3 ms·

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 mi

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.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      No I get the point, I just disagree. I don't think centralization and separating ourselves from nature alone is a viable solution. We need to coexist and find more sustainable and environmentally friendly ways to exist in general.
      - strogonoff 6y ago
        If you disagree with the premise, then you are misplacing your argument. I was replying to a comment that argued this cannot be done nicely and mentioned forced relocations of the past. I argue that there was no precedent for relocation of people done in the name of wilderness preservation, which can be voluntary and with downsides mitigated. The premise itself, the idea put forward by OP, is not without downsides and fundamental hurdles that I listed and acknowledged, though it is an interesting idea.
        fogihujy 6y ago
        The entire premise is a bit shaky and I am not convinced planned re-locations will result in a net positive for the environment. It's quite possible for a human to live in the wilderness alongside the aforementioned wolves (I saw a pack in the distance as late as yesterday). As you say, this sub-thread isn't about that, though. :) For what it's worth, large parts of the remote and sparsely populated areas are being slowly de-populated anyway. Things like coal mines and other obsolete resource extraction sites are shutting down, and most people move on over time. And then there's morons like me and my family, who moved out because we want to. There's more people like that, but it's not really enough to worry about. Long story short: If someone is staying behind when businesses, stores and schools close, and the ageing infrastructure crumbles, well, then you're not going to convince that person to move anyway.
        strogonoff 6y ago
        Fair point.

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.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    No I get the point, I just disagree. I don't think centralization and separating ourselves from nature alone is a viable solution. We need to coexist and find more sustainable and environmentally friendly ways to exist in general.
    - strogonoff 6y ago
      If you disagree with the premise, then you are misplacing your argument. I was replying to a comment that argued this cannot be done nicely and mentioned forced relocations of the past. I argue that there was no precedent for relocation of people done in the name of wilderness preservation, which can be voluntary and with downsides mitigated. The premise itself, the idea put forward by OP, is not without downsides and fundamental hurdles that I listed and acknowledged, though it is an interesting idea.
      - fogihujy 6y ago
        The entire premise is a bit shaky and I am not convinced planned re-locations will result in a net positive for the environment. It's quite possible for a human to live in the wilderness alongside the aforementioned wolves (I saw a pack in the distance as late as yesterday). As you say, this sub-thread isn't about that, though. :) For what it's worth, large parts of the remote and sparsely populated areas are being slowly de-populated anyway. Things like coal mines and other obsolete resource extraction sites are shutting down, and most people move on over time. And then there's morons like me and my family, who moved out because we want to. There's more people like that, but it's not really enough to worry about. Long story short: If someone is staying behind when businesses, stores and schools close, and the ageing infrastructure crumbles, well, then you're not going to convince that person to move anyway.
        strogonoff 6y ago
        Fair point.