Provided we understand "human flourishing" as incompatible with "endless growth of the human species".
We live on a finite planet [0], and human flourishing *requires* that we live bounded within the finite capacities of our environment.
[0] And no, there is currently no workable prospect of interplanetary colonies. The technologies that would be required to make them habitable can be applied *here*, to help our *only living planet* avoid environmental catastrophe.
Depends how you define flourishing. Can the environment be robustly sustained while everyone gets the necessities of life plus access to education, culture, literature and recreation? Yes. Can the environment be robustly sustained with everyone getting a cars, year round climate control, bananas in winter and meat with every meal? Definitely not. But I think it's possible to suffer of overindulgence anyways.
I misclicked qualified yes, but I should have voted strong yes.
Environmentalism is in fact necessary for human flourishing, since we can't live without a biosphere, and without environmentalism of some sort we will destroy our life support systems (and the life support systems for most other species).
Humans are part of the environment, we're not separate. We can't flourish without living in harmony with other life, just think of your microbiome.
"Qualified yes" *Strongly* depends on what one means with either. Yes if environmentalism means ensuring we *have* a biosphere without *requiring* it be static (*Relatively* if humans need not survive, the biosphere is unlikely to completely collapse. Trying to make it static is a *very* *bad* idea though) AND "flourishing" means recognizable humans continue to exist in significant numbers (*Hard*, depending on how *much* fluctuation you accept)
Absolutely, and I'd say human flourishing requires environmentalism. We can and must live in harmony with our planet.
What that *doesn't* mean to me is anything about population growth or returning to the stone age. Talking about population is too often a dog whistle, and throwing away all of globalism ends up being eugenics by another name.
We can have enough, but we need to reshape our concept of wealth and "enough" to encourage it.
This was interesting. I think even 30 years ago, it was a given that any effort or resources we put into conservation or environmental cleanup were hurtful to human mental and physical well-being. That each preserved species or anti-dumping regulation cost jobs.
I'm a strong yes. I think environmental destruction is catastrophic for both our physical and mental well-being. We lose all sense of meaning and purpose when we destroy the biosphere we live it.
it's not clear that environmentalism can even be meaningful without caring about your own well-being. or at least the well-being of some intelligent beings that can be environmentalist on your behalf.
i think we're probably still way too much in the christian ideology of doing good being synonymous with self-sacrifice. instead of reasoning about your values and optimizing your behaviour.
John Francis
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Dr. Quadragon ❌
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •as long as it's not oversimplified, flanderized, ad-absurdum, primitivist, "return to monkey" version of environmentalism, then yes, of course.
Same goes for the version that gets corporations off the hook and shifts the blame on the consumer.
climate voter/eco leftist
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to climate voter/eco leftist • • •@tmstreet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flourishing?wprov=sfla1
positive psychology
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)bignose
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Provided we understand "human flourishing" as incompatible with "endless growth of the human species".
We live on a finite planet [0], and human flourishing *requires* that we live bounded within the finite capacities of our environment.
[0] And no, there is currently no workable prospect of interplanetary colonies. The technologies that would be required to make them habitable can be applied *here*, to help our *only living planet* avoid environmental catastrophe.
WillR_LDN
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Blort™ 🐀Ⓥ🥋☣️
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Joseph Szymborski :qcca:
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Neil Eriksson
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Michael ☕️
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •The Jack of Sandwich
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Flourishing as in being a large number of humans leading healthy happy fulfilled lives? Yes.
Flourishing as in constantly increasing exponentially in population, consuming more and more resources? no.
Stopping population growth has its own problems, but its necessary for sustainability
Nelson Chu Pavlosky
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •I misclicked qualified yes, but I should have voted strong yes.
Environmentalism is in fact necessary for human flourishing, since we can't live without a biosphere, and without environmentalism of some sort we will destroy our life support systems (and the life support systems for most other species).
Humans are part of the environment, we're not separate. We can't flourish without living in harmony with other life, just think of your microbiome.
Lawrence Pritchard Waterhouse
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Will Hopkins 🌈📸
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Absolutely, and I'd say human flourishing requires environmentalism. We can and must live in harmony with our planet.
What that *doesn't* mean to me is anything about population growth or returning to the stone age. Talking about population is too often a dog whistle, and throwing away all of globalism ends up being eugenics by another name.
We can have enough, but we need to reshape our concept of wealth and "enough" to encourage it.
ragectl
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •This was interesting. I think even 30 years ago, it was a given that any effort or resources we put into conservation or environmental cleanup were hurtful to human mental and physical well-being. That each preserved species or anti-dumping regulation cost jobs.
I'm a strong yes. I think environmental destruction is catastrophic for both our physical and mental well-being. We lose all sense of meaning and purpose when we destroy the biosphere we live it.
Thanks to everyone for answering.
sofia ☮️🏴
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •it's not clear that environmentalism can even be meaningful without caring about your own well-being. or at least the well-being of some intelligent beings that can be environmentalist on your behalf.
i think we're probably still way too much in the christian ideology of doing good being synonymous with self-sacrifice. instead of reasoning about your values and optimizing your behaviour.