Phagocytosis is a great term for this phenomenon! These lexical fallacies exist everywhere, and one can almost always point to some area where they are working in cross-purposes to their original intent. How do you suggest we alter our thinking and legal language to better account for the relativity we need in applying rules?
I’m sure this can be answered but what was the problem with the bat tunnel? Expensive? Ineffective? Where I live we’re building wildlife overpasses and I view it as a definite good. But also I’m certainly aware that environmental regulations can lead to some ridiculous or counterproductive outcomes in many cases.
Phagocytosis is a great term for this phenomenon! These lexical fallacies exist everywhere, and one can almost always point to some area where they are working in cross-purposes to their original intent. How do you suggest we alter our thinking and legal language to better account for the relativity we need in applying rules?
I’m sure this can be answered but what was the problem with the bat tunnel? Expensive? Ineffective? Where I live we’re building wildlife overpasses and I view it as a definite good. But also I’m certainly aware that environmental regulations can lead to some ridiculous or counterproductive outcomes in many cases.
Extremely expensive, especially when you consider the opportunity cost. £120mn could be spent much more effectively on nature!
I’ve also seen some reports that it might actually kill the bats. But I’m not sure whether to believe them.