6 ms·

I wish the argument against pollution would be the simplest one. Go to a massively unpopulated area and just breath. Feel the difference? Isn't it intoxicating

I wish the argument against pollution would be the simplest one. Go to a massively unpopulated area and just breath. Feel the difference? Isn't it intoxicating? Who gives a crap if umpires make worse calls? Just fight pollution because it's obvious pollution is bad for humans and the planet. Normally I'm all for extra evidence, but in a situation like this come on. It's basically like immaterial evidence against genocide by saying, I don't know, saying the increased production of bullets to commit genocide reduces national science and health budgets by 12% (fake stat just for context). Who cares! It's just plain bad. /rant (ps - rant isn't against the article, but a broader frustration about the topic)

dmos62 7y ago
I like thinking of it as waste, as opposed to bad. Good-bad is the moral realm. Waste is the realm of practicality. The danger is in causing defensiveness, due to judgment, in people whose open-mindedness would be beneficial. I'm not being apologetic of anyone. It's just that this doesn't have to happen through a dramatic conflict of good v. evil (which probably wouldn't work anyway); there are much better alternatives. I agree with everything you said. Just wanted to stack my rant on yours there.
- licebmi__at__ 7y ago
  I would like to agree with you as I also think trying to find a pragmatic solution is easier than thinking in abstract terms like good/bad, but ultimately waste just takes us to questions about what is being wasted, and wasteful to who. It's a no brainer than relocating to somewhere to avoid emissions can be seen as wasteful for some industries. Besides, framing waste in purely monetary terms, just means that we need to balance the equation for profit, not to what is best for people. The question of alignment between profit and human welfare is still am ethical one. You haven't reduced the complexity, just hidden it behind the facade of taking "pragmatic economic decisions".
  - dmos62 7y ago
    I'd argue that talking about waste exposes the complexity (reality in simpler terms), while ethics or morals obscure it. When I say waste, I mean the waste in the widest sense: potential, future, life, etc. For what it's worth, since you mention it, I don't think that capitalism isn't compatible with an ecological society. It's just that if you're gonna replace all values with a price tag, you have to be accurate with your pricing. For example, the price of diesel has to reflect, among other things, the full effect on the environment.
- 11235813213455 7y ago
  it's just that the amount of waste is way too large for the environment to digest Solution: everyone must consume less, cut unnecessary things, and there are many in most people lifestyles
swiley 7y ago
We need to quantify how bad pollution is exactly. How many people should be allowed to die because the ICE ambulance can’t reach them or the doctor isn’t able to travel to the hospital or food isn’t able to be delivered for a reasonable price etc.
- bryanmgreen 7y ago
  Want some numbers from our government about pollution? New coal legislation was pushed through with an intensive study by the EPA.... They said it would kill up to 14,000 people. 1) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/utilities_ria_proposed_ace_2018-08.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents... 2) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollutio...
larnmar 7y ago
> I wish the argument against pollution would be the simplest one Arguments against pollution would be valuable if someone were actually arguing in favour of pollution.
zaptheimpaler 7y ago
Agreed. In a data-driven world, any claim not backed by data will be quickly dismissed :)
konstmonst 7y ago
George Carlin - "The Planet is fine, the people are fucked ..."
Kaiyou 7y ago
You are right that there's a massive difference between populated and unpopulated areas. One is better because it doesn't have as many people. Just by breathing people create Co2. Just by existing people create waste. Not sure how that could be fixed.

dmos62 7y ago

I like thinking of it as waste, as opposed to bad. Good-bad is the moral realm. Waste is the realm of practicality. The danger is in causing defensiveness, due to judgment, in people whose open-mindedness would be beneficial. I'm not being apologetic of anyone. It's just that this doesn't have to happen through a dramatic conflict of good v. evil (which probably wouldn't work anyway); there are much better alternatives. I agree with everything you said. Just wanted to stack my rant on yours there.

licebmi__at__ 7y ago
I would like to agree with you as I also think trying to find a pragmatic solution is easier than thinking in abstract terms like good/bad, but ultimately waste just takes us to questions about what is being wasted, and wasteful to who. It's a no brainer than relocating to somewhere to avoid emissions can be seen as wasteful for some industries. Besides, framing waste in purely monetary terms, just means that we need to balance the equation for profit, not to what is best for people. The question of alignment between profit and human welfare is still am ethical one. You haven't reduced the complexity, just hidden it behind the facade of taking "pragmatic economic decisions".
- dmos62 7y ago
  I'd argue that talking about waste exposes the complexity (reality in simpler terms), while ethics or morals obscure it. When I say waste, I mean the waste in the widest sense: potential, future, life, etc. For what it's worth, since you mention it, I don't think that capitalism isn't compatible with an ecological society. It's just that if you're gonna replace all values with a price tag, you have to be accurate with your pricing. For example, the price of diesel has to reflect, among other things, the full effect on the environment.
11235813213455 7y ago
it's just that the amount of waste is way too large for the environment to digest Solution: everyone must consume less, cut unnecessary things, and there are many in most people lifestyles

swiley 7y ago

We need to quantify how bad pollution is exactly. How many people should be allowed to die because the ICE ambulance can’t reach them or the doctor isn’t able to travel to the hospital or food isn’t able to be delivered for a reasonable price etc.

bryanmgreen 7y ago
Want some numbers from our government about pollution? New coal legislation was pushed through with an intensive study by the EPA.... They said it would kill up to 14,000 people. 1) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/utilities_ria_proposed_ace_2018-08.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents... 2) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollutio...

larnmar 7y ago

> I wish the argument against pollution would be the simplest one Arguments against pollution would be valuable if someone were actually arguing in favour of pollution.

zaptheimpaler 7y ago

Agreed. In a data-driven world, any claim not backed by data will be quickly dismissed :)

konstmonst 7y ago

George Carlin - "The Planet is fine, the people are fucked ..."

Kaiyou 7y ago

You are right that there's a massive difference between populated and unpopulated areas. One is better because it doesn't have as many people. Just by breathing people create Co2. Just by existing people create waste. Not sure how that could be fixed.