Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What's the point of having your belly full if you have asthma or get cancer at 30 or not have water to drink?

You're making a false dichotomy there, these countries are polluted not necessarily because they are more productive that way, or because it raises the standards of living, but more because of corruption. By saying that other countries should pay up, you're basically saying that other countries should pay for their corruption.

The problem is that we are all in this together. What India does in its territory affects me in Europe, so I'm left wondering why I should pay for that. And don't give me the per capita stats, when they have had a serious natality problem.

I have a better idea. What is hypocritical is for the west to have regulations, but then to allow imports from countries that don't. If this has no other solution, then the logical path is to tax or ban those imports. Wouldn't that be more fair?



> What's the point of having your belly full if you have asthma or get cancer at 30 or not have water to drink?

Making it to 30 as a member of your nation's populace is a better deal for your nation than starvation and food riots. When it comes to citizenry, nations have a weird, unspoken incentive to keep you alive and in the workforce so as to exploit your output. That's not sarcasm or pessimism; one just doesn't often think about it in that simple of terms, but that thought process is a useful illustration around the point you're making. I'm not well educated in economics but I'd wager this is a concept of some kind that is known.

Belly full is near the top of critical sovereign state priorities. Environment is near the bottom. That's not really a dichotomy, one just has to understand the incentives for a nation. If a nation can work you for twenty years that's a start, and helps build the budget for 30, then 40, then clean air. And so on.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: