View Single Post
Old 09-25-2009, 04:20 PM   #5
Spencer Durland
New Member
Spencer Durland's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14

Of course a net positive is a good thing. But so long as there is a difference between that which is best for a given person and that which is best for the planet on which we rely, there will be an ethical question. In other words, so long as "solar-lacto" is worse for a person but better for the environment and "solar-meat" is better for a person and worse for the environment, the question will remain.

It seems reasonably clear that a doctor's responsibility would be to recommend only that which most promotes the health of his/her patient. Similarly, an environmental scientist would be bound to recommend that course which offers the best possibility for long-term environmental health. The predicament falls on those who are concerned about both.

I am not arguing for any one answer to that question. I just thought of it recently and was interested in what other people thought.
Spencer Durland is offline   Reply With Quote