4 ms·
The first two points are under-appreciated and it shouldn't be assumed that the environmental cost is negligible. As for the third point, I don't think the fil
by ttonkytonk 6y ago
The first two points are under-appreciated and it shouldn't be assumed that the environmental cost is negligible.
As for the third point, I don't think the film comes right out and says there are too many people, though it is implied. Specifically the film claims that in the last 200 years the population as well as the consumption rate per person has increased tenfold, for a total increased impact of 100 times.
- valuearb 6y agoUnder appreciated or not, why the complaints? What alternatives are there that are economically competitive? It’s ridiculous to complain that technologies that significantly reduce our environmental impact aren’t zero impact. It’s throwing babies out with the bath water levels of cluelessness.