3 ms·

How would some middle- and upper middle classes making eco-friendly alterations to their lives prevent e.g. the destruction of south-eastern Amazonia for farmin

How would some middle- and upper middle classes making eco-friendly alterations to their lives prevent e.g. the destruction of south-eastern Amazonia for farming? The reason for my irritation is that I find your view complacent. A few affluent people being more hippyish mainly helps those people feel better. It doesn't prevent habitat loss on a global scale. Even if they plant a nature-friendly back garden!

carapace 5y ago
> How would some middle- and upper middle classes making eco-friendly alterations to their lives prevent e.g. the destruction of south-eastern Amazonia for farming? Well, the obvious way would be that they are no longer consuming the beef or other products of destructive south-eastern Amazonia farming, eh? My question is how do eco-friendly lifestyles go mainstream to the point where the pressure to destroy the environment begins to ease up? > The reason for my irritation is that I find your view complacent. Let me reassure you that I'm anything but complacent. > A few affluent people being more hippyish mainly helps those people feel better. That's not what I'm advocating here. The problem I'm pointing out is exactly that ecology is thought of as "hippyish". Gabe Brown isn't a hippie, nor are these folks: "Homestead Paradise: got barren land, boosted it at a profit" > Mark and Jen Shepard bought a degraded corn farm in Viola, Wisconsin, and began to slowly convert it from row-crops back to a native oak savanna that would become one of the most productive perennial farms in the country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPP4Ilpxso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPP4Ilpxso > It doesn't prevent habitat loss on a global scale. Even if they plant a nature-friendly back garden! Okay, but a mass movement towards ecologically harmonious living would, so what's the hold up?
- da39a3ee 5y ago
  Thanks for replying and I do apologise if my first reply was inappropriately aggressive. > Okay, but a mass movement towards ecologically harmonious living would, so what's the hold up? I think my hesitation is this: don't you worry that the only people that have the life circumstances to contemplate anything like ecologically harmonious living are the affluent, educated, middle (UK terminology) or upper-middle (US terminology) classes? In other words, I think perhaps you're being much too optimistic about what individual humans can achieve, or even care to achieve. Huge numbers of people live near the poverty line; there's no way they are ever going to even think about changing their lives in the direction you suggest with the motivations you suggest. If you accept that claim, doesn't that suggest that habitat-preserving changes have to be mainly driven by institutions and policy/law/regulation, rather than by the actions of individuals?
  - carapace 5y ago
    > Thanks for replying and I do apologise if my first reply was inappropriately aggressive. No worries mate, I've got a thick skin and you sparked a pretty good thread, eh? > > Okay, but a mass movement towards ecologically harmonious living would, so what's the hold up? > I think my hesitation is this: don't you worry that the only people that have the life circumstances to contemplate anything like ecologically harmonious living are the affluent, educated, middle (UK terminology) or upper-middle (US terminology) classes? Well, people of the "First World" are doing the most harm per capita so it seems to me that we're the ones with the most responsibility (and means) to change, and that that would have the greatest immediate effect. > In other words, I think perhaps you're being much too optimistic about what individual humans can achieve, or even care to achieve. Huge numbers of people live near the poverty line; there's no way they are ever going to even think about changing their lives in the direction you suggest with the motivations you suggest. Actually, a lot of these "technologies" (like Permaculture and Syntropic agriculture) are pretty cheap to implement. And many folks in impoverished areas are already doing it: "India's Water Revolution #2: The Biggest Permaculture Project on Earth! with the Paani Foundation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDMnbeW3F8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDMnbeW3F8A "This man changed the fortunes of a barren land using traditional water wisdom. The story of Dhun" (also India) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415an1V0FxQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415an1V0FxQ "Two Years of Permaculture Application" (Jordan) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFFFt6G6YNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFFFt6G6YNU The cool thing about regenerative agriculture is that it's, uh, regenerative, meaning that it creates the materials that you need to make more of it (seeds mostly but also biomass for mulch, etc.) By working with life (instead of against it) you are part of a system that has evolved to make more of itself! :) > ... habitat-preserving changes have to be mainly driven by institutions and policy/law/regulation, rather than by the actions of individuals? I'm generally wary of top-down impositions but even if we are going to mandate eco-friendly lifestyles where do you get that mandate if not from (masses of) individuals? My original question is why, if these lifestyles are more fun and more economical, is it taking so long for folks to catch on? More to the point, what can we do to help them catch on?

carapace 5y ago

> How would some middle- and upper middle classes making eco-friendly alterations to their lives prevent e.g. the destruction of south-eastern Amazonia for farming? Well, the obvious way would be that they are no longer consuming the beef or other products of destructive south-eastern Amazonia farming, eh? My question is how do eco-friendly lifestyles go mainstream to the point where the pressure to destroy the environment begins to ease up? > The reason for my irritation is that I find your view complacent. Let me reassure you that I'm anything but complacent. > A few affluent people being more hippyish mainly helps those people feel better. That's not what I'm advocating here. The problem I'm pointing out is exactly that ecology is thought of as "hippyish". Gabe Brown isn't a hippie, nor are these folks: "Homestead Paradise: got barren land, boosted it at a profit" > Mark and Jen Shepard bought a degraded corn farm in Viola, Wisconsin, and began to slowly convert it from row-crops back to a native oak savanna that would become one of the most productive perennial farms in the country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPP4Ilpxso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPP4Ilpxso > It doesn't prevent habitat loss on a global scale. Even if they plant a nature-friendly back garden! Okay, but a mass movement towards ecologically harmonious living would, so what's the hold up?

da39a3ee 5y ago
Thanks for replying and I do apologise if my first reply was inappropriately aggressive. > Okay, but a mass movement towards ecologically harmonious living would, so what's the hold up? I think my hesitation is this: don't you worry that the only people that have the life circumstances to contemplate anything like ecologically harmonious living are the affluent, educated, middle (UK terminology) or upper-middle (US terminology) classes? In other words, I think perhaps you're being much too optimistic about what individual humans can achieve, or even care to achieve. Huge numbers of people live near the poverty line; there's no way they are ever going to even think about changing their lives in the direction you suggest with the motivations you suggest. If you accept that claim, doesn't that suggest that habitat-preserving changes have to be mainly driven by institutions and policy/law/regulation, rather than by the actions of individuals?
- carapace 5y ago
  > Thanks for replying and I do apologise if my first reply was inappropriately aggressive. No worries mate, I've got a thick skin and you sparked a pretty good thread, eh? > > Okay, but a mass movement towards ecologically harmonious living would, so what's the hold up? > I think my hesitation is this: don't you worry that the only people that have the life circumstances to contemplate anything like ecologically harmonious living are the affluent, educated, middle (UK terminology) or upper-middle (US terminology) classes? Well, people of the "First World" are doing the most harm per capita so it seems to me that we're the ones with the most responsibility (and means) to change, and that that would have the greatest immediate effect. > In other words, I think perhaps you're being much too optimistic about what individual humans can achieve, or even care to achieve. Huge numbers of people live near the poverty line; there's no way they are ever going to even think about changing their lives in the direction you suggest with the motivations you suggest. Actually, a lot of these "technologies" (like Permaculture and Syntropic agriculture) are pretty cheap to implement. And many folks in impoverished areas are already doing it: "India's Water Revolution #2: The Biggest Permaculture Project on Earth! with the Paani Foundation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDMnbeW3F8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDMnbeW3F8A "This man changed the fortunes of a barren land using traditional water wisdom. The story of Dhun" (also India) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415an1V0FxQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415an1V0FxQ "Two Years of Permaculture Application" (Jordan) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFFFt6G6YNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFFFt6G6YNU The cool thing about regenerative agriculture is that it's, uh, regenerative, meaning that it creates the materials that you need to make more of it (seeds mostly but also biomass for mulch, etc.) By working with life (instead of against it) you are part of a system that has evolved to make more of itself! :) > ... habitat-preserving changes have to be mainly driven by institutions and policy/law/regulation, rather than by the actions of individuals? I'm generally wary of top-down impositions but even if we are going to mandate eco-friendly lifestyles where do you get that mandate if not from (masses of) individuals? My original question is why, if these lifestyles are more fun and more economical, is it taking so long for folks to catch on? More to the point, what can we do to help them catch on?