societal goal of preserving the natural environment?
2007-05-22 02:05:50 · 9 answers · asked by Alex K 1 in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
no, well maybe to a certain extent. It often has, and only in recent years have people really become concerned about the environment. We need to protect the environment, but seriously, we cut down trees just to build a building. We pollute the air when we drive our car. I think we should not do serious damage to the environment, but we have to do what we have to do, as long as it is not excessive.
2007-05-22 02:08:35 · answer #1 · answered by kyeann 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The problem here is using a one-dimensional governmental model to define what is right and wrong. Capitalism, along with many other political concepts, only address a single issue, and hence only have a single priority.
Capitalism is nothing more than a financial ideology. If it is used as the sole moral standard, the environment only gets a word in if the company concerned will lose profit in the short term, and it's competition not lose so much profit in the short term, as a result of damage to the environment.
This is why no country runs exclusively according to the principle of capitalism. This is why we elect leaders, people who we are (hopefully) trustworthy and have a good set of priorities and can make good decisions. A good leader will give a company financial and legal incentive to consider environmental issues.
2007-05-22 02:20:41 · answer #2 · answered by Timbo 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it replaced right into a organic Capitalist Society, in uncomplicated terms people who use the centers could pay for them, yet in the united statesa., because it replaced into based, the form is obvious how those centers would be paid, taxes. the place the objections come is while Capitalism will become the villain and freeloaders the sufferers. submit to in recommendations the early American settlement, while some settlers pronounced they did no longer prefer to artwork for the settlement, they have been advised they did no longer could desire to yet they'd not proportion in the advantages the two--that secure meals, water, seem after or risk-free practices. that they had a call, artwork or no longer, they chosen artwork considering the fact that they wanted the advantages the artwork added. immediately we've thank you to many in united statesa. who prefer the advantages without the artwork required. subsequently the "Socialist/Marxist" references. people who % to no longer artwork, nevertheless get the advantages--that may not a Capitalist Society.
2016-11-26 00:42:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is it global warming? We got people living on the street now in some country there no food to eat gas high people can't get to work i say we can use thing not to much al gore got a lot money how about the man makeing a living or family with out a home or food we need worry about that
2007-05-22 02:49:05 · answer #4 · answered by rnd1938 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That won't effect the US to much since most of our production has been moved to other countries. In fact, that is probably one of the reasons that they moved in the first place. They don't want to be accountable for pollution and they want to pay their workers 2 cents. But, being in conflict is the exact reason why business should not move abroad because that leaves our country defenseless when it comes to having to amp up production. . Imagine WW2 if our industry had been overseas.
2007-05-22 06:28:51 · answer #5 · answered by Java 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course. The environment is real. People need clean air to breathe, safe food and water to consume, or they get sick. Profit is little magnetic blips on computers in Zurich, New York, London, Tokyo...obviously little magnetic blips are more important than your health or that of your children.
2007-05-22 02:09:46 · answer #6 · answered by jxt299 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Please instruct me on where I can find the law or statute outlining this alleged "right to increase production"?
The time is long past overdue where business' "right" to rape the environment is OVER.
The profit motive has outlived its usefulness, and our actual HABITAT must be Priority Number One.
Can't spend money if there's no air to breathe.
2007-05-22 02:10:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
...in a capitalistic society, the environment IS the enemy.
...if you don't defeat it..over come it..exploit it.. or develop it,
YOU LOOSE
2007-05-24 11:01:55 · answer #8 · answered by olddogwatchin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To the degree of recklessness?...No, never.
2007-05-22 02:11:19 · answer #9 · answered by bradxschuman 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋