Page 18 - Human To News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Scientifically supported that it emerged from the lab. if you look at sars in 2003, 2004, it went from a bat to a cat to humans, but never learned how to go human to human. there's been less than 10,000 cases to date. same with mrs. this virus immediately understood how to go human-to-human. we're at risk of variant to variant because it's learned how to be efficient. with sars and mrs, we have not seen a lot of variants. so this research for people trying to make pathogens that are more pathogenic for humans, under the argument that they need to do it to be prepared, i

Is a waste of time. no, if that were the case i would agree with you 100%. i don't think that's the case. in 1996, the international court ofjustice in the hague, for the first time, said the protection of the environment is part of international law. so the next stage is to ask myself the question if we're going to use the law at the international level to stop evil mass killing, should we use international law — criminal law — to stop people from causing massive damage to the human — to the environment? so who's in your notional crosshairs? is it the chinese building a coal—fired sta...

It's not we're going to take notjust decades, it's going to take centuries. but your second point is an important one. since 1945, we've had four crimes. the old one, war crimes. 19th century then three invented at nuremberg — crime of aggression, waging illegal war, genocide, crimes against humanity. they're all focused on the protection of the human. there's a gap and we are facing that gap right now in the face of climate change, biodiversity, marine pollution, there's a gap in relation to the protection of the environment — it is not protected by the criminal law. and the proposalfor a...

Because if it doesn't happen, people begin to think, you know what? international law is a waste of time. no, if that were the case, i would agree with you 100%. i don't think that's the case. in 1996, the international court ofjustice in the hague, for the first time, said the protection of the environment is part of international law. so the next stage is to ask myself the question if we're going to use the law at the international level to stop people mass killing, should we use international law — criminal law — to stop people from causing massive damage to the human — to the environ...

But your second point is an important one. since 1945, we've had four crimes. the old one, war crimes — 19th century. then three invented at nuremberg — crime of aggression, waging illegal war, genocide, crimes against humanity. they all focus on the protection of the human. there's a gap and we're facing that gap right now in the face of climate change, the face of biodiversity, marine pollution. there's a gap in relation to the protection of the environment — it is not protected by the criminal law. and the proposalfor a new crime of ecocide — which, incidentally, is notjust supporte...