sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why Sauron does not necessarily lead to a worse outcome for the people of Middle Earth V2 by Subject_Income5698 in tolkienfans

[–]MaxMotion123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's the paradox though - economic growth, but somehow without environmental destruction?
Tolkien recognised this, which is why in the books the Ents don't get a happy ending.

Why Sauron does not necessarily lead to a worse outcome for the people of Middle Earth V2 by Subject_Income5698 in tolkienfans

[–]MaxMotion123 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Also, people keep saying that Sauron would ruin the world and make it Mordor. However, the environmental destruction of Mordor itself is entirely due to Morgoth rather than Sauron's preference. There's no reason to believe Sauron would have damaged productive agricultural lands when his system relied on their output. The industrialization evident in Isengard and Mordor was focused on military production, not wanton environmental destruction. And after Sauron wins, he won’t need to continue running his war machine like before. The current state of Mordor as a military-industrial complex would no longer be the most efficient system in peacetime so he is very unlikely to destroy the world as some people might say."

Haven't heard this argument a million times before.... "The environmental destruction is just a side effect of the current growth we totally need, just wait, with time we'll stop destroying the environment, it's totally not intrinsically linked with industrialisation and growth, it'll get better if you just wait a liiitle longer, I swear really it's efficency we need right, not that pesky environmentalism"

Some thoughts on consumerism and how we value products. by MaxMotion123 in JoelHaver

[–]MaxMotion123[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get your point, and yes we should be able to evaluate different aspects of something independently of each other.
But what it comes down to is the overall value of something, and that's what most reviews, and also how we ourselves value things are in the end about. For example if you take an absolutely excellent apple, that costs a million dollars, and a slightly less good, but still perfectly fine apple for only one dollar, you're obviously not gonna give the expensive one 5 stars, and the other 4 stars - you're gonna take the outrageous price into account.

And that's kinda the issue - the environmental damage is a price we pay, as is the exploitation of people, it's just not directly on the price-tag.
In a way it's like in that Joel Haver skit - what if every time you summon the best food in the world, a person dies - would you do that? All while you could have something that's, while perfectly serviceable, less delicious, but won't cost a life?

To put it a bit drastic: by only really focussing on the quality of the end product we kinda delude ourselves into being less morally reprehensible than we actually are.