3 says. I can find proofs to support which ever position I want, if I'm willing to be myopic enough. But that won't do anything useful in the short term.
But those who "sorted it out a century ago" are still being debated. But since it's not actually sorted out because there are no practical solutions devised.
We here are currently waiting on the debate about methane control in ruminants. The boffins (and thus those on that side of the argument) declare they have a solution. But. It's theoretical, under a dozen lab runs, and so far proved to be unusable on herds bigger than about 20 animals because of the handling required, and for those without a few million in cash lying around, because the cost of the per animal usage. But they insist it should be taxable as "there's now a solution". The parallel is equivalent to saying we have police and laws so we must be able to catch and jail all criminals. At this point, on the ground, it's an unwinnable battle. So if the current position is untenuable (as pointed out in 1 or 2, as agnosticism is fine if the argument is conclusive) and change is neccessary, and moderate immediate reaction in the right direction* earlier in the piece is more likely to get needed progress than continued sophistry - especially when the sophistry will boil down to "who pays" (which of course should be the end consumer, since that's why companys and producers exist.....**)
* again 1 & 2 vs "increase production & profits" (as example)
** of course you could argue that too but it still won't get progress you need, so whose holding up the motion at that point?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-01-29 05:39 pm (UTC)But that won't do anything useful in the short term.
But those who "sorted it out a century ago" are still being debated. But since it's not actually sorted out because there are no practical solutions devised.
We here are currently waiting on the debate about methane control in ruminants. The boffins (and thus those on that side of the argument) declare they have a solution. But. It's theoretical, under a dozen lab runs, and so far proved to be unusable on herds bigger than about 20 animals because of the handling required, and for those without a few million in cash lying around, because the cost of the per animal usage. But they insist it should be taxable as "there's now a solution".
The parallel is equivalent to saying we have police and laws so we must be able to catch and jail all criminals.
At this point, on the ground, it's an unwinnable battle. So if the current position is untenuable (as pointed out in 1 or 2, as agnosticism is fine if the argument is conclusive) and change is neccessary, and moderate immediate reaction in the right direction* earlier in the piece is more likely to get needed progress than continued sophistry - especially when the sophistry will boil down to "who pays" (which of course should be the end consumer, since that's why companys and producers exist.....**)
* again 1 & 2 vs "increase production & profits" (as example)
** of course you could argue that too but it still won't get progress you need, so whose holding up the motion at that point?