NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think is more important, protecting the environment which may hurt the economy with the measures that may be needed, or growing the economy which may damange the environment? I think its a tough call, what do you all think?

Considering that you can't have a healthy economy without a stable environment, I'd think the answer would be clear.

Destroying the enviroment for the sake of money should not be done.

A stable environment is good for long-term economic prosperity. Reckless abandonment of environmental policy is like bad deficit spending, with rediculous high-interest loans to pay in the future.

Is it a good idea to piss your pants in a blizzard, to enjoy the moment of slight warmth at the expense of frostbitten balls?

Is it a good idea to piss your pants in a blizzard, to enjoy the moment of slight warmth at the expense of frostbitten balls?

Wow. You totally win the thread.

Like, I'm almost tempted to sig, and I dont sig.


Okay, I won't sig, but that was totally apt.

Environment .. if we don't take care of that we are screwed on everything else.

Is it a good idea to piss your pants in a blizzard, to enjoy the moment of slight warmth at the expense of frostbitten balls?

Bravo for the analogy

Environment .. if we don't take care of that we are screwed on everything else.
OMG BIASED

:p

Judging by the old soviet union, the two things go hand in hand.

Thanks. Can't claim credit though.

OMG BIASEDThat's the problem with reality. It's got a strong anti-insane bias.

I say we skin it and mount it on itself, as a warning to other oh-so-rational things.

OMG BIASED

:p

LOL .. I didn't even realize that myself. :p

If we destroy the environment, there won't be an economy.

Neither economic problems or environmental ones are permanent (short of nuking the fuck out of the planet and of course the extinction of species), but some environmental ones can last a long time.

If we destroy the environment, there won't be an economy.

Neither economic problems or environmental ones are permanent (short of nuking the fuck out of the planet and of course the extinction of species), but some environmental ones can last a long time.

Yeah, our earth can ..and is built to rejuvenate itself. But to a certain extent. Maybe what we see coming now is just a natural occurance our earth goes through. Like big ass seasons. Solar seasons? We're screwed though. And that's ok. lol

Seeing how the economy exists within the environment, the answer is pretty clear.

Neither economic problems or environmental ones are permanent (short of nuking the fuck out of the planet
No, not short of that. THAT would only improve the ecology, eventually: nukes are just pins for Earth, but destroying the industry and culling humanity would prevent much greater damage done over the course of normal life.

A worse thing could be deliberately nuking nuclear industries to spread fallout, but even that cleans itself in the long term,



Still, the problem is that we pollute Earth at much faster rate than it cleans itself. Cost of reducing emissions is not as high as it seems. CO2 is pretty hard to cut down (and requires plants to reprocess), but more dangerous pollutants are well filtered, separated and reprocessed. A chemistry technologist I know told me 15% increase in capital costs to modern industries allows for 90-98% emissions reduction, depending on industry.
Nuclear excluded, of course, even more is already applied there - though nuclear waste is actually less dangerous than many chemical pollutants poured into the oceans freely.

What good is a strong economy if we're all dead?

Strong economy and healthy, clean environment are both very important, but neither moreso than the other, IMHO.

What we should do is maximize economic growth while minimizing (and hopefully, evnetually reversing) negative enivormental sideeffects.

Make sense?

Hurting the economy is a matter of definition.

There can be a balance between the two.

What good is a strong economy if we're all dead?

What good is a pleasant environment if we're all dead?

What good is a pleasant environment if we're all dead?

We can sacrifice some economic growth to prevent things like ever-rising cancer rates, rising infertility, worsening global asthma, and other medical problems caused by increased polution, increased use of carcinogens in agriculture, and generally un-sustainable behavior. It will not kill people.

We can sacrifice some economic growth to prevent things like ever-rising cancer rates, rising infertility, worsening global asthma, and other medical problems caused by increased polution, increased use of carcinogens in agriculture, and generally un-sustainable behavior. It will not kill people.

You didn't talk about sacrificing "some" environment though, you went to the extreme of WE'RE ALL DEAD.

Well, the extreme of a bad economy can lead to that exact same thing. Economics is about having the things that make us go. Like food. You can't sacrifice either the economy or the environment and expect no one to die.

Growing economy of course. Healthy economy and high standard of living will protect environment more. Poorer countries just cannot afford protecting environment and enforcing any pollution standards whatsoever.

I see no reason we could or should reject one for the other. We must protect the environment, but not at the cost of the economy; and we must allow the economy to grow, but not at the expense of the environment.

The practice shows that the stronger the economy, the more pollution. US emits 25% of world's CO2; likely the same with other pollutants. More than a lot for 5% of the population.

Environment can only be protected if put first, and industry as total is limited to a strict reducing norm of emissions. It isn't hard. Just stimulate ecology, as science and technology, and make reducing pollution profitable. The economy will fall a few percent, then continue to grow as before, just with more emphasis on ecology.

Protecting the environment at no cost to economy is impossible. Eventually, you'll have to face goods costing a few percent more if made with clean technologies and full recycling. But the cost isn't high.

Strong economy and healthy, clean environment are both very important, but neither moreso than the other, IMHO.

What we should do is maximize economic growth while minimizing (and hopefully, evnetually reversing) negative enivormental sideeffects.

Make sense?

the long run level of sustainable economic growth has to be much lower than it is currently. for the sake of the environment, 'maximising' will have to mean 'lowering'

there are finite resources after all

You didn't talk about sacrificing "some" environment though, you went to the extreme of WE'RE ALL DEAD.

Well, the extreme of a bad economy can lead to that exact same thing. Economics is about having the things that make us go. Like food. You can't sacrifice either the economy or the environment and expect no one to die.

I felt that it was obvious that sacrificing the whole economy for the whole environment was not what I intended. I meant to imply that right now, the largest threat to the largest number of people is the pollution that we cause because we have no throughts of sustainability. The fact of the matter is that if we allow the number of toxins that we consume to continue increasing, we will eventually lower the fertility rate in women to the point that very few children are born, and increase the cancer rate to the point that the death-rate grows massively. It wont' lead to extinction, but it'll be one hell of a J-crash.

The practice shows that the stronger the economy, the more pollution.

Some of the most polluted countries in the world are in the Third World, especially in Africa. Countries like Nigeria have abominable environmental records.

It's only a stage in our evolution... economy growth and environmental problems go hand in hand. We can't predict the future, nor can we stop our drive for betterment. Do you enjoy warm meals and showers, a roof over your head, sofisticated medical care, telecommunication (internet allowed the birth of NationState), fast transport to see the world, etc?

The key thing is to adapt to our changing enviroment. Easily said hardly done, granted, but we realise the harm we're doing, and that's the main thing. Because we're still part of it, we can't ignore it. Maybe someday genetic and/or engineering technologies will take care of that problem, or become cyborgs or something...

Learn from our mistakes or die, be smart and adapt to shit because we are so small; you can't change the world on your own.
Or you can kill yourself! (I don't have a problem with that, nor I think it's stupid)

We don't need to stop economy, we (as a race) just need to be smart about it!

fast transport to see the world, etc?
I'd prefer to have a world to see, even if I have to take a few days on a ship to do it, rather than have fast transport, but nothing to see.

Maybe someday genetic and/or engineering technologies will take care of that problem, or become cyborgs or something...
That's great. Today we'll make Earth's environment uninhabitable for extra 20% of money, and tomorrow we'll spend 50% of them on surviving in what results.

We are the top predator.
We are the best scavengers, we can define our niche and secure ourselves there, we are the ultimate survivors.

Humanity, homo terralia, dominant primate of Earth in the instersice of two ice-ages. A briefly-existing family of Hominidae, responsible for the termination of all other branches of it's family, and recognized for its excellent masonry (artistic expression in stone.) Extinct .

It's a joke! A suicidal psychopath's joke, admittedly. We don't all get it.}:|

No, not short of that. THAT would only improve the ecology, eventually: nukes are just pins for Earth, but destroying the industry and culling humanity would prevent much greater damage done over the course of normal life.


Not if it gets nuked so bad that only cockroaches and twinkies survive.

You didn't talk about sacrificing "some" environment though, you went to the extreme of WE'RE ALL DEAD.

Well, the extreme of a bad economy can lead to that exact same thing. Economics is about having the things that make us go. Like food. You can't sacrifice either the economy or the environment and expect no one to die.

Humans were around before economies. If our economy necessitates harming the environment, then it is defective and needs to be replaced anyway.

It will not be economic ruination to make ourselves sustainable. Quite the opposite in the long run, as finding cleaner fuels and development methods will open up new industries.

Humans were around before economies. If our economy necessitates harming the environment, then it is defective and needs to be replaced anyway.

It will not be economic ruination to make ourselves sustainable. Quite the opposite in the long run, as finding cleaner fuels and development methods will open up new industries.

Please assure me that you neither own nor drive a car.
Or else demonstrate yogic skills of reverse peristalsis.

:)

EDIT: OK, that's going to make no sense to almost anybody. The following is entirely discretionary reading, for anyone who gives a shit what I'm talking about, or trying to say, or trying to dig my quagmired ass out of. I do in fact own an ass, which is way off the topic, and given that I signed on at the lowest possible rate, I probably own less than one whole ass. Coming to you from the big wide world, at one-quarter ass-power:

Most of us are pretty happy. We're here posting on a forum for fun. Sure, we have pride, we have our agendas of "things that could be better, they bug me" but really, if they bugged us that bad we'd take to the law or take to the streets or take the problem to our dark uncles. You know what I mean: if it directly threatened your life or that of your kin or partner, you'd go quiet and very very sincere. The big wide world is the last resort, as you're being dragged into the unmarked van.
Hell, I'm projecting. If it was deadly personal, I'd go silent and think a lot. I'd carefully assay the friends I've got and trust, and I'd pick ONE, and go to that person and spill my heart; I'd sincerely ask their opinion, I'd kill some time and perhaps a bottle of wine while I made up my mind, then I'd tell them exactly what I intended to do to change what was really bugging me. Then I'd ask their opinion again.
No wonder I've got no friends. Right now, I've got my mom. She's upstairs, laughing her guts up at "the Chaser." I don't have the stomach for that right now.

Considering that you can't have a healthy economy without a stable environment, I'd think the answer would be clear.The thread ended here on the first reply. Until humans can fully control their environment then the economy must come second to the environment.

Not if it gets nuked so bad that only cockroaches and twinkies survive.
The humanity is excessively self-confident. Not even the current amount of nukes, but the amount made in Cold War was just enough to destroy 30-40% of US and 10-15% of USSR population (due to more emphasis on evacuation and civil defense) if launched. Well, and some part in Europe and Asia, but nobody really cared about them.

Most that could be achieved with nukes humans could produce if they really wanted would be a bit of shuffle among higher vertebrates, not anything more. Mostly still due to cities gone. Nature isn't nearly as fragile as civilization, even though it is easy to destroy by the latter - but not by disasters or nukes. Killing at least higher species would take more than the entire amount of uranium available.

The thread ended here on the first reply. Until humans can fully control their environment then the economy must come second to the environment.

No it didn't. Opinions may vary. Many developping economies are more polluting than developped ones. Poorer countries just cannot afford to protect the environment and pollute it to no end. On other hand developed countries can afford to invent expensive measures to reduce damage to environment.

No it didn't. Opinions may vary. Many developping economies are more polluting than developped ones. Poorer countries just cannot afford to protect the environment and pollute it to no end. On other hand developed countries can afford to invent expensive measures to reduce damage to environment.You cannot have an economy without something to supply demand. So it doesn't matter who you are, you cannot have a functioning economy if you destroy the environment to such an extent that it cannot supply enough resources with regards to demand.

neither. the postcount always comes first.

We each have a duty to become wealthy. Until we are wealthy we cannot do all that much to make the world a better place because we are more a part of the problem than the solution.
That being said, there is no point in being wealthy when nature is all fucked up. We only have one earth. I think that it is more of a sin to help one species become extinct than to make people a race of beggars.
Therefore, without any reservation I believe that the environment is a million more times more important than the economy.

Humans were around before economies.

No, they weren't. Economics has always been a factor in human life, because there has always been material resources, use of those resources, and a finite amount of those resources and uses.

Is it a good idea to piss your pants in a blizzard, to enjoy the moment of slight warmth at the expense of frostbitten balls?

That is a perfect analogy. I loved it.

No, they weren't. Economics has always been a factor in human life, because there has always been material resources, use of those resources, and a finite amount of those resources and uses.

Yep. There has always been economics. People just might not have thought about it too much before 1776.

Considering that you can't have a healthy economy without a stable environment, I'd think the answer would be clear.
But then you're not growing the economy, either.

We should always strive to grow the economy first and foremost. Any environmental efforts should also be toward that end.

A stable environment is good for long-term economic prosperity. Reckless abandonment of environmental policy is like bad deficit spending, with rediculous high-interest loans to pay in the future.
Then if your goal is to grow the economy you should care about the environment. But that's still the economic choice.

Protecting the environment for its own sake doesn't help anyone. Growing the economy for its own sake does.

Is it a good idea to piss your pants in a blizzard, to enjoy the moment of slight warmth at the expense of frostbitten balls?
That's not even one of the options. That would involve destroying them both.

I laugh at the idea that these are mutually exclusive goals.

It's way to situation based to vote on the pole.

We have no hope of achieving a healthy economy without first tackling our current environmental issues. Environmental or green industries are proof that theres money in keeping our environment healthy.

That's not even one of the options. That would involve destroying them both.

That's the point. Loss of the environment means loss of the economy.

Then if your goal is to grow the economy you should care about the environment. But that's still the economic choice.

Protecting the environment for its own sake doesn't help anyone. Growing the economy for its own sake does.

I'm saying the two go hand in hand, espescially if you have a resource economy. They're both important, but it's not really an either/or decision. It's about deciding acceptable levels of economy and environment. We could live without many of the luxuries of the modern economy, the same could not necessarily be said of an environment gone to hell.

Environment FTW.

I laugh at the idea that these are mutually exclusive goals.They can, and quite frequently come at cross purposes. Palm oil and steel production are just two examples.

I'm saying the two go hand in hand, espescially if you have a resource economy. They're both important, but it's not really an either/or decision. It's about deciding acceptable levels of economy and environment. We could live without many of the luxuries of the modern economy, the same could not necessarily be said of an environment gone to hell.
Right. You can destroy the economy without destroying the environment, but you can't destroy the environment without destroying the economy.

As such, our efforts should be focussed on helping the economy. If the economy is string, so must be the environment - by your own reasoning.

If you worried about the environment first, the economy might fail, but it can't happen the other way around.

Wealthier = healthier

They can, and quite frequently come at cross purposes. Palm oil and steel production are just two examples.
I know absolutely nothing about the specifics of this case, but material production is not the same as economic growth, which is a common misconception. Economic growth occurs from the maximization of value. If consumers are environmentally aware and refuse to buy environmentally damaging products the economy will not suffer because they will still be maximizing the value they receive from their purchases. Monetary values only ever provide half of the picture when it comes to the state of the economy.

This is why a free-market system that takes care of the environment is completely plausible. All it requires is that people attach a value to environmentally friendly practices in the first place. The beef I have is with the people, not the system.

Right. You can destroy the economy without destroying the environment, but you can't destroy the environment without destroying the economy.

As such, our efforts should be focussed on helping the economy. If the economy is string, so must be the environment - by your own reasoning.

If you worried about the environment first, the economy might fail, but it can't happen the other way around.

Wealthier = healthier

Just because the long term health of the economy depends upon the long term welfare of the environment, doesn't necessarily mean that the long term welfare of the environment depends upon the long term health of the economy.

It's quite possible to have a strong short-term economy, at the long-term cost of the environment. As I said earlier, it's borrowing from the future, not unlike deficit spending.

Sustainable environmental development is key. Both are important. But We can all theoretically live closer to nature, without the advances of modern technology in a pristine environment. We can't live (theoretically) in luxury, in an environmental wasteland.

(Obviously talking about extremes here. I'm more about preserving environment for economic stability, but long-term, environment is the most important.)

I know absolutely nothing about the specifics of this case, but material production is not the same as economic growth, which is a common misconception. Economic growth occurs from the maximization of value. If consumers are environmentally aware and refuse to buy environmentally damaging products the economy will not suffer because they will still be maximizing the value they receive from their purchases. Monetary values only ever provide half of the picture when it comes to the state of the economy.

This is why a free-market system that takes care of the environment is completely plausible. All it requires is that people attach a value to environmentally friendly practices in the first place. The beef I have is with the people, not the system.Material production and economic growth frequently go hand in hand. This is because land such as rainforest is seen as being unproductive, hence to maximise the productive output of the land the rainforest is cleared and material production starts.

Let's take biofuels as an example. The predominant raw material for biofuels is most likely going to be palm oil. Now say a consumer want's to be environmentally aware and by a carbon neutral fuel. So they buy a biofuel. But we want to make sure that the biofuel comes from an environmentally sustainable source. However, with EU targets as high as they are the biofuels market is set to become very large. Which means increased demand for palm oil. Even if the palm oil is sourced from sustainable environments all this means is it is displacing demand that would have otherwise have been sourced from this supply, and hence the palm oil industry will have to grow. To do so it will have to find more land to grow palm on, which is more than likely to lead to more tropical rainforest being cleared.

You say that the system works fine, the only problem is the people. This pretty much goes for every political/economic system ever. Communism looks great on paper, but human nature seemed to get in the way of proper implementation.

you can't destroy the environment without destroying the economy.

10,000 years of agriculture says otherwise

Material production and economic growth frequently go hand in hand. This is because land such as rainforest is seen as being unproductive, hence to maximise the productive output of the land the rainforest is cleared and material production starts.

Let's take biofuels as an example. The predominant raw material for biofuels is most likely going to be palm oil. Now say a consumer want's to be environmentally aware and by a carbon neutral fuel. So they buy a biofuel. But we want to make sure that the biofuel comes from an environmentally sustainable source. However, with EU targets as high as they are the biofuels market is set to become very large. Which means increased demand for palm oil. Even if the palm oil is sourced from sustainable environments all this means is it is displacing demand that would have otherwise have been sourced from this supply, and hence the palm oil industry will have to grow. To do so it will have to find more land to grow palm on, which is more than likely to lead to more tropical rainforest being cleared.
If that happens, isn't the consumer not being environmentally friendly?

A truly environmentally-friendly consumer would not just to reduce the amount of fuel he or she uses. Failing to accomplish this fully, he or she will minimize the damage caused to the environment by his or her own actions. The fact that the consumer in your example is stupid is not a reason to assume that the system can't work, it's a reason that informed individuals like you and I should be willing to talk to people about how to best change our ways so that they don't do a bad job of it.

You say that the system works fine, the only problem is the people. This pretty much goes for every political/economic system ever. Communism looks great on paper, but human nature seemed to get in the way of proper implementation.
Actually, I don't think it looks great on paper, but that's just me. That said, I'm quite happy to make voluntary donations to those in need, with the emphasis on voluntary.

10,000 years of agriculture says otherwise
If I may add a qualifying statement to the Llewdor's statement, you can't accomplish that at this level of population.

Of course, I disagree anyway. He is right in saying you cannot maintain the same levels of material production and save the environment, but material production is not an expression of the whole economy.

Failing to protect the environment will eliminate the economy.

Economy and eviroment are not at odds with one another. What hurts the enviroment will hurt the economy so that it becomes economical to preserve our enviroment.

Failing to protect the environment will eliminate the economy.

Quite right. If you look at things in the long term, protecting the environment becomes the only economical thing to do.

On a side note, it seems to me that all of the damage we have done to our environment has occurred accidentally as a by-product of our greedy economy over the course of the last few centuries.

What if we changed our economy somewhat so that instead of accidentally destroying our planet, we were purposefully nurturing it?

Imagine oxygen factories, or photosynthesis factories that constantly assessed air quality and pumped out gasses (Oxygen, Nitrogen, etc..) in order to balance the air quality.

Or perhaps firing ground to air missiles at the atmosphere that would release clouds of ozone in an attempt to repair the damage we have done.

Now, these might sound a bit silly, but I just pulled them from the top of my head. I think that with some careful consideration we could come up with numerous ways to repair, and even harness our environment for the betterment of the planet. We just need some incentive.

What hurts the enviroment will hurt the economy

do we live on the same planet?

Economy and eviroment are not at odds with one another. What hurts the enviroment will hurt the economy so that it becomes economical to preserve our enviroment.

You're doing the reasoning completely backwards. Since what hurts the environment also hurts the economy, the way to protect them both is to protect the economy.

If you only worry about the environment the economy might collapse, but the environment cannot collapse if you'r worried about the economy because a stable environment is a necessary condition for strong economic growth.

You're doing the reasoning completely backwards. Since what hurts the environment also hurts the economy, the way to protect them both is to protect the economy.

I see your p.o.v. now. If a strong environment is necessary for a strong economy, then the logical result would be that protecting the economy is protecting both. (Since protecting the environment would be a part of the process of protecting the economy.)

If you only worry about the environment the economy might collapse, but the environment cannot collapse if you'r worried about the economy because a stable environment is a necessary condition for strong economic growth.

It's a balancing act, for sure. The danger is in people not realizing the importance of environmental stability to the long term health of the economy. It's a different take on the situation, but I see your argument.

What do you think is more important, protecting the environment which may hurt the economy with the measures that may be needed, or growing the economy which may damange the environment? I think its a tough call, what do you all think?

This is a false dichotomy. Properly engineered, it is very possible to protect the environment and have an economy that benefits everybody.

I see your p.o.v. now. If a strong environment is necessary for a strong economy, then the logical result would be that protecting the economy is protecting both. (Since protecting the environment would be a part of the process of protecting the economy.)
Exactly. I don't see why everyone didn't reach that conclusion immediately.

What do you think is more important, protecting the environment which may hurt the economy with the measures that may be needed, or growing the economy which may damange the environment? I think its a tough call, what do you all think?

I think the environment comes first. However, if it is clearly impractical, like stopping the building of a dyke (I spell dike that way) in New Orleans, the sensible thing should be done..

Exactly. I don't see why everyone didn't reach that conclusion immediately.

It's a difference of interpreting the OP's question.

Originally Posted by Soviestan
What do you think is more important, protecting the environment which may hurt the economy with the measures that may be needed, or growing the economy which may damange the environment? I think its a tough call, what do you all think?

By the wording of the question, growing the economy might damage the environment, which would have to therefore also damage the economy down the road (since we've determined that protecting the environment = protecting the economy). Protecting the environment, while risking the economy, wouldn't damage the environment in the long term.

We're talking in abstract concepts though.

If you take that question into a real-world context, it becomes a little different. It's not just 'Environment vs. Economy, which is more important', it becomes 'what is the best choice in this particular scenario.' Making the choice to grow the economy at the expense of the environment, could be detrimental to your long-term economic stability (not to mention the negatives of living in a poor environment.) It's quite possible to have economies that don't damage the environment to any great excess (non-industrial), so risking the environment for economic gain seems short-sighted.

It's a difference of interpreting the OP's question.
You're hurting my brain.
By the wording of the question, growing the economy might damage the environment, which would have to therefore also damage the economy down the road (since we've determined that protecting the environment = protecting the economy).
But then you're not growing the economy, so you haven't chosen either available option.

You can either choose to protect the economy first and foremost, which ultimately will protect the economy (by the reasoning we've already covered) or to protect the environment first and foremost, which may well allow the economy to crumble.

It's a choice between steak & ice cream, or just ice cream. Thanks, but if I'm going to get the ice cream anyway, I'll take the steak.

There is no compelling reason not to choose Economy in this poll. If you care about the environment more, you'd then have no preference here because both options ultimately protect it.

But then you're not growing the economy, so you haven't chosen either available option.

You can either choose to protect the economy first and foremost, which ultimately will protect the economy (by the reasoning we've already covered) or to protect the environment first and foremost, which may well allow the economy to crumble.

It's a choice between steak & ice cream, or just ice cream. Thanks, but if I'm going to get the ice cream anyway, I'll take the steak.

There is no compelling reason not to choose Economy in this poll. If you care about the environment more, you'd then have no preference here because both options ultimately protect it.

I suggest you re-read the OP. It mentioned one option as growing the economy at the expense of the environment. If it's at the expense of the environment, (and thus not the long-term economically sound choice), then how could voting 'economy' be the correct one - based on the OP's question?

I'm assuming you meant to say 'which ultimately will protect the environment (rather than economy)'. It can't ultimately protect the environment, if the OP has determined that choosing the 'economy' option will damage the environment. It's stated in the question.

i need some clarification from all of you "hurting the environment hurts the economy" people running around out here. i just have no idea what you mean. most of the possibilities seem absurd. i don't believe that you could mean any of these possibilities:

1) our more or less continued growth in material prosperity for the past thousands of years has not hurt the environment

2) our more or less continued damaging of the environment for the past thousands of years has resulted in the continual decline of material prosperity

3) if i go out right now and cut down an acre of rainforest to sell for lumber and then salt the ground where it stood, the entire economy will collapse

4) if i go out right now and cut down an acre of rainforest to sell for lumber and then salt the ground where it stood, the environment will not have been damaged

so what the fuck is left that makes the idea that "what hurts the environment hurts the economy" at all sensible? are we using 'hurt the environment' as shorthand for 'utterly eradicate all life on the planet'?

i need some clarification from all of you "hurting the environment hurts the economy" people running around out here. i just have no idea what you mean. most of the possibilities seem absurd. i don't believe that you could mean any of these possibilities:

1) our more or less continued growth in material prosperity for the past thousands of years has not hurt the environment

2) our more or less continued damaging of the environment for the past thousands of years has resulted in the continual decline of material prosperity

3) if i go out right now and cut down an acre of rainforest to sell for lumber and then salt the ground where it stood, the entire economy will collapse

4) if i go out right now and cut down an acre of rainforest to sell for lumber and then salt the ground where it stood, the environment will not have been damaged

so what the fuck is left that makes the idea that "what hurts the environment hurts the economy" at all sensible? are we using 'hurt the environment' as shorthand for 'utterly eradicate all life on the planet'?

Depends on the nature of your economy. If your economy is based on fishing, and the economic choice is to increase quota's on fishing, and thus improve the economy, you're risking the environmental option of preserving fish stock. Overfishing, can, and has resulted in severely damaging the economy in the long run. Just one example.

It's the environment as resource angle.

i need some clarification from all of you "hurting the environment hurts the economy" people running around out here. i just have no idea what you mean. most of the possibilities seem absurd. i don't believe that you could mean any of these possibilities:

1) our more or less continued growth in material prosperity for the past thousands of years has not hurt the environment

2) our more or less continued damaging of the environment for the past thousands of years has resulted in the continual decline of material prosperity

3) if i go out right now and cut down an acre of rainforest to sell for lumber and then salt the ground where it stood, the entire economy will collapse

4) if i go out right now and cut down an acre of rainforest to sell for lumber and then salt the ground where it stood, the environment will not have been damaged

so what the fuck is left that makes the idea that "what hurts the environment hurts the economy" at all sensible? are we using 'hurt the environment' as shorthand for 'utterly eradicate all life on the planet'?
On a simplistic level, if I cut down rain forest to sell wood, and people condemn that practice and refuse to buy the wood, I am damaging the environment from cutting down the trees and the economy by producing something no one wants to buy.

Hurting the environment will hurt the economy if people really care about the environment is how it should go.

Depends on the nature of your economy. If your economy is based on fishing, and the economic choice is to increase quota's on fishing, and thus improve the economy, you're risking the environmental option of preserving fish stock. Overfishing, can, and has resulted in severely damaging the economy in the long run. Just one example.

It's the environment as resource angle.

but wasn't all the mass slaughter and ecological disruption up to the overshoot/collapse point 'hurting the environment' while 'growing the economy'?

but wasn't all the mass slaughter and ecological disruption up to the overshoot/collapse point 'hurting the environment' while 'growing the economy'?Hence my pissing your pants in a blizzard analogy. Overfishing is clearly a benefishial thing for as long as it's possible. After that it was clearly a really fucking disasterous idea, economy-wise.

but wasn't all the mass slaughter and ecological disruption up to the overshoot/collapse point 'hurting the environment' while 'growing the economy'?

Yup. At least that's the way I see it. It's a difference between short-term economic goals, and long-term economic goals. The short-term 'screw the environment' option is very likely to be highly damaging to the economy in the future.

For example, Toronto city planners are projecting that the city's current infrastructure may not be able to deal with the effects of global warming in the future. If most scientists are to be believed, industry's choice to ignore the effects of global warming will have real-world economic costs on us in the future.

I'm going to see if I can find a link to the TorStar article.

EDIT: Link: http://www.thestar.com/article/198439

By the end of this century, fires will consume twice as much forest annually in Canada, a fifth of the currently snowy Arctic will be greened by tundra and Great Lakes water levels will have plunged still lower, international scientists are going to warn this week in an authoritative climate change report.

Economic damage from severe weather, such as hurricanes, is almost certain to continue rising in North America and city-dwellers face heightened health risks, the scientists conclude.

benefishial
Awesome.

I suggest you re-read the OP. It mentioned one option as growing the economy at the expense of the environment. If it's at the expense of the environment, (and thus not the long-term economically sound choice), then how could voting 'economy' be the correct one - based on the OP's question?

I'm assuming you meant to say 'which ultimately will protect the environment (rather than economy)'. It can't ultimately protect the environment, if the OP has determined that choosing the 'economy' option will damage the environment. It's stated in the question.
Right, but very early on in the thread people kept insisting that you couldn't protect the economy if the environment failed, and I'm going with that. If that's the case (and it was always mentioned by people who were more concerned about the environment) then the only way to protect both is to choose the economy.

Given a strict reading on the poll options, the economy option was absurd, since you can't do that.

[Insert Something Vetalia Would Say]

Hence my pissing your pants in a blizzard analogy. Overfishing is clearly a benefishial thing for as long as it's possible. After that it was clearly a really fucking disasterous idea, economy-wise.
But it's not ultimately beneficial. It's only beneficial if you place an arbitrary end date on your measurement.

'growing the economy'?

Whose economy?

If we want to expand the moral sphere to non-human animals, shouldn't their utility also count in economic terms?

That would mean that our actions have had massive negative externalities on non-human entities - certainly economic harm.

[Insert Something Vetalia Would Say]
Whoa. You still exist?

I think its a tough call, what do you all think?

A tough call? I would have thought the parable of the wealthy man and the barns proved to anyone that an enviorment has to win out over an economy. Money is valueless when the world outside is burning

Whoa. You still exist?

I haven't decided yet.

But it's not ultimately beneficial. It's only beneficial if you place an arbitrary end date on your measurement.You have an uncanny knack for stating the obvious. Perhaps you'll go on to explain in great, graphical detail why pissing one's pants in a blizzard is ultimately not the best of ideas either?

Whose economy?

If we want to expand the moral sphere to non-human animals, shouldn't their utility also count in economic terms?

That would mean that our actions have had massive negative externalities on non-human entities - certainly economic harm.

heh, that turns things nicely on its head

It's a difference between short-term economic goals, and long-term economic goals. The short-term 'screw the environment' option is very likely to be highly damaging to the economy in the future.

well, assuming you continue to screw ever larger parts of the environment into the indefinite future.

but it seems to me that you can screw an absolutely massive part of the globe in the furtherance of economic growth, as long as you stop short of the overkill line and then hold steady with sustainable practices of one sort or another. which still sounds exactly like doing significant harm to the environment, both historically through the original destruction and ongoing through the maintenance of those destroyed areas in their destroyed state.

well, assuming you continue to screw ever larger parts of the environment into the indefinite future.

but it seems to me that you can screw an absolutely massive part of the globe in the furtherance of economic growth, as long as you stop short of the overkill line and then hold steady with sustainable practices of one sort or another. which still sounds exactly like doing significant harm to the environment, both historically through the original destruction and ongoing through the maintenance of those destroyed areas in their destroyed state.


I'm not sure where you're going with this. I'm arguing that preservation of the environment is important, not only for immediate health-related issues, but long-term environmental stability as well.

But you can't completely ignore economy either. The major reason, ovviously being that the provinces have more power than the national leel would realy like them to have.

It depends on how you look at things. The environment has a bottom line value because it is material and can be quantified. It has more of a true physical economic value than say stocks or bonds because they are not here-- they are symbolic. A lake for example can be valued in pure economic terms-- it provides tourism, fishing, and even some intangible values. Economics places values on intangibles in business-- it is called goodwill. Even intangibles have basic economic value. For that matter you can also value a heron, or a mountain.

Classical economics places no value on physical resources, it just assumes they are free for the taking and does not assume there is any limit to consumption. Look I can chop up the tree and turn it into firewood without consequence because it will make me money is not a real answer.

The problem is that there are only so many trees. People are beginning to realize that the trees, even the air we breathe is not free it has a bottom line value which can't be taken out of the equation.

There is a real price for pollution in terms of health and destruction of resources. You have to pay for destroyed common resources. Preservation of these resources creates more value than destroying them in the long term. The trees, the land we stand on and everything that lives around us has value and needs to be put back in the equation. There is no longer a free lunch, we are realizing we have limited resources.

You have an uncanny knack for stating the obvious. Perhaps you'll go on to explain in great, graphical detail why pissing one's pants in a blizzard is ultimately not the best of ideas either?

1: you might die anyway, so the momentary satisfaction is better than nothing.
2: it beats opening your pants to take a piss the regular way.

No, I'm not taking a serious attitude towards this very serious question. Just right now I'm in favour of the world being dominated by some species with a stronger moral sense than it's cleverness with its hands.

For the record, my previous post to this thread does make exactly zero sense.

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

i'm trying to figure out what people mean when they claim that harming the environment harms the economy. at a best guess, it seems like they must mean that at some point in the future harming the environment will begin to harm the economy. or maybe everyone has adopted soheran's point about a more encompassing definition of economy. but i'm not really sure.

bump

i'm trying to figure out what people mean when they claim that harming the environment harms the economy. at a best guess, it seems like they must mean that at some point in the future harming the environment will begin to harm the economy. or maybe everyone has adopted soheran's point about a more encompassing definition of economy. but i'm not really sure.

That's basically my point at any rate. Current environmental degradation will be costly for us in the future.

That's basically my point at any rate. Current environmental degradation will be costly for us in the future.

current amount or current rate?

current amount or current rate?

Both I guess? I'm no expert. All I know is that it's patently obvious that continuing on the path we're on is bad for all of us. I'm not suggesting a 'return to the trees' per se, but we most definitely have to be thinking of solutions.

When the environment begins to threaten the survival of our species the economy will adapt naturally through normal market function. The problem with this is that when environmental degradation reaches that point it will have passed the point beyond repair. This is why the world needs to act now.

There is absolutely no reason why the economy can't continue to grow while reducing CO2 emissions. The transition to the Green economy won't ruin or affect capitalism any more than the transition from the Coal economy to the oil economy did about 150 years ago.

The transition will be a good thing. More energy efficiency means a lot of things which I like. The rebirth of a high speed bullet train system will probably be a necessity in the United States. Something I look forward to. There are too many cars in the United States. It will be nice to be able to get on a bullet train to go downtown.

Also more energy efficiency means a lot more greenery. Trees and hedges make for energy efficiency, in homes. Green roofs and roof gardens reduce energy costs. We will see vertical farms go up and will have farms much closer to the cities. Also urban agriculture will be much closer to home.

More trees, more flowers, more bicycle paths, more pedestrian walkways. These all reduce traffic congestion.

In addition, green appliances are computerized to monitor energy use and turn on and off. This means a lot more high energy efficiency gadgets to play with. It does not mean less technology.

I find green buildings to be fascinating. Cleaner internal air, brighter lighting, cleaner drinking water, and a more open spacious feeling.

We will also be a lot closer to the gadgets that provide us power. Solar power, wind power, biofuels are a lot closer to home than nuclear power or coal furnaces. You can look at them up close and play with them. They are not dangerous to handle.

The new hydrogen fueled cars that will be built will be built out of more efficient materials. Carbon fibers and polymers to make them stronger, safer, lighter and more energy efficient. This is not low tech. I like technology.

The changes will make the world safer, cleaner, more filled with plants and bring us closer to our natural environment.

I am looking forward to it.