4 ms·

I really like this critique of environmentalism, as an environmentalist myself. While I think it should have ended with an argument in favour of some sustainabi

I really like this critique of environmentalism, as an environmentalist myself. While I think it should have ended with an argument in favour of some sustainability law, like a carbon dioxide tax, it clearly remembers us that still we are so much stuck in ideologies when it comes to saving co2 and that this could potentially be, because it makes us feel better than really saving co2.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
And that the answer to a lot of global problems is to reduce poverty. People who struggle to stay alive are focused on that. People who no longer have to struggle have the luxury of caring for their environment. For example: most of SE Asia burns their rubbish in their back yard, because there are no rubbish collection facilities. They also litter, throwing plastic waste into the gutter, because they're too busy dealing with other stuff to care. But the wealthier countries (Singapore is the classic example) don't do this and are fastidious about waste management.
veddox 6y ago
Yes. I'm currently doing my M.Sc. in ecology, with a special interest in conservation, so I think about issues like these a lot. The most important lesson? Life's complicated. It doesn't matter what issues (or proposed solutions) you look at - it could be GMOs, glyphosate, plastic, electric cars, nuclear power, bio-fuels, you name it - there is no easy answer. Some solutions are better than others, but all have some disadvantages. It certainly doesn't help the environmental movement that many of its members display a very definite "green ideology". They go around spouting their preferred policies, ignoring or shouting down any objections (no matter how well founded). That really doesn't help our trustworthiness with the rest of society. The nature of politics is such that we often have to pick sub-optimal solutions, and often on incomplete knowledge. But let's at least have a proper debate before settling on one solution - and not prematurely tout anything as "the only green way to go".

marcus_holmes 6y ago

And that the answer to a lot of global problems is to reduce poverty. People who struggle to stay alive are focused on that. People who no longer have to struggle have the luxury of caring for their environment. For example: most of SE Asia burns their rubbish in their back yard, because there are no rubbish collection facilities. They also litter, throwing plastic waste into the gutter, because they're too busy dealing with other stuff to care. But the wealthier countries (Singapore is the classic example) don't do this and are fastidious about waste management.

veddox 6y ago

Yes. I'm currently doing my M.Sc. in ecology, with a special interest in conservation, so I think about issues like these a lot. The most important lesson? Life's complicated. It doesn't matter what issues (or proposed solutions) you look at - it could be GMOs, glyphosate, plastic, electric cars, nuclear power, bio-fuels, you name it - there is no easy answer. Some solutions are better than others, but all have some disadvantages. It certainly doesn't help the environmental movement that many of its members display a very definite "green ideology". They go around spouting their preferred policies, ignoring or shouting down any objections (no matter how well founded). That really doesn't help our trustworthiness with the rest of society. The nature of politics is such that we often have to pick sub-optimal solutions, and often on incomplete knowledge. But let's at least have a proper debate before settling on one solution - and not prematurely tout anything as "the only green way to go".