3 ms·
Not really. This would be a prime example of a negative externality, or a cost which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise unin
by ValG 13y ago
Not really. This would be a prime example of a negative externality, or a cost which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
- joonix 13y agoNow fishermen will suffer so farmers can pull a profit. It's kind of the most simple form of unfairness. The kind that small children easily identify and question.
- dsuth 13y agoIt's confusing that the only externality considered in the article or in the HN comments so far is "effect on fisheries". Coastal regions are (typically) teaming with life of all kinds. I can live without people getting fresh fish quite as often as they're used to. I can't swallow destroying entire ecosystems out of wilful ignorance quite so easily.