Example of insurance applied to the environment?

[Abennor]

Hello

I would like to share an idea certainly a little utopian or even downright naive ...

Recently, I had a cartridge in a car, observation, insurance and all the shaking. And it was while listening to my insurance which explains to me how the workings of insurance work roughly that I had this "idea". Finally, I did not have the idea strictly speaking but rather than why not do like insurance?

Let me explain:

There is an accident between person A and another B. A is at fault. A and B each have insurance A 'and B'. In the case of harmless damage (I mean without serious bodily injury) A 'reimburses A and B' reimburses B.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Let's apply this to the environment.
We must not delude everyone, me first, threw a paper / litter in the nature for various reasons: Not the time to pick up, do not care, etc.

However, I remain the first to moan after those who dump rubbish (papers, butts, cans, or even larger). Because let's face it, I don't like living in a trash can and no one else for that matter.

Besides, why do we do outside, what we wouldn't like to do at home? Personally, I don't throw my cigarettes on the ground at my place !!!

A solution, that everyone collects one or more trash on the street. So, I can already hear the majority of people shouting: Why, I would? I was not the one who threw it away! There are cleaning services (it's true but not everywhere), etc.

I will use my example of insurance.
Why, it is not A 'who reimburses A AND B? After all A is at fault, it is his insurance to pay !!
Well, because at the same time or soon, two people will have an accident: AA and BB and this time, BB will be at fault. So rather than start exchanging paperwork, A 'and B' prefer to take care of their policyholders because ultimately it comes down to the same thing.

So then, why would I pick up a piece of paper that I haven't dumped? Because quite simply, one day I threw one and I didn't have time to pick it up.

Afterwards, I told you, it can be a naive way of looking at things. But if people stopped to moan about the fact that it is frankly a lack of civility to throw near their home, but to pick up what they throw would not be inadvertently at the other end of the country, even of the world, what would be a first step.
Afterwards, we may appreciate living in a trash can. But there is another problem.

I hope not to have you too much em ..... r but, it is an idea had by a nice day after a cartridge, I should maybe pass a scanner, you never know ^^

Sincerely, Aby

PS: I have it in the Direct Recycling subject, ideas, tips and tricks, but I am not convinced that it is the right place. So if you want to move it ...

[netshaman]

So if I follow your reasoning, anyone seeing a paper that has been thrown by someone else must pick it up, is that it?
But then, each person who throws one will say in all good conscience: "I don't care, someone else will pick it up!"

one day I threw one and I didn't have time to pick it up.

Yet you did have time to throw it away!
You might as well have put it in your pocket!
Maybe it takes longer than throwing it away ...

Sounds a bit easy, doesn't it?
As far as I am concerned, I have never thrown rubbish in the wild since I have been on this planet, because that was just common sense!
It can hardly be a question of education and culture, because it was my parents who instilled in me this notion of what is good or bad, which is sorely lacking in today's generations.

PS: maybe we should throw the litter collected, in the people who threw it?

[nonoLeRobot]

Abennor I can see where you are coming from and without making it a complicated system, picking up a piece of paper from the floor, whoever the author is, seems to me an extremely pragmatic process to clean up nature a bit. Nothing prevents yelling at the author, but nothing but picking it up without wasting time arguing about whether I have the right or if it is my duty seems effective (if it is fair or not we crazy a little ...).

[netshaman]

But still it will not prevent the person who threw him to start again!
Since it is someone else who will do it for him, if this person is really I don't give a damn, and I met him believe me!

[boubka]

Hello
angelic version of insurers

I will use my example of insurance.
Why, it is not A 'who reimburses A AND B? After all A is at fault, it is his insurance to pay !!
Well, because at the same time or soon, two people will have an accident: AA and BB and this time, BB will be at fault. So rather than start exchanging paperwork, A 'and B' prefer to take care of their policyholders because ultimately it comes down to the same thing.

no, it does not come down to the same thing, you have to go through with the explanation:
here is the completely illegal way of proceeding with insurance: the famous insurance code which is none other than a commercial agreement.
once a year they meet and calculate the total cost of claims, from this comes a coef which is deducted from the profit (it is more complex but basically it is ca)
then we readjust and the "bad pupils" are reduced.

the goal is to compensate as little as possible his own client and to try to put him the maximum harm (the 50/50 is ideal for your insurer) and to prevent recourse (non-aggression pact between insurance companies).
it is like the so-called independent expert who is paid by the insurer, if the expertise does not suit the employer (insurance) then it is simply replaced.
the system is far more vicious than you might think.
one might think that the insurer must defend its client, it is not the case and it is even the opposite.

after for the papers to pick up it would not be bad .... we can always dream

[Abennor]

I warned it was naive
But I honestly think that it could be a track to dig ... a slogan can be?

Quote:
one day I threw one and I didn't have time to pick it up.

Yet you did have time to throw it away!
You might as well have put it in your pocket!
Maybe it takes longer than throwing it away ...

Don't kid yourself, when I write this, I'm aware that with all the good attention in the world, I have to leave stuff. And I challenge anyone to say that they don't leave anything behind.
I was speaking, for people in general.

Let's say it's a way of seeing that could have a simple outlet ...

I am quite pessimistic by nature about Man. I also think that we can be divided into 2 categories.
Those who do not care to live in a trash can and that global warming, or the protection of human activity of species are abstract concepts and fight their necks .... es because the day when the return of stick will arrive, they will no longer have toothache.
And a second category, those who care about the environment ... and here I am even worse ...
To explain myself, this second category, I see it in a rather somber way. I subdistive it, roughly, in two:
- those who act for not for themselves for but for future generations and therefore will not see the results of their lifetime ... and those who act for this to give themselves a clear conscience and are persuaded to make a "gesture for the planet". We must stop with this shitty slogan, because, if the Earth's past teaches us anything, it is that It and life does not need us to get out of it. Life and Earth have seen worse. We must stop telling ourselves that we are going to destroy it and that as "master of the world" it is our duty to preserve it.
By doing that, we put ourselves outside the system, but we are an integral part of it. It is not in our capacity to save the planet, however, our actions can save or condemn us.

It should be known that, for the actions of the Man, the time of construction is inversely proportional to the time of destruction.

So then, if we all pick up, if only because it's our house, and from time to time, well, we all put our house away (even if our wife shoots up when we don't care boxon) it could help us to live better or in any case, future generations ...

A slogan like, "I pick up in front of me what I left behind me" or something like that ....

in short, I quickly go into a spin, sorry for my litany if it seems obscure and / or irrelevant.

Aby

[netshaman]

+1
The goal of an insurer is to earn the maximum money, not to make social it is clear!

[Abennor]

Hello again

I posted a sandwich and while writing it, boubka and netshaman responded ...
I was just talking about the principle "we take care of our policyholders because when there is a fault, at the other end of the country, we have it in our right"
After reading it, I realize that insurance may not be an example to take, but the idea developed, even if it is based on a bad example, remains valid for me.

"I pick up in front of what I left behind"

@boubka
Insurance is not a good example. Anyway, if they were altruistic, it's been a long time since they'd shut down ...

Aby

[sen-no-sen]

+1
The goal of an insurer is to earn the maximum money, not to make social it is clear!

Insurance is a purely for-profit company, altruism (used by some whose name I will not mention) is just "com", and a way to collect "freelance ... them clients".


Abennor wrote:

To explain myself, this second category, I see it in a rather somber way. I subdistive it, roughly, in two:
- those who act for not for themselves but for future generations and therefore will not see the results during their lifetime ... and those who act to give themselves a clear conscience and are persuaded to make a "gesture for the planet".

There is in fact pragmatic ecology: "if I pollute, I will pay the costs", and symbiotic ecology: "respect what must be".

We must stop with this shitty slogan, because, if the Earth's past teaches us anything, it is that It and life does not need us to get out of it. Life and the Earth have seen worse. We must stop telling ourselves that we are going to destroy it and that as "master of the world" it is our duty to preserve it.

Life doesn't need us to get out of it, it's a done deal, but it doesn't need us to destroy it !!!
Life has been put to the test many times (around 6-7 phases of mass extinction).
However, the destruction that took place in the past was episodic, while that which we cause by our activities, depends for the first time only on the will of a living species and is perpetuated over time ...