Is income equality actually good for the environment?

[Mu_]

I want to preface a bunch of what I'm about to say as perhaps uniformed, and welcome any info that counters these idea's.  Perhaps even sources and links to such idea's as well would be helpful as well.

Is income equality actually good for the environment?

This is a question that I've playfully thought about, since equality is a subject that I've often felt should be pushed for. 

However, if the majority of the population suddenly had more access to goods than they did before, I'd image there would be a much larger and broader increase in consumption of goods, increasing the strain on the environment and the population it would cause.

I'm not sure the earth is ready for a dramatic shift in income wealth and prosperity, there needs to be a fundamental shift in how we view the earth and how our consumption habits actually impact it and are willing to do something different (of course technologic energy advancements could shift all this, but are not guaranteed), or else the problem will only get exacerbated.

Thoughts?

[Human Mint]

Not sure what to think. Would you trade starvation for some environmental impact? Because some politicians would. As a politician you have to be really careful your people are not dying first.

[Mu_]

4 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

Not sure what to think. Would you trade starvation for some environmental impact? Because some politicians would. As a politician you have to be really careful your people are not dying first.

Ya I feel you, but more environmental strain leads to more pollution which is more deaths and sickness for all species (including humans).  So while there is starvation, the short-medium term may be worse for everyone if the environmental issues get accelerated....

Edited 13 hours ago by Mu_

[Human Mint]

True aswell. Should kill the two birds with one stone. No one will take you seriously if you only focus on the environment.

[Mu_]

59 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

True aswell. Should kill the two birds with one stone. No one will take you seriously if you only focus on the environment.

Probably true as well....

[Human Mint]

I really enjoy listening to Daniel Schmahttemberger, if you didn't know it, you should really dig into his interviews. He delivers more of a black pill in which humans find themselves destroying the environment because a race of arms. You either exploit the environment or someone else does and they kill you.

[Mu_]

22 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

I really enjoy listening to Daniel Schmahttemberger, if you didn't know it, you should really dig into his interviews. He delivers more of a black pill in which humans find themselves destroying the environment because a race of arms. You either exploit the environment or someone else does and they kill you.

Ya I've listened to a bunch of his stuff.  However to your point, we kinda went through that phase for the most part, although to some degree its always gonna be relevant.  AI is the new ramp up many of the nations are in now, however I have my doubts in its usefulness and if its going to spur a rebellion if those in power aren't careful with its implementation, you can only displace so much before people really have nothing to lose and fight back.

Edited 11 hours ago by Mu_

[Human Mint]

I am not a professional on the topic

[sholomar]

Having a well fed and stable populace means more consumption and carbon emissions but overall cleaner rivers and overall landscape as you climb the spiral dynamics ladder and fulfill maslow's hierarchy you're more likely to become altruistic and want to work on causes like cleaning up the planet rather than focusing on survival.   From this comes increased technological innovation which will eventually tackle the carbon problem and the whole situation is eventually resolved. It won't get resolved if humanity is stuck in survival mode, which it will be if a large segment of the population are surviving on little.

There's a difference between being lower class and being in poverty though, or having a culture that is a cesspool of pollution, such as India, Bangladesh, or Pakistan.  Having a stable middle class is key.

Edited 10 hours ago by sholomar

[aurum]

@Mu_ your questions are not unreasonable at all. Helping to bring the entire world up to the standard of living of the most undeveloped nations could cause more resource strain.

But also, I would consider what the benefits of that would be. What would we gain in terms of technology, scientific-advancements, coordination, resource-use etc?

If we consider the ecological crisis to be a function of Stage Orange and lower stages of development, then the reality is we need to more development, not less. You have to punch through the wall.

[Mu_]

10 hours ago, sholomar said:

Having a well fed and stable populace means more consumption and carbon emissions but overall cleaner rivers and overall landscape as you climb the spiral dynamics ladder and fulfill maslow's hierarchy you're more likely to become altruistic and want to work on causes like cleaning up the planet rather than focusing on survival.   From this comes increased technological innovation which will eventually tackle the carbon problem and the whole situation is eventually resolved. It won't get resolved if humanity is stuck in survival mode, which it will be if a large segment of the population are surviving on little.

There's a difference between being lower class and being in poverty though, or having a culture that is a cesspool of pollution, such as India, Bangladesh, or Pakistan.  Having a stable middle class is key.

well this sounds good and all, are there any demonstrations of this happening in a current country or is every nation still in survival mode?