Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   E.O. Wilson Wants Us to Leave Half of the Earth Alone
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 9 of 29 (768084)
09-06-2015 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AZPaul3
09-06-2015 3:49 AM


Re: Altruism or just Truism
What would really fuck us over is if we overreacted to a minor ecological scare by wasting all our resources trying to stave off a small amount of global warming, or save a few random species, or preserve some percentage of the Earth's wilderness while leaving billions of Third-World residents forever mired in poverty, famine, disease, and death and perhaps dooming the First World to that same fate.
Our goal should be sustainability and stewardshipof our surroundings, but also of ourselves.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AZPaul3, posted 09-06-2015 3:49 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 09-07-2015 10:36 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 29 (768091)
09-07-2015 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by AZPaul3
09-07-2015 10:36 AM


Re: Altruism or just Truism
I applaud your concerns for the third-world residents forever mired in poverty, famine, disease, and death. Just so you know, by not "wasting" some of our resources trying to stave off the disaster we are already in, these poor lives are about to become dramatically worse along with those of us in the first-world. Worse still, whether we change our policies or not, we may already be too late.
You should read Cool It.
Lomborg's taken plenty of flack for his views, and while his book is no masterpiece, he has a point with many of the things he says. And the spirit behind his argument, that we should be using our resources to improve people's lives as best we can instead of easing our conscience about the environment, is not off the mark.
The Third World (and until recently the rest of it as well) has always been mired in poverty, famine, disease, and death. It was only recently that the trend began changing for the better in certain parts of the world, and that change was only possible through the environmental alteration now being complained about. Other parts of the world have not yet reached our point of development and there is no realistic way for them to even come close to doing so without engaging in similar degrees of environmental alteration.
It is the mark of our great wealth that we in the First World can worry about minor changes in the environment and spend millions of dollars saving critters in foreign lands while people in those same lands worry where their next meal will come from or whether this fever will be the fever that finally claims the life of one of their children.
The tragedy is our delusion that spending resources averting a little warming or saving a few endangered species will matter as much to our fellow less-fortunate humans as it does to us, especially when all the evidence tells us that folks were as poor, as hungry, as sick, and as dead before it started getting hot, and before critters started dying.
I think our resources could be better spent growing more food (which involves cutting down trees, running tractors, applying fertilizers), providing more healthcare (which might involve spraying dangerous chemicals to control disease-carrying insects, or pumping out even more petroleum-derived plastics for hospitals and clinics), generating income in the third world (building industries that may be highly destructive of their environments), and pretty much anything else besides keeping the planet exactly as it is now and trying to make sure it never changes.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 09-07-2015 10:36 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by AZPaul3, posted 09-07-2015 5:44 PM Jon has replied
 Message 15 by Theodoric, posted 09-07-2015 10:23 PM Jon has replied
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 09-08-2015 4:23 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 29 (768106)
09-07-2015 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by AZPaul3
09-07-2015 5:44 PM


Re: Altruism or just Truism
The best diet for losing weight is more potato chips and coke and more TV.
Who needs to lose weight? Half the world is starving to death.
I think you need to get a grip on reality.
While you sit in your armchair sipping your liquor and pouting about the loss of the rainforests, children in those same rainforests die in incredible numbers from disease, poverty and famine.
Ask any man starving in Africa whether he'd prefer seeing the jungles ploughed over and planted with food or the Earth not get a couple degrees warmer.
What do you think he'll say?
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by AZPaul3, posted 09-07-2015 5:44 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AZPaul3, posted 09-07-2015 6:35 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 27 by frako, posted 03-20-2018 1:04 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 29 (768120)
09-07-2015 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Theodoric
09-07-2015 10:23 PM


Re: Altruism or just Truism
Calling him a scientist of any kind is probably being a little too generous, don't you think?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Theodoric, posted 09-07-2015 10:23 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Theodoric, posted 09-08-2015 8:15 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 29 (768158)
09-08-2015 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Theodoric
09-08-2015 8:15 AM


Re: Altruism or just Truism
I wasn't promoting his views as a scientist, so whether he's a good scientist or not doesn't have much bearing on the point I was making.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Theodoric, posted 09-08-2015 8:15 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Theodoric, posted 09-08-2015 3:05 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 29 (768165)
09-08-2015 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Theodoric
09-08-2015 3:05 PM


Re: Altruism or just Truism
Then why should we put any credence on anything he has to say on a scientific subject?
We shouldn't.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Theodoric, posted 09-08-2015 3:05 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Theodoric, posted 09-08-2015 5:20 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 29 (768172)
09-08-2015 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Theodoric
09-08-2015 5:20 PM


Re: Altruism or just Truism
If you read what I wrote, you wouldn't be confused.
As I said, Lomborg's work is no masterpiece and the man is no genius (I was pretty critical of his book in my Amazon review, but I won't go into it here). What I was mainly bringing up in relation to his views is the value in his idea of analyzing the costs and benefits of environmental policy and understanding that the real value behind maintaining environmental quality is to improve and preserve human life and so EQ improvements can be weighed against the costs and benefits of other measures aimed at improving and preserving human life.
The benefits to humanity of living on only half the inhabitable globe are far outweighed by the costs of doing soeven if it would make the environment a happier place.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Theodoric, posted 09-08-2015 5:20 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 29 (768174)
09-08-2015 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taq
09-08-2015 4:23 PM


Re: Altruism or just Truism
At least in the US, we spend way more money building machines and maintaining armies that are meant to kill people in 3rd world countries.
Indeed
Though many Third World countries aren't much better when it comes to warring on one another (or themselves).
3rd world countries also lack infrastructure that is required to move them towards better economies.
Infrastructure can be built.
Many times, this infrastructure is limited as much by history as it is by local geography. Not every country is blessed with the Great Plains.
What's so great about the Great Plains? (And don't forget, many parts of the Great Plains were once Great Forests.)
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 09-08-2015 4:23 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024