The problem with trying to clean things up

[bilby]

That cannot be correct, as there are larger and more densely populated cities than Mexico City that do not have this problem. Clearly population size and population density are not in themselves sufficient cause to create this issue; and equally clearly there exist solutions that do not include or require population or population density reductions.

Of course, Mexico City may not be practically or financially able to implement those solutions; but then, nor can she implement population reductions in a practical or affordable way.

Actually, there are not any cities that are both more densely populated AND larger than Mexico city. It it the 27th most densely populated in the world, and is larger than all other 26 cities that are more densely populated than it. In fact, it is 4 times larger than most of those other cities, and about twice as large as the rest, with the more densely populated city that close in size begin San Paolo which is among the most polluted cities in the world, whose air kills more people per year than car accidents.
In fact, most of the cities with more population density than Mexico City, also have worse air pollution.

In addition, Mexico City gets more tourism than most cities with higher populations than it. A compounding factor is geography. Mexico city is at the bottom of the natural bowl that holds in the pollution.

None of which supports your claim that population reduction is the only solution.

For example, replacing all gasoline, diesel and gas powered vehicles in Mexico City with electric vehicles, and generating the power by zero emission technologies (nuclear, solar, wind) and/or in remote locations where the pollution is less of a concern, would be a viable solution - and is not obviously less easy to achieve than population reductions.

 

[Bronzeage]

Would it make a lot of difference if they did? Does private enterprise have a right to damage people's health, in pursuit of their business?

In the real world we have to strike a balance. It's impossible to avoid all harm.

What are we balancing?

I'll ask you again, if I had to pay in order for my business to profit at the cost of your health, how much would you want? I'm sure we can come to an equitable agreement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the real world we have to strike a balance. It's impossible to avoid all harm.

What are we balancing?

I'll ask you again, if I had to pay in order for my business to profit at the cost of your health, how much would you want? I'm sure we can come to an equitable agreement.

You're not addressing my point. It's impossible for society to exist without harm being inflicted.

It's also impractical to negotiate the payment for that harm with everyone. Thus a functioning society needs to define what level of harm is acceptable.

 

[bilby]

What are we balancing?

I'll ask you again, if I had to pay in order for my business to profit at the cost of your health, how much would you want? I'm sure we can come to an equitable agreement.

You're not addressing my point. It's impossible for society to exist without harm being inflicted.

It's also impractical to negotiate the payment for that harm with everyone. Thus a functioning society needs to define what level of harm is acceptable. Raise taxes and use the money to mitigate the harm.

FTFY

 

[Jayjay]

So, an ideal society has 100% tax rate to maximize the resources for harm mitigation, and thus minimize harm?

 

[bilby]

So, an ideal society has 100% tax rate to maximize the resources for harm mitigation, and thus minimize harm?

No.

An ideal society has a government, funded through taxation, that takes action collectively on behalf of the people, when individual action is impractical.

 

[Jayjay]

So, an ideal society has 100% tax rate to maximize the resources for harm mitigation, and thus minimize harm?

No.

And that's what I think he meant by striking a balance.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I should do my own searching but I wonder which city has more of this pollution per capita, Copenhagen or Mexico City - or cities similar. In Copenhagen there are lots of cyclists because the city has decided that is what it wants, and so a lot less cars. There are a lot less people too obviously.

 

[Jarhyn]

What are we balancing?

I'll ask you again, if I had to pay in order for my business to profit at the cost of your health, how much would you want? I'm sure we can come to an equitable agreement.

You're not addressing my point. It's impossible for society to exist without harm being inflicted.

It's also impractical to negotiate the payment for that harm with everyone. Thus a functioning society needs to define what level of harm is acceptable.

You use that word 'harm' but I can't help but wonder if you are using it improperly here. Society in general is the act of mitigating the natural evil that the universe inflicts on us. Society IS harm reducing by its very nature. That it usually trades the reduction in harm for a lesser increase in other KNOWN harms is inconsequential. Here, we are discussing how society can reduce its own known costs and so increase the margin of societal harm reduction, because the society is realizing that our greatest prospects to further reduce harm lie now in the costs we had previously accepted.

It is the function of a healthy society, then, to explicitly mitigate and reduce known harm. Negotiate the cost in humans necessary to support the cleanup, negotiate the secondary costs to support that payment, and make it so.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What are we balancing?

I'll ask you again, if I had to pay in order for my business to profit at the cost of your health, how much would you want? I'm sure we can come to an equitable agreement.

You're not addressing my point. It's impossible for society to exist without harm being inflicted.

It's also impractical to negotiate the payment for that harm with everyone. Thus a functioning society needs to define what level of harm is acceptable.

Looks like Mexico already has. They noted that it may be better for people to lose a little money now to not die of cancer later. With the level of the alleged cost, that can put pressure to help develop alternative methods of transportation in order to be able to continue having the economic engine moving forward without everyone having to suck in the fumes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not addressing my point. It's impossible for society to exist without harm being inflicted.

It's also impractical to negotiate the payment for that harm with everyone. Thus a functioning society needs to define what level of harm is acceptable. Raise taxes and use the money to mitigate the harm.

FTFY

1) You can reduce the harm, you can't get rid of it.

2) Your answer has nothing to do with the fact that harm is inevitable.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not addressing my point. It's impossible for society to exist without harm being inflicted.

It's also impractical to negotiate the payment for that harm with everyone. Thus a functioning society needs to define what level of harm is acceptable.

Looks like Mexico already has. They noted that it may be better for people to lose a little money now to not die of cancer later. With the level of the alleged cost, that can put pressure to help develop alternative methods of transportation in order to be able to continue having the economic engine moving forward without everyone having to suck in the fumes.

I'm not objecting to Mexico's attempt to clean things up. I'm just pointing out the financial reasons against it that will likely keep it from being done for long. The victims of the rules have lots of money, they can make a stink. The victims of the pollution are too spread out, they can't do much.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

FTFY

1) You can reduce the harm, you can't get rid of it.

Please get a dictionary. Mitigation often does not include elimination of risk.

2) Your answer has nothing to do with the fact that harm is inevitable.

The magnitude is not inevitable unless you hold humanity in such disregard relative to profit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're not addressing my point. It's impossible for society to exist without harm being inflicted.

It's also impractical to negotiate the payment for that harm with everyone. Thus a functioning society needs to define what level of harm is acceptable.

Looks like Mexico already has. They noted that it may be better for people to lose a little money now to not die of cancer later. With the level of the alleged cost, that can put pressure to help develop alternative methods of transportation in order to be able to continue having the economic engine moving forward without everyone having to suck in the fumes.

I'm not objecting to Mexico's attempt to clean things up.

It sounds like you are.

I'm just pointing out the financial reasons against it that will likely keep it from being done for long. The victims of the rules have lots of money, they can make a stink. The victims of the pollution are too spread out, they can't do much.

Well, that is mainly because people like you don't like giving them a voice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not addressing my point. It's impossible for society to exist without harm being inflicted.

It's also impractical to negotiate the payment for that harm with everyone. Thus a functioning society needs to define what level of harm is acceptable.

Looks like Mexico already has. They noted that it may be better for people to lose a little money now to not die of cancer later. With the level of the alleged cost, that can put pressure to help develop alternative methods of transportation in order to be able to continue having the economic engine moving forward without everyone having to suck in the fumes.

I'm not objecting to Mexico's attempt to clean things up.

It sounds like you are.

I'm just pointing out the financial reasons against it that will likely keep it from being done for long. The victims of the rules have lots of money, they can make a stink. The victims of the pollution are too spread out, they can't do much.

Well, that is mainly because people like you don't like giving them a voice.

Predicting that something won't work isn't the same as wanting it to fail.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're not addressing my point. It's impossible for society to exist without harm being inflicted.

It's also impractical to negotiate the payment for that harm with everyone. Thus a functioning society needs to define what level of harm is acceptable.

Looks like Mexico already has. They noted that it may be better for people to lose a little money now to not die of cancer later. With the level of the alleged cost, that can put pressure to help develop alternative methods of transportation in order to be able to continue having the economic engine moving forward without everyone having to suck in the fumes.

I'm not objecting to Mexico's attempt to clean things up.

It sounds like you are.

I'm just pointing out the financial reasons against it that will likely keep it from being done for long. The victims of the rules have lots of money, they can make a stink. The victims of the pollution are too spread out, they can't do much.

Well, that is mainly because people like you don't like giving them a voice.

Predicting that something won't work isn't the same as wanting it to fail.

No, you didn't predict it wouldn't work. You just don't think the cost is worth it, nor gave way to any possibility that the initial cost will spur additional remediation efforts to reduce the cost over the long term and help to reduce the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're not addressing my point. It's impossible for society to exist without harm being inflicted.

It's also impractical to negotiate the payment for that harm with everyone. Thus a functioning society needs to define what level of harm is acceptable.

Looks like Mexico already has. They noted that it may be better for people to lose a little money now to not die of cancer later. With the level of the alleged cost, that can put pressure to help develop alternative methods of transportation in order to be able to continue having the economic engine moving forward without everyone having to suck in the fumes.

I'm not objecting to Mexico's attempt to clean things up.

It sounds like you are.

I'm just pointing out the financial reasons against it that will likely keep it from being done for long. The victims of the rules have lots of money, they can make a stink. The victims of the pollution are too spread out, they can't do much.

Well, that is mainly because people like you don't like giving them a voice.

Predicting that something won't work isn't the same as wanting it to fail.

No, you didn't predict it wouldn't work. You just don't think the cost is worth it, nor gave way to any possibility that the initial cost will spur additional remediation efforts to reduce the cost over the long term and help to reduce the problem.

My OP was indicating why I didn't think it would work. That says nothing about whether I consider that a desirable outcome.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My OP was indicating why I didn't think it would work. That says nothing about whether I consider that a desirable outcome.

Wow, you got all of that out of the one sentence your OP consists of?

 

[Bronzeage]

What are we balancing?

I'll ask you again, if I had to pay in order for my business to profit at the cost of your health, how much would you want? I'm sure we can come to an equitable agreement.

You're not addressing my point. It's impossible for society to exist without harm being inflicted.

It's also impractical to negotiate the payment for that harm with everyone. Thus a functioning society needs to define what level of harm is acceptable.

I am directly addressing your point. You seem to have trouble understanding it.

It's not necessary to negotiate the payment. It is only necessary to recognize the debt. This means a person will not be allowed to harm other people's health(inflict unrecoverable costs upon them), with impunity.

The costs of operating a business so that it does minimal harm to people in the community is the payment.

The claim,"I have to make a living, so you have to breathe whatever I put into the air," is not valid.