2006-08-07 05:48:59 · 5 answers · asked by lisseth r 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Do you mean,
"Is the optimal amount of pollution zero?" ?
If so, this is really more of an economics type of question than science (social science != real science).
One must weight the costs and benefits of having zero pollution and then see of the benefits exceed the costs.
Does having a perfectly clean world warrant all the money needed to be paid to clean it up and keep it clean?
Or can we just accept that a little pollution is more desirable (in the economic sense) than either a lot of pollution or no pollution at all?
For different people there might be different answers to this question so it really comes down to how much you value a state of zero pollution and both the positive and negative effects it would cause.
2006-08-07 06:01:05 · answer #1 · answered by mrjeffy321 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you go to any major city, you can see the pollution. That's optical, I guess.
2006-08-07 06:11:52 · answer #2 · answered by echiasso 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think that's not correct,, we cant talk about zero pollution but we must try to get equilibrium, the nature is balanced
2006-08-07 09:10:45 · answer #3 · answered by source_of_love_69 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Eh? Whats that in English?
2006-08-07 05:52:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see what you're asking.
2006-08-07 05:52:14 · answer #5 · answered by tjc 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋