614 upvotes, 35 direct replies (showing 25)
Who considers “merely affecting the environment” to be morally wrong? I doubt anyone would think that the Native Americans were morally wrong. If any unreasonable activists say this, then they’re only going to extremes to defend their position.
Affecting the environment is fine, destroying it is not. We’re more than smart enough to figure out the difference.
Edit: for the people who have a hard time communicating with others, when I say “affecting,” what I mean is humans cannot exist without having some sort of impact on the environment. “Affect” and “destroy” are two different things.
We have to be able to “affect” our environment without “destroying” it and the species that live in it. Hint, climate change is real.
Comment by nslinkns24 at 25/01/2020 at 18:30 UTC
249 upvotes, 12 direct replies
Just pointing out that Native Americans routinely overhunted, sometimes resulting in the collapse of their communities. The idea that they lived in "balance" with nature is largely a myth.
Comment by gtzpower at 25/01/2020 at 17:01 UTC
44 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Totally agree. It’s one thing to affect the environment in a way that it still maintains the ability to support life, but I would say it’s crossing into morally wrong when we are knowingly causing preventable change that begins wiping out species.
Comment by IAmA-Steve at 25/01/2020 at 22:57 UTC
6 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Affecting the surrounding environment is a widely-accepted definition of life. I don't think life is immoral.
Comment by tritonicon at 26/01/2020 at 02:53 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The author is using an extreme argument to make a point. They later explain both the thought process they are trying to demonstrate as incorrect or flawed and then give an alternative standard to replace it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum[1] This is the logical technique they are using.
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Comment by [deleted] at 25/01/2020 at 17:04 UTC*
21 upvotes, 5 direct replies
The one example the article gives is the Voluntary Human Extinction movement which consists of people that are voluntarily celibate...
That's a joke, right?
Edit: not voluntarily celibate, just non reproducing.
Comment by i_long_for_combat at 25/01/2020 at 21:44 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It would be more helpful if you actually made an argument rather than saying “this side is unreasonable, this side is obvious.” Perhaps dissect “affecting” and consider whether affecting the environment is destroying it or not, and what the OP is referencing when using the word “affecting”.
Comment by jajajajaj at 25/01/2020 at 19:49 UTC
9 upvotes, 1 direct replies
For example, The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose motto is “May we live long and die out,” has a stated goal of “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed” which “will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health.”
Comment by torpentmeadows at 25/01/2020 at 23:53 UTC
9 upvotes, 2 direct replies
To live is to destroy. You’re killing anything from cows, chickens, and plants, to insects and bacteria literally every day.
You’re just talking about destroying sustainably, ha.
Comment by NihiloZero at 26/01/2020 at 04:46 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Who considers “merely affecting the environment” to be morally wrong?
The article cherry-picks a fringe group that does tend to support that idea, but that's hardly indicative of any mainstream thought -- environmentalist or otherwise.
Comment by Gravity_Beetle at 26/01/2020 at 06:46 UTC*
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The author answers this question quite clearly, and even gives a source.
> I *hope* that the reader sees this as an absurd conclusion. I say ‘hope’ because not everyone does. For example, The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose motto is “May we live long and die out,” has a stated goal of “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed” which “will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health.”¹
Comment by celade at 26/01/2020 at 09:10 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The referenced article gets around to some good points namely the general concept and importance of reducing suffering. This concept is an empirical guide for moral decisions / game theory.
But the quote above makes "mere effect" the important premise to counter. This just makes the topic strained and overly convoluted. "Mere effect" or other vague declarations of change aren't strong points of definite moral conclusions. They aren't worth considering outside a side note.
The notion of "mere effect ~ evil" is kindetgarten simplistic. It is interesting to note that if that premise were taken to its boundaries then the Universe is in every way evil. The Universe is all about destroying then creating replacement conditions. Entropy is the ultimate result.
Evolution by natural selection creates new lives through the countless deaths of other lives.
In the end morals aren't about ultimates or ideals but about specific contexts of suffering.
Comment by Lawnmover_Man at 26/01/2020 at 10:20 UTC*
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Hint, global warming is real.
I'm not sure if that's a good way to open a discussion. This sounds like you're dismissing other opinions using the label "climate change denier".
“Affect” and “destroy” are two different things.
Can you elaborate on the difference of these two things? When I tend to my garden, I'm killing countless living beings just to grow my crops. What I do in my garden would be considered comparatively "organic" and "gentle", but I still kill countless living beings. "Countless" meaning that I can not possibly even know how many, I could just extrapolate from statistics and calculate the number.
Comment by [deleted] at 25/01/2020 at 17:06 UTC
12 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Yeah this is a straw man argument
Comment by problemchild2141 at 25/01/2020 at 17:32 UTC
13 upvotes, 3 direct replies
The native Americans used mass forest fires to clear out large patches of land for farming. They had world impact fue their ecological negligence. They were not somehow more in tune with nature then Europeans, Asians, or African.
Comment by [deleted] at 25/01/2020 at 20:15 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[deleted]
Comment by scorpiove at 26/01/2020 at 05:19 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I saw the title and I'm glad your's is the top comment. you really nailed it. Nothing ever is black and white.
Comment by DrRidleyCooper at 25/01/2020 at 17:20 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
If you accept the reductio, then we agree with each other: merely affecting the environment is not morally wrong. It may cause some morally bad things--for me, this is suffering. This article is about what an average consumer should and should not feel moral guilt over, and it helps to clarify what the moral good or moral bad is. I feel like this point gets lost in everyday life, but it is not lost on you. Thanks for the comment!
Comment by Theblackjamesbrown at 25/01/2020 at 22:20 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Affecting the environment is fine
Well, whatever we do to the environment's fine, objectively speaking. Were not affecting the environment, so much as we *are* the environment. What everyone forgets is that we're *part of* a whole, here. We're part of a closed system: a member of the set at all things in the world.
It's this erroneous perception we so frequently have of ourselves as being somehow external to - or supervisor to - everything else, that plays such a big role our inability to take responsibility for our actions as part of reality. Human exceptionalism is at the very heart of everything were getting so wrong.
Comment by sambull at 25/01/2020 at 17:59 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
So can we vote on this one?
https://youtu.be/seXMIHgMFj8?t=96[1][2]
1: https://youtu.be/seXMIHgMFj8?t=96
2: https://youtu.be/seXMIHgMFj8?t=96
Comment by GeriTheWolf at 25/01/2020 at 22:45 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
To affect your environment feels synonymous with playing a role in. Not all roles are bad. Though echoing your sentiment, destruction certainly is.
Comment by Imperfectious at 26/01/2020 at 02:01 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Controlled burns destroy environments, and yet are necessary to prevent catastrophic, unrecoverable damage. You haven't defined your terms, and this makes dialogue a struggle.
Comment by onlineme85 at 26/01/2020 at 02:44 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I’d actually take it a step further and argue its impossible to exist without affecting the environment in some way since our existence arose from the environment in the first place...
Comment by Yetsumari at 26/01/2020 at 05:52 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The tragedy of the commons is scary when "the commons" is the planet we're all on.
Comment by QiPowerIsTheBest at 26/01/2020 at 13:48 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Are you implying there is something wrong with destroying the environment independent of the effect destroying the environment would have on humans? The sun is going going to destroy the earth anyway.
Comment by Simo7599 at 26/01/2020 at 14:48 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I personally think that even the difference between affecting and destroying is subtle, humans are just animals coexisting with all the other animals on the planet, so why do we elevate ourselves to such moral standards? If a beaver affects a river by making a dam that’s just natural, but when a human does it it has a bad effect on the environment. I don’t see why that should be the case as we are an integral part of the environment and every effect we as animals have on it is completely natural, it’s just that humans have to identify everything with right or wrong even if they invented those categories themselves.