4 ms·

wouldn't a philosophical/legal framework like "reckless endangerment" apply here? there's a line at which harm to future generations becomes reckless

Bluestein 5y ago
> philosophical/legal framework like "reckless endangerment" You are onto something here, I think. To avoid ridiculous situations very clearly codify a line, a threshold ...
ping_pong 5y ago
How can you prove that expanding the mine actually caused any damages to the environment? With a chemical plant, if it leaks waste and poisons a nearby river, the damages are very real and easy to understand. Expanding a mine that doesn't directly cause damages but increases CO2 doesn't have direct damages that you measure because it's global. Even with something like Fukushima, you can measure the damage it did to Japan, but what about all the radioactive waste it is leaking into the Pacific? How do you measure that catastrophe? Can you even prove that it has done any damage, even though it's obvious?
- gotostatement 5y ago
  it seems like its a pragmatic question, almost an engineering question about how the legal system can work, and Im hopelessly out of my depth there
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > How can you prove that expanding the mine actually caused any damages to the environment? How can you prove that someone committed a murder? It’s a difficult question, and there’s probably no method that makes mistakes impossible, but the solution is not to throw up our hands and say “there’s nothing we can possibly do to improve the situation.”
- TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
  You're on very shaky ground here. It doesn't seem like you're trying very hard to respond to the strongest possible interpretation of the topic at hand, but rather some very finely sliced minutiae. And besides, we can measure one minutes contribution, and we can, if we choose, apply proportional mitigation factors or costs or penalties. We can look at past failures and use those to adjust our course. What exactly are you arguing against here?
lurquer 5y ago
The terms being bandied about pertain to intent or culpability. But, there still must be an actual harm. That’s a separate element. Western legal systems do not do very well with hypothetical future harms. If I build a big tower on my property that is rickety and liable to fall onto my neighbor’s house, there is nothing he can sue me for (with some exceptions explained below) until the tower falls and causes harm. When the harm occurs, we then get into whether I need to have been “negligent” or “reckless” or “malicious” or even “strictly liable” to be held responsible: different torts have different standards. That being said, the legislature can step in to address future harm. In my hypo, it may be through a building code which gives neighbors the right to petition the structure be removed before it hurts someone. There’s also the concept of “nuisance” which night give the adjoining neighbor the right to go to court arguing that the tower — due to its rickety nature and likelihood of causing damage — is reducing his property value. But, generally, future harm is a legislative concern. A legislator can outlaw drinking and driving due to its propensity to cause harm. But, a citizen can’t sue a driver for racing through his streets while drunk unless and until he smashes into you. (Finally, there are some remedies for “imminent harm”... protective orders and the like. But, by “imminent” we means an immediate risk of a serious injury. Climate change does not cut it; a deranged ex-boyfriend making threats, however, might.)
- gotostatement 5y ago
  interesting thanks for writing this out

Bluestein 5y ago

> philosophical/legal framework like "reckless endangerment" You are onto something here, I think. To avoid ridiculous situations very clearly codify a line, a threshold ...

ping_pong 5y ago

How can you prove that expanding the mine actually caused any damages to the environment? With a chemical plant, if it leaks waste and poisons a nearby river, the damages are very real and easy to understand. Expanding a mine that doesn't directly cause damages but increases CO2 doesn't have direct damages that you measure because it's global. Even with something like Fukushima, you can measure the damage it did to Japan, but what about all the radioactive waste it is leaking into the Pacific? How do you measure that catastrophe? Can you even prove that it has done any damage, even though it's obvious?

gotostatement 5y ago
it seems like its a pragmatic question, almost an engineering question about how the legal system can work, and Im hopelessly out of my depth there
tshaddox 5y ago
> How can you prove that expanding the mine actually caused any damages to the environment? How can you prove that someone committed a murder? It’s a difficult question, and there’s probably no method that makes mistakes impossible, but the solution is not to throw up our hands and say “there’s nothing we can possibly do to improve the situation.”
TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
You're on very shaky ground here. It doesn't seem like you're trying very hard to respond to the strongest possible interpretation of the topic at hand, but rather some very finely sliced minutiae. And besides, we can measure one minutes contribution, and we can, if we choose, apply proportional mitigation factors or costs or penalties. We can look at past failures and use those to adjust our course. What exactly are you arguing against here?

lurquer 5y ago

The terms being bandied about pertain to intent or culpability. But, there still must be an actual harm. That’s a separate element. Western legal systems do not do very well with hypothetical future harms. If I build a big tower on my property that is rickety and liable to fall onto my neighbor’s house, there is nothing he can sue me for (with some exceptions explained below) until the tower falls and causes harm. When the harm occurs, we then get into whether I need to have been “negligent” or “reckless” or “malicious” or even “strictly liable” to be held responsible: different torts have different standards. That being said, the legislature can step in to address future harm. In my hypo, it may be through a building code which gives neighbors the right to petition the structure be removed before it hurts someone. There’s also the concept of “nuisance” which night give the adjoining neighbor the right to go to court arguing that the tower — due to its rickety nature and likelihood of causing damage — is reducing his property value. But, generally, future harm is a legislative concern. A legislator can outlaw drinking and driving due to its propensity to cause harm. But, a citizen can’t sue a driver for racing through his streets while drunk unless and until he smashes into you. (Finally, there are some remedies for “imminent harm”... protective orders and the like. But, by “imminent” we means an immediate risk of a serious injury. Climate change does not cut it; a deranged ex-boyfriend making threats, however, might.)

gotostatement 5y ago
interesting thanks for writing this out