6 ms·

> The USA has lost its appetite for these mega projects, sadly. Looking around at this thread, it's easy to see why. People value ecological conservatism over

by cle 2y ago

> The USA has lost its appetite for these mega projects, sadly. Looking around at this thread, it's easy to see why. People value ecological conservatism over economic progress. Of course, the type of economic progress we've had over the last few decades has been a mixed bag, due to structural deficiencies. But I don't agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The general cynicism and negativity makes me really sad. Esp for a community of builders and problem solvers.

HelloMcFly 2y ago
I take the entirely opposite conclusion. Seeing so many value ecological conservatism over economic progress is to me optimistic and heartening. Over the past 100 years we've seen a shift to seeing the world as a shared world vs. one that is our manifest destiny to claim. I see others beginning to see a sense of shared responsibility for the stewardship of this world for the other living creatures as well as a recognition that our fates are more intertwined with theirs than we *used to think.
- cle 2y ago
  I agree that it’s a positive development. Working together/recognizing our shared fate isn’t mutually exclusive with progress (it’s generally a prerequisite!).
kibwen 2y ago
> People value ecological conservatism over economic progress. Phrasing such a proposal as "economic progress" is entirely irrational. This is a solution looking for a problem. We have zero, zero, zero economic need for this.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Or phrasing it as "ecological conservatism". It's not "conservative" to start accounting for the previously unrecognized or outright disregarded negative consequences of these projects. Turns out healthy ecosystems are important for humans too.
  - cle 2y ago
    Of course they are, nobody's disputing that.
- cle 2y ago
  I think I agree with you. Most people are not really arguing on those terms though.
- xp84 2y ago
  > zero… economic need for this Meanwhile: a crappy house in parts of California that aren’t even economically vibrant (that is to say: no particularly promising high-paying jobs in the area) costs $300k (a good house costs a lot more of course, and a good house in a desirable area costs over $1M) and something like 3 million people crossed the southern border into the US last year, all of whom need a place to live. We have a tremendous amount of empty space, and while I know a desert isn’t technically lifeless, I suspect hypothetical supporters would be willing to accept (or even would prefer to establish) enormous swaths of the almost unfathomably large uninhabited West being made into new National Parks and wildlife reserves so that the desert animals and plants could be preserved. I know I would want that. I would argue that there’s nothing immoral about expanding our population from 8 billion to 10 billion, any more than there was going from 500,000 to 1,000,000 centuries ago. Both were done at the expense of altering and ultimately domesticating land once used for other animals and plants.
seadan83 2y ago
It is the easy and unsustainable solution. Akin to rewriting a codebase instead of fixing an existing one. Instead of solving the problems of nitrogen pollution, CO2 pollution, plastics- just find a new greenfield instead. Of course code rewrites rarely actually replace the old code. New and shiny is just way sexier than doing things like fixing poisoned waterways.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > Instead of solving the problems of nitrogen pollution, CO2 pollution, plastics- just find a new greenfield instead. What are the problems of nitrogen pollution and CO₂ pollution? Both of those significantly promote the growth of plants.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Nitrogen pollution is poisoning waterways. In Iowa, where the problem is the worst, only 25% of waterways are healthy [1]. I travelled through there recently and anecdotally counted 4 out of 5 lakes as poisoned, with 2 of 5 completely poisoned (so green with algae - it looked like grass you could walk on. There were dead ducks floating in them). CO2 drives greenhouse effect. To my knowledge, C02 eeenrichment of plants does not come close to offsetting the overall addition of CO2. If it did, why are atmospheric CO2 ppm counts going up? [1] https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/03/15/more-than-half-of-iowas-tested-streams-and-lakes-are-impaired/ https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/03/15/more-than-half-of...
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      What did you mean by "just find a new greenfield instead"? I assumed you were saying that nitrogen and carbon dioxide pollution impaired the fertility of fields, which is obviously untrue. Suppose you're suffering from nitrogen pollution, giving you increased crop yields. Why would you switch to a new, lower-yield field?
      - seadan83 2y ago

by cle 2y ago

HelloMcFly 2y ago

I take the entirely opposite conclusion. Seeing so many value ecological conservatism over economic progress is to me optimistic and heartening. Over the past 100 years we've seen a shift to seeing the world as a shared world vs. one that is our manifest destiny to claim. I see others beginning to see a sense of shared responsibility for the stewardship of this world for the other living creatures as well as a recognition that our fates are more intertwined with theirs than we *used to think.

cle 2y ago
I agree that it’s a positive development. Working together/recognizing our shared fate isn’t mutually exclusive with progress (it’s generally a prerequisite!).

kibwen 2y ago

> People value ecological conservatism over economic progress. Phrasing such a proposal as "economic progress" is entirely irrational. This is a solution looking for a problem. We have zero, zero, zero economic need for this.

anon84873628 2y ago
Or phrasing it as "ecological conservatism". It's not "conservative" to start accounting for the previously unrecognized or outright disregarded negative consequences of these projects. Turns out healthy ecosystems are important for humans too.
- cle 2y ago
  Of course they are, nobody's disputing that.
cle 2y ago
I think I agree with you. Most people are not really arguing on those terms though.
xp84 2y ago
> zero… economic need for this Meanwhile: a crappy house in parts of California that aren’t even economically vibrant (that is to say: no particularly promising high-paying jobs in the area) costs $300k (a good house costs a lot more of course, and a good house in a desirable area costs over $1M) and something like 3 million people crossed the southern border into the US last year, all of whom need a place to live. We have a tremendous amount of empty space, and while I know a desert isn’t technically lifeless, I suspect hypothetical supporters would be willing to accept (or even would prefer to establish) enormous swaths of the almost unfathomably large uninhabited West being made into new National Parks and wildlife reserves so that the desert animals and plants could be preserved. I know I would want that. I would argue that there’s nothing immoral about expanding our population from 8 billion to 10 billion, any more than there was going from 500,000 to 1,000,000 centuries ago. Both were done at the expense of altering and ultimately domesticating land once used for other animals and plants.

seadan83 2y ago

It is the easy and unsustainable solution. Akin to rewriting a codebase instead of fixing an existing one. Instead of solving the problems of nitrogen pollution, CO2 pollution, plastics- just find a new greenfield instead. Of course code rewrites rarely actually replace the old code. New and shiny is just way sexier than doing things like fixing poisoned waterways.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> Instead of solving the problems of nitrogen pollution, CO2 pollution, plastics- just find a new greenfield instead. What are the problems of nitrogen pollution and CO₂ pollution? Both of those significantly promote the growth of plants.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Nitrogen pollution is poisoning waterways. In Iowa, where the problem is the worst, only 25% of waterways are healthy [1]. I travelled through there recently and anecdotally counted 4 out of 5 lakes as poisoned, with 2 of 5 completely poisoned (so green with algae - it looked like grass you could walk on. There were dead ducks floating in them). CO2 drives greenhouse effect. To my knowledge, C02 eeenrichment of plants does not come close to offsetting the overall addition of CO2. If it did, why are atmospheric CO2 ppm counts going up? [1] https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/03/15/more-than-half-of-iowas-tested-streams-and-lakes-are-impaired/ https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/03/15/more-than-half-of...
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    What did you mean by "just find a new greenfield instead"? I assumed you were saying that nitrogen and carbon dioxide pollution impaired the fertility of fields, which is obviously untrue. Suppose you're suffering from nitrogen pollution, giving you increased crop yields. Why would you switch to a new, lower-yield field?
    - seadan83 2y ago