3 ms·

This is reading the past and forgetting the forces active since WW2 and the 1960s. We do NOT live in those times, and the edifices propped up and successful in

This is reading the past and forgetting the forces active since WW2 and the 1960s. We do NOT live in those times, and the edifices propped up and successful in Europe and America, well and truly wish to undermine those protections. It takes resources and it takes a middle class / working class for the collective will to matter. When those groups are under resourced, then it’s a question on whether nature appeals to some coterie of elites.

throwup238 1y ago
I was just talking about protected land mass. Since the 1990s the focus has shifted to protecting marine environments with 28 million sq km of ocean protected since then. It’s only 7% of the ocean for the moment but its only been a few decades.
- intended 1y ago
  I am against this reading of hopefulness. It creates a narrative of momentum, which is necessary to not be overwhelmed by the situations we face, but it’s no longer viable to ignore it. As just one sign - Academics in environmental science and conversation have PTSD, because of how hopeless things are. In that same 150 year period, more species have been wiped out by man than in history. As a species we are a force of nature. I can find common ground that some of us are changing and that efforts are being made. I disagree that it is inevitable- it’s hard won and must continue to be fight for
throwawaymaths 1y ago
> some coterie of elites. hate to break it to you but over the span of history, elites have been way better at natural preservation than the middle and working classes.
- intended 1y ago
  The elites have had power for the largest span of our history. Correlation here is not causation. By that same criteria, elites have been responsible for the grandest acts of destruction and waste as well. But I suppose someone may want to leave preservation efforts up to random chance and inheritance. Subjective preferences can’t be debated after all.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    ok that's fine. I'll ignore the irrelevant whataboutism. as correlation is not causation what makes you think the elites would cease to preserve nature in the way they have? what is your mechanism for this shift in behaviour?
    - heavenlyblue 1y ago
      Elite doesn't need massive forests, they just need a little smaller forest that they can own themselves
- hdgvhicv 1y ago
  There was no overfishing when only the elite could eat fancy fish, there was no overturns when it cost 50k for a weekend in the Bahamas or Benidorm. Erosion isn’t a problem when it’s a couple of gamekeepers and the occasional hunting party on the moors. Litter isn’t an issue when the staff outnumber the tourists. Individual wealth does not cause environmental damage, it mass wealth that does.

throwup238 1y ago

I was just talking about protected land mass. Since the 1990s the focus has shifted to protecting marine environments with 28 million sq km of ocean protected since then. It’s only 7% of the ocean for the moment but its only been a few decades.

intended 1y ago
I am against this reading of hopefulness. It creates a narrative of momentum, which is necessary to not be overwhelmed by the situations we face, but it’s no longer viable to ignore it. As just one sign - Academics in environmental science and conversation have PTSD, because of how hopeless things are. In that same 150 year period, more species have been wiped out by man than in history. As a species we are a force of nature. I can find common ground that some of us are changing and that efforts are being made. I disagree that it is inevitable- it’s hard won and must continue to be fight for

throwawaymaths 1y ago

> some coterie of elites. hate to break it to you but over the span of history, elites have been way better at natural preservation than the middle and working classes.

intended 1y ago
The elites have had power for the largest span of our history. Correlation here is not causation. By that same criteria, elites have been responsible for the grandest acts of destruction and waste as well. But I suppose someone may want to leave preservation efforts up to random chance and inheritance. Subjective preferences can’t be debated after all.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  ok that's fine. I'll ignore the irrelevant whataboutism. as correlation is not causation what makes you think the elites would cease to preserve nature in the way they have? what is your mechanism for this shift in behaviour?
  - heavenlyblue 1y ago
    Elite doesn't need massive forests, they just need a little smaller forest that they can own themselves
hdgvhicv 1y ago
There was no overfishing when only the elite could eat fancy fish, there was no overturns when it cost 50k for a weekend in the Bahamas or Benidorm. Erosion isn’t a problem when it’s a couple of gamekeepers and the occasional hunting party on the moors. Litter isn’t an issue when the staff outnumber the tourists. Individual wealth does not cause environmental damage, it mass wealth that does.