What's best for Earth?

If the environment goes to crap, human wellbeing does as well. It's a balance between the two.

 

Malthus has been shown to be wrong for the last 200 years or so.

 

Probably almost no change. It's too soon to tell, but there are many more deer living in AL today than a century ago. If it starts to effect the deer population, then they will change the law.

 

I would argue that most environmental policies are the best for human beings. That is why they exist, to make our lives better. I don't know how old you are, but I'm in my lower 50s. Personally, I love the decreae in pollution I've seen in my lifetime. I can remember being a kid and going through Birmingham, AL when iron was being processed. It was rough, and smoky, and it wasn't fun to breath.

 

They do it already. This makes the earth more and more uninhabitable.
Because hell doesn't exist, we create our own.

 

That's a fallacy of composition. There are certain aspects of the environment that are useful or beneficial to human beings, others that aren't. The environment could be changed quite substantially in ways that would be harmful to many other species, but would be good for us.

 

I see no evidence that the earth is becoming more and more uninhabitable. It is certainly more inhabitable than it was during the Ice Age.

 

Look here, bro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
In hell, it's warm, not cold as in the Ice Age.

 

The earth is much more inhabitable now that a century ago. Pollution in developed countries is down and the standard of living is up thanks to fossil fuels available at low cost 24/7/365. The true hockey stick is the skyrocketing standard of living metric at the point of fossil fuel proliferation.

 

Global warming is beneficial. That’s been the case for the current, Medieval, Roman, and Minoan warm periods as well as presumably the other 6 warm periods in the last ~ 10,000 years since the last ice age.

 

I understood you, Mr. Exxon.

 

Hell ain't a bad place to be.

 

THAT is our doom, not our boon.

We cannot afford or sustain a 'skyrocketing standard of living'. We never could. Even when it's only 10% of humanity living large (ie the First World), that's enough to destroy the entirety.

 

Of course we can. The earth will support our global civilization as the stand of living increases for all countries. There is no evidence to the contrary.

 

If I was a totalitarian king, the very first thing I would do is outlaw overseas travel. I would then shut down manufacturing of non-essentials. No cars, no airconditioners, no tvs, no clothing, no whitegoods, no phones, etc etc etc. Manufacturing (and development) would be redirected to medical technology and sustainable energy production. Big Ag would be broken up to small holdings of mixed farming - the way it used to be, and still could be at current population levels.

Since I'm neither a totalitarian nor a king, I make do with living those principles privately.

 

I'm going to assume you're joking.

 

I completely serious.

 

Under your totalitarian rule people would starve to death.

 

I'm talking about what the planet (and thus humanity) needs, not what I want. Since I'm not a totalitarian, I go with individual voluntary reducation in footprint.

But yes, many people would starve. That goes without saying. Sacrifice some for the longevity of the whole? Who can answer that.

 

Okay then. We're unlikely to have much to discuss in that case.

 

That is ridiculous.

 

I am rationally optimistic as you should be. Read the book “The Rational Optimist - How Prosperity Evolves” to learn why. People have been predicting the demise of the human race due to over population for centuries. It never happens.

 

I'm not as concerned by 'overpopulation' as I am by global warming.

 

Global warming is beneficial. Plus there is no politically possible way to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions.

 

I am a Christian....not a humanist, but I am in agreement with you.