Vitalik Buterin pfp
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
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
21 replies
1056 recasts
4133 reactions
Sean Wince ๐ŸŽฉ๐Ÿน๐ŸŸขโ†‘ pfp
Sean Wince ๐ŸŽฉ๐Ÿน๐ŸŸขโ†‘
@seanwince
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
1 reply
0 recast
8 reactions
Daniel Fernandes pfp
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
It's all signaling. Stated preference: I live in a city to reduce my carbon footprint Revealed preference: if I had a private jet I would use it every weekend without hesitation
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Maretus ๐ŸŽฉ pfp
Maretus ๐ŸŽฉ
@maretus.eth
I think it should be to maximize the health of the environment experienced by all living creatures - not just humans. We share this planet with so many other amazing living things. We should try to make sure to preserve as many of them as we can. โค๏ธ
2 replies
1 recast
33 reactions
John Camkiran pfp
John Camkiran
@johncamkiran
It is not about maximising anything, but rather about minimising our collective impact on the environment. Nature thrives by itself.
0 reply
0 recast
7 reactions
Polymarket pfp
Polymarket
@polymarket
0 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Nicolas Davis ๐ŸŽฉ๐Ÿƒโžฐโ†‘ pfp
Nicolas Davis ๐ŸŽฉ๐Ÿƒโžฐโ†‘
@nicolasdavis.eth
i actually wrote a paper for school about this, the gwei the governments are approaching this crisis leads me to believe that they are trying to maximize the health of the environment experienced. Building seawalls to protect from rising tides is an example where they increase emissions to โ€œprotect the environmentโ€
0 reply
1 recast
4 reactions
aaron.degen.eth ๐Ÿคก๐ŸŒ๐Ÿ”ฒ pfp
aaron.degen.eth ๐Ÿคก๐ŸŒ๐Ÿ”ฒ
@aaronv.eth
interesting take. you don't always have to martyr yourself in order to do public good we can be conscious about the space around us without having to go back living in caves with no lights.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
notdevin pfp
notdevin
@notdevin.eth
In my experience the goal of environmentalism is to prevent any and all progress in the hopes that one day blackberry bushes will takeover everything and humans will all be dead but then we can say thereโ€™s balance right before the universe decides to destroy the planet because thereโ€™s no such thing as balance
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
helladj๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ pfp
helladj๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ
@helladj.eth
Itโ€™s more about minimizing negative impact. Think beaver
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
๐š–_๐š“_๐š› pfp
๐š–_๐š“_๐š›
@m-j-r.eth
it's debatable whether health is maximized if environmentalism demonstrates myopia & mismanages itself among the anthropocene. the ideal experience & natural outcome aren't the same thing, but they may overlap without some intractable austerity. former > latter, but still deals w/ humans.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
jenny.degen ๐ŸŽฉ pfp
jenny.degen ๐ŸŽฉ
@cryptojenny
Great question, @vitalik.eth! The goal of environmentalism should ideally balance both maximizing the overall health of the environment and ensuring a healthy environment for the average person. Striving for both can create a sustainable future that benefits all life on Earth. ๐ŸŒ๐ŸŒฑ
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Thumbs Up ๐ŸŽฉ pfp
Thumbs Up ๐ŸŽฉ
@thumbsup.eth
Mixed-use building is the best environmental policy. Just outright housing density causes tons of issues. Plus overly dense areas are not very resilient. They can succumb easily to epidemics, environmental crises, congestion. New York is not a good model for environmentalism. Your average Swiss or Dutch township is
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
MingMing13 (>^_^)>โ˜•๏ธ<(^_^<) pfp
MingMing13 (>^_^)>โ˜•๏ธ<(^_^<)
@mingming13.eth
Dense housing for thee, but not for me ty. I prefer not to have to see others, Calhoun's rat city experiments make me suspicious of density. Prevailing environmentalist theory is that the world is overcrowded. This world has very little incentive to explore, except online, a world in which everything is owned already
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
max โ†‘๐ŸŽฉ pfp
max โ†‘๐ŸŽฉ
@baseddesigner.eth
feels like itโ€™s more about getting attention itโ€™s about politicians making a choice and vote on doing something so attention should be directed at them not general public
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Keanu Cage ๐Ÿ”ต๐ŸŽฉ๐Ÿค˜๐Ÿป pfp
Keanu Cage ๐Ÿ”ต๐ŸŽฉ๐Ÿค˜๐Ÿป
@keanucage
They should be on lock step, but agree sadly not
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Robotandkid pfp
Robotandkid
@robotandkid
I'd say most environmentalists are the former which is why conservatives don't like them. the later imo is better
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Trigs pfp
Trigs
@trigs
Perhaps it's even more complex than that. Because framing it so simply results in having the same solution: fewer people. High human population is the number 1 factor reducing both the quantity of natural environment as well as the quality of nature the average person experiences.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Cool Beans ๐ŸŒž pfp
Cool Beans ๐ŸŒž
@coolbeans1r.eth
Both for sure. โ™ฅ๏ธ
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Antony Karagiannis ๐ŸŽฉ pfp
Antony Karagiannis ๐ŸŽฉ
@atnsarts
Both are valid goals but the second one is more forced one, more dictatorial
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction