3 ms·
In most cases (and certainly your two examples) I would agree with you on "It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources". However, if you push it to the
by graphene 17y ago
In most cases (and certainly your two examples) I would agree with you on "It is not for you to decide how I spend my resources". However, if you push it to the extreme, you can think of cases where I think society should be able to exert influence on an individual's resource-spending behavior.
Say (for the sake of argument) that we are neighbours and you decide to dump nuclear waste in your back yard. Even though the chance that I will experience negative consequences from your actions is not strictly 1 (radioactivity being a statistical phenomenon after all), and that even if I do fall ill, you could point out that I can't prove it was radiation from YOUR pile that got to me, wouldn't you agree that society would be justified in preventing your waste dumping activities simply because it has a high enough chance of causing harm to others?
I don't mean to equate the consequences of global warming to those of radiation sickness or cancer, but I hope you agree that both activities (emitting CO2 and dumping nuclear waste in your back yard) have nonzero, non-100% probability of causing harm, and at some point, society should intervene.
Consider another example: what if we wake up tomorrow and all the computer models have vastly improved; showing in intricate detail the consequences of every ton of CO2 emitted in terms of rising temperature and sea level, changing rainfall patterns, etc., and that the economic and social costs worldwide are considerable. Assume also that the counter-anecdotes (such as those in the WSJ article) are explained by the models. Assume finally that the models show that the influence on your personal life is minimal. I'm curious as to what you'd do; would you try to decrease your emissions voluntarily, or would you support government efforts to turn things around, or would you continue as before; they are your resources to consume after all..? Would you perhaps even start trying to convince others to minimize their emissions as well, or would that fall under moralistic bullying?
- robotrout 17y agoI quit dumping toxic waste years ago. I can be persuaded by real science and economic analysis. Let me know when you have some. It's very acceptable for proven causes of proven societal ills to be handled by a consensus of that society. It's not acceptable to stampede, bully, exaggerate, and mislead to cause something to happen, just because in your opinion, it would be best.