No one decided that. It feels good to divide the world into good guys and bad guys, but if that’s your mental model of history and older people (like me) you are going to make mistaken judgments over and over again.

What? Of course humans have decided to harm the environment. It happens every day and has happened for as long as humans have existed. I don't think his comment "divides the world into good guys and bad guys" -- it merely points out an abundantly obvious truth.

Clear-cutting, overfishing, fossil fuel extraction, emissions, etc didn't just happen on their own -- they all required a human decision.

Whether or not humans making these decisions realize that their actions will contribute to the irreparable harm of the environment is a moot point. The decisions are made and the harm is done. Even so, willful ignorance and indifference to the impact of ones actions are decisions too.

If we ever want to turn the tide on global environmental destruction, then it is imperative that we as a society not diminish individual responsibility for the impact of one's decisions and actions.

We've exploited nature to bootstrap us into the information age we currently exist in. I don't condemn the efforts past humans have made so I can live in a world with instant fresh water to wash myself and to drink, markets with food, sewer systems to manage waste, roads, electricity, medicine, etc.

We now have the tools humans have been dreaming of for millennia to make the world a better place. I personally think instead of looking backwards and blaming people for making mistakes, we should use the tools to look forward to accomplish the goals of the future; Human health, environmental health, agricultural sustainability, peace.

Let’s play this out a little bit:

I point out that your generation is also destroying the planet.

You acknowledge that—-taking the position that we all are sinners to a greater or lesser extent.

However, since the contemporary Western religion is Protestantism without a Christ, you don’t even have any salvation to offer. Just endless flagellation of self and others over our sinful natures. We should all do good works, of course, but we are bound to fail. O fortuna!

Why not instead of hating humanity and spending your life impotently shaking your fist at our collective imperfections, look for systemic solutions that are compatible with human nature?

> I point out that your generation is also destroying the planet.

No, not quite. You stated "no one decided [to harm the environment]". My reply sought to explain how that is incorrect.

> You acknowledge that—-taking the position that we all are sinners to a greater or lesser extent.

Again, not quite. "We are all sinners" is very different from 'humans have made decisions to harm the environment for a long time'. Those two are different.

> However, since the contemporary Western religion is Protestantism without a Christ, you don’t even have any salvation to offer. Just endless flagellation of self and others over our sinful natures. We should all do good works, of course, but we are bound to fail. O fortuna!

Wow, where to begin...

> you don’t even have any salvation to offer.

I'm advocating a very simple proposition: preserving the environment. Whether you want to liken it to "salvation" is entirely up to you.

> We should all do good works, of course, but we are bound to fail.

What an awful assertion. I'd hardly agree that environmental protection and preservation is a lost cause.

> Why not instead of hating humanity

Again, false. I do not "hate" humanity.

> spending your life impotently shaking your fist at our collective imperfections,

I could be wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that because something is difficult and that the result might not be unachievable, that it's therefore not worth trying. Again, I completely disagree.

> look for systemic solutions that are compatible with human nature?

Absolutely! There are an innumerable number of ways that we can protect and preserve the environment. In this thread, I'm contributing in a tiny way by dispelling the notion that "no one decided [to harm the environment]". As I stated above: If we ever want to turn the tide on global environmental destruction, then it is imperative that we as a society not diminish individual responsibility for the impact of one's decisions and actions.

> In this thread, I'm contributing in a tiny way by dispelling the notion that "no one decided [to harm the environment]". As I stated above: If we ever want to turn the tide on global environmental destruction, then it is imperative that we as a society not diminish individual responsibility for the impact of one's decisions and actions.

On the contrary preaching at people to change their sinful ways will never work. In fact, it’s likely to be counterproductive. But self righteous sure does feel good.

If you really want to save the environment, and not just feel like a good person, invent ways to break the zero sum trade off curve between the environment and human flourishing in the short and medium term.

To play the advocate, I will state that this is a conversational thread, where people talk about things. So it's no surprise that you see someone talking about a problem and not inventing a solution where the selected medium supports only the former.

Invention is sometimes a lonely and quiet endeavor, conversation is much the antithesis.

As someone in their 20's you are also likely lamenting the lack of affordable housing. One way to address it is to build more housing which which disrupts wildlife.

Without affordable housing you might delay having children and getting married like I did. Wait too long and you might never be able to see your children or grandchildren because you won't have them.

Reframing it that way might reduce resentment and ameliorate this perpetual blame of the previous generations. You'll have to pick your poison just like previous generations did only to later be criticized regardless of which poison you chose.

It’s not the affordable housing advocates that are putting up houses at the edge of the wilderness that is disproportionately affecting wildlife. That’s the upper middle and the upper class that’s doing that.

Generally speaking, affordable housing advocates incidentally advocate for more efficient land use, because that’s one part of the strategy to build cheap places for people to live.

Sprawl affects wildlife. Density, particularly infill density, generally only impacts land already being used for human habitation anyways.

You're human, and part of the problem. Let's not pretend you don't benefit from that destruction (unless you are living in the wilderness).

Are you saying that the act of building affordable housing impacts wildlife/that affordable housing is built in locations disruptive to wildlife?

Funny how this is always the argument against affordable housing, and never the large detached single family dwellings in the far exurbs. Makes you wonder if the concerns are sincere…

Not having children at allor at least less of them is a better way to protect the environment and housing though. If we continue to grow our population as we are we're going to run out of natural resources and space to live sooner or later.

It'll cause some immediate societal issues like an unbalanced population pyramid just like the boomers did. But it'll be better in the long run.

The best way to address it is to restrict immigration, so that the demand isn't there in the first place.

For example the USA could end its refugee intake program (which Biden has increased by 50,000/year to 62,500) - which alone will bring in a Wyoming's worth of people over the next 9 years.

Secondly to limit immigration only to other highly developed countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev... And to persecute and physically prevent all unauthorised arrivals.

Thanks to inflation and skyrocketing tuition, etc, things are different for this generation. This isn't perpetually blaming each past generation; it's specifically blaming the boomer generation. Our "poisons" are home ownership being out of reach for a significant chunk of the population (therefore tossing money away instead of building wealth like previous generations), and our environment being destroyed with the help of our geriatric politicians. Let me just "reframe" that!

[0]: https://news.yahoo.com/average-cost-college-jumped-incredibl...

[1]: https://archive.curbed.com/2018/4/10/17219786/buying-a-house...

Agreed. No one's arguing you didn't get a shit deal. At least I hope no one is arguing that.

But that doesn't mean the previous generation got a better deal. When my Dad bought our first home the interest rate was over 10%. And how did he pay for college ? He had to fight in a war and then work at the military morgue. He never recovered from this.

I am not trying to win an argument here. It's human nature to focus one's own problems and assume others have it better. For the record, my dad would definitely preferred to have been born into your generation, as I would. Again that's not a counterargument but should at least help lessen some of the bitterness from these discussions.

Also not everyone had the luck to be growing up in rich western countries. My "boomer" parents grew up under communism, you know what they had at my age? Absolutely nothing. Definitely no wealth building to speak of, no amazing opportunities, good job existed if the government granted you any.....compared with them, my generation has it extremely good.

And then you go on the internet and read how the post WW2 generation fucked everyone over - like....in US, sure. In the former Soviet block? Not so much.