5 ms·
> the idea that you can sue someone because of possible future damage is legislating predicting the future. Aren't the vast majority of laws about preventing p
by Benjamin_Dobell 5y ago
> the idea that you can sue someone because of possible future damage is legislating predicting the future.
Aren't the vast majority of laws about preventing potential future harm?
Building codes, speed limits, gun control etc. You don't need to wait for a building to collapse and kill someone, or someone to have a head-on before you stop them and penalise the reckless behaviour.
- gruez 5y ago>Building codes, speed limits, gun control etc But those are all explicitly legislated, as opposed to this lawsuit which is based on a vague idea of harm. Suppose we don't have statues against speeding. Would it be fair for you to get sued for speeding but haven't harmed anyone?
- Benjamin_Dobell 5y agoThe judgement references 12 Acts and over one hundred cases were cited. The judgement would seem to indicate that this is legislated. Perhaps not explicitly, but Australia practices common law, so this is the normal process. That said, I'd expect something like this to be appealed to the High Court.
- bcrosby95 5y agoBuilding codes, at least in my state, aren't explicitly legislated. There is a carveout for a governmental department that determines them. For better or worse most of the rules of a government aren't explicitly legislated - usually they create the ability for some governmental department to exist and make them instead.
- xbar 5y agoWeird. In my state, there are laws, not just departmental rules.
- dudeinjapan 5y agoWhat about people who live in freezing climates, like Sweden or Alaska? Aren't we reducing harm to those people?
- zardo 5y agoTurning the permafrost to mud is definitely not helpful.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoTake a look at the map in this article: https://nerdist.com/article/global-warming-video-earth-4-degrees/ https://nerdist.com/article/global-warming-video-earth-4-deg... Everywhere that isn't green will be uninhabitable under a worst case 4C warming scenario. How do you think that balances out? For the sake of accuracy, I should note that the map leaves off Antarctica, a substantial portion of which will become habitable under this scenario.
- jayspell 5y agoSo that article admits right at the outset that it is extremely speculative. You could just as easily post an extremely speculative article that shows the entire world will be jungle with the rise in temperatures.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoThe only speculation is whether or not the 4C scenario is the one we're in. The map itself is derived from climate models, which have been shown to be accurate in reproducing current conditions, when fed correct levels of atmospheric greenhouse gasses. I can dig up the paper that says this if anyone would care to read it.
- ghostwriter 5y ago> The map itself is derived from climate models, which have been shown to be accurate in reproducing current conditions how do you know that the models show accurate results that match and predict real measurements? Where is the code to verify that there's no post-factum editing and fitting the results into the desired interpretations? Who is performing verification? Is it made open-source for independent reviews?
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y agoThey are instituted as is and must be regarded from that point forward. Not enacted with intent that any judiciary can interpret simply because they overlooked something that wasn't required or a law at the point. Otherwise, how do you know if you're being moral or ethical if the government can incriminate you for not following an never-made-yet law? This goes down to personal ethics and everyone's is different. Legislating morality as we see with any religious country shows it's just a means of governmental control.