Talk:Using 'natural' as a criterion for prioritisation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(first draft) |
m (Heta moved page Variable Talk:Using 'natural' as a criterion for prioritisation to Talk:Using 'natural' as a criterion for prioritisation) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?== | ==Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?== | ||
{{ | {{Discussion| | ||
Statements = Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?| | |||
Resolution = 'Natural' cannot be effectively used as a criterion.| | |||
Argumentation= | Argumentation= | ||
{{ | :{{Attack|1|Cannot because the term natural is ambiguous.|Jouni}} | ||
{{ | ::{{Defend|3|If loss of biodiversity is caused by nature or a non-human species, is it therefore natural and preferred over human actions to prevent the loss?|Jouni}} | ||
::{{Defend|4|It is not usually clear which outcomes in a complex system are caused by which action or event, and therefore it is not easy or possible to say, what was caused by humans and what by nature.|Jouni}} | |||
::{{Defend|5|The environment changes anyway all the time, so what is the original, natural state that was untouched by the man?|Jouni}} | |||
:{{Attack|2|Instead, othen criteria should be used such as amount of biodiversity.|Jouni}} | |||
}} | |||
Latest revision as of 07:01, 22 August 2014
Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?
Closing statement: 'Natural' cannot be effectively used as a criterion. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
|