Difference between revisions of "Talk:Using 'natural' as a criterion for prioritisation"
From Testiwiki
(first draft) |
(first argumentation added) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?== | ==Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?== | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{Resolution| |
| − | Dispute= Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion? | + | Topic=Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?| |
| − | Outcome= 'Natural' cannot be effectively used as a criterion. | + | Dispute= Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?| |
| + | Outcome= '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}} | ||
| + | }} | ||
Revision as of 17:16, 27 December 2006
Can 'natural' be effectively used as a criterion?
| Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
Argumentation:
|
