Ecology vs economy, round infinity
by geekpuppySEA (724733)
on Friday December 09, @06:29AM (#14219069
It's the ages-old assertion that any change in policy that benefits the environment must come with economic costs, and vice versa.
It all comes down to individual costs vs. group costs. The Left is more concerned with long-term group costs - not to say that they're not concerned with individual costs, but they're more willing to pony up for stuff that makes long-term sense. Conservatives, for the most part AFAICT, can't be bothered with worrying about the group costs.
I'm not going to say that not worrying about group costs automatically makes you greedy and evil, although the Left would love everyone to think that (and I would too, insofar as it might get the system changed before we're all choking to death.)
But I DO claim that being concerned about individual costs more than group costs makes sense from an evolutionary perspective - the individual mind must be more concerned with its own survival rather than everyone else's too. One lone organism can persist to reproduce, etc even if all its clan are killed off. Clearly, this kind of mentality had to evolve prior to group selection.
However, it's been said repeatedly that the history of modern morality and cultural evolution describes an expanding circle, in which more and more people are encompassed within the region of "people we need to care about and grant rights to." In modern times this has surpassed individual humans and expanded to include the whole environment.
So conservatives aren't wrong, they're just not caught up with the rest of the world.
Now, is it going to make sense when those on the Left who are crazies (don't deny it, every side has got 'em) - when they start targeting oil executives (why aren't those pansies doing that shit yet anyway!), is that going to change how people think? Probably not - but it sure would make those revolutionaries feel better. Not that I'm advocating that - it would be better if they'd just realize the error of their ways and start giving a shit about other people. That'd make all that x-tian rhetoric all the more realistic...this was in response toNot every conservative wants to start burning trees and immediately dump dioxin into the water. Many in fact do "get it" and comments like these merely serve to polarize the issues, while at the same time making the liberal "point of view" seem hopelessly simplistic and naieve.which was in response toI never understood conservatives' problems with environmental issues. Things like global warming, the eventual depletion of fossil fuels, deforestation ... why is it stupid to consider this issues like this? I mean we live on this planet, don't you think we should look out for it? We're not going to get another shot at this. Once we fuck it up, we're extinct.
Politicians have a good reason to be anti-environment because they and their friends make serious bank by drilling oil, cutting down trees, running industries that pollute and the like. I can understand their point of view. But why does their profit mean anything to you? You realize that by supporting their point of view, you're just making them rich at the expense of the planet's (finite) resources, right?