3 ms·

No one wants toxic chemicals dumped on anyone. But there's an obvious selfish interest if making industry clean is hard, to at least have it far away from me.

by mlyle 4y ago

jdiff 4y ago
If it can be someone else, it can just as easily be you. Best to fight for each other as if its ourselves, or else it might be next time.
- Retric 4y ago
  Except not everyone is going to make the same tradeoffs here. People in a poor country may rationally prefer more pollution if it means faster economic growth. I don’t mean this as a moral argument that they don’t deserve clean air, just that tradeoffs exist. Health isn’t always the top priority; many top athletes for example are very open about the long term negative consequences of reaching the absolute limits of human performance. The larger issue is the people impacted don’t necessarily get to make this choice themselves.
  - CapstanRoller 4y ago
    >People in a poor country may rationally prefer more pollution if it means faster economic growth. How is it "rational" if that choice is figuratively (and sometimes literally) made at gunpoint? There's a reason every legal system considers contracts signed under duress to be null and void.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      Duress isn't defined as "not having a lot of other great options".
      - CapstanRoller 4y ago
        >great options For the poor globally disadvantaged people we're talking about, the options are "work" and "die". If the "work" option also carries "allow your home to be polluted with deadly chemicals", then the "die" option also gets baked in. Can you please explain how that's not a textbook example of duress?
        mlyle 4y ago
        > Can you please explain how that's not a textbook example of duress? Sure. Duress requires an unlawful threat. Signing a contract to have a surgeon operate on you, when you will die if you don't get the operation, is not duress and the contract is enforceable. Not that I really buy this: > For the poor globally disadvantaged people we're talking about, the options are "work" and "die". The options are more like "continue subsistence farming with risk of death, or work in factory under marginally better conditions with lower risk of death".
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        >Duress requires an unlawful threat. You can use this argument to defend slavery or any manner of horrible things because it was lawful at some point (and still is, in many places). Is it really a good idea to define duress so narrowly? >continue subsistence farming with risk of death At what point does causing an "increasing risk of death" start to equate with murder or manslaughter? Being shot at increases the risk of death sharply. What about being exposed to industrial effluent without consent?
        mlyle 4y ago
        > Is it really a good idea to define duress so narrowly? The alternative is terrible-- otherwise anyone with the ability to possibly help is compelled to do so at any cost without recompense. > At what point does causing an "increasing risk of death" start to equate with murder or manslaughter? Being shot at increases the risk of death sharply. What about being exposed to industrial effluent without consent? That's the crummy thing with international law-- it's as each jurisdiction says. The unfortunate thing is, there's large portions of the world that are poor enough that taking risks with industrial effluent seem to make sense. If the increased prosperity lets you pay for wastewater treatment and health projects, you could save considerably more lives. The first world went through terrible times to claw our way to modern prosperity. The thing that is different now, of course, is that we have far more prosperous people looking on the sidelines. On the other hand, we've been trying to come up with a model for charity and NGO-driven durable economic development out of poverty and have very little to show for it.
    - Retric 4y ago
      I am referring to a preference. As in given options A and B they would prefer option B, but I not suggesting they actually get to make the decision. That said, there are still some fairly poor democracies.
digging 4y ago
I disagree, the effects tend to be concentrated on the poorest communities and should instead be spread out more. I am obviously not excited about some nasty factory moving close to me, but my environment is relatively healthy and I could, frankly, deal with it better.

No one wants toxic chemicals dumped on anyone. But there's an obvious selfish interest if making industry clean is hard, to at least have it far away from me.

by mlyle 4y ago

No one wants toxic chemicals dumped on anyone. But there's an obvious selfish interest if making industry clean is hard, to at least have it far away from me.

jdiff 4y ago

If it can be someone else, it can just as easily be you. Best to fight for each other as if its ourselves, or else it might be next time.

Retric 4y ago
Except not everyone is going to make the same tradeoffs here. People in a poor country may rationally prefer more pollution if it means faster economic growth. I don’t mean this as a moral argument that they don’t deserve clean air, just that tradeoffs exist. Health isn’t always the top priority; many top athletes for example are very open about the long term negative consequences of reaching the absolute limits of human performance. The larger issue is the people impacted don’t necessarily get to make this choice themselves.
- CapstanRoller 4y ago
  >People in a poor country may rationally prefer more pollution if it means faster economic growth. How is it "rational" if that choice is figuratively (and sometimes literally) made at gunpoint? There's a reason every legal system considers contracts signed under duress to be null and void.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Duress isn't defined as "not having a lot of other great options".
    - CapstanRoller 4y ago
      >great options For the poor globally disadvantaged people we're talking about, the options are "work" and "die". If the "work" option also carries "allow your home to be polluted with deadly chemicals", then the "die" option also gets baked in. Can you please explain how that's not a textbook example of duress?
      - mlyle 4y ago
        > Can you please explain how that's not a textbook example of duress? Sure. Duress requires an unlawful threat. Signing a contract to have a surgeon operate on you, when you will die if you don't get the operation, is not duress and the contract is enforceable. Not that I really buy this: > For the poor globally disadvantaged people we're talking about, the options are "work" and "die". The options are more like "continue subsistence farming with risk of death, or work in factory under marginally better conditions with lower risk of death".
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        >Duress requires an unlawful threat. You can use this argument to defend slavery or any manner of horrible things because it was lawful at some point (and still is, in many places). Is it really a good idea to define duress so narrowly? >continue subsistence farming with risk of death At what point does causing an "increasing risk of death" start to equate with murder or manslaughter? Being shot at increases the risk of death sharply. What about being exposed to industrial effluent without consent?
        mlyle 4y ago
        > Is it really a good idea to define duress so narrowly? The alternative is terrible-- otherwise anyone with the ability to possibly help is compelled to do so at any cost without recompense. > At what point does causing an "increasing risk of death" start to equate with murder or manslaughter? Being shot at increases the risk of death sharply. What about being exposed to industrial effluent without consent? That's the crummy thing with international law-- it's as each jurisdiction says. The unfortunate thing is, there's large portions of the world that are poor enough that taking risks with industrial effluent seem to make sense. If the increased prosperity lets you pay for wastewater treatment and health projects, you could save considerably more lives. The first world went through terrible times to claw our way to modern prosperity. The thing that is different now, of course, is that we have far more prosperous people looking on the sidelines. On the other hand, we've been trying to come up with a model for charity and NGO-driven durable economic development out of poverty and have very little to show for it.
  - Retric 4y ago
    I am referring to a preference. As in given options A and B they would prefer option B, but I not suggesting they actually get to make the decision. That said, there are still some fairly poor democracies.

digging 4y ago

I disagree, the effects tend to be concentrated on the poorest communities and should instead be spread out more. I am obviously not excited about some nasty factory moving close to me, but my environment is relatively healthy and I could, frankly, deal with it better.