Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathji
I totally agree, but what he said was this:
Saying that if we wait until it is worse than it is right now, we won't be able to do anything about it.
That claim is what I didn't understand. It essentially says "Today we can change things, but by tomorrow we can't at any expense."
I was just calling out his overly dramatic statement, not disagreeing that something needed to be done.
|
I guess we can continue to delay and keep pilling on the costs of action from this delay. I don't see that as a particularly constructive point of view though. If the costs are high now but will be much higher in the future what's the political likelihood of us doing something in the future?
And we really don't know about the system we're working with. For every bit of delay with increase the odds that there's nothing we can do in the future. Doesn't seem like a good bet to me knowing that it's cheaper and easier to do something now regardless.
Couple that with the costs of disaster and we're being reckless.