Every local action has global consequences.

Throwing a dead battery into a dump -> Battery acid gets dragged by the rain -> Polluting a river -> Flows polluting a sea -> Currents polluting all oceans.

Of course effects become smaller as scope grows, but still in many instances it's measurable, see Fukushima.

Yes, you're missing my point to the GP, and he missed the point to the GGP.

It's in Mexico's right to stop experiments on the global atmosphere from their country.

I doubt either the globalists or the “every country is sovereign”-ists disagree with your last paragraph.

I think it’s also in Mexico’s right to authorize prototype experiments that could be potentially scaled up to have a material global effect.

Didn't miss the point, just observing how it's an irrelevant and counterproductive distraction to the main issue. That sort of thing matters to some people.

As for the rest. I fully agree with sokoloff's reply.

I didn't miss anybody's point. Your comment made me realize something that I wanted to share.

That's the big question.

That's not the question. The answer to that is Mexico, the article is about Mexico judging it and "cracking down".

The GP was clarifying the context. You refused to talk about the meat of their argument and instead opted to be pedantic about how the atmosphere diffuses.

No it doesn't matter. Where they do this is entirely beside the point. They can do it from international waters. Everyone is affected. Laws are arbitrary.

It's great that Mexico is stepping up and protect the atmosphere, which indeed impacts not just Mexico but everybody, but you're absolutely right that international waters are still a massive loophole in the laws of the world. Almost anything goes, there. Many ships still burn incredibly dirty fuel in international waters, simply because they can and it's cheaper. We really need better international regulation of these sort of commons.

So laws are arbitrary and if something is arbitrary it doesn't matter, so if anyone does anything that is arbitrary (in your mind) it doesn't matter?

Let's back up for a second. What percentage would you say this experiment has in being correct?

Of course it matters.

I updated my post with a few questions to clarify your stance.

The point of the question is to ask whether you think this has 100% chance of not causing issues.

The next step of course would then be to say, okay if it isn't 100% safe then do you support Mexico's right to say, "hey this could cause us or the world harm, stop it".

It may cause issues, it may not. It's so hard to know, we may not even know even if they do carry out these types of experiments.

Okay, so we're at the next step. Do you support Mexico's decision to stop experiments on the atmosphere that may cause issues?

In the end I don't think it really matters.

That's a cop out to the question and discussion.

It's perfectly in line with my position the whole discussion. Laws are arbitrary. Mexico is a soverign country and have the right to have whatever laws they want.

So you support Mexico's stance then? I was asking for an opinion.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

It was a question, I re-clarified.

In other words, do you think it was right for Mexico to stop this, or do you disagree with their actions?

And my answer is that it doesn't matter. Right or wrong doesn't exist in international politics.

Do I want this to be the state of affairs? No. Can I change it? No. So it doesn't matter.

If all voters felt that way democracy would fall because no-one would do anything.

So why comment in the first place if you think it doesn't matter?

What I think is... your thought was challenged so you backpedalled then just gave up and said the topic "didn't matter".

> So why comment in the first place if you think it doesn't matter?

To show how it doesn't matter.

> What I think is... your thought was challenged so you backpedalled then just gave up and said the topic "didn't matter".

You know, what you think also doesn't matter.

> To show how it doesn't matter.

It's counterproductive to talk about something that doesn't matter to you.

> You know, what you think also doesn't matter.

That's subjective. And it mattered enough for you to reply, and for countless others to read, and for me to write.

The discussion about what matters matters, even if the subject itself doesn't matter. It is perhaps the most important category of discussion. If we don't know what matters, how can we put our time to good use?

I think what he means is that Mexico would be just as effected if they did in the ocean, or in India or wherever.

I'm aware. But if it did cause issues it would concentrate in Mexico and dissipate globally.

But what I'm asking them is.. do they believe it's in Mexico's right to ask a person to stop experimenting on the atmosphere (global or otherwise) from their country.

>Okay... who would judge those who want to do experiments to the global atmosphere from their country.

Replace "experiments" with the more general/relevant "atmosphere modifications," which includes pollution for amoral profit motive.

What makes "experiments" special? Is that reasoning morally justifiable, given the many millions who will die in the "business as usual" case?