3 ms·

> the most rapid rate of economic growth in human history, amidst mass-extinction, huge reductions of natural habitats and the collapse of numerous ecosystems

by myshpa 3y ago

> the most rapid rate of economic growth in human history, amidst mass-extinction, huge reductions of natural habitats and the collapse of numerous ecosystems And that's supposed to be a good thing? > We can continue to expand even as the natural ecosystem is destroyed No, without the ecosystem we're done. Not much of it remains. > is to provide an alternative path for development that protects the environment while allowing even more economic growth Not enough time before last pieces are gone. What's about the economic growth that you find so valuable? Don't you see that money are just stupid tokens in a very stupid game? That the economy is rigged? That healthy environment is much more valuable than ... what? Tons of plastic everywhere and elevator music in a supermarket? Do you have children? How do you explain to them that we don't have forests and wild animals anymore because you've loved burgers and big cars too much? But honey look how rich I got. You'd really rather have blade runner than star trek future? You win. This I cannot comprehend. Over and out.

ETH_start 3y ago
>>And that's supposed to be a good thing? It negates the appeal you could make to people that their standard of living will decline unless they accept steep cuts now. If people's consumption can grow in the face of ecological disaster, then there's nothing to suggest it won't continue to grow as the natural environment continued to be paved over. >>Not enough time before last pieces are gone. I think it will take less time than convincing all the major economies to institute caps on meat eating. I'm not saying that the environment should not be protected. I'm arguing that the most effective path for doing that is to go full bore toward expanding the production of clean energy, especially from the source that seem the most capable of fully replacing baseline fossil fuel based power plants, which is nuclear reactors. It should not be a choice between consumption and the environment. I consider both to be good things, all other things being equal, and I would like to see both maximized. High levels of production/consumption means more enjoyable lives with more opportunity, and lower poverty.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > their standard of living will decline I'm vegan ... my quality of life isn't lower because of it. When people switch, they realize they've been taking something that wasn't theirs in the first place. > it will take less time than convincing all the major economies to institute caps on meat eating We'll see. > High levels of production/consumption means more enjoyable lives 70% of people in US are on antidepressants. High consumption != more enjoyable lives > High levels of production Production is not just and only energy. High levels of production = more destruction (mining), more pollution (almost always), more exploitation > more opportunity, and lower poverty Degrowth, basic income, free housing & healthcare. Problem solved.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    >When people switch, they realize they've been taking something that wasn't theirs in the first place. If you're making a reference to the life of the farm animal: that's an entirely different argument. Right now we're debating whether natural habitats can be protected while current consumption patterns are maintained and ramped up. >High consumption != more enjoyable lives 1. High consumption means less death. Per capita production/consumption is strongly correlated with life expectancy. 2. People consistently choose high consumption when given a choice, so even if you want to use a definitin of happiness that is not aligned with the way of life people choose, the fact remains that high consumption is the preferred way of life, as expressed by people's choices. >High levels of production = more destruction (mining), more pollution (almost always), more exploitation There is asteroid mining and recycling as alternatives to mining the Earth's crust. The damage of mining can also be reduced with precision techniques and through rehabilitation of old mines. Another possibility is to compensate for the damage done by a mine by artificially enhancing other habitats to make them more vital, e.g. use some of the revenue generated by a mine to create an artificial lake to create more wetlands, to make up for the environmental damage done by the mine. >Degrowth, basic income, free housing & healthcare. Problem solved. The world doesn't produce enough to provide every one with a basic income that provides a high quality of life and good housing. We need far more production for that. And you can see that for yourself by just looking at the global per capita GDP and seeing that it's ~$18,000, and then looking up to see what goods/services that level of income can afford each person. And innovation to invent new healthcare technologies that can end the scourge of cancer, heart disease and other major illness is proportional to the productivity of human civilization. Raising productivity is a moral imperative. The degrowth ideological narrative is utterly baseless in its economic rationale.

by myshpa 3y ago

ETH_start 3y ago

>>And that's supposed to be a good thing? It negates the appeal you could make to people that their standard of living will decline unless they accept steep cuts now. If people's consumption can grow in the face of ecological disaster, then there's nothing to suggest it won't continue to grow as the natural environment continued to be paved over. >>Not enough time before last pieces are gone. I think it will take less time than convincing all the major economies to institute caps on meat eating. I'm not saying that the environment should not be protected. I'm arguing that the most effective path for doing that is to go full bore toward expanding the production of clean energy, especially from the source that seem the most capable of fully replacing baseline fossil fuel based power plants, which is nuclear reactors. It should not be a choice between consumption and the environment. I consider both to be good things, all other things being equal, and I would like to see both maximized. High levels of production/consumption means more enjoyable lives with more opportunity, and lower poverty.

myshpa 3y ago
> their standard of living will decline I'm vegan ... my quality of life isn't lower because of it. When people switch, they realize they've been taking something that wasn't theirs in the first place. > it will take less time than convincing all the major economies to institute caps on meat eating We'll see. > High levels of production/consumption means more enjoyable lives 70% of people in US are on antidepressants. High consumption != more enjoyable lives > High levels of production Production is not just and only energy. High levels of production = more destruction (mining), more pollution (almost always), more exploitation > more opportunity, and lower poverty Degrowth, basic income, free housing & healthcare. Problem solved.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  >When people switch, they realize they've been taking something that wasn't theirs in the first place. If you're making a reference to the life of the farm animal: that's an entirely different argument. Right now we're debating whether natural habitats can be protected while current consumption patterns are maintained and ramped up. >High consumption != more enjoyable lives 1. High consumption means less death. Per capita production/consumption is strongly correlated with life expectancy. 2. People consistently choose high consumption when given a choice, so even if you want to use a definitin of happiness that is not aligned with the way of life people choose, the fact remains that high consumption is the preferred way of life, as expressed by people's choices. >High levels of production = more destruction (mining), more pollution (almost always), more exploitation There is asteroid mining and recycling as alternatives to mining the Earth's crust. The damage of mining can also be reduced with precision techniques and through rehabilitation of old mines. Another possibility is to compensate for the damage done by a mine by artificially enhancing other habitats to make them more vital, e.g. use some of the revenue generated by a mine to create an artificial lake to create more wetlands, to make up for the environmental damage done by the mine. >Degrowth, basic income, free housing & healthcare. Problem solved. The world doesn't produce enough to provide every one with a basic income that provides a high quality of life and good housing. We need far more production for that. And you can see that for yourself by just looking at the global per capita GDP and seeing that it's ~$18,000, and then looking up to see what goods/services that level of income can afford each person. And innovation to invent new healthcare technologies that can end the scourge of cancer, heart disease and other major illness is proportional to the productivity of human civilization. Raising productivity is a moral imperative. The degrowth ideological narrative is utterly baseless in its economic rationale.