GPC100s wrote:You make a good point about the biotoxins, brimstoneSalad. Such a thing is very concentrated and can be targetted, which is very unlike CO2 pollution.
There's no real difference between when something is targeted and when it is more dispersed. It's always a range- an effect could be local, and gradually become more widely spread. An effect could travel randomly on the wind, thousands of miles, or it could stagnate in one area.
The issues is in what you're putting out, how dangerous it is at the likely concentration people will have to breathe it, how many people will breathe it, and what kind of damage it will do (to people, or property).
A lot of products of pollution affect buildings and infrastructure, for example, creating acid rain that can damage things hundreds of miles away.
GPC100s wrote:One could argue that, because of the precision of biotoxins, you CAN claim ownership of the air; but you can't when the substances are not precise. The definition of property rights requires divisibility, that's why the atmosphere usually does not qualify.
You can easily divide responsibility for pollution. You output a million tons of CO2, then you're responsible for capturing a million tons of CO2- it balances perfectly.
People suffer because of global climate change- they suffer in terms of extreme tropical storms, and they suffer because of rising sea levels (particularly island nations, where people are losing their homes). Every company and individual outputting CO2 shares a tiny slice of that responsibility.
The problem is that until now we've failed to hold anybody accountable for it, because we didn't understand the magnitude of the problem.
Now, I don't want to be responsible for cleaning up somebody else's mess- and I shouldn't be. Nobody should have to be responsible for cleaning up the messes of others.
What we can do is tell each person to clean up their own messes. It's not that difficult to do with CO2.
With other things, it can be much more difficult.
GPC100s wrote:Like, if Al-Quaeda wanted to destroy the whole world with CO2, and they really could do it, you gotta ask yourself: how do they have the resources?
CO2 output is more expensive and less dangerous per capita than a nerve toxin would be, but it's not a fundamentally different thing. It's just harder to destroy the world with it. There are all sorts of pollutants with varying levels of danger and expense.
How can you draw a line allowing one pollution, but prohibiting another?
If you put something out, then clean it up. Doesn't mater if it's Sarin or CO2- responsibility for our own messes works no matter what that mess is.
GPC100s wrote:If it's because people willingly gave it to them, then destruction of the world is the will of the people, who are you to say that's not valid?
Because it's much easier to destroy the world than to protect it. And the efforts of a few people do not speak for everybody.
With nerve toxins, it might take a few dozen people's effort.
With greenhouse gases, maybe the resources of a million people, less in the first world- by no means the majority.
You can [removed general description of how to destroy the world] putting the Earth in a critical state of natural disaster by releasing those gases and adding to the thermal energy in the atmosphere beyond anything anybody can control.
GPC100s wrote:And I feel silly having to say this but NO I don't want this to happen, and I think it wouldn't happen because the will of the people is to survive.
It would never happen as long as we're allowed to stop them. But it doesn't take many people to screw things up for everybody.
There are enough crazy people on Earth NOW to do these things if we allowed them to work together openly without interference.
GPC100s wrote:You keep coming back to the idea that if it's allowed to happen, it will happen. Sure, people will want to do it, but they are few, therefore they won't be able to, even though they are allowed.
They would most certainly be able to do it. I think you over-estimate the difficulty of causing massive havoc through destroying the environment and other shared resources.
The concerted effort of a few thousand people could destroy most human life on Earth by those "legal" means if we didn't lift a finger to oppose them.