[KaiserJeep]

OS, you surprise me. Not the least aspect of that surprise is that you do not self-identify as and in fact decry "liberal do-gooders".

[Outcast_Searcher]

OS, you surprise me. Not the least aspect of that surprise is that you do not self-identify as and in fact decry "liberal do-gooders".

I do try to be a "do gooder". The difference is that I don't think I have the right to tell everyone ELSE how their money should be redistributed. So instead of spending lots of time and energy fighting to have more taxes (redistribution for purposes I believe in), I just redistribute some of my own (earned) money, voluntarily and based on my own criteria.

So it's not the "good" that I decry, it's the method, the nature, and the narrative of the way liberals tend to go about it via politics. (I don't like plenty of what he GOP does re the war machine, the environment, science denial, etc. and I've said so, and many of my positions would be considered liberal -- it's specifically the "government should control as much of your wallet as possible" issue that I have the big problem with re the left.)

Now, if that makes me a "bad guy", so be it.

[Cog]

Perhaps you doomers should just start mowing people down in the streets, especially Republicans. That is really what you want to do, so why keep hiding what you are?

OK Cog, you’ve had a couple of folks respond to your troll.

Please respond with something thoughtful.

I don't want to rile them up too bad Newfie.

After second thought I think I will. The premise of the entire article is that we need do destroy consumption by seizing wealth and spreading it around. Logically, if you can't acquire that by some peaceful means, then you have to mow people down in the streets and pick the pockets of the not quite dead. Social justice warriors want to use the force of government(those guys with guns) to take what they think would be better spent by others. The IRS has armed agents and quite a budget to accomplish this.

If onlooker doesn't want a political angle in his threads then he needs to be more careful with his source material.

[KaiserJeep]

Carefull there. I stepped on a lot of toes in the Fascism thread, by maintaining that the most basic definition of a Fascist was that of a person who imposed his will to overide yours, restricting choice and personal liberty by using the powers of government.

I do believe that is accurate, but a Social Justice Warrior does not want to think of himself as a Fascist. Even if true.

[onlooker]

Okay first off, despite what Outcast may say, this article should any of you care to read it in its entirety does not come out one way or the other for or against wealth distribution. It simply states the obvious fact that inequality in consumption exists. The article is simply attempting to highlight how HUMANITY is allowing things to get worse related to its impact on this planet. I agree with much of what Kaiser has said about all this, in this thread and others. However, in the interest of full disclosure our assault on the planets abilities to sustain our life and that of other species is two-pronged. Via overpopulation and via an inordinate and pernicious level of consumption and technology which is harmful to the planet. The main one being CO2 emissions. So let us NOT pretend all of us do not understand this. I agree with Kaiser and others that redistributing wealth will NOT solve this dilemna. That we are simply now stuck with technologies and processes that we need to sustain us that are malicious towards the planet. And our numbers in and of themselves is also malicious towards the planet. Magic bullet solutions do NOT exist. We must to some degree take our medicine and accept it and adapt as best we can. This guarantees nothing except giving us some time. Ultimately since we are reluctant and/or unable to do it, Earth will rid many of us from it and lay low our Modern Industrial Civilization. That now seems inevitable.

[KaiserJeep]

If humanity were as helpless as any other Earthly species, I would agree with you. But we are the ones who overpopulated the world with ourselves and our food animals, we are the ones who reverse and defeat every natural curb to our numbers with Medicine and Science. The ultimate carrying capacity of the Earth would be somewhere between 10 and 15 Billion, most likely - and when we discover that upper bound, we will have broken the current ecology.

This is where my oft-repeated solution of leaving the planet comes in. But I didn't mention the downside possibility that accompanies that space technology. Suppose we were to build a space elevator (i.e. a presently proposed NASA project that eliminates the need for rocketry).

This will absolutely work, it is within the bounds of present materials science, using composite carbon fiber cabling, monocrystalline metal alloys, and so forth. Financially it is not yet affordable, but the numbers do work.

So every trip UP the elevator we send people and every trip DOWN is finished goods manufactured in zero-G space. The carrying capacity of the Earth would go from 15 Billion to at least 30 Billion, perhaps 50 Billion. By then there might be another 50 Billion in space, and not long after that, the first Trillion humans milestone would be reached, mostly space dwellers.

The world of The Expanse would become real.

Believe me, one of the possibilities with Doom is it never happens. Isn't THAT a heartbreaking idea?

[onlooker]

The possibility exists that Tinkerbell and Santaclause will announce themselves , meantime in the real world
https://rubbishplease.co.uk/blog/land-p ... tatistics/
Some grim Land Pollution Facts And Statistics

[dohboi]

[dohboi]

A new report says that the wider the gap between rich and poor, the more the environment suffers.

To solve climate change, solve income inequality

Many people who live in low-income communities, for example, cannot afford to retrofit their homes to make them more energy efficient, meaning they use more power than necessary, generating more pollution.

https://thinkprogress.org/economic-ineq ... bfb3126ca/

OK, boys and girls, have at it!

[Outcast_Searcher]

A new report says that the wider the gap between rich and poor, the more the environment suffers.

To solve climate change, solve income inequality

Many people who live in low-income communities, for example, cannot afford to retrofit their homes to make them more energy efficient, meaning they use more power than necessary, generating more pollution.

https://thinkprogress.org/economic-ineq ... bfb3126ca/

OK, boys and girls, have at it!

Can the title of the thread be changed to inequality please? (Until I read the OP, I didn't know if it meant inequality or inequity.)

...

Another excuse for the left to complain about income inequality. Meanwhile, if you don't stop the endless population growth and BAU growth, the idea that the environmental problems have ANY chance of going away is completely without merit.

In other words, inequality isn't the core problem -- it's just a constant political talking point.

[onlooker]

At this point overpopulation and overconsumption are both impacting the Environment and human health tremendously
Indonesia's forest fires: An environmental disaster of global proportions
http://www.dw.com/en/indonesias-forest- ... a-18828623
How cooking with coal and wood fires is killing millions around the world
http://www.thejournal.ie/health-risks-f ... 6-Sep2014/

[GHung]

A new report says that the wider the gap between rich and poor, the more the environment suffers.

To solve climate change, solve income inequality

Many people who live in low-income communities, for example, cannot afford to retrofit their homes to make them more energy efficient, meaning they use more power than necessary, generating more pollution.

https://thinkprogress.org/economic-ineq ... bfb3126ca/

OK, boys and girls, have at it!

Can the title of the thread be changed to inequality please? (Until I read the OP, I didn't know if it meant inequality or inequity.)

...

Another excuse for the left to complain about income inequality. Meanwhile, if you don't stop the endless population growth and BAU growth, the idea that the environmental problems have ANY chance of going away is completely without merit.

In other words, inequality isn't the core problem -- it's just a constant political talking point.

Picking nits again?

Inequality vs. inequity

Inequity and inequality are closely related in origin and in some of their secondary definitions, so mixing them up is never a serious error, but there are differences between them. Inequality refers primarily to the condition of being unequal, and it tends to relate to things that can be expressed in numbers.1 Inequity, in its main sense, is a close synonym of injustice and unfairness, so it usually relates to more qualitative matters.2 For example, one might say that income inequality results from inequity in society, or that inequality in taxation is a great inequity.
http://grammarist.com/usage/inequality-inequity/

[kanon]

It is fascinating how the human mind can conflate ideas and avoid the issues. It is very clear that the "rich" countries are responsible for most of the environmental degradation. climate-change Yet it is rarely if ever proposed that the higher income groups reduce their incomes to match the less-polluting poor. Nor is the problem addressed directly by, for example, replacing automobiles with bicycles or replacing industrial agriculture with organic methods. The media is a propaganda machine constantly reinforcing the status quo and promoting the corporate agenda. While posing as leftist idealism, the article is actually a repetition of the well indoctrinated concept that the real problem is actually the poor themselves.

“That was absolutely the intention of this report,” she said, “to get the word out and get people thinking and talking about the fact that inequality drives environmental harm.”

This apparently altruistic article fails to identify the actual problem, blames climate change on the poor, and gives ridiculous hypothetical examples like the PM quote about retrofitting their homes. One thing is certain: we are not the ones they are referring to when they talk about overshoot.

[Outcast_Searcher]

It is fascinating how the human mind can conflate ideas and avoid the issues. It is very clear that the "rich" countries are responsible for most of the environmental degradation. climate-change

So let's pretend that:

1). The poorer third world countries are where the vast majority of the population explosion is occurrring.
2). The poorer countries aren't (generally) doing everything they can to enrich their populations, so they can enter the middle class lifestyle of the first world and consume to their hearts' content.

...

Speaking of "conflating", your argument merely reflects a certain political point of view instead of honestly looking at the broader picture over a meaningful time frame.

[onlooker]

Kanon, I am known here as a bit of a leftist leaning justice warrior. But while you are right about the climate change angle, the overpopulation stresses are now themselves creating earth changing negative consequences. So, I think we should endeavor to concede that both overpopulation and overconsumption are creating environmental havoc

[kanon]

Speaking of "conflating", your argument merely reflects a certain political point of view instead of honestly looking at the broader picture over a meaningful time frame.

It is hard to find an argument that does not reflect a certain political point of view. It is apparent that the article seeks to link a political/social agenda to the climate change issue without any mention of actions that would directly address climate change. I support most of the ideas in the article, but I do not believe for one minute that we can address climate change as a secondary effect of altruistic social changes.

What exactly is meant by "inequality drives environmental harm?" I suggest it is the idea that poor people who do not share suburban consumer standards are ugly and pathetic and should be made to adopt the modern middle class lifestyle. On the other hand, the meaning could be that the result of "rich" countries lording over their colonies is the total degradation of the only known human habitat. If the second meaning is taken, then the propaganda and misdirection of the article is clear.

[dohboi]

Mods, please correct spelling in the title to 'Inequity'. Thanks.

And thank to all for the discussion so far.

A further quote from the article to consider:

“corporate short-termism, by its very definition, is bad for the environment because the same shareholder incentives that skew companies away from investing in workers, capital, and innovation discourage them from investing in, for example, green retrofitting of existing buildings, sustainable production practices, and even compliance with environmental regulations.”

[onlooker]

Mods, please correct spelling in the title to 'Inequity'. Thanks.

And thank to all for the discussion so far.

A further quote from the article to consider:

“corporate short-termism, by its very definition, is bad for the environment because the same shareholder incentives that skew companies away from investing in workers, capital, and innovation discourage them from investing in, for example, green retrofitting of existing buildings, sustainable production practices, and even compliance with environmental regulations.”

Yes and isn't that what across the board the rich world has done. Eschew all other considerations for short term profit and wealth. All of us in the rich world have been accomplices to that. It seems to some degree we have forsaken the future for the sake of the present

[dohboi]

"Eschew all other considerations for short term profit and wealth"

Indeed. And when all the money is going to the wealthiest to pursue their own pleasures and interests, there is precious little left for the public good for both mitigating against known coming extremes, and to reduces emissions of various sorts. Building insulation fits both of those bills in most places.

But more broadly, and a perspective the study seems to miss...historians of societal collapse like Tainter have pointed to increasing distances between the ruling elites and the rest of society as prime causes for the instability and collapse of societies. This is mostly due to the elites having less and less interest in anything other than their own aggrandizement, and the rest having less and less power to intervene.

I would say, though, that as important as it is, economic equity is not enough. We have to also have a population that actually has some idea of what the threats are to them and their children, and how to reduce them and start preparing for some of the worst that we already know is coming. If the majority of the populace is in denial or just want 'more for me now,' then redistributing the wealth will have more limited positive results on environmental issues.

[GHung]

.......increasing distances between the ruling elites and the rest of society as prime causes for the instability and collapse of societies. This is mostly due to the elites having less and less interest in anything other than their own aggrandizement, and the rest having less and less power to intervene.

Not to mention increasing danger for the elites as crazy prols become even more disenfranchised and angry.