4 ms·

Why is it that so many left-wing rants leave me with the unnerving impression that their authors care more about Koalas than humans? You created an impressive l

Why is it that so many left-wing rants leave me with the unnerving impression that their authors care more about Koalas than humans? You created an impressive list of eco-complaints, but the simple fact is that human life expectancy - my primary concern as a human - has risen dramatically in the same 30 years. Perhaps a little more focus on humans and a little less on sad Koalas will keep us on track toward even higher life expectancy.

rayiner 13y ago
Human life expectancy rising over that period has nothing to do with the lost forest cover. Indeed, the vast majority of the increase is due to a few relatively low-tech advances targeted at reducing infant mortality.
- marknutter 13y ago
  relatively low-tech advances that were made possibly by modern civilization, which was made possible by our expansionism.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    That's hardly an iron-clad causal chain there. I'm pretty sure penicillin would have happened whether or not we deforested California and turned it into a giant collection of freeways and parking lots.
    - marknutter 13y ago
      Penicillin isn't the only medical advancement from the past 100 years that is contributing to our high life expectancy rates.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Yes, but the majority of the improvements stem from a handful of relatively low-tech things: antibiotics, clean water, improved nutrition, urbanization leading to most births happening in the presence of a medical professional, social changes reducing pregnancy among young teenagers, and a handful of key vaccines. Its not blockbuster cancer drags driving the increase.
- downandout 13y ago
  The point is that deforestation obviously isn't killing us.
aerique 13y ago
Maybe because many "left-wing" people think it would actually be good to trade in a couple of years of life expectancy to make the world a better place for other living beings than just humans? At least I think it would be a good thing to focus less on humans now that there's 6 billion of us.
- specialist 13y ago
  Citation needed. Left wing thought, in my world, is creating the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. We against "robbing peter to pay paul".
  - wtbob 13y ago
    > Left wing thought, in my world, is creating the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. We against "robbing peter to pay paul". But that's exactly what welfare is: robbing Peter to pay Paul! (yes, I'm aware that folks claim stuff like, 'ah, but if we rob Peter nicely than there's less risk of Paul robbing and killing him, so really Peter's expected value is higher if we rob him')
danmaz74 13y ago
So, if human life expectancy went up doing X, we're guaranteed that it will still go up if we continue to do X? That's the same reasoning that caused so many bubbles. I'm no tree-hugger, but also from a purely egoistical point of view I worry about the consequences of the very fast changes we're causing to the environment in which humans evolved and to which we are adapted. Nothing guarantees that the changes will lead to an environment that can sustain 6+B human beings, so trying to predict the consequences is a very wise thing to do.
emddudley 13y ago
I think your question is a philosophical one. What is the proper role of the human species in Earth's ecology? It sounds like you think "might makes right", and that any choice which maximizes human life expectancy is the right choice. It saddens me to think that people are willing to push so many living organisms to extinction, just to make our lives a little more comfortable and last a little bit longer. I think it is important to protect life, in all its forms.
specialist 13y ago
False equivalency. Conserving the koalas is done at the expensive of corporate profits, not human lives.
ChrisNorstrom 13y ago
Our life expectancy doesn't go up by fucking the place up and mismanaging sustainable living. Just because I care about other species and the planet that live on (you know, it's not easy to find a planet that can sustain life) doesn't mean I'm a left-wing liberal. FYI, I'm independent. There's 7 billion of us and growing. We can take care of ourselves and our life spans are nearing 80-90 years, animals that took billions of years to evolve into their current species are being wiped out because we have selfish attitudes. We're draining the water tables and fucking over the oceans. Aside from the medical advances to help ourselves, we're screwing EVERYONE and EVERYTHING on this planet. "But what about us humans?" What about us? Being on every continent other than Antarctica isn't enough? Also, we lost 160 million people in wars just in the 20th century alone. At least Koalas & Gorillas won't send your family to a concentration camp, invade your country, slaughter your citizens, get drunk and slam into your family van, rape and kill, or fuck your children. Frankly, I'd rather help the animals keep their habitat than help humanity grow it's population. At least animals don't ask for taxes or welfare. Animals won't rob you at gun point. Leave them in their forest and they'll be happy and leave you alone. Being a human and being more intelligent than other species doesn't entitle you to being a total dick and fucking the place up for everyone. There's more to life than cheap gas, car culture, and shopping malls.
- downandout 13y ago
  Frankly, I'd rather help the animals keep their habitat than help humanity grow it's population. That was the point of my comment - eco-ideologists generally hate humans, and given the chance are more than willing to inconvenience other humans (rarely themselves) in order to satisfy their world view. Fortunately for the rest of us, that opportunity rarely comes.
  - qu4z-2 13y ago
    I'm against inconveniencing existing humans for the benefit of the environment, but arguing that trying to reduce human population increase is "hating humans" is like arguing that pro-choicers "hate babies". I mean, sure, let's look out for the humans that are already around. But I don't feel much obligation to destroy huge swathes of beautiful landscapes just so we can have more people. Quality of life over quantity of life, etc.

rayiner 13y ago

Human life expectancy rising over that period has nothing to do with the lost forest cover. Indeed, the vast majority of the increase is due to a few relatively low-tech advances targeted at reducing infant mortality.

marknutter 13y ago
relatively low-tech advances that were made possibly by modern civilization, which was made possible by our expansionism.
- rayiner 13y ago
  That's hardly an iron-clad causal chain there. I'm pretty sure penicillin would have happened whether or not we deforested California and turned it into a giant collection of freeways and parking lots.
  - marknutter 13y ago
    Penicillin isn't the only medical advancement from the past 100 years that is contributing to our high life expectancy rates.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Yes, but the majority of the improvements stem from a handful of relatively low-tech things: antibiotics, clean water, improved nutrition, urbanization leading to most births happening in the presence of a medical professional, social changes reducing pregnancy among young teenagers, and a handful of key vaccines. Its not blockbuster cancer drags driving the increase.
downandout 13y ago
The point is that deforestation obviously isn't killing us.

aerique 13y ago

Maybe because many "left-wing" people think it would actually be good to trade in a couple of years of life expectancy to make the world a better place for other living beings than just humans? At least I think it would be a good thing to focus less on humans now that there's 6 billion of us.

specialist 13y ago
Citation needed. Left wing thought, in my world, is creating the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. We against "robbing peter to pay paul".
- wtbob 13y ago
  > Left wing thought, in my world, is creating the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. We against "robbing peter to pay paul". But that's exactly what welfare is: robbing Peter to pay Paul! (yes, I'm aware that folks claim stuff like, 'ah, but if we rob Peter nicely than there's less risk of Paul robbing and killing him, so really Peter's expected value is higher if we rob him')

danmaz74 13y ago

So, if human life expectancy went up doing X, we're guaranteed that it will still go up if we continue to do X? That's the same reasoning that caused so many bubbles. I'm no tree-hugger, but also from a purely egoistical point of view I worry about the consequences of the very fast changes we're causing to the environment in which humans evolved and to which we are adapted. Nothing guarantees that the changes will lead to an environment that can sustain 6+B human beings, so trying to predict the consequences is a very wise thing to do.

emddudley 13y ago

I think your question is a philosophical one. What is the proper role of the human species in Earth's ecology? It sounds like you think "might makes right", and that any choice which maximizes human life expectancy is the right choice. It saddens me to think that people are willing to push so many living organisms to extinction, just to make our lives a little more comfortable and last a little bit longer. I think it is important to protect life, in all its forms.

specialist 13y ago

False equivalency. Conserving the koalas is done at the expensive of corporate profits, not human lives.

ChrisNorstrom 13y ago

Our life expectancy doesn't go up by fucking the place up and mismanaging sustainable living. Just because I care about other species and the planet that live on (you know, it's not easy to find a planet that can sustain life) doesn't mean I'm a left-wing liberal. FYI, I'm independent. There's 7 billion of us and growing. We can take care of ourselves and our life spans are nearing 80-90 years, animals that took billions of years to evolve into their current species are being wiped out because we have selfish attitudes. We're draining the water tables and fucking over the oceans. Aside from the medical advances to help ourselves, we're screwing EVERYONE and EVERYTHING on this planet. "But what about us humans?" What about us? Being on every continent other than Antarctica isn't enough? Also, we lost 160 million people in wars just in the 20th century alone. At least Koalas & Gorillas won't send your family to a concentration camp, invade your country, slaughter your citizens, get drunk and slam into your family van, rape and kill, or fuck your children. Frankly, I'd rather help the animals keep their habitat than help humanity grow it's population. At least animals don't ask for taxes or welfare. Animals won't rob you at gun point. Leave them in their forest and they'll be happy and leave you alone. Being a human and being more intelligent than other species doesn't entitle you to being a total dick and fucking the place up for everyone. There's more to life than cheap gas, car culture, and shopping malls.

downandout 13y ago
Frankly, I'd rather help the animals keep their habitat than help humanity grow it's population. That was the point of my comment - eco-ideologists generally hate humans, and given the chance are more than willing to inconvenience other humans (rarely themselves) in order to satisfy their world view. Fortunately for the rest of us, that opportunity rarely comes.
- qu4z-2 13y ago
  I'm against inconveniencing existing humans for the benefit of the environment, but arguing that trying to reduce human population increase is "hating humans" is like arguing that pro-choicers "hate babies". I mean, sure, let's look out for the humans that are already around. But I don't feel much obligation to destroy huge swathes of beautiful landscapes just so we can have more people. Quality of life over quantity of life, etc.