Environmental theory and collection of ideas/Ideas to politicians

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Some scientists conduct such research that probably does more harm to the ecosystem than good, for example, those who are genetically modifying creatures, who want to simulate the human brain in a machine, who do experiments with the smallest particles of matter, who ease the production of the weapons of mass destruction, or who increase the efficiency of the people in exploiting the planet. These scientists should not be supported from the money of the state. The scientists' salary should depend on how much good they do.
  • Foreign currency loans are like gambling. Even if we do not speak about the alleged tricks of the banks with the rates of exchange at the end of months, we should mention the ethical issues about the availability of this service to the people. Those who get these loans may not possess enough mental capabilities to judge whether these loans will be good to them or not. That is why it should be regulated more who can get such loans, and on what conditions. This is important not only for the persons who would get these loans, but for the persons' competitors and for the persons' families too. The competitors would have less chance to win in a sustainable (loan-free) way, and there would be more burden on the children than on the their parents with loans. Paternalism, sustainable competition, family matters and population control can all be reasons for regulating foreign currency loans, not to mention the Islamic or the early Christian laws that prohibit all loans with interest. In short, people should not owe more money than a specified amount, and this amount of money, or the maximal value of the loans should be specified by the state, and not by the banks. This would imply that loans should not be foreign currency loans.
  • If every kind of laptops used the same kind of recharger, then it would be easier to reuse these rechargers for laptops. This would, in one hand, diminish the harm to the environment, and in the other hand, it would make it easier for a firm producing solar cells to produce laptop-rechargers with solar cells. Apart from laptops, it can be worth standardizing the recharger equipments for other electronic gadgets too, and maybe even the accumulators belonging to them as well. This way the mass usage of cheap solar cells would become possible. If we go further, it might be worth standardizing some parts of computers and other electronic gadgets too, to make more use of the older or not functioning machines. If we go even further, we can extend this principle to many other machines, moreover, even for such things as the packaging of yoghurt. It is possible that it is not in the interest of the vendors. If the vendors do not agree to do this, then the realization of the plan is the task of politicians. However, we should take care of not restricting the people's liberty unnecessarily because of this: it is only worth standardizing if it's really reasonable, and a significant improvement can be achieved along with an insignificant amount of inconvenience; so if we do more good than harm.

Call for more ideas presented as shortly as these!

Further reading[edit | edit source]

A.C. Grayling - What is good? (2003; Phoenix, London, 2004)

Robert Van De Weyer - Against Usury: Resolving the Economic and Ecological Crisis (SPCK Publishing, 2010)

Rohan D'Souza - Environment, Technology and Development: Critical and Subversive Essays (2012)