4 ms·
Yay, I'm not the only person who thinks this way. What's troubling, to me, is that "saving the rainforest" or nature conservancy in general is much more appeal
by dr_dshiv 6y ago
Yay, I'm not the only person who thinks this way.
What's troubling, to me, is that "saving the rainforest" or nature conservancy in general is much more appealing to political conservatives than climate change. In theory, it is much easier to get large companies and nation states to take actions to protect lands than to reduce consumption.
But that's where the philosophy of environmentalism can diverge. Are humans capable of being part of nature? Or are we a cancer on the system? An enormous number of people are very misanthropic these days, on principle.
It's frustrating, also, because consistently-- when people get richer, they care more about preserving nature.
This suggests a natural harmony between economic growth and environtal protection. That idea is very offensive to some; but the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of optimism.
- da39a3ee 6y agoI think that you need to explain your idea there a bit more carefully otherwise yes, it does sound questionable. I am an open-minded person and certainly not someone who objects simply because something appears to violate some sort of left-wing dogma. But, for example, in the southern Amazonian areas of northern Brazil, deforestation is carried out by logging companies and ranch owners, and the ranch and logging company owners mostly come from richer areas of southern Brazil. So local people are poor, and the people from areas with higher GDP are the ones doing the deforesting. At the very least you need to explain why what you said isn't contradicted by obvious examples like that.