4 ms·
Only if you assume that actual harm to human beings trumps harm to the 'environment'. I'd argue it doesn't, at least not as far as the EPA is concerned.
by duncan_bayne 11y ago
Only if you assume that actual harm to human beings trumps harm to the 'environment'. I'd argue it doesn't, at least not as far as the EPA is concerned.
- 7952 11y agoHarm to the environment is harm to humans. Especially when you are talking about carcinogenic diesal exhaust.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoSure. And in fact, such blanket environmental legislation ought to be supported by Objectivists like myself. Even Rand agreed that collective legislation is appropriate to collective problems. But my point was that, for environmentalists, harm to 'the environment' actually outweighs measurable harm to humans. Hence activities that provably killed a bunch of people are likely to merit a less stringent penalty that those likely in this case.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y agoI don't know where you live, but as for me I live in a house right next to the environment.
- duncan_bayne 11y agohttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trump https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trump "(transitive) To supersede. In this election, it would seem issues of national security trumped economic issues." In other words, concerns about the environment trump concerns about actual human harm, at least according to mainstream environmentalists.