pull down to refresh
30 sats \ 7 replies \ @optimism 13h \ parent \ on: When is freedom bad? AskSN
Okay!
Would the same go for polluting the air that people breathe or the land that people grow food on? If not, what's the distinction?
A watercourse has a clearer path — if someone near the source pollutes it, they’re harming everyone downstream. Air pollution, on the other hand, is much smaller compared to the volume of oxygen we have. That’s how I see it, so we don’t end up labeling everything as aggression.
reply
reply
No, not at all. Otherwise, I'd be hypocritical in criticizing the aggression caused by inflation and plastic pollution, for example. Returning to my initial point, which is to avoid classifying everything as aggression. I believe aggression can be defined as an action against someone's physical integrity or property, as in the National Policy. It would be possible to delve deeper and consider whether air pollution falls under this category, perhaps.
In many of these hypothetical and poorly detailed situations
it becomes difficult because of this
reply
reply
Yes, we are. The only issue is how it’s framed. And even saying it like that sounds weird. I’m with you so I can try to understand too. If it’s proven that you’re suffering because of this, who are you going to blame? Farting animals? Gases from underground sources? Factories? Landfills? It’s not something objective.
reply
It's not objective because we're not talking about measurements, but the hypothetical would be that, in the case of the diesel generator next to the school, I can prove that the exhaust of, say, soot, is directly causing harm to my kid's lungs because of the concentration - the closer you are to the source, the less diluted this becomes.
I'm not talking about any generic pollution, or "global warming" or any global bullshit that doesn't fix anything: I'm talking about direct aggression. In this case, not running proper filters on the generator would be an act of aggression, yes or no?