4 ms·

People from rich countries exploited every possible energy source to enhance their living standards, without too much thinking about the pollution. Demanding p

by pif 6y ago

People from rich countries exploited every possible energy source to enhance their living standards, without too much thinking about the pollution. Demanding people from poor countries to pay more attention than we did is not fair, not at all.

concordDance 6y ago
"Fairness" is not a useful concept to apply here. Yes, it's not fair that Ugo the caveman could just bash Uga the cavewoman over the head and rape her while I can't do the same with my neighbour Sally. But that lack of "fairness" is irrelevant given that the thing in question (rape/destroying the environment) is bad.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Indeed it is not, which is why its a tragedy that wealthy countries basically sit around paying lip service to the issue and point finger at some poor farmer god kbow where claiming pollution is his fault Meanwhile people who control the global financial markets and industry bear no responsibility
- curryst 6y ago
  I would be far more careful in tossing aside the concept of fairness. Fairness still applies to your cave people. Sexual assault was never fair; it's true that you can't do something earlier people could, but that unfairness is more than weighed about by the fairness granted to Sally. In this case, fairness would probably look like devoting more resources to poor countries so they don't have to go through the same "destroying the environment" cultural growth phase. First world country growth was predicated on the access to energy afforded to us by selling out the environment. We are attempting to cut off that avenue for other cultures. It seems fair to accelerate them past the point of needing to destroy the environment, rather than telling them they just have to deal with being a backwater since they don't have a way to generate the energy needed to become a bleeding edge society. In more practical terms, and avoiding the concept of fairness, lesser developed countries aren't going to simply acquiesce and stop. They have no reason to. Cutting off their access to large amounts of energy is going to fling them back into the 1700-1800s. Have you seen The 1% on Netflix? It'll look like that. A small number of highly advanced countries with access to plentiful energy and all the technology that brings, and then a large number of countries that are dirt poor. I would be surprised if you could even manufacture modern medicine without access to large amounts of power. It will create a global power struggle, and first world nations are going to have to police basically the entire world to ensure there aren't any revolts or nations that are refusing to willingly go back in time.
  - concordDance 6y ago
    Energy and forest burning are different issues. Brazil is perfectly capable of becoming a properous country without destroying its rainforests. If it's practicality you care about, the USA is perfectly capable of unilaterally forcing Brazil to stop destroying rainforests via threat of sanctions or blockades. Also, just like how rape isn't fair to Sally, nor is rain forest burning fair to the year 2100 Brazilians.

by pif 6y ago

concordDance 6y ago

"Fairness" is not a useful concept to apply here. Yes, it's not fair that Ugo the caveman could just bash Uga the cavewoman over the head and rape her while I can't do the same with my neighbour Sally. But that lack of "fairness" is irrelevant given that the thing in question (rape/destroying the environment) is bad.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Indeed it is not, which is why its a tragedy that wealthy countries basically sit around paying lip service to the issue and point finger at some poor farmer god kbow where claiming pollution is his fault Meanwhile people who control the global financial markets and industry bear no responsibility
curryst 6y ago
I would be far more careful in tossing aside the concept of fairness. Fairness still applies to your cave people. Sexual assault was never fair; it's true that you can't do something earlier people could, but that unfairness is more than weighed about by the fairness granted to Sally. In this case, fairness would probably look like devoting more resources to poor countries so they don't have to go through the same "destroying the environment" cultural growth phase. First world country growth was predicated on the access to energy afforded to us by selling out the environment. We are attempting to cut off that avenue for other cultures. It seems fair to accelerate them past the point of needing to destroy the environment, rather than telling them they just have to deal with being a backwater since they don't have a way to generate the energy needed to become a bleeding edge society. In more practical terms, and avoiding the concept of fairness, lesser developed countries aren't going to simply acquiesce and stop. They have no reason to. Cutting off their access to large amounts of energy is going to fling them back into the 1700-1800s. Have you seen The 1% on Netflix? It'll look like that. A small number of highly advanced countries with access to plentiful energy and all the technology that brings, and then a large number of countries that are dirt poor. I would be surprised if you could even manufacture modern medicine without access to large amounts of power. It will create a global power struggle, and first world nations are going to have to police basically the entire world to ensure there aren't any revolts or nations that are refusing to willingly go back in time.
- concordDance 6y ago
  Energy and forest burning are different issues. Brazil is perfectly capable of becoming a properous country without destroying its rainforests. If it's practicality you care about, the USA is perfectly capable of unilaterally forcing Brazil to stop destroying rainforests via threat of sanctions or blockades. Also, just like how rape isn't fair to Sally, nor is rain forest burning fair to the year 2100 Brazilians.