Individual Rights, and other Myths

[Magnolia3]

Ah, but I AM "denying rights". I deny that you have the "right" to my money.

Somebody does a reckless dive and winds up a quadriplegic with round-the-clock care for the next 40 years, paid for by your and my taxes. I don't have the "right" to not pay it. So, as far as I'm concerned, he did not have the "right" to do it.

Mike can you please, in your opinion, define a "reckless dive"

 

[Magnolia3]

More crude oil is spewed into the water naturally is SoCal than any oil platform could spill.
Where do you think those tar balls come from?

Conversely, IN the Gulf of Mexico, naturally it leaks the equivalent of 2 Exxon Valdez's/yr worth of crude oil. The bacteria that naturally find this stuff tasty have grown expotentially with the quantity of oil in the water. Next for those of you who persist in bringing up the BP oil spill.. do some real research and google Ixtoc I . Then get back to me. For those of you who persist in bringing up the Exxon Valdez, different kind of crude than the BP.. and so on.. When some things happen naturally, for the most part nature has beat man to fixing that problem. Quite honestly I could bear, a lot better, complaints about how crappy the reefs are getting in the Keys far better than barely knowledgeable references to the BP oil spill that fairly scream you watch too much CNN. YMMV
M.

 

[DaleC]

The way I see it the debate really boils down to three concepts:

1.) That reckless divers should be more thoughtful of their effects on others (not really much of a debate as most intelligent people would agree)

2.) What actually defines reckless diving (much more of a grey area, especially when the attempt is made to connect it with those exercising their individual rights)

3.) That the concept of individual rights should be stymied for the greater good (a very contentious issue that has resulted in more than one global conflict)

Trying to put them all together in one unifying statement and coming up with a blanket solution isn't really possible unless ones solution is a totalitarian state. Those who defend the value of individual liberty are not so blind to the effects of such recklessness, and don't usually endorse it as behavior to be emulated; they just see it as the unfortunate byproduct of freedom. Yes it would be nice if people were less reckless, but some are still not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Conversely, IN the Gulf of Mexico, naturally it leaks the equivalent of 2 Exxon Valdez's/yr worth of crude oil. The bacteria that naturally find this stuff tasty have grown expotentially with the quantity of oil in the water. Next for those of you who persist in bringing up the BP oil spill.. do some real research and google Ixtoc I . Then get back to me. For those of you who persist in bringing up the Exxon Valdez, different kind of crude than the BP.. and so on.. When some things happen naturally, for the most part nature has beat man to fixing that problem. Quite honestly I could bear, a lot better, complaints about how crappy the reefs are getting in the Keys far better than barely knowledgeable references to the BP oil spill that fairly scream you watch too much CNN. YMMV
M.

Curious about that bacteria you mentioned ... was there any measurement of how much bacterial growth occurred after the spill? Or any thought to unintended side-effects of that bacterial growth? Nature tends to self-correct pretty well ... if given appropriate amounts of time. But when disasters occur ... man-made or otherwise ... the timeline rarely allows for natural defenses to increase to a level that can deal with the problem without throwing some ecological niche way out of balance. When this happens, all sorts of unintended consequences can occur.

I agree with you that the media tends to blow things way out of all sensible proportion ... then again, they're in the business of selling sensationalism and any thinking adult needs to take "news" stories with a careful dosage of salt. On the other hand, sometimes well-intentioned measures can create more problems than they solve. For example, has anyone really examined what all that Corexit did to the plankton and other links in the food chain? It could be years ... or decades ... before that stuff works its way up to the point where it impacts what humans eat. Or perhaps it will have no significant impact at all. Does anyone really know? I sure haven't been able to find anything definitive on the subject.

What sometimes seems like a simple act can often have tragic and costly consequences. Like tossing a few lionfish into the Caribbean ... what harm could it possibly do?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Magnolia3]

The way I see it the debate really boils down to three concepts:

1.) That reckless divers should be more thoughtful of their effects on others (not really much of a debate as most intelligent people would agree)

2.) What actually defines reckless diving (much more of a grey area, especially when the attempt is made to connect it with those exercising their individual rights)

3.) That the concept of individual rights should be stymied for the greater good (a very contentious issue that has resulted in more than one global conflict)

Trying to put them all together in one unifying statement and coming up with a blanket solution isn't really possible unless ones solution is a totalitarian state. Those who defend the value of individual liberty are not so blind to the effects of such recklessness, and don't usually endorse it as behavior to be emulated; they just see it as the unfortunate byproduct of freedom. Yes it would be nice if people were less reckless, but some are still not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think it all boils down to "you cannot legislate common sense". ymmv

 

[Magnolia3]

Curious about that bacteria you mentioned ... was there any measurement of how much bacterial growth occurred after the spill?

Yes... USF Marine Science has been following the spill from the beginning and reported "an amazing expotential growth of this particular bacteria" They also noted a die off of the bacteria once oil levels subsided post capping.

good article on the subject... referencing Woods Hole group. The USF Marine Science Dept. was featured on newscasts here in the Bay Area..
Oil-eating bacteria have started to clean the Deepwater Horizon spill | Not Exactly Rocket Science | Discover Magazine

In other articles I have read the spill in the Gulf of Campeche had the waters near normal about 18-24 mos after capping of Ixtoc I

As far as "reckless" goes the word can be considered subjective on many levels. I sail solo a lot... was out yesterday in fact in the open Gulf of Mexico. I had to move a boat, my choices were limited to time constraints. I looked at my weather, charts and time and realized I had little choice but to run offshore in crappy weather.. truly crappy weather. My body is beat to heck and back, we took water over the bow the entire trip.. we as in the boat an me. At no time was I in danger of being tossed overboard, at no time was I not in cell/radio range and I made it clear to the boat owner my intentions and my course of action. As I tied of the boat behind HWH electronics where it was going.. the boys there told me I was a lunatic for going offshore and all that.. Factors in my decision were my level of experience, owners trust in me, and his boat. At no time was I reckless nor unsafe nor untethered to something. Reckless is a subjective term methinks.. it falls, sometimes, into one's comfort zone..then again there are those with a desire to win a Darwin Award. Far be it for me to disuade them from thier goal.. but I won't be anywhere near them when they do.. again ymmv

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Yes... USF Marine Science has been following the spill from the beginning and reported "an amazing expotential growth of this particular bacteria" They also noted a die off of the bacteria once oil levels subsided post capping.

good article on the subject... referencing Woods Hole group. The USF Marine Science Dept. was featured on newscasts here in the Bay Area..
Oil-eating bacteria have started to clean the Deepwater Horizon spill | Not Exactly Rocket Science | Discover Magazine

In other articles I have read the spill in the Gulf of Campeche had the waters near normal about 18-24 mos after capping of Ixtoc I

As far as "reckless" goes the word can be considered subjective on many levels. I sail solo a lot... was out yesterday in fact in the open Gulf of Mexico. I had to move a boat, my choices were limited to time constraints. I looked at my weather, charts and time and realized I had little choice but to run offshore in crappy weather.. truly crappy weather. My body is beat to heck and back, we took water over the bow the entire trip.. we as in the boat an me. At no time was I in danger of being tossed overboard, at no time was I not in cell/radio range and I made it clear to the boat owner my intentions and my course of action. As I tied of the boat behind HWH electronics where it was going.. the boys there told me I was a lunatic for going offshore and all that.. Factors in my decision were my level of experience, owners trust in me, and his boat. At no time was I reckless nor unsafe nor untethered to something. Reckless is a subjective term methinks.. it falls, sometimes, into one's comfort zone..then again there are those with a desire to win a Darwin Award. Far be it for me to disuade them from thier goal.. but I won't be anywhere near them when they do.. again ymmv

Thanks for the references.

Your sailing story brings back memories ... I spent 10 years racing sailboats in the New England area, and we'd be out in all kinds of crazy weather. What you describe is someone who understands the risks, and takes steps to deal with them. My version of recklessness is someone who doesn't understand the risks ... or who does and doesn't put in the effort to mitigate them.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Mike Boswell]

Mike can you please, in your opinion, define a "reckless dive"

Why yes, it would be a pleasure. Reckless means "utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action".

Reckless | Define Reckless at Dictionary.com


Some posters here have opined that we have the "right" to be "unconcerned about the consequences" of our actions. Or they equate the loss of this "right" to a loss of individual liberty.

I believe we have a "duty" to be concerned about the consequences of our actions, and that only by doing so can we assure our continued liberties.

 

[Mike Boswell]

It would make sense Dale, but to my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that "divers have the right to dive any way they like, even if they harm others." The original question was in-response to a discussion regarding deep air. Moreover, that the "right" had nothing to do with a public waterway (using Bob's example), but a person's ability to use air to any depth they chose to use it.

As Bob correctly says, I didn't mention deep air in the OP. But some eminent people in those threads were quoted as saying things like "Well, I certainly would never argue with anyone's right to dive however they want, but ..." and then they would go on to warn against recklessness.

And those statements got me to thinking. The first thought was, do we really "have the right"? Yes, of course we are free to do it, we are able to do it, nobody is preventing us from doing it, but the word "right" has some important meanings.

And the second thought was, should a mentor say "you can do it because you have the right" or should he say "You can do it but you have a responsibility". It seems to me that the first statement establishes an ethic of entitlement, while the latter establishes an ethic of accountability.

 

[Magnolia3]

Why yes, it would be a pleasure. Reckless means "utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action".

Reckless | Define Reckless at Dictionary.com


Some posters here have opined that we have the "right" to be "unconcerned about the consequences" of our actions. Or they equate the loss of this "right" to a loss of individual liberty.

I believe we have a "duty" to be concerned about the consequences of our actions, and that only by doing so can we assure our continued liberties.

So my perception of the above is that anything out of your comfort zone is reckless... in life it is completely impossible to know ALL the consequences of one's actions. It is possible, to know most. To say that a person is totally unconcerned might be a misnomer or your perception of someone's "attitude" no?

I thought I would get a definiton based on the context of the conversation and the chatboard it is on...