3 ms·
>which clears forests and woodlands. Strictly speaking in the US, it's already cleared. The center of the country, the Great Plains, has almost no trees. Much
by Clubber 3y ago
>which clears forests and woodlands.
Strictly speaking in the US, it's already cleared. The center of the country, the Great Plains, has almost no trees. Much of the US is pastureland, and you don't have to clearcut a place to live there.
>More agriculture is required for more people, which means more land clearing.
Which means more efficient agriculture, which we have an abundance of.
>Renewable energy infrastructure needs energy and resources to build and needs to be replaced at EOL.
I'm talking create your own grid living, not create a renewable grid.
>And I haven't even said anything about the environmental costs of manufacturing and shipping goods.
Manufacturing cost is already there, but you're right about shipping. We do have extensive railroads and a massive river system already.
>People won't go back to a "simpler" way of life because it's a backward step in lifestyle.
Some people won't and they can live in cities. Currently, nearly everyone has to live in a city for economic reasons (workplace). Once that stops being a thing, the people that want to move away from a city, and the crime, and the traffic, can do that.
>People don't want to sacrifice their lifestyle to do their very small part to help stave off a catastrophe.
With all the talk about climate change, I've seen very few people do any type of personal sacrifice to change it.
- eimrine 3y ago> Which means more efficient agriculture, which we have an abundance of. Which means more harm for the land. I am a farmer and salting of the land is a problem for me. > With all the talk about climate change, I've seen very few people do any type of personal sacrifice to change it. If some person earns 100k annually and another 100M - it means they have to do different sacrifices for holding the climate change. My opinion is that progressive taxation might solve the issue (but I afraid that rich people has both some anticipation of progressive taxation idea and some abilities to obstruct the idea).
- Clubber 3y ago>Which means more harm for the land. I am a farmer and salting of the land is a problem for me. No it doesn't we're already efficient. We've known how to sustainably farm for generations. Efficiency comes from mechanization and computerization and both of those are already done. We're so efficient the government pays farmers to not grow crops. What do you farm? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation >it means they have to do different sacrifices for holding the climate change. That sounds like an excuse to not do anything. This is pretty common. >My opinion is that progressive taxation might solve the issue It won't as long as the government is corrupt. Plus, you have to figure out how to get polluters like China to stop.
- eimrine 3y agoI am groving most foods I consume, not for business but mostly for pleasure to deal with the soil. We (the humanship) are efficient but not sustainable if to consider few decades only (because intensive farming makes more harm to soil per one dinner), but if to consider at least few hundreds years then the situation is opposite - we are sustainable by the sacrification of efficiency. That's why I consider your argumentation as faulty. I understand a mechanization point but do not understand how computerization can help me, computerization means just counting faster, store more information and probably self-driving tractors instead of man-driving ones.