3 ms·

There's a trade-off between preserving the environment and having human development. We already remember our grandparents for the contributions they made to hum

There's a trade-off between preserving the environment and having human development. We already remember our grandparents for the contributions they made to human development. Our lives are vastly better now because of it. Future generations will also benefit from our contributions, including the things we did using roads. They might have less aquifer water or whatever, but that's not really essential. We can always get water from other places if we pay more, and we can afford to pay more because of all the technology we're gaining.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
woodruffw 3y ago
> They might have less aquifer water or whatever, but that's not really essential. I think most of the Great Plains disagrees[1]. I'm pro-technology and pro-development. But I don't think we should kid ourselves about what we have, and about the limits of our ability to geo-engineer ourselves into global homeostasis, versus out of it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
DoughnutHole 3y ago
I don’t think vast suburban single family home housing developments, big box store parking lots and Wendys drive thrus are the drivers of technological development you’re making them out to be. The overwhelming majority of environmental degradation is not being caused by cutting edge technological development. Wasteful and destructive development patterns are not what’s driving technological growth.
- EnigmaFlare 3y ago
  I'd say they're interconnected. Quality of life may help people be more productive or attract more productive people. Plenty of technology goes into consumer goods and services, and is sort of what the whole point of technological development is - making people's lives better. Also, the car industry was/is full of cutting edge technology and was enhanced by car-friendly housing and roads. It was a major factor in America industrializing in the first place.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

woodruffw 3y ago

> They might have less aquifer water or whatever, but that's not really essential. I think most of the Great Plains disagrees[1]. I'm pro-technology and pro-development. But I don't think we should kid ourselves about what we have, and about the limits of our ability to geo-engineer ourselves into global homeostasis, versus out of it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

DoughnutHole 3y ago

I don’t think vast suburban single family home housing developments, big box store parking lots and Wendys drive thrus are the drivers of technological development you’re making them out to be. The overwhelming majority of environmental degradation is not being caused by cutting edge technological development. Wasteful and destructive development patterns are not what’s driving technological growth.

EnigmaFlare 3y ago
I'd say they're interconnected. Quality of life may help people be more productive or attract more productive people. Plenty of technology goes into consumer goods and services, and is sort of what the whole point of technological development is - making people's lives better. Also, the car industry was/is full of cutting edge technology and was enhanced by car-friendly housing and roads. It was a major factor in America industrializing in the first place.