4 ms·

Yes, I want people to justify their complex policy positions that have far-reaching consequences, here in a comment. Why else are we on this forum? It's not lik

Yes, I want people to justify their complex policy positions that have far-reaching consequences, here in a comment. Why else are we on this forum? It's not like I'm asking people to justify that two and two make four. Heat waves, wildfires, melting permafrost and sea ice, stronger storms -- OK, that's fine, I'm not disputing that these things are happening. But what is the human toll of these things compared against the literal billions of lives uplifted from terrible poverty in the global fossil fuel-based capitalist(ish) economy? That is the question I keep asking and to which I never seem to get a clear answer. The time, effort, and resources we spend on de-carbonizing the global economy (or whatever other mitigation efforts are being studied and suggested) are time, effort, and resources that have alternative uses that could also benefit humanity. I wish to examine those alternative uses and the marginal cost at each level of mitigation. What I keep getting instead are categorical assertions that we are all doomed (literally, as in civilizational collapse) if we don't repent our ways and not much more than vague handwaving that renewable energy will be cheaper, more abundant, and easier to use. I want an answer to the question: how do we bring the roughly half of the world living on a few bucks a day to first-world living standards? As a commenter put it so eloquently elsewhere, how do we ensure that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis can live like Texans? Because relieving human suffering is my goal.

felix_n 4y ago
Why would you assume no conflict exists between the goals of all the worlds peoples "living like Texans," and preventing environmental catastrophe? The Earth is facing serious climate change just from a plurality of humans living rampantly consumerist lifestyles, I don't think more of that is in the cards unless the number of humans drastically shrinks.
- prottog 4y ago
  Let me be clear and say that "living like Texans" is a shorthand for a first-world standard of living, with maybe a touch of extravagance thrown in. I'm not advocating that everyone do in fact live like Texans if they don't want to! People should be free to live like monks if they want. But actual people on the ground, especially if that ground is in places that aren't as developed, do in fact want higher standards of living. I do not see myself as having the moral authority to tell them that they cannot have it because of environmental reasons. I'd rather leave it up to them to decide whether they want to "drill, baby, drill" now and live with the possibility of facing the music later, or keep living in huts.
grive 4y ago
> As a commenter put it so eloquently elsewhere, how do we ensure that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis can live like Texans? Because relieving human suffering is my goal. Are you prepared to hear that it is simply not possible? We have finite resources. If everyone was living like in developed countries, we would consume the entirety of the resources we are currently capable of extracting from the Earth in a year, in only a few months. And even if we expanded our extraction capabilities, there is only one Earth, of which only finite amount of material will be useful and put to good use for our comfort. Given that, there is only two possibilities: reduce resource consumption, or expand the amount of available resources. * Reduce: you can either reduce each individual usage, or reduce the number of individuals. Now you see why everyone is advocating for reduced individual usage, because culling the population is seen as 'not relieving human suffering'. * Increase: it requires going away from Earth and expanding into at least adjacent bodies with the capability of transforming them into useful stuff. To plan for that, you need to prove first that such solution would be possible before we are all extinct from the ecological collapse of our life support systems. So now you are back to square one: if 'increasing' the available resources is not available right now, and might not even be available in the future, and reducing the population is frowned upon, then you are forced to find a way to reduce resource consumption. Which might well mean that for everyone to live like Texans, that means Texans will have to change their lives and live like everyone else. Once our ecosystem has collapsed, a possibility we see approaching close and closer, then *no one* will live, nevermind with the latest F150 or whathaveyou that Texans might enjoy. If your goal is truly to reduce human suffering, you must also entertain the possibility that we must limit ourselves. Someone living hedonistically, trying to enjoy earthly pleasures as much as possible and dying at age 35 to cardiac and respiratory failure, has not succeeded in enjoying their lives the most. Another question might be: does everyone want to live like Texans in the first place? Are you planning to burn our Earth on faulty ideological or cultural assumptions? Because believe me, when I see how Americans live, I definitely do not wish to join them. You might be culturally conditioned to believe your way is the best, but don't take extreme opinions such as 'climate change is preferable to modifying the status quo' based on such myopic views.
- prottog 4y ago
  > when I see how Americans live, I definitely do not wish to join them. Everyone's entitled to their preferences, but more people migrate to the US than any other country in the world, so it's evident that a lot people do wish to join them. And 7-8 of the top 10 recipients of global cross-border migration is to first-world countries, the inhabitants of which consume orders of magnitude more energy (even if that's less than Texans do) than those of the origin countries; so clearly many people other than myself vote with their feet to and go where more energy and resources are consumed per capita than less. Will you call all of those people myopic for pursuing a richer life, as well? > Are you prepared to hear that it is simply not possible? We have finite resources. Absolutely! I'm not wishing for sunshine and rainbows to appear magically and raise everyone's living standards. I simply choose to step out of the way of the people who are doing so by any means, including burning fossil fuels. And though it is axiomatically true that we live in a physical universe and therefore our resources are finite, I hope you're equally prepared to hear that in terms of the primary materials that go into producing the things that people consume, we've really just only scratched the surface of the Earth. It's pretty big. We're quite a long ways from where we need to mine other planets for resources. > Once our ecosystem has collapsed, a possibility we see approaching close and closer Eh. This gets repeated over and over with little evidence. Flooding in flood plains? Bring in the big earthmoving equipment, run the concrete plans, all powered by fossil fuels, and build dams. Cities with temperate climates experiencing more heat waves? Insulate homes and put in air conditioning. We'll adapt, or at least I will.

felix_n 4y ago

Why would you assume no conflict exists between the goals of all the worlds peoples "living like Texans," and preventing environmental catastrophe? The Earth is facing serious climate change just from a plurality of humans living rampantly consumerist lifestyles, I don't think more of that is in the cards unless the number of humans drastically shrinks.

prottog 4y ago
Let me be clear and say that "living like Texans" is a shorthand for a first-world standard of living, with maybe a touch of extravagance thrown in. I'm not advocating that everyone do in fact live like Texans if they don't want to! People should be free to live like monks if they want. But actual people on the ground, especially if that ground is in places that aren't as developed, do in fact want higher standards of living. I do not see myself as having the moral authority to tell them that they cannot have it because of environmental reasons. I'd rather leave it up to them to decide whether they want to "drill, baby, drill" now and live with the possibility of facing the music later, or keep living in huts.

grive 4y ago

> As a commenter put it so eloquently elsewhere, how do we ensure that Bangladeshis and Pakistanis can live like Texans? Because relieving human suffering is my goal. Are you prepared to hear that it is simply not possible? We have finite resources. If everyone was living like in developed countries, we would consume the entirety of the resources we are currently capable of extracting from the Earth in a year, in only a few months. And even if we expanded our extraction capabilities, there is only one Earth, of which only finite amount of material will be useful and put to good use for our comfort. Given that, there is only two possibilities: reduce resource consumption, or expand the amount of available resources. * Reduce: you can either reduce each individual usage, or reduce the number of individuals. Now you see why everyone is advocating for reduced individual usage, because culling the population is seen as 'not relieving human suffering'. * Increase: it requires going away from Earth and expanding into at least adjacent bodies with the capability of transforming them into useful stuff. To plan for that, you need to prove first that such solution would be possible before we are all extinct from the ecological collapse of our life support systems. So now you are back to square one: if 'increasing' the available resources is not available right now, and might not even be available in the future, and reducing the population is frowned upon, then you are forced to find a way to reduce resource consumption. Which might well mean that for everyone to live like Texans, that means Texans will have to change their lives and live like everyone else. Once our ecosystem has collapsed, a possibility we see approaching close and closer, then *no one* will live, nevermind with the latest F150 or whathaveyou that Texans might enjoy. If your goal is truly to reduce human suffering, you must also entertain the possibility that we must limit ourselves. Someone living hedonistically, trying to enjoy earthly pleasures as much as possible and dying at age 35 to cardiac and respiratory failure, has not succeeded in enjoying their lives the most. Another question might be: does everyone want to live like Texans in the first place? Are you planning to burn our Earth on faulty ideological or cultural assumptions? Because believe me, when I see how Americans live, I definitely do not wish to join them. You might be culturally conditioned to believe your way is the best, but don't take extreme opinions such as 'climate change is preferable to modifying the status quo' based on such myopic views.

prottog 4y ago
> when I see how Americans live, I definitely do not wish to join them. Everyone's entitled to their preferences, but more people migrate to the US than any other country in the world, so it's evident that a lot people do wish to join them. And 7-8 of the top 10 recipients of global cross-border migration is to first-world countries, the inhabitants of which consume orders of magnitude more energy (even if that's less than Texans do) than those of the origin countries; so clearly many people other than myself vote with their feet to and go where more energy and resources are consumed per capita than less. Will you call all of those people myopic for pursuing a richer life, as well? > Are you prepared to hear that it is simply not possible? We have finite resources. Absolutely! I'm not wishing for sunshine and rainbows to appear magically and raise everyone's living standards. I simply choose to step out of the way of the people who are doing so by any means, including burning fossil fuels. And though it is axiomatically true that we live in a physical universe and therefore our resources are finite, I hope you're equally prepared to hear that in terms of the primary materials that go into producing the things that people consume, we've really just only scratched the surface of the Earth. It's pretty big. We're quite a long ways from where we need to mine other planets for resources. > Once our ecosystem has collapsed, a possibility we see approaching close and closer Eh. This gets repeated over and over with little evidence. Flooding in flood plains? Bring in the big earthmoving equipment, run the concrete plans, all powered by fossil fuels, and build dams. Cities with temperate climates experiencing more heat waves? Insulate homes and put in air conditioning. We'll adapt, or at least I will.