What does it mean to "believe in climate change"?

[Robin-H]

No it doesn't, a country with very high GDP can also have millions of very poor people with very poor quality of life.

 

GDP per capita!

[Petminder]

I'm confused. You said the countries that had the best quality of life were, and I quote 'The countries that cause the most environmental damage and consume far more than their share of the worlds resources.'

 

You then say that you define quality of life in the same way I define sustainable global prosperity, which stipulates that people have 'the opportunity to pursue lives of satisfaction and happiness without the risk of denying others in the present and the future the ability to do the same.'

 

How can the countries with the best quality of life simultaneously be causing the most environment damage whilst also not denying others in the future the opportunity to do the same?

 

Good point, I was wrong, whilst the average person in the UK does have a good quality of life by my definition, we do adversely affect other people all over the world and very likely people in the future, so by your definition we don't.

 

I don't define it the same way you define it, but I was trying to use your definition.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 19:23 ----------

 

GDP per capita!

 

A country with high GDP per capita can still have millions of unproductive people with very poor quality lives.

[phil752]

Quality of life, I know we are bending off topic. I can remember seeing a episode of Tomorrows World (showing my age) when they were mooning over computers automation, saying they will increase the quality of life giving more people leisure time. In reality the just put people out of work and decreased their Quality of life. So in the real world progress will always have an adverse impact on some.

[Robin-H]

Good point, I was wrong, whilst the average person in the UK does have a good quality of life by my definition, we do adversely affect other people all over the world and very likely people in the future, so by your definition we don't.

 

I don't define it the same way you define it, but I was trying to use your definition.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 19:23 ----------

 

 

A country with high GDP per capita can still have millions of unproductive people with very poor quality lives.

 

Just to be clear, that isn't how I define quality of life, but how I define sustainable global prosperity.

 

I don't think people need to be thinking of future or current quality of life of others to have a good quality of life themselves. It'd be great it they did, but they don't.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 19:30 ----------

 

 

A country with high GDP per capita can still have millions of unproductive people with very poor quality lives.

 

That would bring down the average GDP per capita somewhat, so it is quite a good indicator. Like I said, no one figure for GDP is going to be able to show the inequality within the country, but it does give a good overview.

[Petminder]

Quality of life, I know we are bending off topic. I can remember seeing a episode of Tomorrows World (showing my age) when they were mooning over computers automation, saying they will increase the quality of life giving more people leisure time. In reality the just put people out of work and decreased their Quality of life. So in the real world progress will always have an adverse impact on some.

 

I remember seeing those same episodes, they assumed incorrectly that when machines started doing all the work the wealth they generated would be divided equally.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 19:34 ----------

 

Just to be clear, that isn't how I define quality of life, but how I define sustainable global prosperity.

 

I don't think people need to be thinking of future or current quality of life of others to have a good quality of life themselves. It'd be great it they did, but they don't.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2016 at 19:30 ----------

 

 

That would bring down the average GDP per capita somewhat, so it is quite a good indicator. Like I said, no one figure for GDP is going to be able to show the inequality within the country, but it does give a good overview.

So when you said.

I think (sustainable) global prosperity means that everybody has a good standard of living.

 

How do you define good standard of living, I did ask but I think you must have missed that post.

[Robin-H]

So when you said.

I think (sustainable) global prosperity means that everybody has a good standard of living.

 

How do you define good standard of living, I did ask but I think you must have missed that post.

 

I must have missed that yes. I think a lot of things are involved when determining whether somebody has a good standard of living, such as income, health, access to healthcare, life expectancy, political stability, personal freedoms, quality of environment, safety. I'm sure there are many other things that should be taken into account that I have missed.

[Petminder]

I must have missed that yes. I think a lot of things are involved when determining whether somebody has a good standard of living, such as income, health, access to healthcare, life expectancy, political stability, personal freedoms, quality of environment, safety. I'm sure there are many other things that should be taken into account that I have missed.

 

I would add access to clean water, energy and sanitation, the problem then is that providing all that for just the minority is bad for the environment, so it would be catastrophic to provide everyone with it.

[Robin-H]

I would add access to clean water, energy and sanitation, the problem then is that providing all that for just the minority is bad for the environment, so it would be catastrophic to provide everyone with it.

 

Energy of course, how could I forget - that's how this whole thing started.

 

That is where we disagree (which I think we discovered many pages ago). I believe that technological (and medical) advances will mean that those things will become accessible for all without great environmental cost. You don't think that, fine.

 

We are back at square one.

[Petminder]

Energy of course, how could I forget - that's how this whole thing started.

 

That is where we disagree (which I think we discovered many pages ago). I believe that technological (and medical) advances will mean that those things will become accessible for all without great environmental cost. You don't think that, fine.

 

We are back at square one.

 

Its because technological advances always end up destroying the environment in one way or another, and a good clean environment is one of the key ingredients to quality of life.

 

But yes back to square one so I think we better call it quits before we bore everyone to death.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Petminder

[Robin-H]

Its because technological advances always end up destroying the environment in one way or another, and a good clean environment is one of the key ingredients to quality of life.

 

But yes back to square one so I think we better call it quits before we bore everyone to death.

 

I agree entirely.