Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I don't think it's egotistical. It's optimistic. Since when is doing something for others egotistical?
|
Doing something for someone for their own good that they do not consent to is egotistical, coercive, and tyrannical.
dc_dux:
Regulations are slow to change, slow to react to new science and technology, cumbersome, and expensive. They are scarecly better than doing nothing at all.
For example all Canadian jurisdictions require replanting after harvesting on public land. The government sets standards that must be met within the first 15 years after harvest, such that the same forest composition as was harvested has returned. Forest science has long progressed past this idea, in fact it was past this point when the regulations were brought in.
On the other hand, the Montreal Protocol was extremely successful in Canada. It aimed to reduce ozone depleting CFCs and HCFCs. The government set a realistic timeframe for reduction and elimination of CFCs, and then left industry free to develop the solutions. The result was a painless reduction in our reliance on CFCs/HCFCs, and less costly, more efficient industry.
Or take Sweden. That country put a tax on the sulfur content of diesel. The result is the rapid reduction of sulfur compound emissions in cars.