It appears we're approach this with different value functions: I'm more interested in higher quality human life (e.g. freedom, health, safety, comfort), and you are most interested in preserving the environment and other species. Fine. All of these are important, and it is a value judgement as to how to weigh the tradeoffs between the two, because it is impossible to have all of these.
The civilised world has indeed performed very well for my standards (abolishing disease, providing clean drinking water, material comfort, better human rights, etc) and poorly by yours (strip mining, oil spills, deforestation, etc). But even if we look at things from your side, Yemen (and certain cultures) won't offer solutions to solving this, so like you're saying, they're largely irrelevant at best here, but more realistically they would fuck up the environment as much as anybody if they had the scale and capabilities, so once again we shouldn't encourage their approaches and values. Some cultures and values do value preserving the environment, and I'd say we should look to them for insights.
But things besides the environment and other animals matter, so I'd challenge you to consider the plight of humans and suffering too. Which is ironic because what started this exchange was your comment that some people still care about human life (but maybe you meant that others do and you don't).
you are most interested in preserving the environment and other species.
I am interested in preserving the environment and other species for humanity's sake. It is completely nonsensical to pursue 'higher quality human life' while destroying the paradise we've thrived in - still our only home. Short-term human suffering is minor compared to the bigger picture threats to our survival that we have created.
I see what you're saying and why you're pessimistic about it. We've somehow managed to make it this far despite nuclear and biological weapons where messing up once leads to ending it all. That could be entirely due to luck--or maybe our institutions and society is more robust than it appears.
I tend not to think we'll wipe ourselves out environmentally because even if the entire world took the path of China (which I'd consider the worst-case scenario), we'd be living with a toxic air soup and poisoned rivers but still living. Clearly that's not a world or life I want, however. Humans are perhaps bad at estimating true risk, and there is an asymmetry in outcomes here--better economy and material prosperity with some environmental destruction vs possible total annihilation if the environment is destroyed too much--so it could make sense to be more conservative regarding the environment than the naive utility calculations might show.
Changing topics slightly, do you consider AI as one of these existential threats? I consider it one and could easily imagine the science fiction scenarios where autonomous machines consume and harvest entire planets for more resources. Plus even if it doesn't lead to this apocalypse, at a minimum you're looking at billions of people who suddenly have to change how they live/work/etc. As a another aside, what do you consider the solution to environmental problems? Is it even possible or feasible for humans in an industrial society to give up their profligate lifestyles?
As I recall this was a conversation about the worth of various people in different countries, and about making the world a better place. Of course primitism vs technology isn't out of bounds. Clearly I don't hold up Yemeni society as best-practice, I just think in the bigger scheme of things there's a valid argument that developed countries can be considered to be worse.
Technology has already led to major environmental destruction. Not pessimistic at all, minimal assumptions required. To imagine the destruction will stop anytime soon is deluded.
That sounded like a political speech - which is a good indication of how much truth and self-awareness I think it contains. The Yemenis are not the problem. A society with little power can only screw itself over. Your 'civilised world' is the one fucking everything up for the entire planet - but let's completely ignore that and paint the villain as the hero.