““Wealth is necessary to give a damn about the environment.”
Ug. What we have here is a failure to communicate. One, that wasn’t my quote. That was the quote of the guy I was responding to. I said “Wealth is necessary to DO a damn thing about the environment”. My point was that allowing the global free market to thrive, unhindered by multi-national treaties, by goverment efforts to “reign in” production and consumption, is the best way to go. The globe will warm or cool as it has always done. Humans will adapt to it as they’ve always done. Making people not be the productive isn’t the answer. Innovation in a free market is.
We are indeed miscommunicating. I was not disagreeing with your point, simply elaborating.
I agree, a starving person will eat the last Bald Eagle or Spotted Owl without a pang of guilt. Only when people are living well above the survival margin will they have the "altruism" to give a damn about nature. In fact, only wealthy societies have the luxury to see nature as a wonder to be preserved as opposed to nature being the enemy that is trying to kill them.
My point was that some have moved so far beyond that margin that they have the desire to 'preserve nature at all costs' even if those costs aew to the detriment of their fellow humans -- not themselves, mind you, but only to their social inferiors. They do it only for their enjoyment, hence, the King's hunting preserve analogy.
Example. They become convinced DDT is 'bad' and if a few tens of millions of poor black kids happen to die for the lack of DDT --- well, too bad.