Hacker News Reader

Comment by nprz | Hacker News Reader

Aren't environmentalists ultimately motivated by their interest in preventing some sort humanitarian catastrophe? We don't want to make the earth uninhabitable as it would result in the death and suffering of millions of people. Nuclear war would also result in death and suffering. There seems to be some common ground here.

Both issues require a change in public opinion.

View on HN

Environmentalism and humanitarianism are two different things. I consider myself an environmentalist, and I wouldn't say the focus is so human-centric as you mention or even human-centric at all aside from understanding humans are nearly the sole source of problems in the environment. Environmentalism, to me at least, is to gain empathy for the environment and all its inhabitants and to take a holistic approach. Also to me, humanitarianism is about addressing solvable problems to end immediate suffering of humans.

Nuclear threats are rather abstract at present and basically not preventable in any remotely deterministic way. We could focus on it for a century, only for a hardware failure, software bug, or a simple accident to launch a nuclear missile. That doesn't even take into consideration the power dynamics I mentioned or terrorism. Do we have any clue whatsoever as to how Putin, Jinping, and Trump came to power and stayed in power? Or any clue of terrorism. We don't. If we do in some cases, the cause is not a solvable problem. It's super complex.

So, nuclear threats are abstract, opaque, but yet simultaneously can materialize out of thin air at a moment's notice. However, there are environmental and humanitarian problems that we can start working on and solving today, with actionable solutions.

You may be a minority in that group. What should most readily be understood when the word environmentalism is invoked is an existential question with regards to humanity as a whole and what impacts the well being of all people on the planet anything other than is a twisted interpretation to fit one's own agenda.

That’s doubtful. The word environmentalism has a definition and it quite simply is not a human-centric one, so there’s no agenda, whatever that was supposed to mean. Stretching it to mean something else, for whatever reason the original commenter wanted to, doesn’t really make sense other than to apparently place blame on environmentalists.

Environmentalism is a question of balance and sustainability of entire ecosystems and environments. The idea is that by restoring balance, everyone benefits, including humans. How nuclear threats apply to that other than yet another source of environmental pollution or how it’s supposedly on environmentalists is beyond me.

Anything that happens to the environment can absolutely be good for some species and ecosystems including the entire planet turning into a giant ocean, in that case for the fish. So it's bizarre to somehow surgically remove humans from the discussion and have a twisted conversation about balance and sustainability as if those things are absolute.

I didn’t remove humans from the discussion. I said humans are not the sole focus of environmentalism, which they aren’t.

Joe Biden said last Thursday the risk of nuclear Armageddon is the highest it has been for 60 years. Advocating for a deescalation of the conflict in Ukraine and a diplomatic end to the war seems like an easy way to lessen the probability of nuclear bomb being dropped.

It's bizarre for people living in a democracy to consider an elected president's possible use of nuclear weapons "not preventable in any remotely deterministic way" when said president goes on TV and openly calls for nuclear escalation.

Sure it does, but I also don’t know why you’re randomly placing blame on environmentalists.

It sounds like both issues require public education.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com