3 ms·
(Reductio ad ridiculum, doesn't allows to have a very meaningful discussion)
by DoingIsLearning 5y ago
(Reductio ad ridiculum, doesn't allows to have a very meaningful discussion)
- exporectomy 5y agoSure. But neither does inciting murder. Some problems can't be solved just by being angry enough to kill people you hate. The oil industry will continue no matter who you kill or how dangerous it becomes because everyone and their dog will be throwing money at whoever can supply oil.
- DoingIsLearning 5y agoI am too old and cynical to be angry at anybody, my point was that (ignoring ethical matters) the likely spawning of environmental extreme groups would act as an incentive equalizer for the current status quo. There is too big of an asymmetry with the current situation: profits, tax incentives, lobbying, and regulatory capture. This is not something that the average person can address from within the existing judiciary system. At the moment you will need either something that will make carbon emissions unprofitable, or an epiphany from those abusing the status quo, that would lead to de facto climate regulation. Neither of those will happen without some incentive (positive or negative).