= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Interesting discussion. Since I too am from Germany, I know the environmentalist culture here well. I grew up in it - including what I now think was bordering on propaganda - and in the recent years I somewhat grew apart from it.
Some random thoughts:
It was also mentioned humorously that one approach to minimize personal ressource consumption is suicide and transitively to convice others of same. The ultimate solution having no humans on the planet (a solution my 8-year old son - a friend of nature - arrived at too). This apparently being the problem when utilons/hedons are expluded.
I don't think that's it. There are two other problems:
If you care about utilons/hedons, you can't ignore wild-animal suffering. Assuming humans and arguably domesticated animals experience better lives than wild animals, and/or at different resource-per-experience-second ratios, a world without humans can contain more suffering and/or less pleasure (however, the possibility of space colonization probably dominates this question) Beware the idyllic view of nature that underlies a lot of environmentalism.
No more humans would mean the ultimate unsustainability of human culture and civilization. The question then is, what exactly it is you want to be sustainable, and to what end.
For mere resource consumption (where the prices are internalized by the consumers), most people here will probably assume The Market will take care of it. If resource X becomes rare, prices will increase and substitutes will be more attractive. This is often not reflected in German environmentalism, which tends to see capitalism as somewhat evil. Of course, this is not true of factors that are not internalized in the prices, such as climate change, but even then most people here would probably see it as a lower priority as other existential risks.
It's useful to remember that German environmentalism comes with a baggage of traditional biases.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
What might happen to the calculation if you include wild animal pleasure?
It looks better, of course. The defenders of wild-animal pessimism usually point to r vs. K selection strategies, population dynamics and the relative asymmetry between peak sufferings and peak pleasures. Some of them are also negative or negative-leaning utilitarians.
But let's say you value animal pleasure and want to maximize it. Even then, there should be only a relatively small margin where untouched nature is most efficient (when it overlaps with other interests, such as political concessions to deep ecologists, ecosystem services, aesthetics and tourism etc.)
Because if someone really wanted to maximize pleasure, they would try to be more efficient at it.
If someone wants to maximize nonhuman animal pleasure, they could set up a foundation to breed the perfect pleasure animal - which could never survive in the wild - and then give it existence donations.
This is true for other values as well: Some say they value biodiversity - but none of them has suggested to set up a foundation for rapid artificial speciation + existence donations to a small number of individuals per new species. Instead they have associations of lush forests and beautiful wild megafauna in their heads.
Most humans don't actually try to maximize X, for any formal definition of X. They are scope insensitive by default, and come with a background of memes and associations that often are carried from early childhood onward.