that the majority of politicians and corporate leadership is in this age group, hence the lack of urgency in mitigating climate change.
- JTon 7y ago
  I don't believe this to be a conscious decision (rather the result of trying to maximize ones/ones family's prosperity) and I believe plenty of non-boomers act in the same way. I suspect pillaging the environment is structural to both our survival instincts and inherited culture.
  - throwaway9980 7y ago
    My boomer mother dismisses any concern about climate change with “well, your father and I will be dead and gone before any of this really matters.” I have three small kids that she smothers with love. It’s really hard to reconcile with the total antipathy towards their future world.
    - JTon 7y ago
      Do you think that attitude is manifestation of feelings of helplessness rather than apathy?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - dageshi 7y ago
      She might just be tired? If you've spent decades caring about whatever the hot button political topics of the day are then eventually the tank might be dry and it's someone else's (your) turn to care? Are you sure you won't reach that same point at some time in the future?
      - throwaway9980 7y ago
        For sure, I think being old and tired is some of it. But on the other hand they are constantly enraged over some perceived threat to America posed by Democrats. They have not cast a vote for anyone without an R next to their name in 50 years. They care very much about the future insofar as it shouldn’t look anything like “left coast ideas spreading.” And in the same breath they can acknowledge that climate change may doom us all. They would rather the world burn than a hated ideology gain one inch. Unfortunately this sort of mindset is quite normal where I live.
    - rootusrootus 7y ago
      My [slightly older than boomer] mother is terrified at what the future holds for humanity. It literally keeps her up at night. She also smothers her grandkids with love, which I expect is common amongst grandmothers. My 27 year old nephew, on the other hand, couldn't care less. Well, I mean, he likes to roll coal, but I don't think he's necessarily doing it deliberately to spite the environment, he's just a jerk.
- austincheney 7y ago
  If you live in a first-world country it's likely you will live through the worst effects with little change in daily routine.
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  I see plenty of kids here not caring about the climate at all, goaded by popular media portraying it all as one big hoax or as a big complot against them 'enjoying' consumerism to the full. Sure, the impacts will only get worse, so logically the young should from a pure selfish point of view be more concerned. In practice I don't think age is the principle component separating those who care from those who do not.
- meddlepal 7y ago
  Are you sure it's just boomers? I'm in my 30s and I don't care too much either, 30-40 years from now I'll be in the twilight years. I've been listening to doom and gloom environmentalists for my entire life telling me we are X years from destruction. Here's what's going to happen: 1. Some places are going to be flooded. The important ones will construct sea barriers. The others: oh well. 2. Some places will become infertile while other places become fertile: sucks that the Midwest will become a desert but Canada is going to be a great place to grow things in 100 years. 3. Technology will improve if things get really dire but I'm sure human ingenuity will pull through.
  - KoftaBob 7y ago
    I never said it’s just boomers. My point was that boomers are a large portion of the population and positions of power, and they won’t be around for the worst of it, so they largely don’t care. The numerous “i’m young and also don’t care” comments completely miss the point.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - benj111 7y ago
    "The important ones will construct sea barriers" No the ones that can afford it will. "sucks that the Midwest will become a desert but Canada is going to be a great place to grow things in 100 years" Do you have some evidence or are you just assuming? Day lengths, and weather changes means it wont necessarily work out how you expect. "Technology will improve if things get really dire" Such as.... Because by then it'll be too late for solar, wind turbines, battery storage, nuclear, electric cars/planes/boats and any kind of carbon capture that's currently plausible.
  - awnfuron 7y ago
    Calling areas that can't afford the construction of sea barriers unimportant is a very cavalier approach. Maybe "human ingenuity will pull through" but how long will it take, and how many "unimportant" people will die or experience extreme hardship first?
  - 7y ago
lallysingh 7y ago
It's oilprice.com, their priorities are quite evident.
PeterStuer 7y ago
You are talking about systemic or inherent value. A tree in the wood capturing carbon and producing oxygen obviously is valuable to us all. They are talking about economic value. How can a spcific economic actor make money from transactions associated with that tree. A common mistake. In a neoliberal market economy nothing has value unless it can be arbitraged. For 'natural' products that means that unless someone can prevent 'free' consumption of that benefit, and contain and charge for access to that benefit, there is no value.
AtlasBarfed 7y ago
And that is why modern economics has completely failed the planet and all living things on it. Money is more important that existing to economists.
- leguminous 7y ago
  Economists love carbon taxes, in general. Economists on both sides of the political spectrum largely seem to agree that a carbon tax is a good idea and could be an effective way to limit climate change. https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-dividends-11547682910 https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-... It seems to me that economists are on board. It's politicians who aren't.
  - AtlasBarfed 7y ago
    Go ask the University of Chicago Economics Department, or as I like to call them instead of the ivory tower, the Eye of Mordor.
  - ptah 7y ago
    carbon taxes are ineffective, a workaround for something missing at the core of economics

by ptah 7y ago

>Activism is threatening value destruction for all, not only the environment. how can you draw a distinction. destroying your environment is destroying yourself. does existing not have value?

jsingleton 7y ago

Yes. The cost of action is dwarfed by the cost of inaction, but that cost is felt (not so) far in the future. It's a problem with short-term thinking creating a false economy and building up a huge debt.

turk73 7y ago
The cost of action is 4 billion current human lives.

KoftaBob 7y ago

If you're of the baby boomer age group and older, it's likely you'll be gone before the worst effects of climate change are in effect, and they know that. For them, destroying the environment is not destroying yourself. It's prioritizing short term gain at the expense of their children and grandchildren. It's no coincidence that the majority of politicians and corporate leadership is in this age group, hence the lack of urgency in mitigating climate change.

JTon 7y ago
I don't believe this to be a conscious decision (rather the result of trying to maximize ones/ones family's prosperity) and I believe plenty of non-boomers act in the same way. I suspect pillaging the environment is structural to both our survival instincts and inherited culture.
- throwaway9980 7y ago
  My boomer mother dismisses any concern about climate change with “well, your father and I will be dead and gone before any of this really matters.” I have three small kids that she smothers with love. It’s really hard to reconcile with the total antipathy towards their future world.
  - JTon 7y ago
    Do you think that attitude is manifestation of feelings of helplessness rather than apathy?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - dageshi 7y ago
    She might just be tired? If you've spent decades caring about whatever the hot button political topics of the day are then eventually the tank might be dry and it's someone else's (your) turn to care? Are you sure you won't reach that same point at some time in the future?
    - throwaway9980 7y ago
      For sure, I think being old and tired is some of it. But on the other hand they are constantly enraged over some perceived threat to America posed by Democrats. They have not cast a vote for anyone without an R next to their name in 50 years. They care very much about the future insofar as it shouldn’t look anything like “left coast ideas spreading.” And in the same breath they can acknowledge that climate change may doom us all. They would rather the world burn than a hated ideology gain one inch. Unfortunately this sort of mindset is quite normal where I live.
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    My [slightly older than boomer] mother is terrified at what the future holds for humanity. It literally keeps her up at night. She also smothers her grandkids with love, which I expect is common amongst grandmothers. My 27 year old nephew, on the other hand, couldn't care less. Well, I mean, he likes to roll coal, but I don't think he's necessarily doing it deliberately to spite the environment, he's just a jerk.
austincheney 7y ago
If you live in a first-world country it's likely you will live through the worst effects with little change in daily routine.
PeterStuer 7y ago
I see plenty of kids here not caring about the climate at all, goaded by popular media portraying it all as one big hoax or as a big complot against them 'enjoying' consumerism to the full. Sure, the impacts will only get worse, so logically the young should from a pure selfish point of view be more concerned. In practice I don't think age is the principle component separating those who care from those who do not.
meddlepal 7y ago
Are you sure it's just boomers? I'm in my 30s and I don't care too much either, 30-40 years from now I'll be in the twilight years. I've been listening to doom and gloom environmentalists for my entire life telling me we are X years from destruction. Here's what's going to happen: 1. Some places are going to be flooded. The important ones will construct sea barriers. The others: oh well. 2. Some places will become infertile while other places become fertile: sucks that the Midwest will become a desert but Canada is going to be a great place to grow things in 100 years. 3. Technology will improve if things get really dire but I'm sure human ingenuity will pull through.
- KoftaBob 7y ago
  I never said it’s just boomers. My point was that boomers are a large portion of the population and positions of power, and they won’t be around for the worst of it, so they largely don’t care. The numerous “i’m young and also don’t care” comments completely miss the point.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- benj111 7y ago
  "The important ones will construct sea barriers" No the ones that can afford it will. "sucks that the Midwest will become a desert but Canada is going to be a great place to grow things in 100 years" Do you have some evidence or are you just assuming? Day lengths, and weather changes means it wont necessarily work out how you expect. "Technology will improve if things get really dire" Such as.... Because by then it'll be too late for solar, wind turbines, battery storage, nuclear, electric cars/planes/boats and any kind of carbon capture that's currently plausible.
- awnfuron 7y ago
  Calling areas that can't afford the construction of sea barriers unimportant is a very cavalier approach. Maybe "human ingenuity will pull through" but how long will it take, and how many "unimportant" people will die or experience extreme hardship first?
- 7y ago

lallysingh 7y ago

It's oilprice.com, their priorities are quite evident.

PeterStuer 7y ago

You are talking about systemic or inherent value. A tree in the wood capturing carbon and producing oxygen obviously is valuable to us all. They are talking about economic value. How can a spcific economic actor make money from transactions associated with that tree. A common mistake. In a neoliberal market economy nothing has value unless it can be arbitraged. For 'natural' products that means that unless someone can prevent 'free' consumption of that benefit, and contain and charge for access to that benefit, there is no value.

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

And that is why modern economics has completely failed the planet and all living things on it. Money is more important that existing to economists.

leguminous 7y ago
Economists love carbon taxes, in general. Economists on both sides of the political spectrum largely seem to agree that a carbon tax is a good idea and could be an effective way to limit climate change. https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-dividends-11547682910 https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-statement-on-carbon-... It seems to me that economists are on board. It's politicians who aren't.
- AtlasBarfed 7y ago
  Go ask the University of Chicago Economics Department, or as I like to call them instead of the ivory tower, the Eye of Mordor.
- ptah 7y ago
  carbon taxes are ineffective, a workaround for something missing at the core of economics