It appears to me that there are really just two sides to debates like this. (Including things like Global Warming)
One side feels that we should be able to do what we please as long as the short term benefits are there and tangible. If some time down the road we come up to incontrovertible proof that this action is having severe effects on the earth or people, only then should we take steps to correct/reverse it.
The other side wants us to take action right away to head off any and all adverse effects that are likely or even probable to occur. The feeling being, if we CAN move immediately towards mitigation now, we should. Because the risks can be too great if we are wrong and the costs at the end too great.
I think this accurately sums up both sides.
Only one side follows this
Quote:
"In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."
-Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy.
|
Only one side is a steward of the planet and future generations of humanity.