Is saving the environment worth it if it only if helps our great great great great grandchildren?

[burritos]

Play along if you wish, but then you must suspend your disbelief and assume that hypothetically, everything I say in this scenario is true.

We don't modify our energy and consumption behavior and it goes unchecked. Thus the worst case scenarios of both peak oil and global warming happen in punctuated fashion. The following occurs.

1. Mass anarchy everywhere due to the loss of cheap oil and uninhabitable lands(we lose inhabited coasts and arid/desert regions become too hot to live in).
2. We get mass starvation, disease, war, and we lose all democratic institutions world wide.
3. Through the above envision a reduction of the population of 90%. 10 billion to 1 billion.

Now. All of this occurs approximately 220 years from now. So you'll be dead. You're grandchildren will be dead. It will be your grandchildren's great grandchildren who will suffer this fate, and yes, they WILL suffer it, cause our current lifestyle will be maintainable till we drive off the cliff.

So the people who will suffer won't be any loved ones, nor will your loved ones know any of the future victims.

Now here's the good news. This can be prevented, but at great cost. Basically, by implementing drastic conservation measures and massive carbon taxes, this horrific future can be avoided. Life as we enjoy now will be sacrificed. Only the ultra ultra rich will able to fly and drive(think $100 gallon gas in today's dollar). Food/clothing/shelter will consume 95% of most people's incomes. Only a small percentage of people will be able to afford cars. No more hybrids, no more vacations to Alaska, no more driving to a bed and breakfast and paying with a visa. Basically, we are reduced to living like the bottom 90 percent of the rest of the world. Think living in New Delhi in the 60's but cleaned up a little. Not nice, but not fatal.

I know that many are going to argue that if Americans are reduced to living like this, then riots and anarchy will occur anyways. Since this is my game, by my decree, I assure you it will not. So the question is, would you give up your currently lifestyle for this "crappy but sustainable" lifestyle for a viable future of people who share 1/32 of your genes? There's no in between choices, it's one or the other.

[Godiva]

Sorry, I don't do black and white.

And we all know it IS going to be some sort of middle, in between gray compromise.

[F8L]

Of course I would reduce my standard of living to accomplish this goal for it is not just humans who would benefit in the long run. My altruism is not limited to those of my own ethnicity or species.

I've been slowly making changes over the last 3yrs to further this goal but ultimately I am VERY far from truely living in the scenario you describe. I have, however, changed my mind such that if I were to reduce my standard of living to your described levels I could remain happy.

[PriuStorm]

I think you're being optimistic (that there will be planes left for rich people to fly). If your options 1, 2 and 3 come true, I think you can pretty much guarantee a nuclear war and annihilation of all 'priviledged' and otherwise societies. Someday, hundreds of thousands of years in the future (maybe longer), evidence of our societies will be unearthed, and future intelligent beings will wonder what happened to us.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by PriuStorm

I think you're being optimistic (that there will be planes left for rich people to fly). If your options 1, 2 and 3 come true, I think you can pretty much guarantee a nuclear war and annihilation of all 'priviledged' and otherwise societies. Someday, hundreds of thousands of years in the future (maybe longer), evidence of our societies will be unearthed, and future intelligent beings will wonder what happened to us.

Bah! This is a game, not reality. lol

[SparrowHawk60]

Naa, screw them like our grandparents did us!
We didn't heed the message when it was given to us in the late 60's early 70's. Conserve, SOAR= Save or American Resources, Recycle....
A lot of us now in 2008 still haven't heard the message...
Gas Crisis, ring a bell? Did we listen, only for a few years, then right back to wasting gas with the reintroduction of the six cylinder, today the Cross over's and SUV's...
We're going right down the crapper filled with our own waste......

[nerfer]

So the people who will suffer won't be any loved ones, nor will your loved ones know any of the future victims.

Going the opposite direction, my grandmother's grandfather (in the Civil War) was the great-grandson of a major in the Revolutionary War (that's one more generation than you listed). I kinda think what he and others like him did was important to my way of life, not to mention our country's example of democracy and freedoms to other governments that have come along since then.

Because of his actions, I remember his name (Major Joseph Lindsley) and know at least a part of his life. So I think you're artificially distancing yourself from your descendents, as a way of rationalizing this. You would help a stranger you just met (as long as they are not a bum or dangerous), why not do the same for your progeny?

Basically, we are reduced to living like the bottom 90 percent of the rest of the world

I'm not sure your statement is necessarily valid. I'm living on 25% of the gasoline I did 4 years ago (for personal transportation) with no change in lifestyle - more saved money is only effect, actually. Many of the changes will not cost more in the long run. That doesn't apply to all of the changes needed however. Housing will be the biggest problem - many outlying suburbs will likely become blighted. Any new houses will need to be built with the square footage that houses in the 1950's had, but with today's windows and insulation standards, and passive solar, etc. We'll still have electricity and computers and TVs (just not updated every 3 years). Most people will have a vehicle (electric) of some kind and a couple bicycles, rent a hybrid for big trips. B&B's won't go away, but ocean cruises would, and a lot of hotels on tropical beaches would close. (Saves the trouble of moving them inland as oceans rise).

[hyo silver]

It's not just our own loved ones we need to be concerned about. Ultimately, it's the fabric of life. Habitat and biodiversity sustain and strengthen us all. Everything exists within narrow parameters, and we're screwing with those delicate balances without having any idea what we're doing.

Originally Posted by SparrowHawk60

...We're going right down the crapper filled with our own waste......

Well, yes. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Originally Posted by nerfer

...Most people will have a vehicle (electric) of some kind and a couple bicycles, rent a hybrid for big trips. B&B's won't go away, but ocean cruises would....

Ocean liners could evolve, maybe sprouting sails...and...exercise bicycles wired to generators...and... crappers hooked into a biomass energy generation system.

[burritos]

Originally Posted by nerfer

Going the opposite direction, my grandmother's grandfather (in the Civil War) was the great-grandson of a major in the Revolutionary War (that's one more generation than you listed). I kinda think what he and others like him did was important to my way of life, not to mention our country's example of democracy and freedoms to other governments that have come along since then.

Because of his actions, I remember his name (Major Joseph Lindsley) and know at least a part of his life. So I think you're artificially distancing yourself from your descendents, as a way of rationalizing this. You would help a stranger you just met (as long as they are not a bum or dangerous), why not do the same for your progeny?


I'm not sure your statement is necessarily valid. I'm living on 25% of the gasoline I did 4 years ago (for personal transportation) with no change in lifestyle - more saved money is only effect, actually. Many of the changes will not cost more in the long run. That doesn't apply to all of the changes needed however. Housing will be the biggest problem - many outlying suburbs will likely become blighted. Any new houses will need to be built with the square footage that houses in the 1950's had, but with today's windows and insulation standards, and passive solar, etc. We'll still have electricity and computers and TVs (just not updated every 3 years). Most people will have a vehicle (electric) of some kind and a couple bicycles, rent a hybrid for big trips. B&B's won't go away, but ocean cruises would, and a lot of hotels on tropical beaches would close. (Saves the trouble of moving them inland as oceans rise).

Yes we are better off because of the actions of forefathers like yours.

However, the problem we're facing MIGHT not be solvable with human ingenuity. With the power of exponential human growth facing the wall of limited resources, there might not be enough energy to maintain >10 billion people(who are a product of cheap fossil fuel energies). Yes there are renewable energies, but that might come too late in the game before the population starts to shrink because of lack of cheap energy.

[burritos]

Originally Posted by F8L

Of course I would reduce my standard of living to accomplish this goal for it is not just humans who would benefit in the long run. My altruism is not limited to those of my own ethnicity or species.

I've been slowly making changes over the last 3yrs to further this goal but ultimately I am VERY far from truely living in the scenario you describe. I have, however, changed my mind such that if I were to reduce my standard of living to your described levels I could remain happy.

Some human activity is altruistic. Much of it intentionally/unintentionally is not. And that's in regards to people who already exist. So how high of a priority should we direct our altruistic behavior that our grandchildren won't even know if we aren't even taking care of the people who are alive today?