8 ms·

Hmmm, survival of the planet vs progress of the economy.

by CountHackulus 7y ago

briandear 7y ago
That’s a false dichotomy.
- FalconSensei 7y ago
  But that's what Damorian was suggesting
ars 7y ago
Killing progress of economy would make the planet much much worse off long term. Notice how the richest countries have the cleanest environments - that's not by happenstance, it's because with basic needs met, people are willing to spend effort on the environment.
- t-writescode 7y ago
  It might also be able to be argued that those countries refuse to allow production that includes all those chemicals, so we offload that production to other countries that aren’t so strict, suggesting that we ourselves and our wants are a major source of their production and that all these advanced countries are doing a great job contributing to pollution, just through a middle man.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    Or that companies that could do the job with lower pollution at greater cost domestically are outcompetes by companies that do not have to worry about pollution. For example, China’s cheaper but polluting processing of rare earths drove everyone else outside of China out of business. Trade agreements will eventually have to capture externalities like pollution to ensure fairness. Otherwise, capitalism will simply not work when different companies get to play by different rules based on their location.
    - t-writescode 7y ago
      Well, capitalism will continue to work great at what it does. The problem is that pollution isn't really something capitalism tends to select for.
- hnews_account_1 7y ago
  What is this basic bullshit? Who makes China so polluted? Are the Chinese themselves consuming all the shit they make that makes their cities polluted? Or is it the rest of the world and China grew by being a massive net exporter? This is like how the British lamented about the abject poverty in India after raping the country for hundreds of years. "willing to spend effort on the environment" my ass. Move the production chains back into those countries. We'll see how long the air remains clear despite temperate latitudes having the benefit of better weather systems.
  - xupybd 7y ago
    As China gets wealth they will reduce their environmental impact. They will have the money to do so. It's not blaming them to state that poorer countries don't have the resources to clean up their production. Progress is required to develop clean energy, that will require economic activity.
    - uk_programmer 7y ago
      China (as in the Chinese Government as the ruling class there aren't the people) would have to actually care about something other than themselves. The Government that is in place does not care about Human Life or Suffering why would you think they would care for the Animals, Birds and Fish?
      - boomboomsubban 7y ago
        Even accepting you're incredibly cynical view of the Chinese state, they would care about nature as it has an influence on their lives.
        uk_programmer 7y ago
        It isn't a cynical view. it is reality. The Chinese state have shown ever since Mao they have little or no regard for Human life. Off the top of my head (I am sure there is much more): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Treatment_of_villagers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Treatment_o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-45474279 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-45474279 Also their response so far to the current Epidemic i.e. trying to cover it up has cost the lives of people in many countries. But apparently I am being cynical ...
- byw 7y ago
  >Notice how the richest countries have the cleanest environments Per capita rich countries produce much higher CO2 though.
- yibg 7y ago
  That’s not because the richer countries are being “clean” as in consuming less resources and polluting less. They are just doing it less in their boarders. They are exporting the dirty manufacturing and in many cases literally trash to poorer countries. If every country became like the US in terms of wealth and consumption tomorrow we are all screwed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
NicoJuicy 7y ago
The planet will survive
Melting_Harps 7y ago
> progress of the economy. I take it this means headlong consumerism? If so, I think this is could be a net positive for Humanity, and perhaps a pause in the order of things to re-evaluate one's value system. I'd prefer to be healthy and of sound mind, which requires the planet no descend into an uninhabitable wasteland, than to continue and have every trinket factory come from China come back online.
- pergadad 7y ago
  I warmly recommend the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling. Stunning revelations that should be obvious but somehow aren't on every page. One of the most striking ones are his points on climate & development - especially that many people aspire to live a decent live and sadly the quickest way to get there is often polluting. This doesn't mean they are bad people, it's just normal humans that want to offer their kids a better future and themselves have a tiny bit of comfort. The ones wasteful is still mostly us, the rich Western countries (not to mention the Emirates & similar oil countries). Yes we should give up some of our consumerism. You don't need that 2nd TV or new car. But can you tell the Chinese migrant worker that he can't buy a washing machine for his mom? Or the Bangladeshi call centre agent that she can't have a new apartment with warm water and electric sockets?
daxfohl 7y ago
To a certain extent I find the parent post somewhat valid. If you think of "economy" as all the crap in my house that I want to get rid of, then sure. But ultimately we got to where we are (7B humans) by being a social species and developing the machinery to feed, clothe, shelter our population en masse. And machinery to make the machinery, and so on. And much of that machinery may be subsidized by economy of scale that's driven largely by people's fascination with buying unnecessary shiny objects, the same way ads make free search and TV possible. Without that subsidy, the machinery to support life would be more expensive. Our population may not be sustainable if there's a sudden dramatic and long-lived shutdown of this machinery. Maybe in the short term, sure. But over the long term even a minor shutdown could have big repercussions. Or maybe not. Interesting thing is, this whole covid episode, if it lasts a while, will help shed light on those questions.

Hmmm, survival of the planet vs progress of the economy.

briandear 7y ago

That’s a false dichotomy.

FalconSensei 7y ago
But that's what Damorian was suggesting

ars 7y ago

Killing progress of economy would make the planet much much worse off long term. Notice how the richest countries have the cleanest environments - that's not by happenstance, it's because with basic needs met, people are willing to spend effort on the environment.

t-writescode 7y ago
It might also be able to be argued that those countries refuse to allow production that includes all those chemicals, so we offload that production to other countries that aren’t so strict, suggesting that we ourselves and our wants are a major source of their production and that all these advanced countries are doing a great job contributing to pollution, just through a middle man.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  Or that companies that could do the job with lower pollution at greater cost domestically are outcompetes by companies that do not have to worry about pollution. For example, China’s cheaper but polluting processing of rare earths drove everyone else outside of China out of business. Trade agreements will eventually have to capture externalities like pollution to ensure fairness. Otherwise, capitalism will simply not work when different companies get to play by different rules based on their location.
  - t-writescode 7y ago
    Well, capitalism will continue to work great at what it does. The problem is that pollution isn't really something capitalism tends to select for.
hnews_account_1 7y ago
What is this basic bullshit? Who makes China so polluted? Are the Chinese themselves consuming all the shit they make that makes their cities polluted? Or is it the rest of the world and China grew by being a massive net exporter? This is like how the British lamented about the abject poverty in India after raping the country for hundreds of years. "willing to spend effort on the environment" my ass. Move the production chains back into those countries. We'll see how long the air remains clear despite temperate latitudes having the benefit of better weather systems.
- xupybd 7y ago
  As China gets wealth they will reduce their environmental impact. They will have the money to do so. It's not blaming them to state that poorer countries don't have the resources to clean up their production. Progress is required to develop clean energy, that will require economic activity.
  - uk_programmer 7y ago
    China (as in the Chinese Government as the ruling class there aren't the people) would have to actually care about something other than themselves. The Government that is in place does not care about Human Life or Suffering why would you think they would care for the Animals, Birds and Fish?
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      Even accepting you're incredibly cynical view of the Chinese state, they would care about nature as it has an influence on their lives.
      - uk_programmer 7y ago
        It isn't a cynical view. it is reality. The Chinese state have shown ever since Mao they have little or no regard for Human life. Off the top of my head (I am sure there is much more): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Treatment_of_villagers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Treatment_o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-45474279 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-45474279 Also their response so far to the current Epidemic i.e. trying to cover it up has cost the lives of people in many countries. But apparently I am being cynical ...
byw 7y ago
>Notice how the richest countries have the cleanest environments Per capita rich countries produce much higher CO2 though.
yibg 7y ago
That’s not because the richer countries are being “clean” as in consuming less resources and polluting less. They are just doing it less in their boarders. They are exporting the dirty manufacturing and in many cases literally trash to poorer countries. If every country became like the US in terms of wealth and consumption tomorrow we are all screwed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

NicoJuicy 7y ago

The planet will survive

Melting_Harps 7y ago

> progress of the economy. I take it this means headlong consumerism? If so, I think this is could be a net positive for Humanity, and perhaps a pause in the order of things to re-evaluate one's value system. I'd prefer to be healthy and of sound mind, which requires the planet no descend into an uninhabitable wasteland, than to continue and have every trinket factory come from China come back online.

pergadad 7y ago
I warmly recommend the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling. Stunning revelations that should be obvious but somehow aren't on every page. One of the most striking ones are his points on climate & development - especially that many people aspire to live a decent live and sadly the quickest way to get there is often polluting. This doesn't mean they are bad people, it's just normal humans that want to offer their kids a better future and themselves have a tiny bit of comfort. The ones wasteful is still mostly us, the rich Western countries (not to mention the Emirates & similar oil countries). Yes we should give up some of our consumerism. You don't need that 2nd TV or new car. But can you tell the Chinese migrant worker that he can't buy a washing machine for his mom? Or the Bangladeshi call centre agent that she can't have a new apartment with warm water and electric sockets?

daxfohl 7y ago

To a certain extent I find the parent post somewhat valid. If you think of "economy" as all the crap in my house that I want to get rid of, then sure. But ultimately we got to where we are (7B humans) by being a social species and developing the machinery to feed, clothe, shelter our population en masse. And machinery to make the machinery, and so on. And much of that machinery may be subsidized by economy of scale that's driven largely by people's fascination with buying unnecessary shiny objects, the same way ads make free search and TV possible. Without that subsidy, the machinery to support life would be more expensive. Our population may not be sustainable if there's a sudden dramatic and long-lived shutdown of this machinery. Maybe in the short term, sure. But over the long term even a minor shutdown could have big repercussions. Or maybe not. Interesting thing is, this whole covid episode, if it lasts a while, will help shed light on those questions.