3 ms·
Here is an excerpt from "The Tragedy of the Commons" paper [1] """ The pollution problem is a consequence of population. It did not much matter how a lonely A
by has2k1 9y ago
Here is an excerpt from "The Tragedy of the Commons" paper [1]
"""
The pollution problem is a consequence of population. It did not much matter how a lonely American frontiersman disposed of his waste. "Flowing water purifies itself every 10 miles," my grandfather used to say, and the myth was near enough to the truth when he was a boy, for there were not too many people. But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights.
"""
The excerpt seems to convey the same opinion, but if read the paper you get to see it from many more view points.
1. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full
- wodenokoto 9y agoThat doesn't answer the question, except if you are implying that populations are going to move to Everest in the future.
- has2k1 9y agoCan you imagine a scenario in the future where there would be a need to do an activity at the summit of Everest?
- nradov 9y agoWaterworld?
- wodenokoto 9y agoNo, I can't. What is your point?
- has2k1 9y agoWithout significant effort, we are not so good at a judging what resources that are not essential now yet will be in the future. Even the example, I'm going to give is lacking because it is rooted in today's technological activities. For example, how would the stuff left on Everest affect the remote sensing requirements of the future? Perhaps there is more, but we cannot have thoughts about the questions we do not know to how to ask yet. This view point should not be straw-maned as objecting to any and everything, it is simply cautionary. In summary, in coming to conclusions we have to factor in our lack of sufficient imagination.