I would like to talk about a point raised in Leopold's essay. I understand now after reading it a few times, that this sin't Leopold's stance at all. This is something I messed up in my SLAP, but better luck next time I guess.
He points out another side of things that he doesn't believe, but still feels is important to mention.
"The evidence had to be economic in order to be valid."
Obviously this isn't 100% true, but economics still play a vital role in our decisions when it comes to the natural world. If we completely outlaw companies that our polluting the environment at once then an unreasonable amount of people will be out of jobs. So how do we find a balance?
No comments:
Post a Comment