The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 2:54 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 11:33 am

Here's a much better question for you: how is ignoring the presently-growing 89% in the rest of the world going to save the environment?

Nobody is ignoring "the rest of the world".

There are global initiatives trying to deal with the problems.

Name them.

Paris Agreement 2015

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:32 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:16 pm I took this up with Google's AI Assistant...

Oh, if only you would think, instead of just asking the wrong question to an algorithm. How much better the answers you get might be!

Yeah, well, here's the thing, I was compelled to choose between two methods of research...

1. Spend a great deal of my own personal time and effort reading through sources such as Wiki or some other archive of information until I found what I was looking for...

...or...

2. Employ an "algorithm" that is designed to "instantaneously" do the research (grunt work) for me.

Thus, it is via "thinking" (logically) that I chose #2.

And with that in mind, here's the first question I asked the AI oracle...

Me:
How much of U.S. manufacturing is outsourced?

AI Assistant:
Approximately 84% of U.S. manufacturing companies outsource at least some production, with 25% of those companies outsourcing over half of their processes.

And in case you (once again) missed the glaringly obvious point,...

...it is sheer hypocrisy for America to claim to be reducing pollution while at the same time outsourcing manufacturing processes to China (and elsewhere) and then importing (back to America) the goods that it expects China to produce via the processes that the outsourcing companies know to be the cause of pollution.

It would be like you hiring a hitman to murder someone and then feigning innocence on your part because you didn't pull the trigger.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:32 pm Think, think, think...

That's good advice, you might try it once in a while.
_______

fully modernized

"Fully modernized" doesn't mean that they don't produce greenhouse emission and other pollutants.

In fact, the US under Trump, is going backwards with drill-baby-drill, bringing back coal, stopping green projects and removing EPA regulations on emissions.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 6:38 pm

fully modernized

"Fully modernized" doesn't mean that they don't produce greenhouse emission and other pollutants.

No. But it does mean two other things. One is that 11% is the highest proportion the US is ever going to produce, because after this, non-West countries are going to produce more. The US has basically levelled out, unless there's something like a rabid immigration flood with accompanied regress there. And secondly, the US has much better standards and technologies than the Developing World, so it's likely to be able to reduce that through continued development; not so much for the developing world, of course.

So it's all the more urgent that the Developing World be the focus of any environmental plan. When over 90% of future emissions are not going to be coming from the US, it's simply obvious that that is where the real struggle lies.

So, we might well ask, why don't environmentalists focus on the Developing World? And the answer is simple: they don't really care about the environment -- they care about scoring political points for their Socialist overlords, and in posing as virtuous for doing things that amount, essentially, to empty gestures because the real problem is elsewhere. They're posers, not world-savers.

A parallel exist with this and another group of radicals: the Feminists. They're all for marching about in Washington or Chicago, in silly pink hats to secure baby-murder "rights," but fall completely mute about the wildly immoral things being done constantly to women across the Muslim world. Why? Because the US is "low-hanging fruit" -- an easy place to score cheap and easy "wins." But the Middle East is a powder keg of "patriarchy" in which they have no leverage; and the very thought of attacking anybody with a natural tan makes them queasy, out of fears of being called "racist" or "Islamophobe."

Likewise, the environmental weenies have no leverage in China or India, or indeed, in most developing countries. So they would rather take the "low-hanging fruit," the cheap and easy wins they can get from badgering Californians to buy Teslas, recycling their unrecyclable plastics in Peoria, or nagging Texas about its oil. They don't want to take on the real problem, because frankly, they don't much care, and they're cowards who just don't have the guts for a fight.

Ironic that so many of the people who pose as "the principled ones" turn out to be so shallow, craven and self-serving, really; but that's the world we live in. It's the land of Greta Thunbergs.

2023 CO2 emissions by Country, Per Capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... per_capita

Nation.....%of Global Average....Emissions(Tons p/a)
Canada..................307%............14.91
Australia................293%............14.21
United States..........285%.............13.83
China...................190%..............9.24
New Zealand...........149%.............7.22
Germany................145%.............7.06
United Kingdom.......91%...............4.42
India....................43%...............2.07
Angola..................16%...............0.78

There's plenty of scope for Canada, Australia and the USA to reduce emissions if they decide to become better people.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:31 pm There's plenty of scope for Canada, Australia and the USA to reduce emissions if they decide to become better people.

But if China, India and the rest of them don't, it won't save anything. And environmentalists tell us we're supposed to be saving the world.

Of course, they tell us lots of things...like that they actually care about what they say they care about. So take that with a grain of salt.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:31 pm There's plenty of scope for Canada, Australia and the USA to reduce emissions if they decide to become better people.

But if China, India and the rest of them don't, it won't save anything. And environmentalists tell us we're supposed to be saving the world.

Of course, they tell us lots of things...like that they actually care about what they say they care about. So take that with a grain of salt.

Why must all any good you do be in the form of a competitive transaction? Isn't being the right thing to do a good enough reason for you to do anything?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:35 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:31 pm There's plenty of scope for Canada, Australia and the USA to reduce emissions if they decide to become better people.

But if China, India and the rest of them don't, it won't save anything. And environmentalists tell us we're supposed to be saving the world.

Of course, they tell us lots of things...like that they actually care about what they say they care about. So take that with a grain of salt.

Why must all any good you do be in the form of a competitive transaction? Isn't being the right thing to do a good enough reason for you to do anything?

Where's the "competitive transaction"? I see no such beast.

Don't you wish people would just "do the right thing"? If they would, the Developing World would be in a whole lot better state than it is. That would be great. So why isn't it happening?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:42 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:35 pm
But if China, India and the rest of them don't, it won't save anything. And environmentalists tell us we're supposed to be saving the world.

Of course, they tell us lots of things...like that they actually care about what they say they care about. So take that with a grain of salt.

Why must all any good you do be in the form of a competitive transaction? Isn't being the right thing to do a good enough reason for you to do anything?

Where's the "competitive transaction"? I see no such beast.

Don't you wish people would just "do the right thing"? If they would, the Developing World would be in a whole lot better state than it is. That would be great. So why isn't it happening?

You, in your country, should do what you can to not pollute the environment. That is the right thing to do. Others, in their countries, should do what they can to not pollute the environment, because that also is the right thing to do. Further to that, the wealthy, which is us, should assist the poor, which is India and Angola etc, to develop their economies along the least polluting lines.

The correct reason to do all of the above is that it is the right thing to do. Only a sociopath reasons that they should not do the right thing unless others do the same amount or more of the right thing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:42 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:38 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:35 pm
But if China, India and the rest of them don't, it won't save anything. And environmentalists tell us we're supposed to be saving the world.

Of course, they tell us lots of things...like that they actually care about what they say they care about. So take that with a grain of salt.

Why must all any good you do be in the form of a competitive transaction? Isn't being the right thing to do a good enough reason for you to do anything?

Where's the "competitive transaction"? I see no such beast.

Don't you wish people would just "do the right thing"? If they would, the Developing World would be in a whole lot better state than it is. That would be great. So why isn't it happening?

So what would environmentalists have to do to have your approval of them? Would they need to convince every country in the world to reduce their emissions? I'm pretty sure that's been the goal all along and if a country doesn't want to reduce their emissions, should we issue them an ultimatum? I mean what can Western environmental organizations do if China doesn't want to cooperate? Don't you think environmentalists are doing the best they can right now?

But it does mean two other things. One is that 11% is the highest proportion the US is ever going to produce, because after this, non-West countries are going to produce more. The US has basically levelled out, unless there's something like a rabid immigration flood with accompanied regress there.

No, that's not a fact.

Chinese emissions have dropped for the last 2 years. US emissions rose in 2025. And a further US rise is to be expected if Trump has anything to do with it. It's possible for the US to go above 11% depending on how other countries perform.

So, we might well ask, why don't environmentalists focus on the Developing World?

The initiatives are global.

But the US keeps denying climate change and it's abandoning the agreements.

So there is an effort to get the US to participate.

the environmental weenies

I see you descending into insults. Pretty sad.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:42 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:38 pm
Why must all any good you do be in the form of a competitive transaction? Isn't being the right thing to do a good enough reason for you to do anything?

Where's the "competitive transaction"? I see no such beast.

Don't you wish people would just "do the right thing"? If they would, the Developing World would be in a whole lot better state than it is. That would be great. So why isn't it happening?

You, in your country, should do what you can to not pollute the environment. That is the right thing to do. Others, in their countries, should do what they can to not pollute the environment, because that also is the right thing to do. Further to that, the wealthy, which is us, should assist the poor, which is India and Angola etc, to develop their economies along the least polluting lines.

The correct reason to do all of the above is that it is the right thing to do. Only a sociopath reasons that they should not do the right thing unless others do the same amount or more of the right thing.

Considering IC's sympathies for Trump (who got up in an address to the UN and recommended to all the other nations there that they not comply with environmentalists unless they wanted to court disaster), I really do wonder if IC believes in "environmentalism" at all. If he's critical of the environmental movement, why is he so accepting of people like Trump?

It's all about teams. Us versus them.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 11:02 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:42 pm
Where's the "competitive transaction"? I see no such beast.

Don't you wish people would just "do the right thing"? If they would, the Developing World would be in a whole lot better state than it is. That would be great. So why isn't it happening?

You, in your country, should do what you can to not pollute the environment. That is the right thing to do. Others, in their countries, should do what they can to not pollute the environment, because that also is the right thing to do. Further to that, the wealthy, which is us, should assist the poor, which is India and Angola etc, to develop their economies along the least polluting lines.

The correct reason to do all of the above is that it is the right thing to do. Only a sociopath reasons that they should not do the right thing unless others do the same amount or more of the right thing.

Considering IC's sympathies for Trump (who got up in an address to the UN and recommended to all the other nations there that they not comply with environmentalists unless they wanted to court disaster), I really do wonder if IC believes in "environmentalism" at all. If he's critical of the environmental movement, why is he so accepting of people like Trump?

Well. Yeah. When it comes down to it I think we all know that the order of importance for IC is that he holds his religion above all else except the politics that it is in service to, and that everything else must service those before any consideration of the truth. But somewhere in the back of all that mess must be an awareness of some sort....? I mean, there probably isn't even a glimmer of self-awareness there in reality, but we are all prisoners to the fantasy that we can somehow help unearth one when we meet people like him.

Incidentally, I've never actually seen IC say anything directly good about Trump. It's all stuff like he can't be that bad if 90 million people voted for him. but no actual endorsement. He's clearly a massive MAGA fan, but he isn't blind to what's so awful about the T bag as Walker is. I'm pretty sure he's one of those Christians that think Trump is a fallen, vain and self-serving man that God happens to be using, his mysterious miracles to perform, and all that stuff. Or GogMaggoogogogogog or whatever. Here to bring the return of the one and only true lordy lord.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 10:51 pm So what would environmentalists have to do to have your approval of them? Would they need to convince every country in the world to reduce their emissions? I'm pretty sure that's been the goal all along and if a country doesn't want to reduce their emissions, should we issue them an ultimatum? I mean what can Western environmental organizations do if China doesn't want to cooperate? Don't you think environmentalists are doing the best they can right now?

environmentalists continue to exhale

-Imp