From: Dagon Gmail (dagonweb@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 03 2009 - 01:50:31 MST
No country or people has inalienable rights that impede with other people's
rights
to live. A human being has a right to prosperity and affluence, but that
right stops
when he fishes a sea empty of fish other people might like too, or if she
dumps
CO2 exhaust emissions or gasified plutonium or whatever in the environment,
and
hinders the rest of the world. In the latter case, where population levels
impair the
happyness of others, all those involved have (or should have) a right to
judicially
appeal against such "dumping" and outlaw it if its proven to be fairly
plausible.
Yes, I regard that to imply some countries should be restricted in their
industrial
activities, if that industrial activity includes significant CO2 emissions.
First step
is to implement a judge all parties recognize and if a court then finds such
an
emission problem to be plausible, alas, it means - restrict it immediately.
Likewise, if singapore, or another borderline democratic state with
industrial
means, implemented a space elevator tomorrow, and started building solar
cells
in a equatorial orbit, covering a stretch of sky 500 kilometers above the
surface,
doubling at a geometric rate, and covering a strata visible from the
surface, those
below the layer would protest dearly if it impaired access to the sun. If
singapore
(or whomever) then proclaimed that the solar cells do not reduce
temperatures
and there is no evidence they have an effect on daily life (apart from the
shadows
they cast) an arbiter can then forbid their construction or fine singapore.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT