Conservatism and the Environment

[The Name of Love]

@Comrade Clod I want you to consider this: If we take Climate Change at face value, that it's a real and imminent problem, conjoining it to the hip to Socialism is a bad thing if you want to sell it to Western countries. There's a significant number of people who will reject Socialism no matter what, there's little that can be done about that.

Working with the Right and the Center is paramount, how else is anything going to get done?

I was once given this argument for why socialism is necessary to implement environmental policies.

If the world is going to end in less than twelve years, then radical action is needed because the system as it stands is what's causing the climate crisis to begin with. People are too dependent on fossil fuels to make the switch to an alternative, and time's running out. So, we must change the system to something less dependent on fossil fuels by force. And if people die? Well, all the better to reduce mankind's carbon footprint.

I don't think @Comrade Clod is willing to make such an argument though.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I was once given this argument for why socialism is necessary to implement environmental policies.

If the world is going to end in less than twelve years, then radical action is needed because the system as it stands is what's causing the climate crisis to begin with. People are too dependent on fossil fuels to make the switch to an alternative, and time's running out. So, we must change the system to something less dependent on fossil fuels by force. And if people die? Well, all the better to reduce mankind's carbon footprint.

I don't think @Comrade Clod is willing to make such an argument though.

Don’t forget that we need to eat those corpses

 

[Cherico]

I was once given this argument for why socialism is necessary to implement environmental policies.

If the world is going to end in less than twelve years, then radical action is needed because the system as it stands is what's causing the climate crisis to begin with. People are too dependent on fossil fuels to make the switch to an alternative, and time's running out. So, we must change the system to something less dependent on fossil fuels by force. And if people die? Well, all the better to reduce mankind's carbon footprint.

I don't think @Comrade Clod is willing to make such an argument though.

What I like to do is this.

If this is an absolute emergency and all life on earth will die in 12 years if we do not fix it then there is only one short term solution that will work.

Scientists to build SUNSHADE for the Earth to stop global warming

SUNSHINE could be dimmed in an astonishing attempt by scientists to curb climate change. Then experts are hoping to discover if a man-made chemical sunshade would be less risky than a harmful rise in global temperatures.

www.express.co.uk

We throw ash into the asmopshere to cool down global temperatures down mimicking volcanic eruptions in a 12 year period this is the only method that we have that will work in such a short period of time.

In the long run we would need to create a solar shade in space which means we would have to heavily invest in space travel and transportation. We would have to get rid of our coal plants and go nuclear in a major way because that's the only known form of mass power creation.

If you are not willing to take these options seriously when you claim the fate of the human race is on the line.

You are lying, and your true motivation is power.

 

[PsihoKekec]

So we create the global dimming effect that the scientists were warning us about int 70's and 80's? How cool it is to recycle old prophecies of doom as a rescue from the new prophecies of doom.

 

[Deleted member 88]

In general I see the primary problem is that the health of the environment and human prosperity and happiness are inversely proportional.

Human beings need comfort, land, space, resources and to have those things the environment must be degraded and destroyed.

The better off the environment is-generally human beings are worse off either by restricting everyone to dense cities and walling off most of the earth's land area, or killing most of the population.

Personally I am in favor of protecting the environment and balancing it with human happiness as much as is possible. And will gladly accept any solution that solves this conundrum in a way that doesn't mean billions of people have to die, or we have to become serfs living in dense megacities with our every action tightly controlled "for the planet".

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

In general I see the primary problem is that the health of the environment and human prosperity and happiness are inversely proportional.

Human beings need comfort, land, space, resources and to have those things the environment must be degraded and destroyed.

The better off the environment is-generally human beings are worse off either by restricting everyone to dense cities and walling off most of the earth's land area, or killing most of the population.

Personally I am in favor of protecting the environment and balancing it with human happiness as much as is possible. And will gladly accept any solution that solves this conundrum in a way that doesn't mean billions of people have to die, or we have to become serfs living in dense megacities with our every action tightly controlled "for the planet".

Well, there is the fact that living in a healthy environment is conducive to human health as well. Having clean air, clean water, and the such is good for us. That being able to get out into nature is good for us as well, and natural beauty has a soothing effect on the human soul. So I think this adds an additional component to the calculation, the intrinsic and extrinsic goods provided by the environment to humanity.

 

[LordsFire]

In general I see the primary problem is that the health of the environment and human prosperity and happiness are inversely proportional.

This is a false conflict. Careless industrialism and urbanization can cause serious problems, yes. Reasonable care, precautions, and conscientiousness will keep environmental disruption to a minimum, and have little to no macro-scale impact.

'Humanity vs the environment' as a law is just another tired and nonsensical trope of the radical watermelons.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

This is a false conflict. Careless industrialism and urbanization can cause serious problems, yes. Reasonable care, precautions, and conscientiousness will keep environmental disruption to a minimum, and have little to no macro-scale impact.

'Humanity vs the environment' as a law is just another tired and nonsensical trope of the radical watermelons.

Indeed it is, there need not be a choice. There is plenty of overlap between what is good for humanity and what is good for the environment.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Indeed it is, there need not be a choice. There is plenty of overlap between what is good for humanity and what is good for the environment.

Plus, you can have technology whilst still living in places full of green

Hell, you can have advanced technology and education WITHOUT being in the cities

All those “rednecks” probably have internet access

 

[The Name of Love]

Plus, you can have technology whilst still living in places full of green

Hell, you can have advanced technology and education WITHOUT being in the cities

All those “rednecks” probably have internet access

I see advancing technology as the primary way we'll be able to clean up all of the pollution in our environment.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I see advancing technology as the primary way we'll be able to clean up all of the pollution in our environment.

I think there’s a problem in that some people are obsessed with seeing particular ones as the be all end all solution like Solar Power

Irregardless of where they would actually be most effective and there’s also a sort of pessimism regarding technology even advancing

 

[Deleted member 88]

Human destruction of the environment has been ongoing since agriculture first emerged, no before that.

Take Kenyan farmers for example...

They poison lions because they have created fields out of savannah-reducing the habitat of lions and their prey animals, so the lions hunt their livestock which affects their livelihoods.

BBC Earth 2 did a section on this.

Its an example of what I'm talking about.

Its either these pastoralists and their livelihoods, or the lions. They'd likely be happy if the lions went extinct, and would resent any government effort to restrict them owning flocks or killing lions for killing their flocks.

So...how do we resolve this problem?

 

[LordSunhawk]

Simple. Prosperity. If they are able to care for and support their families well, and living lion prides in the wild become more valuable to them because they aren't struggling to survive, then said lions will be protected

 

[CarlManvers2019]

So...how do we resolve this problem?

Theoretically speaking, if we have advanced cloning technology, we could probably revive any extinct or endangered species

But where do we put em? In zoos? Those are considered a bad or inhuman

For things like the ocean, there IS a need for conservation, my country the Philippines has a large reef that people barely realise to be needed for the majority of our fish supply to still exist and I think a few years ago the Chinese accidentally sailed over it and damaged it

There are species of plant and animal life vital to human existence

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Simple. Prosperity. If they are able to care for and support their families well, and living lion prides in the wild become more valuable to them because they aren't struggling to survive, then said lions will be protected

Isn’t that the logic behind some conservation/reservation areas? Where the locals both protect the wildlife and get paid to allow some supposed big game hunters to kill specific animals to get a picture and look Badass?

I think aside from necessity, there is also the problem that guys like the Chinese have loads of idiots who are obsessed with superstitious medicine related to their organs

 

[Deleted member 88]

Theoretically speaking, if we have advanced cloning technology, we could probably revive any extinct or endangered species

But where do we put em? In zoos? Those are considered a bad or inhuman

For things like the ocean, there IS a need for conservation, my country the Philippines has a large reef that people barely realise to be needed for the majority of our fish supply to still exist and I think a few years ago the Chinese accidentally sailed over it and damaged it

There are species of plant and animal life vital to human existence

The ocean is a lot easier to conserve given humans don't live there, only draw resources from it.

And the problem I mentioned is more to do with habitat loss-sure you can clone all the endangered or extinct(and that is within limits) species you like-but if their habitats are gone your basically using them as a way to make money for zoos.

Not to say cloning can't help-with extremely endangered species(like say fifty or less individuals) it can be a game changer, but if the habitat is gone, you haven't really solved the problem.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

The ocean is a lot easier to conserve given humans don't live there, only draw resources from it.

And the problem I mentioned is more to do with habitat loss-sure you can clone all the endangered or extinct(and that is within limits) species you like-but if their habitats are gone your basically using them as a way to make money for zoos.

Not to say cloning can't help-with extremely endangered species(like say fifty or less individuals) it can be a game changer, but if the habitat is gone, you haven't really solved the problem.

Yeah, habitats are something really gotta be concerned about

I mean animals aren’t meant to live in captivity, it’s why a bunch die due to lack of space and poor mental health

 

[Deleted member 88]

The problem with habitat preservation directly ties into my main point-protecting habitats means preventing human use of certain areas and the resources therein.

 

[LordsFire]

The ocean is a lot easier to conserve given humans don't live there, only draw resources from it.

And the problem I mentioned is more to do with habitat loss-sure you can clone all the endangered or extinct(and that is within limits) species you like-but if their habitats are gone your basically using them as a way to make money for zoos.

Not to say cloning can't help-with extremely endangered species(like say fifty or less individuals) it can be a game changer, but if the habitat is gone, you haven't really solved the problem.

There's a decent point about apex predators dangerous to humans and livestock being seriously depopulated. That's far from the environment as a whole though.

As to such dangerous animals, 'super zoos' would be the obvious solution; basically large plots of land with enclosed habitats for them, where people can sometimes see them if desired. Buy some cheap land in low-populations area within their habitat, and that basically is a decent wall against extinction.

To keeping some of them in the wild?

...That's a much thornier issue. People take precedence, and with a predator that can readily and easily kill a human, they're probably going to be forced into preserves and zoos, and that's about it in the end.

 

[Deleted member 88]

There's a decent point about apex predators dangerous to humans and livestock being seriously depopulated. That's far from the environment as a whole though.

As to such dangerous animals, 'super zoos' would be the obvious solution; basically large plots of land with enclosed habitats for them, where people can sometimes see them if desired. Buy some cheap land in low-populations area within their habitat, and that basically is a decent wall against extinction.

To keeping some of them in the wild?

...That's a much thornier issue. People take precedence, and with a predator that can readily and easily kill a human, they're probably going to be forced into preserves and zoos, and that's about it in the end.

I suppose you might be able to create "mini parks" either through buying cheap and underpopulated land(or in urban areas) and thus preserve say lions or gorillas and so on-species whose habitats are being destroyed.