6 ms·

I'd still rather have prosperity

by eznzt 6y ago

pedro_hab 6y ago
Yes! A lot of people don't even have access to electricity, even more don't use as much because of the price. We would need to be using way more fossil fuels / nuclear to have more equality. This idea to reduce our impact in nature forgets the most vulnerable, which could use some impact in nature in order to have more prosperity. Well, this is all way easier said than done.
- Xylakant 6y ago
  Our impact in nature also affects the most vulnerable disproportionately bad. Changing weather pattern, floods, droughts, poisoning the niger delta with oil leaks is a result of an economic system that puts (our) prosperity above all other goals. It’s no coincidence that China is actually making increasingly strong environmental demands and promises. They’re not doing it for some romantic notion of nature, but because it’s an issue that puts them at risk.
  - pedro_hab 6y ago
    This isn't true at the moment, it could be in the future. Less people die because of nature disasters and such today that they did 100 years ago. Technology and medicine helps us, they would, without a doubt, be better off with technology than they do without it.
    - Xylakant 6y ago
      > This isn't true at the moment, it could be in the future. Shell just lost a lawsuit because they did spill oil all over the Niger Delta https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jan/29/finally-some-justice-court-rules-shell-nigeria-must-pay-for-oil-damage https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jan/29/f... Took only a decade and a bit to even acknowledge that they’re liable.
- netizen-9748 6y ago
  What makes them vulnerable? What are they vulnerable to? Are there not indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature? Are they prosperous?
  - jl6 6y ago
    > indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature This is usually called poverty.
    - pedro_hab 6y ago
      Yeah, they think its great to live in the jungle, seeing every other newborn dying, just cus your carbon footprint is low. They couldn't care less for those forgotten children.
    - cabaalis 6y ago
      It requires respecting nature as a new class of asset. I think anyone might understand who has had the beautiful field next to their home developed into a neighborhood, or watched the woods behind their house torn down and developed. Had that beautiful field or wooded area been given a "nature cost" to destroy, maybe the developers would have made other choices.
  - pedro_hab 6y ago
    Nature, they are vulnerable to nature. They could use cars, ambulances, hospitals and etc. Nature is brutal, always has been, no one lives on harmony with it. Look at the indigenous peoples death rate, child mortality.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > Are there not indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature? Probably there are some somewhere. But most rely on completely unsustainable practices. > Are they prosperous? You've received some answers, but keep in mind that "poor" is a word we usually apply to people in much wealthier situations.
    - 6y ago
- nly 6y ago
  Exactly. Equality. People have had no electricity for most of human history. The the vulnerable and poor are considered vulnerable and poor only because, by definition, the wealthy and prosperous exist. The reason not having access to electricity or technology is inherently bad is because the majority do. All we can do is hope the median moves up over time and, more importantly, and the spread doesn't get too wide.
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    > for most of human history I think the problems of the poor today are quite different than those of people of the past. For most of human history, people were not trapped within borders and systems of private property and so could provide for their basic needs. They don't just not have resources, they are prevented from having them. Nor were people of the past going to be the effected the most (according to everything I read) by pollution and climate change. Things have changed a lot, I'd say.
- finiteseries 6y ago
  It’s not just having the fuel. Nigeria is oil rich, absolutely bogged down with the stuff in the southern parts of the country. Somewhere in the central/northernish part of the country is a family owned farm that runs entirely off of diesel generators out of a lack of decent power generation. An immense amount of money is spent simply on fuel. Those costs naturally affect transport of their goods, and the price they get for them. The most pressing issue by far in their micro region however, are herdsman from another ethnic group to the north intentionally running their cattle onto newly planted fields to graze. Not power generation. Not prosperity. Not nature. They’re planting melons near the approach to their land last I heard as cattle can’t eat the shoots? I’m not sure, but it sounded like a common solution.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
LockAndLol 6y ago
That's shortsighted. Humanity will run off the proverbial cliff if that sentiment stays. Sure, you might not suffer now, but at this point, probably your kids and/or grandkids will. If you don't have nor want kids, then you'll be hurting your friends' and relatives' kids. If you really don't care, well ain't nothing that can be said to convince you otherwise unless you feel the actual effects.
legulere 6y ago
It’s not an either or question. A devastated nature will also lead to less prosperity. We’re more in the realm of takin on debt we can never pay back.
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  It was framed as an either-or choice in the headline. Between nature and prosperity - I’d absolutely pick prosperity; my hopes are that we’ll come full circle and use prosperity to repair nature (green tech and all that), so that perhaps ecologically destructive actions taken during the last few centuries will be more of a loan from nature to us than a permanent grant.
  - cool_dude85 6y ago
    The enlightened caveman, after whacking some other poor guy upside the head with a big club: "My hope is to use this food I took from you to develop new medical technologies to fix your shattered skull. This is more of a loan than a grant."
    - flyinglizard 6y ago
      I just have to wonder how all those who chose nature over prosperity had the technological means to downvote me.
littlestymaar 6y ago
Those who would give up nature, to purchase a little prosperity, deserve neither and will end up losing both.
- refurb 6y ago
  Just substitute “modern medical care” for “prosperity” and you’ll see how ridiculous your statement is.
  - littlestymaar 6y ago
    Except in your sentence it doesn't make any sense because there is no arbitrage between nature and modern healthcare. When prosperity means “throwing away tons of electronic crap people give each other for Christmas because they have been exposed to ads and social pressure to buy crap” or “flying planes in circle in the sky because people are nostalgic of traveling during lock-down”, then you can't have “prosperity” without harming nature.
    - refurb 6y ago
      All that crap people buy and flights people take generate economic value that helps pays for stuff like medical care. You can't have one without the other.
      - littlestymaar 6y ago
        No. “Economic value”, that is GDP, means consumption. We are consuming plane trips, and that counts as valuable because we were ready to pay for it. If I enjoy watching people dig holes and refill it in my backyard, and pay people to do so, this is creating “economic value” because “it bring you pleasure, and you were ready to put a hundred dollar in it, that means it gave you $100 of pleasure” (that's literally how GDP works), it doesn't benefit medical care in any way. And it fact, if I'm paying $1000/h for hole digging, I'm actually harming medical care, because some people would become hole digger instead of nurse / doctors / researchers.
cool_dude85 6y ago
A question for you - are you one of the relatively few people on Earth who actually gets a part of that prosperity? Like, access to electricity on demand, enough food to eat, clean water to drink, health care, the whole deal? Cause there are a lot of people who don't get to have prosperity and still are seeing the effects of your choices. In fact, many of them are even more impacted by the harmful effects of the choices you're making than you are! Why don't they get a say too?
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  Developing nations pollute more than developed nations. They are mostly seeing the effect of their own choices. (yes, you could argue they don’t exactly have a choice, but still it’s not like they’re suffering from GP’s personal choices)
  - A12-B 6y ago
    This is not true. Per capita, the highest polluters are developed nations. On absolute terms, the highest polluters are also developed nations. Most pollution comes from industry, not individuals. As far as I'm aware you cannot choose what another industry does, because they have private rights. There is no 'but still', no one has a choice. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      Thank you for bringing some actual data. However, I think one has to question the accuracy of CO2 emissions data collected in developing nations [0]. That's not to say it's all pointless, just that I doubt they'll be keeping track of the emissions of that tire graveyard that accidentally burned down yesterday, for example. Or chemicals dumped into the environment by the local mining company. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in your second paragraph. Maybe you could elaborate? [0] https://e360.yale.edu/features/paris-conundrum-how-to-know-how-much-carbon-is-being-emitted https://e360.yale.edu/features/paris-conundrum-how-to-know-h...
ArnoVW 6y ago
What about the people that suffer the consequences but that do not have prosperity? What about the people that come after you? I think this cartoon sums it up quite aptly: https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
- eznzt 6y ago
  I don't care. I know this will get downvoted, but it is the most popular position—most people simply don't care. I don't, either.
  - brabel 6y ago
    Given the actual attitude of most people, rather than their word, I believe you do represent a majority of humans.
    - eznzt 6y ago
      Yes, that's the result of decades of shaming by the mass media. They make people feel guilty about not caring, so they won't say it out loud, but they still don't care, so they won't change their choices.
      - A12-B 6y ago
        Your justification for not caring is a circular "because it is the most popular position". You still know it's wrong and have no good justification for it, of course people are going to shame you. It's not some media agenda.
        eznzt 6y ago
        No, that is not my justification for not caring. I said it is the most popular position because I wanted to avoid being downvoted.
      - imtringued 6y ago
        I don't even know if shaming works. Ok, it is bad to do thing X but I still can't do anything about it. I can now hate myself for committing a "sin", I can deny it entirely and hate you for shaming me or I can do something superficial that makes me look and feel good. This is not a recipe for incremental change. Lots of people quit smoking through vaping because they can easily control their nicotine dosage and thus incrementally change their addiction problem. If you quit cold turkey you will just fall back to old habits.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lcamach84 6y ago
The title should say economic growth and not prosperity. You can have prosperity in a system whose objective is not infinite growth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPUogXUkr7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPUogXUkr7I
- refurb 6y ago
  I’m not watching your video but prosperity (as most people define it) and economic growth are very closely linked.
  - CuriouslyC 6y ago
    Prosperity is about having an abundance of the things in life that really matter. That only requires economic growth when there aren't enough of those things to go around. Right now, there are enough of those things to go around, and way more, if all the people doing stupid useless shit like working in advertising became farmers and makers. Our society is being held hostage by plutocrats.
    - refurb 6y ago
      This is a fantasy that sounds good in practice, but sucks in reality. You’re dying of incurable cancer. Do you have enough or do you want more economic growth so we can try and cure it? If you're willing to die from stepping on a nail, then ok. I'm not.
      - CuriouslyC 6y ago
        Death will always be a thing. I'm not selfish enough to want to enslave the planet to buy me a few more years.
        refurb 6y ago
        Ok, but don’t force your views on others. If you want to die because a tooth is infected, then go for it. I’ll trade “enslaving the planet a bit” for another 50 decades of life, thank you very much.
refurb 6y ago
If given the choice between not dying of a tooth infection and the destruction of some not insignificant part of nature, I’d take not dying as well.
vaylian 6y ago
There is no prosperity if natural catastrophes destroy our homes.

I'd still rather have prosperity

by eznzt 6y ago

I'd still rather have prosperity

Yes! A lot of people don't even have access to electricity, even more don't use as much because of the price. We would need to be using way more fossil fuels / nuclear to have more equality. This idea to reduce our impact in nature forgets the most vulnerable, which could use some impact in nature in order to have more prosperity. Well, this is all way easier said than done.

Xylakant 6y ago
Our impact in nature also affects the most vulnerable disproportionately bad. Changing weather pattern, floods, droughts, poisoning the niger delta with oil leaks is a result of an economic system that puts (our) prosperity above all other goals. It’s no coincidence that China is actually making increasingly strong environmental demands and promises. They’re not doing it for some romantic notion of nature, but because it’s an issue that puts them at risk.
- pedro_hab 6y ago
  This isn't true at the moment, it could be in the future. Less people die because of nature disasters and such today that they did 100 years ago. Technology and medicine helps us, they would, without a doubt, be better off with technology than they do without it.
  - Xylakant 6y ago
    > This isn't true at the moment, it could be in the future. Shell just lost a lawsuit because they did spill oil all over the Niger Delta https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jan/29/finally-some-justice-court-rules-shell-nigeria-must-pay-for-oil-damage https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jan/29/f... Took only a decade and a bit to even acknowledge that they’re liable.
netizen-9748 6y ago
What makes them vulnerable? What are they vulnerable to? Are there not indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature? Are they prosperous?
- jl6 6y ago
  > indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature This is usually called poverty.
  - pedro_hab 6y ago
    Yeah, they think its great to live in the jungle, seeing every other newborn dying, just cus your carbon footprint is low. They couldn't care less for those forgotten children.
  - cabaalis 6y ago
    It requires respecting nature as a new class of asset. I think anyone might understand who has had the beautiful field next to their home developed into a neighborhood, or watched the woods behind their house torn down and developed. Had that beautiful field or wooded area been given a "nature cost" to destroy, maybe the developers would have made other choices.
- pedro_hab 6y ago
  Nature, they are vulnerable to nature. They could use cars, ambulances, hospitals and etc. Nature is brutal, always has been, no one lives on harmony with it. Look at the indigenous peoples death rate, child mortality.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > Are there not indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature? Probably there are some somewhere. But most rely on completely unsustainable practices. > Are they prosperous? You've received some answers, but keep in mind that "poor" is a word we usually apply to people in much wealthier situations.
  - 6y ago
nly 6y ago
Exactly. Equality. People have had no electricity for most of human history. The the vulnerable and poor are considered vulnerable and poor only because, by definition, the wealthy and prosperous exist. The reason not having access to electricity or technology is inherently bad is because the majority do. All we can do is hope the median moves up over time and, more importantly, and the spread doesn't get too wide.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  > for most of human history I think the problems of the poor today are quite different than those of people of the past. For most of human history, people were not trapped within borders and systems of private property and so could provide for their basic needs. They don't just not have resources, they are prevented from having them. Nor were people of the past going to be the effected the most (according to everything I read) by pollution and climate change. Things have changed a lot, I'd say.
finiteseries 6y ago
It’s not just having the fuel. Nigeria is oil rich, absolutely bogged down with the stuff in the southern parts of the country. Somewhere in the central/northernish part of the country is a family owned farm that runs entirely off of diesel generators out of a lack of decent power generation. An immense amount of money is spent simply on fuel. Those costs naturally affect transport of their goods, and the price they get for them. The most pressing issue by far in their micro region however, are herdsman from another ethnic group to the north intentionally running their cattle onto newly planted fields to graze. Not power generation. Not prosperity. Not nature. They’re planting melons near the approach to their land last I heard as cattle can’t eat the shoots? I’m not sure, but it sounded like a common solution.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

LockAndLol 6y ago

That's shortsighted. Humanity will run off the proverbial cliff if that sentiment stays. Sure, you might not suffer now, but at this point, probably your kids and/or grandkids will. If you don't have nor want kids, then you'll be hurting your friends' and relatives' kids. If you really don't care, well ain't nothing that can be said to convince you otherwise unless you feel the actual effects.

legulere 6y ago

It’s not an either or question. A devastated nature will also lead to less prosperity. We’re more in the realm of takin on debt we can never pay back.

flyinglizard 6y ago
It was framed as an either-or choice in the headline. Between nature and prosperity - I’d absolutely pick prosperity; my hopes are that we’ll come full circle and use prosperity to repair nature (green tech and all that), so that perhaps ecologically destructive actions taken during the last few centuries will be more of a loan from nature to us than a permanent grant.
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  The enlightened caveman, after whacking some other poor guy upside the head with a big club: "My hope is to use this food I took from you to develop new medical technologies to fix your shattered skull. This is more of a loan than a grant."
  - flyinglizard 6y ago
    I just have to wonder how all those who chose nature over prosperity had the technological means to downvote me.

littlestymaar 6y ago

Those who would give up nature, to purchase a little prosperity, deserve neither and will end up losing both.

refurb 6y ago
Just substitute “modern medical care” for “prosperity” and you’ll see how ridiculous your statement is.
- littlestymaar 6y ago
  Except in your sentence it doesn't make any sense because there is no arbitrage between nature and modern healthcare. When prosperity means “throwing away tons of electronic crap people give each other for Christmas because they have been exposed to ads and social pressure to buy crap” or “flying planes in circle in the sky because people are nostalgic of traveling during lock-down”, then you can't have “prosperity” without harming nature.
  - refurb 6y ago
    All that crap people buy and flights people take generate economic value that helps pays for stuff like medical care. You can't have one without the other.
    - littlestymaar 6y ago
      No. “Economic value”, that is GDP, means consumption. We are consuming plane trips, and that counts as valuable because we were ready to pay for it. If I enjoy watching people dig holes and refill it in my backyard, and pay people to do so, this is creating “economic value” because “it bring you pleasure, and you were ready to put a hundred dollar in it, that means it gave you $100 of pleasure” (that's literally how GDP works), it doesn't benefit medical care in any way. And it fact, if I'm paying $1000/h for hole digging, I'm actually harming medical care, because some people would become hole digger instead of nurse / doctors / researchers.

cool_dude85 6y ago

A question for you - are you one of the relatively few people on Earth who actually gets a part of that prosperity? Like, access to electricity on demand, enough food to eat, clean water to drink, health care, the whole deal? Cause there are a lot of people who don't get to have prosperity and still are seeing the effects of your choices. In fact, many of them are even more impacted by the harmful effects of the choices you're making than you are! Why don't they get a say too?

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
Developing nations pollute more than developed nations. They are mostly seeing the effect of their own choices. (yes, you could argue they don’t exactly have a choice, but still it’s not like they’re suffering from GP’s personal choices)
- A12-B 6y ago
  This is not true. Per capita, the highest polluters are developed nations. On absolute terms, the highest polluters are also developed nations. Most pollution comes from industry, not individuals. As far as I'm aware you cannot choose what another industry does, because they have private rights. There is no 'but still', no one has a choice. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Thank you for bringing some actual data. However, I think one has to question the accuracy of CO2 emissions data collected in developing nations [0]. That's not to say it's all pointless, just that I doubt they'll be keeping track of the emissions of that tire graveyard that accidentally burned down yesterday, for example. Or chemicals dumped into the environment by the local mining company. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in your second paragraph. Maybe you could elaborate? [0] https://e360.yale.edu/features/paris-conundrum-how-to-know-how-much-carbon-is-being-emitted https://e360.yale.edu/features/paris-conundrum-how-to-know-h...

ArnoVW 6y ago

What about the people that suffer the consequences but that do not have prosperity? What about the people that come after you? I think this cartoon sums it up quite aptly: https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

eznzt 6y ago
I don't care. I know this will get downvoted, but it is the most popular position—most people simply don't care. I don't, either.
- brabel 6y ago
  Given the actual attitude of most people, rather than their word, I believe you do represent a majority of humans.
  - eznzt 6y ago
    Yes, that's the result of decades of shaming by the mass media. They make people feel guilty about not caring, so they won't say it out loud, but they still don't care, so they won't change their choices.
    - A12-B 6y ago
      Your justification for not caring is a circular "because it is the most popular position". You still know it's wrong and have no good justification for it, of course people are going to shame you. It's not some media agenda.
      - eznzt 6y ago
        No, that is not my justification for not caring. I said it is the most popular position because I wanted to avoid being downvoted.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      I don't even know if shaming works. Ok, it is bad to do thing X but I still can't do anything about it. I can now hate myself for committing a "sin", I can deny it entirely and hate you for shaming me or I can do something superficial that makes me look and feel good. This is not a recipe for incremental change. Lots of people quit smoking through vaping because they can easily control their nicotine dosage and thus incrementally change their addiction problem. If you quit cold turkey you will just fall back to old habits.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lcamach84 6y ago

The title should say economic growth and not prosperity. You can have prosperity in a system whose objective is not infinite growth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPUogXUkr7I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPUogXUkr7I

refurb 6y ago
I’m not watching your video but prosperity (as most people define it) and economic growth are very closely linked.
- CuriouslyC 6y ago
  Prosperity is about having an abundance of the things in life that really matter. That only requires economic growth when there aren't enough of those things to go around. Right now, there are enough of those things to go around, and way more, if all the people doing stupid useless shit like working in advertising became farmers and makers. Our society is being held hostage by plutocrats.
  - refurb 6y ago
    This is a fantasy that sounds good in practice, but sucks in reality. You’re dying of incurable cancer. Do you have enough or do you want more economic growth so we can try and cure it? If you're willing to die from stepping on a nail, then ok. I'm not.
    - CuriouslyC 6y ago
      Death will always be a thing. I'm not selfish enough to want to enslave the planet to buy me a few more years.
      - refurb 6y ago
        Ok, but don’t force your views on others. If you want to die because a tooth is infected, then go for it. I’ll trade “enslaving the planet a bit” for another 50 decades of life, thank you very much.

refurb 6y ago

If given the choice between not dying of a tooth infection and the destruction of some not insignificant part of nature, I’d take not dying as well.

vaylian 6y ago

There is no prosperity if natural catastrophes destroy our homes.