3 ms·
This is reductio ad absurdum, isn't it? You could implement a fair system giving everyone the equal opportunity to access (e.g. a tourist destination), even if
by js2 8y ago
This is reductio ad absurdum, isn't it?
You could implement a fair system giving everyone the equal opportunity to access (e.g. a tourist destination), even if not everyone gains access (via some sort of lottery).
There's also enough places and opportunities on the planet that not everyone will want to do everything, certainly not all at once. So you could implement cap and trade.
- lmm 8y ago> You could implement a fair system giving everyone the equal opportunity to access (e.g. a tourist destination), even if not everyone gains access (via some sort of lottery). A lottery is inherently inefficient (someone who really wants to go somewhere gets the same chance as someone who only barely marginally cares) and likely to lead to a black market. > There's also enough places and opportunities on the planet that not everyone will want to do everything, certainly not all at once. So you could implement cap and trade. That's a better idea, and seems like what some of these places are already implementing (the article mentions Easter Island; Nepal does something similar for Mt Everest).
- umanwizard 8y agoWhat do you think reductio ad absurdum means? Your comment is worded as though it's some sort of logical fallacy to be avoided.
- js2 8y agoI misused the term. Thank you for the correction.