I'd still rather have prosperity
We would need to be using way more fossil fuels / nuclear to have more equality.
This idea to reduce our impact in nature forgets the most vulnerable, which could use some impact in nature in order to have more prosperity.
Well, this is all way easier said than done.
Less people die because of nature disasters and such today that they did 100 years ago.
Technology and medicine helps us, they would, without a doubt, be better off with technology than they do without it.
Shell just lost a lawsuit because they did spill oil all over the Niger Delta https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jan/29/f...
Took only a decade and a bit to even acknowledge that they’re liable.
This is usually called poverty.
They couldn't care less for those forgotten children.
Had that beautiful field or wooded area been given a "nature cost" to destroy, maybe the developers would have made other choices.
They could use cars, ambulances, hospitals and etc.
Nature is brutal, always has been, no one lives on harmony with it.
Look at the indigenous peoples death rate, child mortality.
Probably there are some somewhere. But most rely on completely unsustainable practices.
> Are they prosperous?
You've received some answers, but keep in mind that "poor" is a word we usually apply to people in much wealthier situations.
In what way are the practices unsustainable? Could you give me an example?
It would really be easier if you explained why you think indigenous (to where?) people live in harmony with the nature.
All we can do is hope the median moves up over time and, more importantly, and the spread doesn't get too wide.
I think the problems of the poor today are quite different than those of people of the past. For most of human history, people were not trapped within borders and systems of private property and so could provide for their basic needs. They don't just not have resources, they are prevented from having them. Nor were people of the past going to be the effected the most (according to everything I read) by pollution and climate change. Things have changed a lot, I'd say.
Nigeria is oil rich, absolutely bogged down with the stuff in the southern parts of the country.
Somewhere in the central/northernish part of the country is a family owned farm that runs entirely off of diesel generators out of a lack of decent power generation. An immense amount of money is spent simply on fuel.
Those costs naturally affect transport of their goods, and the price they get for them.
The most pressing issue by far in their micro region however, are herdsman from another ethnic group to the north intentionally running their cattle onto newly planted fields to graze.
Not power generation. Not prosperity. Not nature.
They’re planting melons near the approach to their land last I heard as cattle can’t eat the shoots? I’m not sure, but it sounded like a common solution.
I think this cartoon sums it up quite aptly: https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
This is not a recipe for incremental change. Lots of people quit smoking through vaping because they can easily control their nicotine dosage and thus incrementally change their addiction problem. If you quit cold turkey you will just fall back to old habits.
You’re dying of incurable cancer. Do you have enough or do you want more economic growth so we can try and cure it?
If you're willing to die from stepping on a nail, then ok. I'm not.
And let’s ignore the US. For other countries with high life expectancy, how do you think they pay for it? By economic growth. Norway drills and sells a ton of oil.
Don’t kid yourself. People clicking on ads and buying new iPhones is the type of economic activities that pays for things like healthcare, welfare for the poor, etc.
Cause there are a lot of people who don't get to have prosperity and still are seeing the effects of your choices. In fact, many of them are even more impacted by the harmful effects of the choices you're making than you are! Why don't they get a say too?
Most pollution comes from industry, not individuals. As far as I'm aware you cannot choose what another industry does, because they have private rights. There is no 'but still', no one has a choice.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-pe...
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying in your second paragraph. Maybe you could elaborate?
[0] https://e360.yale.edu/features/paris-conundrum-how-to-know-h...
When prosperity means “throwing away tons of electronic crap people give each other for Christmas because they have been exposed to ads and social pressure to buy crap” or “flying planes in circle in the sky because people are nostalgic of traveling during lock-down”, then you can't have “prosperity” without harming nature.
If I enjoy watching people dig holes and refill it in my backyard, and pay people to do so, this is creating “economic value” because “it bring you pleasure, and you were ready to put a hundred dollar in it, that means it gave you $100 of pleasure” (that's literally how GDP works), it doesn't benefit medical care in any way. And it fact, if I'm paying $1000/h for hole digging, I'm actually harming medical care, because some people would become hole digger instead of nurse / doctors / researchers.
Consumption = creation of economic value = what pays for healthcare
And you cant get an MRI without exchanging something of value (whether paying or with your own money or through taxes).
Hence the creation of economic value on one hand feeds consumer desires and on the other hand creates value that can be spent on things like health care.
You cant have one without the other.
Good day.
Sure, you might not suffer now, but at this point, probably your kids and/or grandkids will. If you don't have nor want kids, then you'll be hurting your friends' and relatives' kids.
If you really don't care, well ain't nothing that can be said to convince you otherwise unless you feel the actual effects.