4 ms·

Yes, we are on the same page in regards to the problem statement, but I have no illusion about this being feasible, unless you are suggesting we forcibly take h

Yes, we are on the same page in regards to the problem statement, but I have no illusion about this being feasible, unless you are suggesting we forcibly take hundreds of millions of people from their homes, rob them of their cultural identity, and place them in re-education camps. Your belief in humanity's ability to work past our differences is admirable, but unrealistic. For both our sakes I hope you are right, because this isn't the last time someone comes up with ideas like this.

strogonoff 6y ago
My point though is that people would be willing to leave if those issues were addressed. (I.e., they would agree that saving the planet is beneficial in long term, and all that stops them is insufficient information and distrust.) No need to force anyone.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  Some people are simply not well-suited for living in a city. I'm one of them, and I know many others like me. Even if we somehow managed to solve the practical issues, I'd have to spend a lifetime in therapy just to stay sane. I know, I tried. My therapist told me to move back to the countryside again because the pace city life wasn't good for my mental health. :)
  - strogonoff 6y ago
    You say “simply” but there obviously must be a cause. If can be addressed, it could, and if it is a fundamental condition then you’d qualify for an exception—assuming nobody pretends to have psychological issues in order to not have to leave (and thus undermine the whole project and the future of their own descendants), that would be just fine.
    - fogihujy 6y ago
      Why must there be a cause? You can't just "make people better", just because they aren't having the same priorities, desires and morals as you do? That's the mistake the guys that did the mass-relocations of old did. ;) In the long run, there is no silver bullet to fight climate change, pollution, over-population, decreased nativity, poverty, geopolitical power-play, consumerism, good old greed, and the other things that we humans use to screw up the planet. We need just as many different solutions as there are problems. What we need is a cultural change that swings people from "doing nothing" to "doing something". If we keep trying to look for ways to force others to do what we want then we'll just keep fighting about it. I've planted 20 trees this week. With luck, I'll do another 50 this weekend. The plan is to turn our second, unused, field into a forest. I encourage everyone to set a good example by doing their part rather than trying to find ways of forcing others to do things for them.
      - strogonoff 6y ago
        Yes there are all those hurdles, but assuming they are figured out there’s no way someone would consciously choose to sacrifice planetary ecosystem in the name of “you know, I’d just hate to move”. Making my argument I felt being pushed into idealistic-communism-like tropes, but I think that idea could be achieved in a free world.
        mulmen 6y ago
        You are describing simple differences in human beings as problems to be solved. This is an extremely dangerous position to take. Who is to say people in the city are not the ones that need to be "healed". You're also assuming that cities are a universal solution. What if living in a more decentralized way is actually better for the environment?
        strogonoff 6y ago
        You seem to have missed a point upthread. That’s the premise, rewilding 50% of the planet and specifically not allowing humans to enter—not to heal people somewhere but for the sake of the humanity and the ecosystem it’s part of long term. Considering our growing population, it is achievable through ultra-dense habitats, and this way it is more feasible to implement wilderness entry controls than when living in a decentralised way. It is obvious that currently there are people who’d just like to live in sparse areas, planet be damned—I bet that'll change.

strogonoff 6y ago

My point though is that people would be willing to leave if those issues were addressed. (I.e., they would agree that saving the planet is beneficial in long term, and all that stops them is insufficient information and distrust.) No need to force anyone.

fogihujy 6y ago
Some people are simply not well-suited for living in a city. I'm one of them, and I know many others like me. Even if we somehow managed to solve the practical issues, I'd have to spend a lifetime in therapy just to stay sane. I know, I tried. My therapist told me to move back to the countryside again because the pace city life wasn't good for my mental health. :)
- strogonoff 6y ago
  You say “simply” but there obviously must be a cause. If can be addressed, it could, and if it is a fundamental condition then you’d qualify for an exception—assuming nobody pretends to have psychological issues in order to not have to leave (and thus undermine the whole project and the future of their own descendants), that would be just fine.
  - fogihujy 6y ago
    Why must there be a cause? You can't just "make people better", just because they aren't having the same priorities, desires and morals as you do? That's the mistake the guys that did the mass-relocations of old did. ;) In the long run, there is no silver bullet to fight climate change, pollution, over-population, decreased nativity, poverty, geopolitical power-play, consumerism, good old greed, and the other things that we humans use to screw up the planet. We need just as many different solutions as there are problems. What we need is a cultural change that swings people from "doing nothing" to "doing something". If we keep trying to look for ways to force others to do what we want then we'll just keep fighting about it. I've planted 20 trees this week. With luck, I'll do another 50 this weekend. The plan is to turn our second, unused, field into a forest. I encourage everyone to set a good example by doing their part rather than trying to find ways of forcing others to do things for them.
    - strogonoff 6y ago
      Yes there are all those hurdles, but assuming they are figured out there’s no way someone would consciously choose to sacrifice planetary ecosystem in the name of “you know, I’d just hate to move”. Making my argument I felt being pushed into idealistic-communism-like tropes, but I think that idea could be achieved in a free world.
      - mulmen 6y ago
        You are describing simple differences in human beings as problems to be solved. This is an extremely dangerous position to take. Who is to say people in the city are not the ones that need to be "healed". You're also assuming that cities are a universal solution. What if living in a more decentralized way is actually better for the environment?
        strogonoff 6y ago
        You seem to have missed a point upthread. That’s the premise, rewilding 50% of the planet and specifically not allowing humans to enter—not to heal people somewhere but for the sake of the humanity and the ecosystem it’s part of long term. Considering our growing population, it is achievable through ultra-dense habitats, and this way it is more feasible to implement wilderness entry controls than when living in a decentralised way. It is obvious that currently there are people who’d just like to live in sparse areas, planet be damned—I bet that'll change.