From: natashavita@earthlink.net
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 15:22:14 MDT
I agree with you Mike that "zero tolerance" policies are narrowly focused. This is why "intentional" and "polluting" has significance.
>I think that any pollution zero tolerance policy is short sighted and
based on faulty assumptions. A large percent of the ecosystem depends on
the pollution of other species to survive, and a large number of species
have evolved to depend upon human pollution, technological or otherwise.
The ecosystem can absorb a certain amount of pollution. What harms it is
overloading the ecosystem with pollution that exceeds its toxicity
levels. What is good in small amounts becomes bad in large amounts. A
rational approach to pollution takes this absorption factor into account
in setting tolerance levels.
"natashavita@earthlink.net" wrote:
>
> There as been just a bit of conversation on technological pollution. I remember some years back when discussing this with a few like-minded folks. We agreed that a zero tolerance on technological pollution is not suitable to the times because not all p
olluting is intentional. Rather, it was more reasonable to incorporate knowledgeable alternatives and ways in which the waste products could be handled before engaging in a mass marketing and selling campaign.
>
> I am interested in "zero tolerance for intentional polluting". I think there could be some tolerance on unintentional polluting or unconscious polluting as many people worldwide are not well informed and frankly (looking at the diet and health of more
than 1/2 of the US), ill informed about many health conscious matters.
>
> Further zero tolerance can result in disproportionate punishments and profiling. Further, zero tolerance, while sounding mighty, deals with a set of punishments, not the problem and not the mechanics of developing well-funded knowledge in how to educat
e technological developers to be aware of potential pollutants. And, zero tolerance disciplinary policies are apt to contain extraordinarily broad definitions of offensive or dangerous behavior.
>
> It seems more pro-act conscious to assertively address potential dangers from technological pollution and give it a hell of a lot of attention.
>
> Natasha
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:58 MST