4 ms·

I've got to call bullshit—I can't imagine a for-profit company doing anything out of the kindness of their heart. Planting a few trees for the sake of PR is not

I've got to call bullshit—I can't imagine a for-profit company doing anything out of the kindness of their heart. Planting a few trees for the sake of PR is not the same as responsible stewardship. Unless, of course, you have evidence you are able to furnish.

4RealFreedom 3y ago
It's not out of the goodness of their hearts - it's law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation
- MrRolleyes 3y ago
  [dead]
keepamovin 3y ago
You bring up a good point. While the intentions are companies are hard to gauge, and likely diverse across the set of all for-profit corporations, it's important to remember that without them we'd conceivably be living in a much less developed society with a much lower standard of living. Admittedly, our environment would be largely unspoiled if this were the case. This raises an interesting point about what people really want. Given the choice, would most people opt to live in an economically backward but pristine wilderness, or not? Such an environment might lack modern conveniences like electricity, sophisticated city services, piped water and sewerage, but may possess an abundance of natural riches, like fresh air, clean water, and a beautiful landscape that was unscarred and intact. I think many people would choose that life. I know I would, at least for a while. But many are also probably unfamiliar with the hardships of doing so, which may prove a decisive challenge for people and lead to them returning to more 'advanced' way of life. It could also be argued that the seeming dichotomy presented above represents an oversimplification of the reality, and that in general the choice would not be between such extremes. An optimistic take might also consider that ideally we don't need to choose, we can bring sustainable technologies with us to the wilderness, or we can make our existence in advanced cities environmentally friendly. It's important to remember that people often choose to migrate from less developed regions to more developed ones, primarily for the economic opportunities they believe are available to them and their loved ones there. It might be hard to argue that this is a bad thing, particularly as our concepts of ethics and morality are often based in notions of access to opportunity, sanitary conditions, and shelter. The interaction between humanity and the environment comprises complex dynamics involving seemingly competing considerations. It's crucial to consider the ethical intersection of good of the environment, and the good of the people. Economics and the environment interact in complex ways: we depend on the health of the environment for our economic growth, but often end up harming it in the process, endangering ecosystems and ourselves. Yet without that growth we would be without many things that people seem to prefer.
- MrRolleyes 3y ago
  [dead]

4RealFreedom 3y ago

It's not out of the goodness of their hearts - it's law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_reclamation

MrRolleyes 3y ago
[dead]

keepamovin 3y ago

You bring up a good point. While the intentions are companies are hard to gauge, and likely diverse across the set of all for-profit corporations, it's important to remember that without them we'd conceivably be living in a much less developed society with a much lower standard of living. Admittedly, our environment would be largely unspoiled if this were the case. This raises an interesting point about what people really want. Given the choice, would most people opt to live in an economically backward but pristine wilderness, or not? Such an environment might lack modern conveniences like electricity, sophisticated city services, piped water and sewerage, but may possess an abundance of natural riches, like fresh air, clean water, and a beautiful landscape that was unscarred and intact. I think many people would choose that life. I know I would, at least for a while. But many are also probably unfamiliar with the hardships of doing so, which may prove a decisive challenge for people and lead to them returning to more 'advanced' way of life. It could also be argued that the seeming dichotomy presented above represents an oversimplification of the reality, and that in general the choice would not be between such extremes. An optimistic take might also consider that ideally we don't need to choose, we can bring sustainable technologies with us to the wilderness, or we can make our existence in advanced cities environmentally friendly. It's important to remember that people often choose to migrate from less developed regions to more developed ones, primarily for the economic opportunities they believe are available to them and their loved ones there. It might be hard to argue that this is a bad thing, particularly as our concepts of ethics and morality are often based in notions of access to opportunity, sanitary conditions, and shelter. The interaction between humanity and the environment comprises complex dynamics involving seemingly competing considerations. It's crucial to consider the ethical intersection of good of the environment, and the good of the people. Economics and the environment interact in complex ways: we depend on the health of the environment for our economic growth, but often end up harming it in the process, endangering ecosystems and ourselves. Yet without that growth we would be without many things that people seem to prefer.

MrRolleyes 3y ago
[dead]