5 ms·

Great news, in terms of environment, we should seek for economic degrowth, particularly on tourism, that is devastating

• ta1243 3y ago
  Growth doesn't have to be bad for the environment, indeed it can be good. For example producing $1000 worth of economic activity by burning oil to heat a building is far worse than producing $2000 worth of economic activity by using a solar powered heat pump. What we don't do is record the negative externalities of production and that means gdp is a bit of a poor measure.
  • tcfhgj 3y ago
    Less bad = good?
    • ta1243 3y ago
      Well the best thing you can personally do for the environment is probably to kill yourself, that would reduce the environmental damage you cause in future to near-zero More grandiose plans would be somehow triggering a nuclear war - making mankind extinct would be great for the environment in the long run. Not many people can do that, but I guess if you work hard you might get into such a position. Assuming you don't want to do that, reducing human impact on the environment is of course good.
      • tcfhgj 3y ago
        What if it isn't reducing the human impact? Jevons paradox
      • 11235813213455 3y ago
        or make a food forest, permaculture, that's one of the rare non-destructive activities or minimize your impact, for example my footprint is about 1/20th of average, if more people lived like that, global warming wouldn't be an issue at all there are many possibilities between 0 (no human) and 1 (many homo consumericus)
• harimau777 3y ago
  Tourism is one of the few luxuries that average people have left. If we take that away then what's left?
  • ianai 3y ago
    World war. Civil war. The rise of autocracy. Easier to fear “the other” if nobody’s ever met them.
    • 11235813213455 3y ago
      possible, but there's something worse than war coming, environment destruction