top | item 47165401

(no title)

paulryanrogers | 4 days ago

> What would be your choice?

Less stuff and less pollution everywhere.

discuss

order

tonyedgecombe|3 days ago

It’s an inconvenient truth that the better off don’t want to face up to. Your environmental impact is going to be correlated to your consumption. More spending == more damage.

Something to bear in mind when you are being told environmental damage is being caused by the poor or some foreign country.

CalRobert|3 days ago

There are some scenarios where it’s a coordination problem. People could drive light fuel efficient vehicles if so many other people weren’t driving large, heavy, dangerous ones, for example.

expedition32|3 days ago

There's not much point in being better off if you don't use that money for a holiday to Japan.

After all most of us work hard so that we can buy things.

Fischgericht|3 days ago

Yes, I fully agree.

And that choice is basically the exact opposite of what western civilization is heading for, and thanks to the AI boom, it has never been worse at any time in human history, I guess. Which means you are likely surrounded by people who want the opposite of what you want. That will be problematic.

However, this really only would be the proper answer if given by a majority as a community. In a crowd of people who want more, more, more more MORE, you will just drown and die.

But in principle you are right:

No, you do not really need to re-industrialize your country. Instead think about how endless growth in a reality of finite resources is going to play out. California is just fine as it is. Let's think about where Californians will get drinking water from in the near future, instead of thinking about building water-consuming factories.