3 ms·
Let me see if I understand: Industries are destroying the environment, which supports human life, and you want to stop this presumably because human life has so
by cloakandswagger 10y ago
Let me see if I understand: Industries are destroying the environment, which supports human life, and you want to stop this presumably because human life has some intrinsic value.
Your answer to this is to use the force of the state to destroy those industries, and if they resist you will literally kill the people opposing you. Do those lives have less value than others? Or is this a twisted greater good type of thing, where you think climate change is happening so quickly that we should jump to dropping bombs to stop it? (hint: it's not)
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoReally? You've not been paying attention then. Further the risk exists that we cross a tipping point before we even know it. There are sensible arguments for stopping polluting industry now, by any means necessary. Glib rationalization isn't a counter-argument. Science would be, if we had good enough models to know.
- the8472 10y agoNobody said anything about killing people. I merely proposed an invasion as last escalation step (escalating it to the national level already failed). Of course if it comes to that we will have a clean war where only the worst assets are targeted without taking a human life. It is quite similar in design to clean coal.