Environment v.s Industry

[Ostroeuropa]

No matter what Valystria does, she will never have as large an impact on the environment as the rest of you. We are both fine with polluting as much as we want and not bothering to be environmentalists. Know why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M

This is why. 3 minutes.

If you give a shit, start sterilizing the population or opting out. Don't be a massive hypocrite.

Future generations are not our concern, because we aren't responsible for them. Whining that we need to save the environment for future generations is incoherent.

"We need to save the environment for fossil fuels!"

Nonsense.

You want future generations to have a better time, have less kids. That's it.

"You need to cut back your living standards, because I won't stop breeding."

*shrug*
Fuck em. Your kids can starve. Not my problem, nor my fault. Stop having them.

Tell you what though, i'll help your kids put the blame where it belongs and vote to scrap pensions when they realize just how much our generation fucked them over by refusing to take responsibility for overpopulation.

[Valystria]

It's incidental, not deliberate.

I would argue deliberately undermining our own quality of life for the betterment of future generations may well be immoral.

The needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few.

Ad hominem questions don't merit an answer.

That isn't ad hominem. It's a rhetorical question.

If you're claiming "It is deeply unfair to the future generations to saddle them with the problems that yours has caused and propagated.", how would causing problems for our generation now be the solution?

Because if your generation has a right to reject its responsibility for its actions, mine does as well, as does the generation after that, and the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that, assuming humanity survives that long. Ignoring the issue of climate change sets a bad example, and encourages future generations to adopt a similar air of irresponsibility. After all, if you get to live well at the expense of the future, why can't I? Or my children? Or theirs? Why should anyone do anything about climate change until we are choking on the air we breathe?

You're proposing shifting the burden of inconvenience based on a notion of collective guilt.

Yes, yes I am. Do you have a better idea?

It's utterly selfish to base policy around what you want for your children. If you were concerned about environmental preservation you wouldn't be having children.

Collective guilt? That only applies to those who are insisting they have children without regard for the consequences, and insisting the rest of us undermine our living standards to preemptively compensate for the environmental damage caused by those who decide to have children.

As Ostro says, it's beyond incoherent to claim to have a concern for the environment while continuing to have children and doing nothing to discourage or reduce the practice of it.

[Wallenburg]

No matter what Valystria does, she will never have as large an impact on the environment as the rest of you.

Duh. One person won't out-pollute millions. I know math, you know.

We are both fine with polluting as much as we want and not bothering to be environmentalists. Know why?

Because you don't give a shit, perhaps?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M

This is why. 3 minutes.

That video is unavailable in the United States.

If you give a shit, start sterilizing the population

When hell freezes over.

or opting out. Don't be a massive hypocrite.

Since when have I discussed whether I want children to you? While we're on the subject, though, I'll remind you that you should sterilize yourself then, and you definitely shouldn't have children, if you are going to suggest that as a global policy.

Future generations are not our concern, because we aren't responsible for them.

In which case, let's shut down all schools and eject all children from their homes. After all, we aren't responsible for them.

Whining that we need to save the environment for future generations is incoherent.

Oh really? I'd like to die knowing that I actually helped the world instead of killing it.

"We need to save the environment for fossil fuels!"

Nonsense.

That is nonsense. What the fuck are you talking about?

You want future generations to have a better time, have less kids. That's it.

And I suppose we should end all benefits to seniors as well? If we're going for population control, let's be consistent.

[Ostroeuropa]

No matter what Valystria does, she will never have as large an impact on the environment as the rest of you.

Duh. One person won't out-pollute millions. I know math, you know.

We are both fine with polluting as much as we want and not bothering to be environmentalists. Know why?

Because you don't give a shit, perhaps?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M

This is why. 3 minutes.

That video is unavailable in the United States.

If you give a shit, start sterilizing the population

When hell freezes over.

or opting out. Don't be a massive hypocrite.

Since when have I discussed whether I want children to you? While we're on the subject, though, I'll remind you that you should sterilize yourself then, and you definitely shouldn't have children, if you are going to suggest that as a global policy.

Future generations are not our concern, because we aren't responsible for them.

In which case, let's shut down all schools and eject all children from their homes. After all, we aren't responsible for them.

Whining that we need to save the environment for future generations is incoherent.

Oh really? I'd like to die knowing that I actually helped the world instead of killing it.

"We need to save the environment for fossil fuels!"

Nonsense.

That is nonsense. What the fuck are you talking about?

You want future generations to have a better time, have less kids. That's it.

And I suppose we should end all benefits to seniors as well? If we're going for population control, let's be consistent.

The single most polluting act a person does is breed.
Tax incentives for opting to sterilize would be the first measure we should introduce.

As it happens, I do think willingly childless couples shouldn't have to support the children of others. You want to collectivize childrens welfare among parents, go right ahead. I don't see why I should have to pay for it when i'm against there be so many of them in the first place. This would be one mechanism by which to encourage opting out.

I've helped the world by acknowledging that I shouldn't breed and doing so would be contributing to a problem.
The ship is fucking sinking and everyone keeps piling on more and more of their shit to take with them on the voyage.
I've declined to pile yet more stuff on the pile.

Whining about how we need to choose lighter stuff is ignoring the scale of the problem.

[Wallenburg]

It's utterly selfish to base policy around what you want for your children. If you were concerned about environmental preservation you wouldn't be having children.

I am not currently having children. What the fuck is with you two and your assumptions?

Collective guilt? That only applies to those who are insisting they have children without regard for the consequences, and insisting the rest of us undermine our living standards to preemptively compensate for the environmental damage caused by those who decide to have children.

Why did our parents have us, then? Are they not guilty? What about all the parents of your generation? Are they not guilty?

As Ostro says, it's beyond incoherent to claim to have a concern for the environment while continuing to have children and doing nothing to discourage or reduce the practice of it.

Last time I checked, children don't breathe out tons of pollutants every day, or dump tons of toxins into the water supply, or level forests for profit. Population control isn't necessary. Regulations on the actual causes of climate change are.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's utterly selfish to base policy around what you want for your children. If you were concerned about environmental preservation you wouldn't be having children.

I am not currently having children. What the fuck is with you two and your assumptions?

Collective guilt? That only applies to those who are insisting they have children without regard for the consequences, and insisting the rest of us undermine our living standards to preemptively compensate for the environmental damage caused by those who decide to have children.

Why did our parents have us, then? Are they not guilty? What about all the parents of your generation? Are they not guilty?

As Ostro says, it's beyond incoherent to claim to have a concern for the environment while continuing to have children and doing nothing to discourage or reduce the practice of it.

Last time I checked, children don't breathe out tons of pollutants every day, or dump tons of toxins into the water supply, or level forests for profit. Population control isn't necessary. Regulations on the actual causes of climate change are.

The corporations do those things because we demand it. The scale of the damage is because of the amount of the population. All that will happen is reduced living standards, or more costly products.

The cause of climate change is people, and the products they demand to have a good quality of life. There's too many of them. That's the problem.

Know what'll happen if we regulate corporations? Production will go overseas because foreigners want the money, want the jobs, so THEY can buy more shit. And we'll STILL END UP BUYING THAT STUFF which they produce. AND they have to fucking ship it now.

It'll make the problems WORSE. It's only moralistic national stat wanking.

"Gee look, we reduced our national pollution rate by 10%!"
"Your consumption rate increased though."
"Yeh but that's not relevant."
"...Everything is made in China..."
"So?"

[Valystria]

It's utterly selfish to base policy around what you want for your children. If you were concerned about environmental preservation you wouldn't be having children.

I am not currently having children. What the fuck is with you two and your assumptions?

Collective guilt? That only applies to those who are insisting they have children without regard for the consequences, and insisting the rest of us undermine our living standards to preemptively compensate for the environmental damage caused by those who decide to have children.

Why did our parents have us, then? Are they not guilty? What about all the parents of your generation? Are they not guilty?

As Ostro says, it's beyond incoherent to claim to have a concern for the environment while continuing to have children and doing nothing to discourage or reduce the practice of it.

Last time I checked, children don't breathe out tons of pollutants every day, or dump tons of toxins into the water supply, or level forests for profit. Population control isn't necessary. Regulations on the actual causes of climate change are.

Because if your generation has a right to reject its responsibility for its actions, mine does as well, as does the generation after that, and the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that, assuming humanity survives that long. Ignoring the issue of climate change sets a bad example, and encourages future generations to adopt a similar air of irresponsibility. After all, if you get to live well at the expense of the future, why can't I? Or my children? Or theirs?

And wow, population control not necessary. That is the ultimate incoherence of the environmentalist movement. We need tougher environmental policies to compensate for the environmental damage caused by overpopulation. Surely one would recognize overpopulation is the problem.

We going to recycle more? Make our lightbulbs more energy efficient? Even when there are more and more people living lifestyles contributing to environmental destruction no matter what absurdly minuscule solution you patch on top?

You're stubbornly refusing to recognize the root cause of the problem, and suggesting we treat the symptoms instead of the problem. Overpopulation is the problem. The selfish act of deciding to contribute to overpopulation is the problem. If you want a child, adopt instead.

[Ostroeuropa]

Council of wolves sat around a table.

"We need to start eating the livers as well as the rest , and make plans to include the eyeballs in our diets by 2020. If we turn the kills into soup, we can double the number of wolves fed by each kill too!"

"Bollocks. We've got to stop having so many fucking pups."

"NO! THAT'S CRAZY TALK! We'll be able to minmax at an infinite rate using these methods! We just have to make it so there's less waste!"

"Listen. Eventually we're going to have a population crash if we keep this shit up. Already our food sources are 20% less than they were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_retr ... egradation
What you think we're going to do when this problem comes to ahead? Fucking share? When has our species EVER done that shit. Why do you seem so intent on inculcating a massive and inevitable genocide? Just stop having so many fucking pups. That's it. That's all we need to do. Nobody needs to stuff their face with eyeballs, or have shitty fucking soup. I like flank, I'm not doing that shit."

"... No, fuck that, if we ALSO make it so we eat the feet too, surely that'll be enough."

Widespread fucking denial.

The environment is our prey animal. We're over-predating it. We need to stop. Eating the eyeballs ain't gonna cut it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population)

The eradication of disease can trigger overshoot when a population suddenly exceeds the land's carrying capacity. An example of this occurred on the Horn of Africa when smallpox was eliminated. A region that had supported around 1 million pastoralists for centuries was suddenly expected to support 14 million people. The result was overgrazing, which led to soil erosion.

This is what is happening Globally.

[Valystria]

Council of wolves sat around a table.

"We need to start eating the livers as well as the rest , and make plans to include the eyeballs in our diets by 2020."

"Bollocks. We've got to stop having so many fucking pups."

"NO! THAT'S CRAZY TALK! We'll be able to minmax at an infinite rate using these methods! We just have to make it so there's less waste!"

"Listen. Eventually we're going to have a population crash if we keep this shit up. Already our food sources are 20% less than they were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_retr ... egradation
What you think we're going to do when this problem comes to ahead? Fucking share? When has our species EVER done that shit. Why do you seem so intent on inculcating a massive and inevitable genocide? Just stop having so many fucking pups. That's it. That's all we need to do. Nobody needs to stuff their face with eyeballs."

"... No, fuck that, if we ALSO make it so we eat the feet too, surely that'll be enough."

Widespread fucking denial.

I've yet to see where people claiming population control isn't necessary believe the food resources will come from.

Nevermind the worsening state of soil degradation, depleted ocean fisheries, shrinking lakes, destruction of forests, etc etc. The food will magically come out of nowhere.

If someone truly cares about environmental preservation, they will stop having children. There is no other way to go about it.

[Zoice]

Council of wolves sat around a table.



Widespread fucking denial.

I've yet to see where people claiming population control isn't necessary believe the food resources will come from.

Nevermind the worsening state of soil degradation, depleted ocean fisheries, shrinking lakes, destruction of forests, etc etc. The food will magically come out of nowhere.

If someone truly cares about environmental preservation, they will stop having children. There is no other way to go about it.

I don't have any kids, but if I ever wanted them I would adopt.

You need an about 2.1 birth rate to keep the population stable, so at the very least, don't be having 3+ kids.

[Hoyteca]

In the long-term, environment is more important. Look at Beijing. Because of a policy that promoted industry over environment, an average day in Beijing is far more polluted than Los Angeles on a bad day. It's so bad, Chinese school children have to play inside giant plastic domes. Just breathing the air kills thousands every year.

Another example would be the Dust Bowl. For decades, the Great Plains in the US had plentiful rainfall. The problem began when the region experienced yet another big drought struck the region. Due to farming practices, there was nothing to hold the soil down once the crops shriveled up and died. What happened next was about a decade of massive dust storms. Farmers young and old experienced devastating lung conditions normally associated with miners. The flying dust produced enough static electricity to knock a person down. Heck, there were ships in the Atlantic Ocean that got covered in dust from as far away as Oklahoma.

In the long run, focusing on industry too much could prove to be very expensive once you factor in the cost of fixing everything.

[Immoren]

Clearly it's time to invest in ground-to-orbit ORION lifters then.

[Tule]

Make environmentally friendly policies good for businesses or at least make it easy for businesses to adapt to them.

I advocate Cap and trade, renewable energy subsidies and support for the nuclear industry.

A global moratorium on the construction of new coal power plants should be implemented, with exceptions for carbon capture equipped power plants if such plants can be built.

[Infected Mushroom]

Exactly this.

We must focus on what benefits us, not what benefits the next.

So...be selfish and screw the future?

I honestly can't see how the narcissism of that position is so appealing.

No its not selfish. It rightfully priorities the immediate needs of the present.

[Infected Mushroom]

It's utterly selfish to base policy around what you want for your children. If you were concerned about environmental preservation you wouldn't be having children.

I am not currently having children. What the fuck is with you two and your assumptions?

Collective guilt? That only applies to those who are insisting they have children without regard for the consequences, and insisting the rest of us undermine our living standards to preemptively compensate for the environmental damage caused by those who decide to have children.

Why did our parents have us, then? Are they not guilty? What about all the parents of your generation? Are they not guilty?

As Ostro says, it's beyond incoherent to claim to have a concern for the environment while continuing to have children and doing nothing to discourage or reduce the practice of it.

Last time I checked, children don't breathe out tons of pollutants every day, or dump tons of toxins into the water supply, or level forests for profit. Population control isn't necessary. Regulations on the actual causes of climate change are.

If you're going to have children, then its inconsistent for you to advocate environmental regulation (I'm going to produce children who will consume more resources on the planet... meanwhile, everyone else, PLEASE stop contributing to the problem).

Even if you don't, the truth of the matter is you spend tons of money on a regular basis buying consumer goods and services which have as part of their production cycle, environmentally destructive processes. Its entirely inconsistent to say... ''I can't even do it, but let's have the government regulate everything and make everything more expensive for everyone.'' ''In the meantime, I will continue to live as I do and take the moral high ground on everyone else.''

[Neutraligon]

So...be selfish and screw the future?

I honestly can't see how the narcissism of that position is so appealing.

No its not selfish. It rightfully priorities the immediate needs of the present.

No it prioritizes the wants of the present at the expense of the future when such a thing is not necessary and might not be reversible.

[Infected Mushroom]

Council of wolves sat around a table.



Widespread fucking denial.

I've yet to see where people claiming population control isn't necessary believe the food resources will come from.

Nevermind the worsening state of soil degradation, depleted ocean fisheries, shrinking lakes, destruction of forests, etc etc. The food will magically come out of nowhere.

If someone truly cares about environmental preservation, they will stop having children. There is no other way to go about it.

Indeed.

Instead... ''I'm going to have children because its my right (even though in the future they will exacerbate the environmental problems). Meanwhile, the solution is clearly to make consumer goods and services more expensive for the entire world population and for the government to tell people how to run their businesses. I don't have to change anything about my lifestyle and its entirely fine that its inconsistent with my environmental ethics.''

[Tule]

Surely one would recognize overpopulation is the problem.

Overpopulation is not the problem, the resources needed to support the basic needs of the projected 12 billion people that will live on our planet in the year 2100 are there. We have enough unused and underused arable land to do that.

This growth in the population is not expected to exceed much more than 12 billion, but it will reach that point due to the inevitable demographic lag.

The problem is excessive consumption of fossil fuel based energy. If we keep using coal and oil instead of carbon-free energy we WILL undermine our ability to support that many people however.

I've yet to see where people claiming population control isn't necessary believe the food resources will come from.

Africa and South America mainly. Africa's agricultural potential in particular is massive,

[Infected Mushroom]

That's for the next generation to resolve.

And if this generation makes it literally impossible to do so?
I suspect many would find deliberately killing the future generations to be somewhat immoral.

Now you go too far

Let's not pretend that if we all don't Reuse and Recycle and the international committee doesn't set up some kind of authoritarian transnational eco-fascist regime that the next generation will just be completely obliterated.

Next time I throw the garbage into the wrong bin... should I be thinking

''OH MY GOD I BETTER BE CAREFUL. I MIGHT ACCIDENTALLY MURDER THE NEXT GENERATION!''

[Neutraligon]

And if this generation makes it literally impossible to do so?
I suspect many would find deliberately killing the future generations to be somewhat immoral.

Now you go too far

Let's not pretend that if we all don't Reuse and Recycle and the international committee doesn't set up some kind of authoritarian transnational eco-fascist regime that the next generation will just be completely obliterated.

Next time I throw the garbage into the wrong bin... should I be thinking

''OH MY GOD I BETTER BE CAREFUL. I MIGHT ACCIDENTALLY MURDER THE NEXT GENERATION!''

This isn't just about recycling. There is more to protecting the environment then that. There are ways of making it impossible to fix what the current generation has done.

[Wallenburg]

You know what? I'll concede to you guys. Your generation shouldn't have to bear the burden of saving humanity from its impending self-destruction. It is unfair to reduce the quality of your rib eye and jack up your energy bills. You should get what you want, and to hell with the future. Carpe diem, right?

Of course, if you get to sit back on our march into the ocean, I think it's only fair that my generation also be spared the costs of protecting the environment. That means rib eyes, affordable gas, and everything else. I'll have a kid or two or three. After all, my parents got to, and I've worked hard for my success. I see no reason why I am any less deserving of the same rights as those of generations before me. I'll teach my kids to respect the environment, but in all honesty I'm sure they'll be smart enough to realize that they deserve the same opportunities as I and my parents have had. I'll have no responsibility to alter my lifestyle for the generations after me, but they'll catch on that they don't either, and they will happily adopt the same stance on the environment as you and I.

Then they'll grow up, marry, have kids, and those kids will realize they have no responsibility to save the environment. At least, no more than their parents had or I had or my parents had. They'll leave it to the future generations as well. Meanwhile, they'll repeat the family model, getting married and raising several kids of their own.

I'm sure a few of them will take it upon themselves to accept the future's burdens, but most of them will realize how much better it is to postpone environmental protection until they are old and comfortable and have had their fun.

[Tule]

Now you go too far

Let's not pretend that if we all don't Reuse and Recycle and the international committee doesn't set up some kind of authoritarian transnational eco-fascist regime that the next generation will just be completely obliterated.

Next time I throw the garbage into the wrong bin... should I be thinking

''OH MY GOD I BETTER BE CAREFUL. I MIGHT ACCIDENTALLY MURDER THE NEXT GENERATION!''

This isn't just about recycling. There is more to protecting the environment then that. There are ways of making it impossible to fix what the current generation has done.

Recycling isn't even that important. Most household waste is either carbon neutral organic matter or plastic, which is a carbon sink. With plastic you are basically pumping oil out of the ground and then putting it back into the ground.

You should recycle metals, the rest isn't really that problematic. Just don't litter.

[Outer Sparta]

This isn't just about recycling. There is more to protecting the environment then that. There are ways of making it impossible to fix what the current generation has done.

Recycling isn't even that important. Most household waste is either carbon neutral organic matter or plastic, which is a carbon sink. With plastic you are basically pumping oil out of the ground and then putting it back into the ground.

You should recycle metals, the rest isn't really that problematic. Just don't litter.

Plastics are mainly non-biodegradable and stay in landfills for a long time. You're clearly ignoring paper, where trees are cut down to make paper, where the problem is that trees grow very slow and are extremely important to make a home for countless animals and plants, and they help absorb carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming.

[Infected Mushroom]

You know what? I'll concede to you guys. Your generation shouldn't have to bear the burden of saving humanity from its impending self-destruction. It is unfair to reduce the quality of your rib eye and jack up your energy bills. You should get what you want, and to hell with the future. Carpe diem, right?

Of course, if you get to sit back on our march into the ocean, I think it's only fair that my generation also be spared the costs of protecting the environment. That means rib eyes, affordable gas, and everything else. I'll have a kid or two or three. After all, my parents got to, and I've worked hard for my success. I see no reason why I am any less deserving of the same rights as those of generations before me. I'll teach my kids to respect the environment, but in all honesty I'm sure they'll be smart enough to realize that they deserve the same opportunities as I and my parents have had. I'll have no responsibility to alter my lifestyle for the generations after me, but they'll catch on that they don't either, and they will happily adopt the same stance on the environment as you and I.

Then they'll grow up, marry, have kids, and those kids will realize they have no responsibility to save the environment. At least, no more than their parents had or I had or my parents had. They'll leave it to the future generations as well. Meanwhile, they'll repeat the family model, getting married and raising several kids of their own.

I'm sure a few of them will take it upon themselves to accept the future's burdens, but most of them will realize how much better it is to postpone environmental protection until they are old and comfortable and have had their fun.

Now you're beginning to understand...

[Outer Sparta]

And if this generation makes it literally impossible to do so?
I suspect many would find deliberately killing the future generations to be somewhat immoral.

Now you go too far

Let's not pretend that if we all don't Reuse and Recycle and the international committee doesn't set up some kind of authoritarian transnational eco-fascist regime that the next generation will just be completely obliterated.

Next time I throw the garbage into the wrong bin... should I be thinking

''OH MY GOD I BETTER BE CAREFUL. I MIGHT ACCIDENTALLY MURDER THE NEXT GENERATION!''

Yes you should. If you even toss trash into storm sewers, they end up in to the ocean. And the next generation would be obliterated when ice caps melt.