[pedro_hab]

Yes! A lot of people don't even have access to electricity, even more don't use as much because of the price.

We would need to be using way more fossil fuels / nuclear to have more equality.

This idea to reduce our impact in nature forgets the most vulnerable, which could use some impact in nature in order to have more prosperity.

Well, this is all way easier said than done.

[finiteseries]

It’s not just having the fuel.

Nigeria is oil rich, absolutely bogged down with the stuff in the southern parts of the country.

Somewhere in the central/northernish part of the country is a family owned farm that runs entirely off of diesel generators out of a lack of decent power generation. An immense amount of money is spent simply on fuel.

Those costs naturally affect transport of their goods, and the price they get for them.

The most pressing issue by far in their micro region however, are herdsman from another ethnic group to the north intentionally running their cattle onto newly planted fields to graze.

Not power generation. Not prosperity. Not nature.

They’re planting melons near the approach to their land last I heard as cattle can’t eat the shoots? I’m not sure, but it sounded like a common solution.

[Xylakant]

Our impact in nature also affects the most vulnerable disproportionately bad. Changing weather pattern, floods, droughts, poisoning the niger delta with oil leaks is a result of an economic system that puts (our) prosperity above all other goals. It’s no coincidence that China is actually making increasingly strong environmental demands and promises. They’re not doing it for some romantic notion of nature, but because it’s an issue that puts them at risk.

[pedro_hab]

This isn't true at the moment, it could be in the future.

Less people die because of nature disasters and such today that they did 100 years ago.

Technology and medicine helps us, they would, without a doubt, be better off with technology than they do without it.

[Xylakant]

> This isn't true at the moment, it could be in the future.

Shell just lost a lawsuit because they did spill oil all over the Niger Delta https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jan/29/f...

Took only a decade and a bit to even acknowledge that they’re liable.

[nly]

Exactly. Equality. People have had no electricity for most of human history. The the vulnerable and poor are considered vulnerable and poor only because, by definition, the wealthy and prosperous exist. The reason not having access to electricity or technology is inherently bad is because the majority do.

All we can do is hope the median moves up over time and, more importantly, and the spread doesn't get too wide.

[guerrilla]

> for most of human history

I think the problems of the poor today are quite different than those of people of the past. For most of human history, people were not trapped within borders and systems of private property and so could provide for their basic needs. They don't just not have resources, they are prevented from having them. Nor were people of the past going to be the effected the most (according to everything I read) by pollution and climate change. Things have changed a lot, I'd say.

[netizen-9748]

What makes them vulnerable? What are they vulnerable to? Are there not indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature? Are they prosperous?

[jl6]

> indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature

This is usually called poverty.

[cabaalis]

It requires respecting nature as a new class of asset. I think anyone might understand who has had the beautiful field next to their home developed into a neighborhood, or watched the woods behind their house torn down and developed.

Had that beautiful field or wooded area been given a "nature cost" to destroy, maybe the developers would have made other choices.

[pedro_hab]

Yeah, they think its great to live in the jungle, seeing every other newborn dying, just cus your carbon footprint is low.

They couldn't care less for those forgotten children.

[pedro_hab]

Nature, they are vulnerable to nature.

They could use cars, ambulances, hospitals and etc.

Nature is brutal, always has been, no one lives on harmony with it.

Look at the indigenous peoples death rate, child mortality.

[marcosdumay]

> Are there not indigenous peoples that live in harmony with nature?

Probably there are some somewhere. But most rely on completely unsustainable practices.

> Are they prosperous?

You've received some answers, but keep in mind that "poor" is a word we usually apply to people in much wealthier situations.

[netizen-9748]

> Probably there are some somewhere. But most rely on completely unsustainable practices.

In what way are the practices unsustainable? Could you give me an example?

[marcosdumay]

Undiscriminating hunting, fire based agriculture, centuries of monocultures without any soil treatment... And always moving into another area because the earlier one isn't productive anymore.

It would really be easier if you explained why you think indigenous (to where?) people live in harmony with the nature.