4 ms·

If we do not talk about usefulness of a resource how would we know if it is worth to study what happens when it is removed? > Taxes? Lower prices? Sounds like

If we do not talk about usefulness of a resource how would we know if it is worth to study what happens when it is removed? > Taxes? Lower prices? Sounds like someone's not optimizing for the almighty Shareholder Value, citizen Sure, sometimes people in governments take money and create anti-competitive regulations, but don't you agree that in such cases the problem is not "our desire to exploit resources" but the corrupt government. Even with that companies still pay lots of taxes, and there is often competition lowering the prices. Particularly in this case they have to make the price cheaper than the other methods of getting water. > If I give an extra dollar to the local warlord, have I made the society richer? Happier? Free-er? Does it make any difference if the local warlord calls itself "Nestle?" Do you argue against all taxes? As far as i can understand your arguments would apply equally against any human endeavor other than suicide. Whatever we do is going to change the environment somehow, of course the attitude of "dig up everything" is stupid, but "do not touch anything, it will have unknown consequences" is not better.

schiffern 7y ago
>don't you agree that in such cases the problem is not "our desire to exploit resources" but the corrupt government No I do not agree, but probably not for the reason you think. The all-too-human temptation to identify "the (singular) problem" (or the person/group 'to blame') isn't educational here. Regulatory capture is a whole-system problem, not a failure of a single component. If you remove all the people from the government and replace them with new people, that won't somehow fix it. The new people will be constrained to act in the same way as the old people, by the same economic and societal forces. >of course the attitude of "dig up everything" is stupid, but "do not touch anything, it will have unknown consequences" is not better. Indeed, who would disagree? No need to exclude the reasonable middle ground though. Precaution should not limitless ("do not touch anything"), but it should not be zero either. If we haven't studied the unknown consequences at all, maybe we should do that first.
- nightwing 7y ago
  I agree that there is a systematic problem, as far as i could understand your previous comment was suggesting that the issue is entirely in existence of private companies, but judging by previous attempts of eliminating them i think changing the way government works is a more promising route. > Fortunately no-one's arguing that. You're excluding the (reasonable) middle. Your previous comment doesn't look like a reasonable middle to me. The reasonable attitude would be "yay, new resource, we need to find a way to use it without breaking anything".
  - schiffern 7y ago
    >Your previous comment doesn't look like a reasonable middle to me. The reasonable attitude would be "yay, new resource, we need to find a way to use it without breaking anything". "we need to... use it" -- so your idea of a 'reasonable attitude' is to beg the question? Conclusion first, evidence later? :-\ Again precaution should not limitless ("do not touch anything"), but it should not be zero either. If we haven't studied these "unknown consequences" at all, maybe we should do that first.
    - nightwing 7y ago
      The part you chose to not quote is rather important "we need to find a way to use it without breaking anything". So i don't think the precaution should be zero. Maybe the thing we disagree about is the order of concerns, i believe the needs of people come first, then comes requirement to be cautious because not being cautious can cause harm to people.
      - schiffern 7y ago
        Yes it seems we agree on that. :) > The part you chose to not quote is rather important "we need to find a way to use it without breaking anything". So i don't think the precaution should be zero. To clarify: my point was by saying "we need to find a way to use it," you've already ruled out the possibility that further scientific study will rule out its use entirely. I'm not saying this is the most likely outcome, just that this outcome was conspicuously and unexplainedly excluded from consideration.

schiffern 7y ago

>don't you agree that in such cases the problem is not "our desire to exploit resources" but the corrupt government No I do not agree, but probably not for the reason you think. The all-too-human temptation to identify "the (singular) problem" (or the person/group 'to blame') isn't educational here. Regulatory capture is a whole-system problem, not a failure of a single component. If you remove all the people from the government and replace them with new people, that won't somehow fix it. The new people will be constrained to act in the same way as the old people, by the same economic and societal forces. >of course the attitude of "dig up everything" is stupid, but "do not touch anything, it will have unknown consequences" is not better. Indeed, who would disagree? No need to exclude the reasonable middle ground though. Precaution should not limitless ("do not touch anything"), but it should not be zero either. If we haven't studied the unknown consequences at all, maybe we should do that first.

nightwing 7y ago
I agree that there is a systematic problem, as far as i could understand your previous comment was suggesting that the issue is entirely in existence of private companies, but judging by previous attempts of eliminating them i think changing the way government works is a more promising route. > Fortunately no-one's arguing that. You're excluding the (reasonable) middle. Your previous comment doesn't look like a reasonable middle to me. The reasonable attitude would be "yay, new resource, we need to find a way to use it without breaking anything".
- schiffern 7y ago
  >Your previous comment doesn't look like a reasonable middle to me. The reasonable attitude would be "yay, new resource, we need to find a way to use it without breaking anything". "we need to... use it" -- so your idea of a 'reasonable attitude' is to beg the question? Conclusion first, evidence later? :-\ Again precaution should not limitless ("do not touch anything"), but it should not be zero either. If we haven't studied these "unknown consequences" at all, maybe we should do that first.
  - nightwing 7y ago
    The part you chose to not quote is rather important "we need to find a way to use it without breaking anything". So i don't think the precaution should be zero. Maybe the thing we disagree about is the order of concerns, i believe the needs of people come first, then comes requirement to be cautious because not being cautious can cause harm to people.
    - schiffern 7y ago
      Yes it seems we agree on that. :) > The part you chose to not quote is rather important "we need to find a way to use it without breaking anything". So i don't think the precaution should be zero. To clarify: my point was by saying "we need to find a way to use it," you've already ruled out the possibility that further scientific study will rule out its use entirely. I'm not saying this is the most likely outcome, just that this outcome was conspicuously and unexplainedly excluded from consideration.