3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe 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 agook 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 agoElite doesn't need massive forests, they just need a little smaller forest that they can own themselves
- hdgvhicv 1y agoThere 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.