English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do we have any right to build all these roads and cities that pollute the earth if it doesn't even belong to us?

2007-03-03 07:58:58 · 8 answers · asked by moonfreak♦ 5 in Society & Culture Other - Society & Culture

8 answers

Good question. Let me expand on that. Does anyone really have the right to sell a piece of the earth so that we can own it? We pay the government for a piece of previously unowned property, but how did they get it. They claimed it, or bought it from the early natives of this country (who, btw, generally roamed from place to place over the centuries, never claiming to OWN any of it). Did they have a right to do that?

2007-03-03 08:14:50 · answer #1 · answered by Noland Voyd 3 · 0 0

Well, you could argue that we do not have a right to do anything, like walk on grass, or make clothes out of cotton or fish - because those things do not "beling" to us....

But there is such a thing as "fair use." Where the exercise thereof enables the pursuit of happiness...

So there IS an argument to be made that, yes, we do have a right to "use" this or that resource - and this "use" does sometimes constitute "ownership."

But because men die sometime within a 100 year span, all ownership is temporary.

We do have a "right" to pollute the earth, especially when much of the idea of polluting is relatively new to the world. Our education and enlightenment is also new and hopefully, men will (in their newfound education about the earth and it's resources and pollution) choose to act accordingly.

If not, then governments will have to enact stricter laws designed to protect the world.

2007-03-03 08:11:11 · answer #2 · answered by John Galt 2 · 0 0

Yes, it is law of nature. Consider the predatory animals. They have to kill their food and then protect it from other animals. Animals are very territorial, so why would we be any different..
Beavers build damns, birds build nests, and bears claim caves. So is it not natural that we would do the same. The only real difference is that what we build last longer, but also if you think about life cycles, it has to. Humans live much longer than most of our animal counterparts with a few exceptions, mostly living in the ocean. And as with all things, there is a beginning and there will be an end. It is part of the cycle of life.

2007-03-03 08:08:35 · answer #3 · answered by Zeke 2 · 0 0

Yeah, if you bought the land and have the proper parpers that says so. You may not inherit the earth, but you can own it like a piece of property. Good enough, yes, dear?

2007-03-03 08:02:53 · answer #4 · answered by FILO 6 · 0 1

That's a very radical attitude. The implication is that if we shouldn't try to control nature then we need to submit to all natural processes such as disease and grinding poverty. I don't want to leave it up to nature to see who lives and who dies. Nature only allows the strong and the brutal to win. The Nazis were big environmentalists.

2007-03-03 08:23:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

in maximum cases, yet there is such issues as mineral rights. as an occasion in case you have oil or such 'valuables' under floor and you have mineral rights the oil is yours even nevertheless you have the choice to sell in simple terms the mineral rights on my own.

2016-12-18 04:58:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

No, but many people feel they do. Sometimes we forget that humans aren't the only things living on this planet.

2007-03-03 08:07:36 · answer #7 · answered by Ashley 4 · 1 0

Nope.

2007-03-03 10:53:08 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers