Is the goal of environmentalism to maximize the health of the environment, or to maximize the health of the environment experienced by the average person?

(I think both are valid goals, but they can lead to very different conclusions)

Is the goal of environmentalism to maximize the health of the environment, or to maximize the health of the environment experienced by the average person?

(I think both are valid goals, but they can lead to very different conclusions)

https://x.com/TheGattoniCelli/status/1796949964804747335

What's the difference?

If the health of the environment gets so bad that it's dangerous to 95% of people on the planet, then both goals have failed

That world would also still result in destroying the environment as we know it, if we still reached 2.5-3°C of warming or more

The version of "health of the environment" that matters most to humans is how hospitable it is to our civilization at scale

From that lens, megacities vs. country living is the wrong axis

The example I provided (urbanism) is a major difference!

If the entire world population lives in dense megacities, then 99.9%+ of the world's surface can remain untouched (except agriculture). But in that world, the average person's life experience would have a lot more glass and steel and concrete and fewer trees.