(I'm not serious but this is
presented to spur debate because this is an
extreme position that can be defended if someone really thinks «Earth First and Humanity Second.»
This
position is very strict and, from my view, overshoots the mark — possibly on the basis of rather
extreme assumptions of irrational consumer behaviour such as those
presented in paragraph 38 of the Judgment (which, in my view, do not seem to represent the actual behaviour of the average consumer or would, at least, have deserved some further evidentiary support).