Harish Palaniappan's

That's almost become a phrase to cover-up things these days.

When a country goes nuclear and you ask WHY?.. they say that.
When the government passes a bill to get access to your privacy, without your consent, and you ask HOW CAN YOU?.. they say that.

What are Advantages .. and What are disadvantages?

If you are still thinking that advantages are good consequences for everybody, and disadvantages the opposite of it... you are probably living in ancient world or still too young to understand the real reasons behind things.

Like every movie these days seem to have, if we did a behind-the-scenes thing for every political decision every government and the political folk make in this world, .... i bet they will become more action-packed than the latest hollywood flicks.... of what is happening in Iraq and the mistakes that even American president and British prime minister accept, it already is better than hollywood.

There are innumerable cases already and Iraqi liberation is just new among them. For the others, we could briefly analyze two cases.

Case 1:
When the Narmada bachao andolan (NBA), a protest group constituting villagers from the villages sunk by a dam built across river Narmada asked the indian government officials to compensate them for taking the decision to drown their villages,

and when that didnt help and they moved the supreme court of law in india,

the judgement by the supreme court had this statement.. "When the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages...", and ofcourse also did the judge recommend (not ordered) the government to form a committee to analyze the problems faced by the displaced villagers and compensate them, but that's a different story and we know how politicians will implement recommendations.

Case 2:
Similarly when every country goes nuclear and does nuclear explosion tests, the next day the country justifies it with "the advantages of understanding and using nuclear technology for generating power and help other research activities far outweigh the disadvantage of sceptically feeling that the technology could be used in warfare and destroy millions of people".

Are politicians really short-sighted and seeing only one-side of things.. that probably we can only have different opinions.

Bottomline:
It would be stupid to lean on one side and say 'No' to these decisions, and also at the same time say 'Yes' and continue doing it. Probably this is why some people often say "hmm. No and Yes actually" when you ask them complex questions.

I have had quite a few teachers in my school or college days, who used to brainstorm the class one side.. a science teacher would come in the first hour and say that science is what helps evolve and grow, and though there are some disadvantages we should mature to use science in ethical ways.... and the next hour a history teacher would come and say, science and technology may have done good things, but have also paved way for destroying the fabric of peaceful life that used to exist, and science should not-study or only-study some topics like nuclear fission and not try it (Don't try this at home kind of warning.)

One can't stop many bad people grouping together to form a bad organization, acquire money and resources from different bad groups, and finally use them to satisfy their wacky pleasure of destroying the voice of the good groups, so that they can enjoy being bad, lazy... and of course wacky for their life.

In my opinion:

No matter if some of the disadvantages are bad and cruel...If advantages far outweigh the disadvantages of a plan.. then the plan should be implemented !

My agreement with the about statement is 51%, as against the 49% of my thoughts being critical about the statement. And I understand that majority lenience make a final opinion, which means I am in favor of the statement.

In my opinion, the facts that i have seen around me, the evolution of life i have seen, i have read, or i have heard, seem to suggest to me that the advantages of using the statement to convince majority opinions on the evolution of things for the good sake, .... far outweigh the disadvantages of winning a majority opinion for some decisions like testing nuclear fission.

But like the science teacher said, the good people however limited they might become, should make sure that whatever done is done for the welfare and good of everybody and atleast 75% of the consequences should be good for all sorts of beings impacted.

Ideally, before every major decision taken which has negative impacts on the environment or on any living species, an analysis of the impacts should be documented and a % fairness approach should be applied.

For example, to cut down trees in 400 acres of land to make it viable for developing a new city, a specific number of trees and portions of a few acres of land should be identified to be left in place to merge into the environment of the new city.

In essense we would still disturb the population of birds and similar life in the land, but we might have given a chance to 20% of birds and the life to remain, although having to try to cope up with the pressures of a city.

At the same time the city would also have given up 20% of its ambitions of becoming a mega city or metro where trees are considered to occupy costly real estate.

hmm! I hope this post brainstorms somebody someday.