4 ms·

It's a straw man to cast all concerns about economy sustainability as "exploit natural resources as quickly as we can." There are serious, life-threatening con

by ethbro 7y ago

It's a straw man to cast all concerns about economy sustainability as "exploit natural resources as quickly as we can." There are serious, life-threatening concerns about reorienting the world to a lower-growth, lower-carbon model. And to substitute fervor for fact is just as much of a fallacy as the global free trade crowd committed, before recently admitting that maybe they should have thought harder about the dislocating side effects and funding strategic workforce reskilling programs. We don't get to a brighter future by ignoring the hard questions and consequences of proposed paths.

mindslight 7y ago
Sure, any sort of abrupt change has serious (possibly life threatening) concerns. But there is a difference in arguing for caution, and perpetuating the same assumptions that have lead to the current state of affairs. Drawing attention to one of those assumptions rather than letting it continue in the background does not make for a straw man. "Economic activity" directly translates into "use natural resources". The overwhelming fallacy seems to be this idea that sustainability will somehow eventually, not today, but some day soon, be priced into the economy such that we can have large sums sloshing back and forth but the externalities will be fully captured. This seems like an economically convenient myth, analogous to the free trade crowd's handwaving about comparative advantage. Sorry I did not see how to succinctly express the overall arc of what I said with less "fervor". If two people are having a casual conversation about say baseball, but you think it is harmful and destructive, it's impossible to express without sounding like a looney. (I used baseball because I think it's innocuous. Whereas any real example would inherently be polarizing).
- ethbro 7y ago
  It seemed like you were characterizing alternative approaches in a way in which you could more easily refute their concerns. I'd be pleased as punch if we moved to a post-resource economy, but I also think it's going to be the hardest thing we've ever attempted (in an international sense). The Paris climate agreements are a minor skirmish on the scale of what needs to be done. Because, ultimately, we're talking about some wealthy countries having less (compared to business as usual) in order to strike agreement with poorer countries not to run their growth at full tilt. So when we say things like "stricter environmental regulations," we're really saying "stricter environmental regulations worldwide." Otherwise we're just offloading pollution to the current poorest country with a labor force. And it's going to take some serious financial and developmental persuasion (and ugly enforcement) to get someone to not do something that would make them better off. ... It is heartening to see the debate being reframed in justice terms. Because that seems to have a better chance of winning hearts and minds to the extent necessary.

by ethbro 7y ago

mindslight 7y ago

Sure, any sort of abrupt change has serious (possibly life threatening) concerns. But there is a difference in arguing for caution, and perpetuating the same assumptions that have lead to the current state of affairs. Drawing attention to one of those assumptions rather than letting it continue in the background does not make for a straw man. "Economic activity" directly translates into "use natural resources". The overwhelming fallacy seems to be this idea that sustainability will somehow eventually, not today, but some day soon, be priced into the economy such that we can have large sums sloshing back and forth but the externalities will be fully captured. This seems like an economically convenient myth, analogous to the free trade crowd's handwaving about comparative advantage. Sorry I did not see how to succinctly express the overall arc of what I said with less "fervor". If two people are having a casual conversation about say baseball, but you think it is harmful and destructive, it's impossible to express without sounding like a looney. (I used baseball because I think it's innocuous. Whereas any real example would inherently be polarizing).

ethbro 7y ago
It seemed like you were characterizing alternative approaches in a way in which you could more easily refute their concerns. I'd be pleased as punch if we moved to a post-resource economy, but I also think it's going to be the hardest thing we've ever attempted (in an international sense). The Paris climate agreements are a minor skirmish on the scale of what needs to be done. Because, ultimately, we're talking about some wealthy countries having less (compared to business as usual) in order to strike agreement with poorer countries not to run their growth at full tilt. So when we say things like "stricter environmental regulations," we're really saying "stricter environmental regulations worldwide." Otherwise we're just offloading pollution to the current poorest country with a labor force. And it's going to take some serious financial and developmental persuasion (and ugly enforcement) to get someone to not do something that would make them better off. ... It is heartening to see the debate being reframed in justice terms. Because that seems to have a better chance of winning hearts and minds to the extent necessary.