Dear Cossomby,

«For example, should people who think the earth is flat be able to influence air transport policy? I realise this is an extreme example, but if everyone's opinion is equally valid and influential, where do we draw the line? Do we go with the majority opinion? What if they are wrong and minority opinion is correct?»

The question ought to be, who authorised you to begin with, to create air-transport policies for others!

What you claim in effect is "I know, they don't, therefore I have the right to dictate my policies to others". The name for that is 'paternalism'.

Come elections, we don't vote on opinions nor on facts, but on the policies of our choice. Our free choice may or may not depend on correct knowledge: one could choose, for example, to treat the earth as if it was flat even while they know that it is round - their choice is as good as yours. Where to draw the line? At not translating your knowledge and views into actions that affect others' lives without their consent. Even if you know better, that makes no difference.

---

Dear Mr. Opinion,

«Problem with socialism is that it is just a much driven by the idea of progress as capitalism is, if not even more so.»

Indeed, what is "progress" anyway? Doesn't it depend on where one wants to go? I am not interested in where either socialism or capitalism want to take me.

70% water so why call it Earth?

Because WE LIVE on Land, tjhat's why !
The environment will go on with or without us humans. Humans won't make it unless their numbers are reduced either through voluntary birth control or less medical interference !
It won't be long now before we get a really bad virus seeping through humanity !

individual,

70% water so why call it Earth? It's a joke. When I snap my fingers you will wake up from wherever you are.

SNAP! SNAP! You are now in the land of the living.

And you looked around in amazement and said "It won't be long now before we get a really bad virus seeping through humanity!" and someone showed you a picture of a coronavirus victim and you went back to sleep.

One way we could improve the environment is to teach third world nations to pick up rubbish. Some beaches I have been to have are putried. If we stopped all the ridiculous virtue signalling and preaching the man made gw myth then their would be heaps of money to clean the planet many times over. Unfortunaetly to many hugely overpaid unelected bureaucrats would lose their livelyhoods if we did anything practical. Like in California the fools rejoice over banning plastic straws while having the streets littered with used junkie needles.

For the 'true believers' like Greta and the extinction rebellion thugs we could export to China or Mumbia where they might learn something other than hypocrisy.

Yuyutsu, I am puzzled by your response to my comment. I wasn't offering any personal opinion or claiming to set air transport policy.

Chris wrote: 'In a liberal democracy, which I love, all opinions are valid and can influence policy outcomes (including the environment.)'

My query was about whether all opinions were really equal, and where do we draw the line? I used flat earth as an example, because it is an extreme, and there is general agreement on the scientific evidence that the earth is actually round. The relevance to air transport policy is that if the earth was really flat, it would have implications for air routes, travel times, fuel usage, costs, etc. (including military strategy!)all of which would then have implications for air transport policy and implementation.

You ask: 'The question ought to be, who authorised you to begin with, to create air-transport policies for others!'

Well, I wasn't claiming to be creating air transport policy, nor would I ever be in such a scenario. I assume in the future, as now, there are knowledgeable people who would be responsible for that.

My flat earth example asked what would happen when the knowledgeable people were required by government policy to develop practical programs and strategies based on opinion that was demonstrably incorrect. If we can't even sort out, then we are in real trouble when it comes to issues like climate change where there is debate over the science. We then have to decide whether we use the precautionary principle and take action in case the worse predictions eventuate, or ignore the whole thing, and then kick ourselves in the future if the worse predictions were right. Yes, the worse predictions may be wrong; but we take out house insurance for the worse case scenario, even though for most people this never eventuates.

Note that nowhere in this or my previous post have I stated that I know it all. In fact I don't! That's why I am asking: how do we decide which opinions to follow in making policy.

Yuyutsu,

However, your response illustrates another problem: where people attribute opinions to others that they don't actually hold. I didn't say or imply that I wanted to set air-transport policy, yet you apparently assumed that's what I thought, and that I was being paternalistic about it. It had never occurred to me that my hypothetical question would be read that way! For the record, I have no opinions about or interest whatever in air transport policy!

We see this a lot: make a statement, and however neutral a person intends it, and someone will attack them as too left, too right, too paternalist etc. This is a real barrier to constructive discussion and compromise. By compromise I mean focusing on what we agree on, rather than obsessing about what we disagree on, with a view to developing win:win solutions.