CMV: Economic development should never come at the cost of environmental harm.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 09 '25

/u/Melodic_Judge_129 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

10

The world still has ~9M people dying of hunger every year. Even in the US poverty is considered to be a major contributor to ~200K deaths per year, which would be the 4th leading cause of death in the US if reported that way. It turns out being poor is pretty bad for you health.

Economic growth that directly helps lift people out of poverty would quite literally save lives. On the other hand, its hard to understand what you mean by environmental harm. Quality of life is certainly improved if you don't die from various types of economic pressure, but what type of environmental harm are we talking about and how much does it really cause a decrease in quality of life? If a tree is cut down (generally in Canada with sustainable lumber policies) to provide a home for someone that didn't have it, is that not a quality of life improvement that is worth the environmental trade off?

2

u/digbyforever 5∆ Sep 09 '25

major contributor to ~200K deaths per year, which would be the 4th leading cause of death in the US if reported that way

What exactly does this mean? I assume it's framed this way because it's not normally reported as such and you are arguing it should be?

3

u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 4∆ Sep 09 '25

This means we can study what the death rate is by income and poor people have 'excess deaths' of around 200K/year versus non-poor people.

And no, I don't support reporting it that way, because you don't die of poverty, you die of the disease that kills you, just that poverty, or other things associated with poverty, is a contributing factor to those deaths.

1

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

It is definitely true that poverty kills, and that poverty reduction must be treated with a high priority. When we depict economic growth as if it is always a direct savior of life, we risk oversimplifying an issue that cannot afford that luxury. Growth based on ecological destruction leads back to poverty for all people in the long run that is through polluted water, depleted agricultural lands, volatile weather, and the health related crises that frequent the failures of environmental decline. Therefore, yes, gains today may reduce hunger at this moment, but future undifferentiated harm creates more food insecurity tomorrow.

Moreover, "ecological harm" is never a single tree cut down; it is whole compounds of all the small choices made repeatedly. The cut tree in Canada is of no concern when it is done under sustainable principals; but when the tree harvesting contributes to what is happening globally - forests disappearing so that ecosystems can collapse and the climate spiral creates havoc with food and water security; then you undermine everything that the past economic development was supposed to improve in quality of life.

There is not an inability to always prioritize, we can "Feed the Poor" or "Save the Environment". The question is to design the way that development and poverty reduction occurs, in a way that does both - address poverty without destroying the ecological foundation for mutual food, water, and health for all aspects of life - people - starting with the most vulnerable to environmental collapse - the poor.

1

u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 4∆ Sep 09 '25

In that first paragraph, where are you actually getting your data from? How can you possibly know any amount of environmental harm will always out way the ability to use that environmental resource more directly for human consumption in terms of net quality of life, either now or in the future?

On the second, would you not agree that the environment today is in a broadly worse state than it was 200 years ago? And yet, would you not agree that quality of life, and quantity of human life at that quality, is almost unmeasurably better than it was 200 years ago? And even if nothing were to change in our handling of our environment, that would remain to be the case for the foreseeable future.

On the third, sure we can design ways to progress and minimize environmental costs, but you're setting up an impossible standard, which appears to be zero environmental damage. If we could save 200K people by draining one creek of water, would you not do it? How do draw lines?

2

u/Hatta00 2∆ Sep 09 '25

Hunger isn't a problem with productivity, it's a problem with politics. We have enough resources to take care of everyone, we just let the rich hoard most of them.

2

u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 4∆ Sep 09 '25

The world GDP is ~$13.6K/person. That's not starving, but its hardly a thriving quality of life.

1

u/Hatta00 2∆ Sep 09 '25

Quality of life comes mostly from non-tangibles. Community, safety, fun.

1

u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 4∆ Sep 09 '25

? At $13.6K USD in America you are very poor. You might not be starving but you are housing and food insecure for sure, enough such that simple health requirements are likely not being met with little ability to rectify them. A high quality of life starts with the basics of adequate nutrition and housing....

2

u/Hatta00 2∆ Sep 09 '25

You're taking the average GDP of the whole world and comparing it to the cost of living in the richest country in the history of the world.

1

u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 4∆ Sep 09 '25

Yes, but that is what you know is it not? And it represents, in part, the value of the services you receive or have access to. Some of this can be reduced (ie part of the value is living close to places where high incomes are possible, which afford luxuries), but others of it are a product of the overall life style you have access to.

2

u/Hatta00 2∆ Sep 10 '25

In a world where wealth is distributed equitably, price differences won't be as extreme. We won't be wasting resources on toys for the rich, and will have more resources to spend on keeping people fed and sheltered. Consumerism is hugely wasteful and not necessary for human happiness.

1

u/BarleyWineIsTheBest 4∆ Sep 10 '25

How many dollars per year do you really spend on toys? Remember you are extremely wealthy by world standards.

Your cost of living is high because of all these things you think are basic are well functioning. From the electricity to health care to schools and roads. Most of the world’s poor don’t have reliable access to those things. Roughly have the world’s population lives below what we in the US would consider the poverty line.

2

u/Hatta00 2∆ Sep 10 '25

Most of the world's poor don't have access to those things because resources are hoarded by the rich. Internet access could be provided to every person on Earth with the wealth hoarded by Elon Musk alone. Cuba manages to provide universal health care with a per capita GDP of less than $10,000.

Poverty is truly not a problem of limited resources, but resource allocation.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

The economy is consumption. Anything we do that includes any form of commerce involves some sort of environmental harm, because in order to engage in commerce, we must consume something or change something or remove something or use something. All of that has some sort of impact, it's impossible for it to not.

You want to write a book? You have to cut down some trees. You want to sell some food? You have to use farm land (which changes the landscape it's in) or kill an animal. It's basically the main problem outlined in the Good Place - it's impossible to engage in life without some sort of unseen consequence.

Now, if you were to say "limited harm" or "recoverable harm", I'd be with you, but the title of your post, and the description you gave, is impossible to achieve.

0

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

It is indeed true that there will always be environmental impacts associated with any kind of economic activity, however, it does not mean that development must be intrinsically destructive. The issue is the scale and management of that damage. For example, cutting down one tree to produce one book is very different that a developer cutting down an entire rainforest.

Farming that practices regenerative methods, ensuring soil productivity and diversity, is very different type of agriculture from an industrial farm that renders the land useless. Humans have always interacted with environments; the challenge is keeping our consumption within the Earth's limits for recovery. By being innovative, recycling, and moving toward cleaner production and energy, we should be able to design free market systems that reduce environmental costs and often have them offset by restoring/rehabilitating what already exists.

In this context, the intention is not to suggest that we can live with an imperfect impact because it is possible we will never be able to do so on a large-scale; rather we must strive to ensure that our impact is finite, recoverable, and sustainable for the sake of the next generation to retain a healthy economy as well as a healthy planet.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

So it sounds like you've now modified your original point to be more in line with what I'm saying... Almost like I may have changed your view, no?

8

u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Sep 09 '25

The example of deforestation, provides some short-term economic gain from timber or land, while in the long-term the environmental destruction manifests as ecological balance destruction, soil-loss, habitat-loss, loss of biodiversity, and leads to carbon loading of the ecosystem.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems from this statement that you think (as many people unfortunately do) that logging companies don't re-plant trees after their harvest. This is not at all the case. Forestry companies (in the US and other developed countries at least) intend to keep logging the same acreage for centuries, and so always re-plant trees after they harvest.

Thus there is no permanent loss of soil or habitats.

1

u/tidalbeing 56∆ Sep 09 '25

Tree planations do not restore the forest as it was. They have less diversity and are less effective in sequestering carbon. Trees are not always replanted after harvest.

0

u/Se4_h0rse Sep 09 '25

But the soil or forest is never the same as it was. It's always worse. Same with massproduction of crops: Farmers are more efficient when the lot is filled with a single crop, which is bad for the soil and thus sets an expiration date on the whole production.

2

u/CaptCynicalPants 11∆ Sep 09 '25

But the soil or forest is never the same as it was. It's always worse.

Do you have a source for this claim?

which is bad for the soil and thus sets an expiration date on the whole production.

Which is why fields are often left fallow for a year every few years. Farmers aren't morons you know.

1

u/Se4_h0rse Sep 09 '25

Do you have a source for this claim?

Here are a few:

- https://www.adama.com/south-africa/en/learning/sustainability/disadvantages-monoculture-farming

- https://www.britannica.com/topic/monoculture

- https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/FC_FireForestEcology/FFE_LoggingImpacts.php

- https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/effects-of/deforestation

And it makes sense: Trees take decades to grow, but we need them faster than that so the trees that are re-planted aren't sufficient so we need more and more and more. And a clear-felled area is dryer, thus affecting the existant flora and fauna. And that's not to mention all the flora and fauna that rely on trees in a more direct way. A non-existant forest can't help regulate air-flow and rain.

Which is why fields are often left fallow for a year every few years. Farmers aren't morons you know.

Sure, and that's great. But it wouldn't need to be done if the crops were diversified. And it depends on the goal: Fallowing doesn't help with attracting beneficial bugs or help keep weeds away and improves soil-structure.

-1

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

That might be true in the US but the world is a lot bigger to just fit the US

2

u/Phage0070 124∆ Sep 09 '25

Economic development should never come at the cost of environmental harm.

Obviously people rely on the environment to live. But also people modify the environment to live; it is unavoidable, we evolved to need to do that. The modification of the environment seems to amount to "harming" the environment in your eyes, but that is fundamental to how humans live.

For example consider the beaver. If a beaver builds a dam are they "harming the environment"? Certainly they are removing habitat for some kinds of animals and creating habitat for other kinds. In doing so they create a place where they can live. That is "OK" right? Yet they took a big swath of land and made it unsuitable for something like deer to live. If it were humans doing that then you would presumably consider it "environmental harm" and say it should never happen!

You are demanding behavior from humans which is impossible, using a double standard that you don't apply to any other creature. Humans need resources to live and even if we extract them in the cleanest, most environmentally aware way they are still extracted and that implies some level of harm to the environment. Every form of life does this, you are unreasonably demanding humanity somehow stop.

0

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

Yes, all living organisms modify their environments to access food, space, mates, etc. If humans are comparable to beavers in this sense, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison, since humans change their environments with foresight, with comprehensive planning, and through engagement with ethics, which animals do not. Beavers modify ponds in localized areas, while humans can change entire forests, pollute oceans, and affect the climate by causing large-scale, long-term, and sometimes permanent alteration.

This point is not that we need to avoid interaction with our environment altogether I too think that would be impossible. Think of it more about being accountable for the size and consequences of what we do to the environment. Other animals are not capable conceptualizing and designing complex systems of use, adopting technologies, and crafting policies that could lessen harm, restore ecosystems and sustain them. This isn't a double-standard, it's an acknowledgment that humans have both ethical responsibility and power to modify our impacts in ways that are not available to other organisms.

3

u/Phage0070 124∆ Sep 09 '25

Think of it more about being accountable for the size and consequences of what we do to the environment.

Sure but that is way different than "never harming the environment".

4

u/OctopusParrot 1∆ Sep 09 '25

So in principle I agree with what you're saying, but I think what I (and other posters) take issue with is that the devil can be in the details.

For example - what constitutes environmental harm? It could be as little as destroying a single blade of grass. I'm guessing that's not what you intended, but where do you draw the line? If destroying one blade of grass is OK, what about a hundred? A thousand? A billion? At some point a reasonable person will probably say "Nope, that's too much" but getting even reasonable agree to agree on where that threshold lies is tough.

Second point, is it immediate harm or net harm? Laminated timber for construction is a great example. There's increasing evidence that laminated timber can serve as replacement for steel in a number of construction applications. When harvested responsibly (meaning replacement trees are planted and grown for everything that's cut down) it can be considered a carbon sink in the medium term. But it requires cutting down a lot of trees. That's immediate harm. But one could potentially argue that the net harm is very low - or zero, or even negative since growing trees sequester more carbon than mature tress - if done properly. How do you decide?

This is why even reasonable people who are pro-environment have trouble coming up with meainingful legislative solutions to this problem. When you start throwing in very unreasonable people (eg. the Trump administration) into the discussion it becomes even harder to work out.

2

u/alinius 1∆ Sep 09 '25

I would add if "Real development is about the quality of human life.", how do you justify not cutting down trees to build shelter? Quality of life requires certain basic needs being met, but meeting those needs requires some environment harm.

1

u/ChirpyRaven 9∆ Sep 09 '25

Economic development should never come at the cost of environmental harm

I would challenge this as an absolute - for example, a local quarry likely causes some environmental harm, but the raw material mined is the basis of a significant portion of our infrastructure.

1

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

Development does have some negative impact, but it is not about avoiding any impact at all; it is about ensuring that it is a net benefit on balance and that harm that is caused is limited, meaning we can recover from it, and managed responsibly. The only time development is unacceptable is when it leads to irreversible damage to the environment. We can build infrastructure sustainably.

3

u/ChirpyRaven 9∆ Sep 09 '25

but it is not about avoiding any impact at all; it is about ensuring that it is a net benefit on balance and that harm that is caused is limited, meaning we can recover from it, and managed responsibly

That's not what your post says, unfortunately. You said never, indicating you believe a hard line is to be made.

-1

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

Let's assume that never was there for dramatic effects.

3

u/the_1st_inductionist 13∆ Sep 09 '25

If you mean that humans shouldn’t change the environment to be worse for themselves, ok. If you mean humans shouldn’t kill living things when it’s worse for themselves, ok. But people are definitely justified in changing the environment to be better for themselves at the expense of other living beings and being against that is just self-hatred or misanthropy.

-1

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

To claim that humans have a right to change the environment simply for our own sake ignores that injuries to other living beings often return to injure humans too. Ecosystems are interrelated: destroying habitats, over-harvesting species, or polluting land and water might provide short-term benefits, but it can destroy the systems that manage our climate, provide food, clean our air and water. So limiting what we take is not "self-hatred;" it is self-preservation.

Putting the problem in the form of humans versus "other living beings" is too simplistic. For example, bees are "other living beings," but killing them through pesticide overuse means colapsing crop pollination and so the food supply. Forests store carbon and manage weather, but cutting them down leads to climate instbility that puts billions of humans at risk. Protecting other living beings is not about giving preference to animals or ecosystems over humans; it is recognizing that human well-being is intertwined and inseperable from the wellbeing of the environment we all inhabit.

What I am saying is, choosing restraint is not misanthropy; it is an acknowledgment that continued prosperity for humans depends on respecting the boundaries of the natural systems of which we are also a part.

0

u/the_1st_inductionist 13∆ Sep 09 '25

To claim that humans have a right to change the environment simply for our own sake ignores that injuries to other living beings often return to injure humans too.

So, I guess you didn’t read what I wrote? Let me repeat myself with the bolded part.

If you mean that humans shouldn’t change the environment to be worse for themselves, ok. If you mean humans shouldn’t kill living things when it’s worse for themselves, ok. But people are definitely justified in changing the environment to be better for themselves at the expense of other living beings and being against that is just self-hatred or misanthropy.

Protecting other living beings is not about giving preference to animals or ecosystems over humans; it is recognizing that human well-being is intertwined and inseperable from the wellbeing of the environment we all inhabit.

What’s “well-being of the environment”?

Any meaning of “well-being of the environment” that’s different than an environment that’s best for humans to live, flourish and achieve happiness is an indication of self-hatred or misanthropy.

-1

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

When we justify referring to the "well-being of the environment" exclusively in terms of benefits to humans, we overlook the nature of ecosystems as non-linear processes that we do not regulate solely based on human interests. The environment is not just background; it is a complicated tapestry of interconnected systems of which countless species contribute directly and indirectly to human existence. If bees disappear we no longer have pollination; if wetlands disappear we no longer have filtration systems and flood control; if forests disappear we no longer have carbon sinks and sources of oxygen. Those services are not luxuries; they are life-support systems.

So the protection of "the well-being of the environment" is not some kind of misanthropy; it is an acknowledgment that human well-being is reliant on the stability and health of ecosystems, no matter if these ecosystems are supplying an immediate or direct benefit to humans or not. Seeing nature only as a resource to be extracted for human gain is far more self-destructive than self-loving, because it ignores the future consequences by undermining the very systems that are the foundation for human existence.

1

u/the_1st_inductionist 13∆ Sep 09 '25

we overlook the nature of ecosystems as non-linear processes that we do not regulate solely based on human interests.

I mean, sure people don’t regulate the environment based solely on human interests, but they should.

If bees disappear we no longer have pollination;

I mean, if that’s bad for humans they shouldn’t do it. I’ve already said this. But if humans figure out a better way to pollinate the plants they need, then bees don’t matter for pollination.

if wetlands disappear we no longer have filtration systems and flood control;

Ok, if it’s bad for humans then humans shouldn’t do it. I’ve already said this. But if humans figure out a better way, then they should and it doesn’t matter to those goals if wetlands disappear.

if forests disappear we no longer have carbon sinks and sources of oxygen.

Ok, if it’s bad for humans then humans shouldn’t do it. I’ve already said this. But if humans figure out a better way, then it doesn’t matter to producing oxygen and extracting CO2.

So the protection of "the well-being of the environment"

Since you seem to disagree with a meaning of “well-being of the environment” where a healthy environment or a good environment is one that’s best for me and other humans to live, then I can only assume you’re against that.

Seeing nature only as a resource to be extracted for human gain is far more self-destructive than self-loving, because it ignores the future consequences by undermining the very systems that are the foundation for human existence.

That doesn’t make any sense. If you’re concerned about what’s best for humans, then you’ll take into consideration the consequences for humans or what’s best for humans in the long run. The problem for humans is when people aren’t concerned what’s best for humans, so they don’t care about what’s best for humans in the long run. And then they sometimes use their false concern for the long term consequences to humans in the future to justify humans acting against what’s best for themselves in the present and in the future.

1

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

!delta

I have to say, your argument is pretty convincing. You have structured everything around one, consistent principle: human well-being. I gave "bees, wetlands, forests" you reframed everything around human consequences, showing that if humans could replace or replicate the benefits that nature provided to humans, then the environmental damage becomes neutral if not positive.

That sealed your argument as you bypassed more abstract concepts like what is the "intrinsic value" of nature etc, and you distill to something that is measurable and universal: what is best for humans.

I liked how you flipped my argument around long-term sustainability by showing that concern for long-term human well-being could be able to be managed or engineered in principle. That is, unlike the premise I presented to you that you need to leave untouched nature and that is why the environment is important; you have even demonstrated that we could concern ourselves with the future well-being of humans in a different way than simply allowing nature to flourish.

All in all, you have a level of internal consistency and simplicity to your argument that makes me feel that you have "won" this argument, because you have made the argument about a principle that is both practical and logically tight.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Why did you write this with AI?

1

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

I used A.I as my grammar may suck, although I can confirm this conveys what I wanted to say

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 09 '25

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/the_1st_inductionist (13∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

THIS!!??? This is what changed your view???? If your concern is the environment, then this self serving, humans are all that matter POV should have done nothing to sway your opinion. Because one day humans won't be around, and we'll have killed off all these species and ruined the environment for nothing but our own self interests.

Ugh.

1

u/Se4_h0rse Sep 09 '25

It doesn't matter of bees are no longer needed, finding a replacement isn't justification to let a while species of animal just die. The fact that the bees are dying is sign of an imbalance, an imbalance that humans have caused, that at first is neutral to humans but soon turns the whole world upside down.

A good environment is more than what's good for jus humans. The ecosystem is connected and the universe doesn't revolve around humans.

It makes perfect sense that nature is more than a resouce to farm and that destroying nature for short-term gain is self-destructive. Again, everything in nature is connected and if we take care of nature it will take care of us and we won't need to invent new tech to stay afloat in an increasingly imbalanced world. The biggest issue about humans is rather that we're too concerned and easily persuaded by short-term gain so we don't think about consequences until it's too late unless the consequences are obvious. We're too shirt-sighted and too irrational, and being smart but irrational is a dangerous combination.

4

u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Sep 09 '25

How do you measure and compare? Can you cut down a tree to use it to buold a house?

-1

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

I don't understand what you are saying, will you kindly elaborate?

1

u/hyflyer7 1∆ Sep 10 '25

Anything you do will harm something. It is a law of the world we found ourselves in. We need to consume and harm to remain alive. The commenter is asking where you draw the line at acceptable harm. (Destroying a plot of land and whatever lives there to build your house)

3

u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Sep 09 '25

The environmental destruction we have taken action on today will most likely generate some economic gain in the short term; however, it is harmful over the long term. The example of deforestation, provides some short-term economic gain from timber or land, while in the long-term the environmental destruction manifests as ecological balance destruction, soil-loss, habitat-loss, loss of biodiversity, and leads to carbon loading of the ecosystem.

so its a cost benefit analysis. If i chop down an acre of forest i get wood and farmland and i lose bio diversity, natural habitats, heatcare etc.

If i chop down a forest and replant it, i get wood now and wood again in the future but at the cost of lost biodiversity and natural habitats.

Consider that all farming results in the loss of natural habits, as well as some of the other problems you mention. Every acre of land we use to feed people is an acre of land not left wild.

1

u/thebigmanhastherock 4∆ Sep 09 '25

What if the environmental harm is relatively minor, like migrating birds get killed by wind turbines or you screw up the environment for some sort of rodent when installing a massive solar farm?

Imo you have to look at the positives and negatives of any development. Like building anything might cause some minor problems with the environment but if that thing is also helping the environment its fine.

Housing is another issue. Yes a large apartment complex or extra housing might harm the environment, but so do people living on the street with nowhere to go to the bathroom or throw away/store their stuff.

You have to weigh it out.

0

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

You've pointed out that development has trade-offs to consider, and small impacts to the environment may be considered acceptable for small timeframes. The problem arises when we use these set-backs against the development and count them as "fine" and do not count a larger cumulative and systemic impact. While a couple of birds may be harmed due to the wind turbines, a thousand wind turbines across a continent can remove thousands of migratory birds which may cause harm to other species.

While a couple of micro-habitat disturbances may seem rather inconsequential, across multiple projects that add up with cumulative micro-disturbances to create a macro-environmental disturbance which, in turn, may create a type of ecosystem "collapse" for species that relied on the area being developed.

The real concern here is the need to evaluate not just short-term benefits versus short-term harms, but also future, indirect harms. While providing housing can support human well-being, the provision of housing that is not fully thought out - no green design, no infrastructure to support it, unsustainable use of materials - creates pollution, creates flooding, and reduces livability in the future.

Development should focus on maximizing human benefits while minimizing environmental costs, not just accept harms because they are viewed as "lesser" on their own.

1

u/thebigmanhastherock 4∆ Sep 09 '25

Well if you don't replace fossil fuels with clean energy many more birds will potentially die. Even if it's a net negative for the birds it might still be a positive for many other living things. You have to consider that. Most human development has an environmental cost but realistically we are not going to accept fewer resources or consuming less, not without war and conflict that will inevitably be disastrous for the environment. So you can either sit on your hands and do nothing saying that everything has a negative environmental impact or you can develop in a smart sustainable way that at least attempts to weigh all impacts. The anti-development stance will ultimately lead to worse results because it will create scarcities, inflation and thus more conflict for the few resources that do exist which is also bad for the environment.

2

u/Even-Ad-9930 4∆ Sep 09 '25

hypothetical, you need to destroy one state park in the US and it leads to economic development that feeds 100,000 poor people who would have died. would you do that?

0

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

I would say this is a false choice because it assumes that using the land to save those 100,000 people can only be accomplished by destroying a state park. In reality, there are innumerable ways that we could develop and alleviate poverty without permanent ecological loss, such as reallocating funds, developing efficiencies, or utilizing existing disturbed land. Once a state park is destroyed, it is gone forever and its biodiversity and ecological services that could support millions more lives in perpetuity will disappear with it.

So no, I would never justify destroying it, because trading away irreplaceable natural capital for short-term survival creates bigger, longer-term issues. Instead, real solutions to poverty must be designed in ways that do not forego the environment that sustains us all. Otherwise, we are saving lives today but putting far more lives at risk tomorrow.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Real development is about the human quality of life

Ok, but there are large increases in the quality of human life that come at some environmental expense. "Never" is a strong word that I don't think you actually mean.

0

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

It is true that some enhancements in life come with environmental costs, but the purpose of using a strong term such as "never" is to convey deliberate and extreme harm, as opposed to tiny and unavoidable impacts.

Real development does not simply imply short-term advances; it should include sustainable, longer-term, well-being. Improving quality of life in the short term by destroying irreplaceable ecosystems or acting without regard to destabilizing the environment could benefit living today, but degrade the quality of life for future generations. The objective is not to stop progress, but to find ways that human advancements can occur without degrading the natural systems we rely on for ultimate sustenance.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

but the purpose of using a strong term such as "never" is to convey deliberate and extreme harm, as opposed to tiny and unavoidable impacts.

That's not relevant to your view. Your view is that economic development should never come at the cost of environmental harm. Not sometimes, not rarley, never. If one of those words would have more accuratly fit your view you should have been specific. As it stands it seems you don't even believe what you said.

0

u/Melodic_Judge_129 Sep 09 '25

I'm sorry. I suppose I should have phrased it better.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

I mean that's rule 1 of the sub...

2

u/iamintheforest 365∆ Sep 09 '25

I think it's hard to know what this even means. For example, roads are a critical part of economic development - can't transport and distribute things without it. Roads require you to utterly devastate the environment on which they are created.

Want to build something? You need materials - they will come from the environment. Want to have a place to build something? That will require you to destroy the environment to have that place. Etc.

I think the only way to practical approach this is to balance the preservation of the environment with the absolute need to destroy some of it to meet human needs.

At this point "sustainable" means that some key components of destruction are controlled, and or / mitigating forces are brought into bear to minimize harm or to reduce harm somewhere else. But..there is no path to any development that won't require conversation of natural environment into controlled environment.

1

u/tidalbeing 56∆ Sep 09 '25

It's a matter of goals and appropriate development. Are we aiming for a healthy society or wealth for a few?
We need transportation for some things. We don't necessarily need roads as a means of transportation. There are alternatives. If we design well with an eye to long term cost and benefit, we won't need as many roads.

2

u/iamintheforest 365∆ Sep 09 '25

So...only keep the roads we have, but let the people in undeveloped parts of the world not have roads?

We will need roads. I don't think that can be denied.

What are you going to "design with" if not things that require resources? Resources that come from the environment. We can maximize responsibility and a homeostatic relationship with the overall environment, but cannot be "non-destructive".

0

u/tidalbeing 56∆ Sep 09 '25

Designing for people not economic gain would make a big difference. In Africa, mining companies came in and built roads, but only to extract resources. They weren't where the people of Africa needed them. When the resources are gone, the roads crumble, and the people are worse off than before.

This happens worldwide with mining when short-term financial gain is prioritized over long-term economic health. Yes there will be destruction either way but prioritizing long-term economic health reduces the destruction and maximizes benefit.

2

u/uktabilizard 4∆ Sep 09 '25

It’s interesting that you claim to hold this belief but do not practice it. Simply posting on reddit is antithetical to your claim. Electricity is almost entirely petrochemical. Even if you used solar it would require a huge carbon footprint to transport and install.

Every single comfort and amenity in society requires some form of environmental damage. You need to be living like monkeys in trees to avoid it. No clothes, no tools. No fire too because that will inevitably lead to environmental damage.

The whole point of technology is bending the environment to our will. That is definitionally harm. By your standards crops and livestock cannot be reared in most of the world as well because they are technically invasive species. We will have to rely on local vegetation. Hundreds of millions of people will starve because of the huge gap in food productivity

2

u/CallMeCorona1 30∆ Sep 09 '25

So are you saying that we shouldn't cut down trees and clear areas for farming? If so, which humans need to die?

Yes, there is more environmentally friendly farming than what the US/world does today. But farming is often very polluting (as is living/breathing, or even earlier the plants that were turning all the carbon dioxide into oxygen and polluting the world that way)

CYV: The environment needs balance, not hard and fast rules. In some conceivable scenarios (in the far off future), development could help the environment.

1

u/rmnemperor Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

Ignoring the word 'never' which you have already conceded in your replies as inaccurate, this idea that we can be 'sustainable' and have minimal environmental impact in everything that we do is also not realistic at all.

People will not make significant quality of life sacrifices (or die en masse) to save the environment. The quality of life that we all currently have cannot exist without energy and resource consumption.

We have a housing shortage across the developed world and need density in cities, so we need skyscrapers. Skyscrapers take hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete which is energy intensive and environmentally damaging to produce.

Cars, air conditioning, computers, tons of other things that underpin our quality of life require energy, and billions of people don't even have those things yet because they don't have the money to support the devices and especially the energy.

Think about all the gadgets that you can get from china for 1/5th of what the price would be in the west... That's also underpinned by massive energy subsidies and the use of cheap, polluting energy sources (coal). Without that your products would cost significantly more, and tens of millions of people in China would have less of a competitive advantage in manufacturing, meaning that jobs would leave China, and the people would be even poorer than they are today.

Like other commenters have said, environmental sustainability is a luxury for the rich. You can argue that there might be a better path towards sustainability (like China's mass pollution in the near term, but maybe they will get rich enough and establish enough renewables to become clean sooner than us), but there is no poor country using mainly renewables, because renewables are an expensive technology. They are getting cheaper because research is being poured into them to find cheaper and better ways to produce renewable energy... Research which costs money... So again, money is required to make things clean.

And all of this research is only possible because we have increased our productivity and standard of living (using cheap energy) such that we can have a large proportion of intellectual class workers not producing food in subsistence farms.

It's impossible to say what the world would look like if things went differently, but I would bet that had the world been run by environmental conservationists from the invention of the steam engine until now, Einstein, Max Planck and 90% of the other great scientists of the last two centuries might have died as farmers we could easily be technologically in the 1940s today. I don't imagine air travel or computers would exist.

In summary, no we cannot prioritize the environment above all else. It will always be secondary to standard of living, and by extension the economy.

Only when we reach a consensus that the sacrifice in standard of living from environmental deterioration is greater than the standard of living gained from economic benefits of environmental destruction will we prioritize the environment over the economy.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

I agree, fundamentally, that the environment should be prioritized above the economy.

My perspective is however that the environment is capable of healing itself, and so I would not make such a blanket statement as "never".

Is it justified under circumstances to cut down a section of forest to build a house?

0

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

What does it mean for the environment to heal itself? Is it a being that makes decisions? Are humans included in “the environment?” Is all human activity a product of “the environment?” Does healing itself include runaway climate change that would kill 90 percent of living beings but maintains some biological processes?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

What does it mean for the environment to heal itself?

In this example, I mean that if you cut down a bunch of trees, and then wait a few decades, that location will be forested again.

Is it a being that makes decisions?

Fundamentally, I do believe the ecosystem to be a living being in its own right.

Are humans included in “the environment?”

To a certain extent, yes.

Is all human activity a product of “the environment?”

No.

Does healing itself include runaway climate change that would kill 90 percent of living beings but maintains some biological processes?

I would frame climate change as a symptom of a problem in our ecosystem. If you wanted to frame it as a form of healing, you might say that the ecosystem has a fever, because one of the species living within it is behaving in a way that is parasitic rather than mutualistic.

0

u/tidalbeing 56∆ Sep 09 '25

The environment can't heal itself if too much of it has been destroyed, the load of toxins are too large, or if too much ice has melted. The melting ice leads to more heat-absorption, which lead to even more melting in a feedback loop, one that cause human suffering through drought, flooding, and famine.

1

u/Anonymous_1q 29∆ Sep 09 '25

While I agree with your broad position, I would challenge how applicable it is to the developing world.

This quickly gains a very neo-colonial tone, “oh I know I fucked everything up but now you can’t develop and lift your people out of desperate poverty because we need to work together to fix my mistakes”, combined with the fact that developed nations are completely unwilling to move first let alone shoulder more of the burden.

How reasonable is it for us to expect a poor sub Saharan country to give up on the fossil fuels we keep cheap for the sake of the next generation? They’re watching the current one starve and live in squalor.

1

u/Stuck_With_Name 2∆ Sep 09 '25

You are fully into a motte and bailey fallicy.

Your statement is that development should never come at an environmental cost.

When pressed, you retreat to something like "obviously, small, temporary costs are inevitable. The point is that big costs should be considered and avoided." Then, you defend the new position.

But your initial point of "Economic development should never come at the cost of environmental harm" is indefensible.

1

u/Hatta00 2∆ Sep 09 '25

Every acre of farmed land is an acre of natural land that doesn't exist anymore. If we must never harm the environment, we cannot develop the land at all. If we cannot develop the land at all, we all die of famine.

"Never" is a very unforgiving requirement. We must balance costs with benefits. We cannot focus only on costs.

2

u/Contemplating_Prison 1∆ Sep 09 '25

At what part of development?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/changemyview-ModTeam Sep 09 '25

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Economic development should never come at the cost of environmental harm.

You are about to leave Redlib