Quote:
Originally Posted by tito
Long after.
MKPD, I used to be inclined to believe you. But consider it is the same smog that is the product of the industrial revolution that has raised life expectancy from 30 years in the agrarian culture to todays incredible ages.
Nobody has the right to live in a perfect city.
|
That's a bit of a Robin Hood argument though. You could argue that robbing some rich fat ******* and giving his money to 30 families has a net benefit. It is still morally wrong though and will lead us all to hell. What is perfect anyway? I don't expect perfection, but I do expect the right to breath without choking. Actual, proveable physical harm has to be dealt with by the rule of law.
If you can prove something has a bad effect on other people, then I think it is right that you try and prevent that bad effect. I don't think the industrial revolution was that badly disrupted, as the measures were not overly extreme.
Not like what envirofascists are trying to force through today, off of the back of something that isn't even pollution anyway. I have said from the beginning though. If it is proven that
a) Man is changing the climate.
b) It is co2 that is doing it.
c) This change is bad rather than good or even
d) It is net negative and
e) We really can do something about it.
Then I would support suggested measures. My beef is than NONE of those issues have been proven. Indeed, there is utter ********, assumption and dismisal of debate which means it is more likely to be fascists trying to get their own way, rather than any real concern for the environment.