This response seems to fall into what's known as an appeal to ignorance fallacy. It suggests that because no specific solution is provided, the best course of action is for you to experiment blindly, without any guidance on how to mitigate ecological damage. If the aim is to innovate in a way that respects and preserves the ecosystem, then merely pointing out the vastness of the internet or suggesting local knowledge is enough, doesn't actually advance the conversation or offer practical advice. If you're not going to provide a logical response or help in figuring out a solution that tackles the complexities of water transfer and ecosystem preservation, it might be best not to respond at all. However, I'm interested in understanding if there's another perspective or perhaps some initial thoughts on how we might approach this challenge without falling back on such fallacies?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: