| > How can we even be sure what are the interests of the humanity and the planet? Sometimes it's really easy, and yet we're still failing. Say a community is deciding whether to clean up a polluted river, and prevent the polluter from dumping chemicals in it that are killing fish and leaving residents with foul water. Person A says: "The polluter's interests conflict with the community's need for clean water." Person B says: "How can we even define what the community needs? Maybe some people don’t mind foul water. Maybe a little PFAS pollution and pesticide runoff is fine actually. We've no firm evidence that these chemicals cause harm. There's no proof that the rise in cancers since GreenWashCorp moved to town isn't just coincidence.” I would say that person B is ignoring a clear, shared need (clean water). The appeal to the status quo will do real harm to people if they listen to it. ... Flint still doesn't have clean water. Like many parts of the US. Which collective goods do you consider disposable - clean air, water, food? A livable climate? How sure do you think we need to be of what the "interests of humanity" are, before we defend them? |
Is there some specific criteria you have in mind when you say that Flint doesn't have clean water?