5 ms·
It's not "Australia" opposing the move, it's "Australians who will earn less money if fewer people spend money in locales near the Great Barrier Reef due to neg
by koolraap 5y ago
It's not "Australia" opposing the move, it's "Australians who will earn less money if fewer people spend money in locales near the Great Barrier Reef due to negative publicity" who oppose the move.
I'm an Australian. Let's go fully In Danger.
- foobar33333 5y agoA danger warning would only boost tourism with "last chance" visits.
- onei 5y agoI would have thought this could be sold as protecting the livelihoods of the people that rely on tourism. It's not as if tourists will come to visit the former Great Barrier Reef when it's dead and gone. No one wants to go on holiday to feel sad and depressed that the world destroyed a natural wonder.
- oblio 5y agoIt appears De Tocqueville was wrong. For those who don't remember, one of his arguments for democracy was that it was a lot less likely for democracies to make such huge mistakes that endanger them, unlike autocracies, where the decision making is so concentrated and so swift that massive bad decisions can be made in an instant and there's no coming back from them. If Australia, fully democratic and an advanced democracy, does this then we're all lost.