Well, written article, indeed, but I have my own point of view here. This is a classic case of constant battle of choices. What is good today may not be right tomorrow. For ex. Coal was the most important source of energy at one point in time. Now we find coal as a pollutant.
I am in Colombo today. went to the Port city being developed with Chinese money. A lot of seawater has been reclaimed to build world-class infrastructure, something similar to Dubai. Another live case of choice between Biomes to be maintained or infrastructure to be built for meeting today’s human requirements.
To clarify, my post doesn't mean you always pick conservation over economic activity. There are times when economic activity should go ahead. My point here is about acknowledging the implicit biases in law and how the context has dramatically changed. Today humanity is suffering from environmental degradation therefore, assumptions from the past need to be revisited and new cost benefit analyses need to be done
Well, written article, indeed, but I have my own point of view here. This is a classic case of constant battle of choices. What is good today may not be right tomorrow. For ex. Coal was the most important source of energy at one point in time. Now we find coal as a pollutant.
I am in Colombo today. went to the Port city being developed with Chinese money. A lot of seawater has been reclaimed to build world-class infrastructure, something similar to Dubai. Another live case of choice between Biomes to be maintained or infrastructure to be built for meeting today’s human requirements.
To clarify, my post doesn't mean you always pick conservation over economic activity. There are times when economic activity should go ahead. My point here is about acknowledging the implicit biases in law and how the context has dramatically changed. Today humanity is suffering from environmental degradation therefore, assumptions from the past need to be revisited and new cost benefit analyses need to be done