Take easy. I gave a Example of terrorist using myself in a fictional way (creator of a killing virus). I didn't tried to offend anyone here.
The ecologic impact would always exist, but could be much lower with some care, with investment on reasearch, alternatives. But greed refuses it on behalf of extra profit.
You can have a industry who treat the waste to avoid much pollution on rivers. But for extra profit it's refused.
You can have cars with a lot less pollution, but extra profit refuses it...
You can have alternative plastics, but again high profit refuses it...
And so on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
It's not that simple. Science doesn't exist without excess resources. If we spend all our time hunting and gathering for subsistence living, we have no time or resources to learn how the world works. The major advances in science and technology are largely due to exploiting fossil fuel resources.
Science and technology is neither good or bad. We can use knowledge of atomic energy to build power plants or to bomb people. It's impossible to develop technical prowess without risk of using it for harmful purposes.
It is not accurate to call someone a terrorist when they do not intend harm towards anyone. Africans who use slash and burn practices to clear rainforests do great environmental damage, but their intention is economic prosperity, not to terrorize humanity.
Name calling is counter-productive to environmental conservation. People are not inclined to listen to reason when confronted out of hostility.
|