TheHermit wrote:
> For example, I would suggest that even now, under the principle of "Lex
> Talionis", it is almost certainly "legally justifiable" for one country to
> destroy another country's ability to pollute (destroy the people, the
> systems or the civilization), if that country refuses to implement pollution
> controls, on the principle that what one country does in terms of pollution
> affects the inhabitants of others. Would this be acceptable to anyone here?
I think rich countries should have the right to foot the bill for pollution control efforts in poor countries, especially when the pollution in poor countries supports consumption in rich countries.
>
> Having faith that a problem will be solved or wishing pollution into the
> future is not a useful response.
Certainly not.
> Faith needs to be examined realistically on
> the same basis. Faith has probably caused more damage to humans than
> pollution (so far). The response here seems to be to have phaith that the
> problems with faith will eventually go away. Why should they?
Rather than saying "have phaith that the problems with faith will eventually go away," I would say "assume that we can overcome our collective weakness, greed, mental laziness and short sightedness and plot a wise course through the times to come."
-KMO