Bitcoin Forum

At the expense of exploiting the environment which sustains us. When the pace of technology outpaces the natural compensatory systems of the biosphere which sustains us, then we find ourselves in our current unfortunate situation.


An excellent summary of the half assed thought which got us into this bad situation. Shelve the the Bible next to Grimm's Fairy Tales and work towards thinking about sustainability, and the complex interactions of the ecosystems which are not endlessly bountiful if abused. Do you know how many years it took the Earth to produce one day's usage of oil? And most importantly, ask yourself why the numerous libertarian think tanks behind the denialism industry (first tobacco, then climate change), engage in such deceptive propaganda (the Oregon Institute petition, etc.). Answer: it's because they can't sell the goals of libertarianism itself (no regulations) as being effective methods to address these larger issues, so they instead try to manufacture the doubt that such problems even exist.

you will get no arguement from me about the preservation of our planet and its resources, but the problem is so many in think tanks and governments concerned with globablism at any cost, bastardize true sustainability in their goals of world domination in the name of humanity, the enviroment and sustainability.

ANY farmer on the face of the earth has been taught true sustainability that has been handed down from generation to generation. They go to extreme lengths for this purpose because they know the relation of our survival to the natural worlds ecosystems.

What you are talking about is corporate interests and externalities they do not want to deal with that need to be stopped. All they care about is their corporate bonuses and protection of investors. Everything else is secondary. This needs to change.

I have done alot of research about global warming and the earth is indeed heating up. The cause is increased sun activity, the sun is heating up, the solar system is heating up, and other planets are heating up. Certainly an arguement can be made that we add to the problem here on earth, but I have seen no evidence we have caused the problem. All they do is show the temp and co2 stats and make a huge jump that we are the cause. It is pure supposition and conjecture, and I believe the ruling elite thave created this, use it and abuse it for their own nefarious purposes of creating a worker population of enslaved subjects to serve them. There are just as many, if not more scientists who follow the provable facts of our solar system heating up than the supposition and conjecture that we are the cause of the earth heating up, but you wont see that in the media, and if you do its blasted by the very insidious influences trying to enslave us.

its the age-old thesis, antithesis, synthesis hegelian dialectic where they have an agenda, then they give you a problem to create public outcry and fear, then give you their pre-packaged solution. You always lose out. You always lose freedom, liberty, and wealth from it.

In b4 FirstAscent's "brown-lasher" rant.

Great post, though Bind.  Can you point me to some resources on the increased solar and sun activity causing global warming?  Thanks.

I first heard about it about a decade ago when NASA started publishing documents concerning information gleaned from their probes into different parts of the solar system. Shortly thereafter, alot of disappeared from the media and websites. Recently it has made a return so I am guessing to many people are finding ut about it for them to stifle it.

For decades, scientists with dissenting opinions have been marginalized and their careers ruined becasue they did not go along to get along with the international "consensus" of global warming, even when they were there TO make the consensus, specifically those who were actually a part of the globalist-backed IPCC juggernaught.

Their dissenting opinions have been altered and in some cases completely deleted from IPCC published documentation and consensus.

here are some links... it isnt a comprehensive list as I have have a few reformats since I started looking into it, so its best to use the google and search key terms.

Solar System Heating Up:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/abs/nature02470.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697309.htm
http://www.biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html
http://www.biocab.org/Global_Warming.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978ApJ...223..589V
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12353
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=33618
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086

IPCC Fraud and Coercion:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/459-new-documents-show-ipcc-ignored-doubts-about-himalayan-glacier-scare.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100205/india-ipcc-un-climate-change-global-warming.htm
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12823
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/13241
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/ipcc-peer-review-tantamount-to-fraud-ipcc-official-admits.html

List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming)

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12)

Documantary Movie: The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#)

According to the above documantary: The sun is heating up the earth, causing the oceans to release Co2. There is a time lag between the temp increase and the rise of Co2 caused by the sheer volume of the worlds oceans which takes longer to heat up that volume of water to release the Co2. Remember the separated graphs in Al Gores Inconvenient truth that made it look like Co2 was causing global warming? They never did a layover of the graphs that would have shown this time lag more accurately. Why? If humans and Co2 were causing global warming, the Co2 would be appearing before the temerature changes. That is not the case. The temp changes appear before the Co2 increase according to ice core sampling and testing.  Additionally, if you track earth temp to solar activity history, you will see an even more direct relationship with much less time-lag than you have with temp-to-Co2. No global warming proponents have debunked the ice core sampling and testing to my knowledge. They are ignoring it like it does not even exist. They just keep pushing the man-made global warming issue. The issue gets no media attention either. Wonder why.

Then we can take a closer look at the sustainability movement. An affectionate term for UN Agenda 21. Yes it's real and its right in your local town or municipality.

+1
When denialism is applied to climate change it is ignoring the simple fact that bad things like global warming may result from multiple causes.

Libertarian fundamentalists are saying something like ohh they are lots of car accidents that happen in that curve because people are speeding but we will not let you enforce the speed limit until you straighten that road.

Sadly, you've been a victim of the very think tanks I mentioned. Stop reading the 'science' newsletters being written by the very think tanks I mentioned. Science is placed in quotes above because you're not reading the science journals. Cite your sources, and we can continue.

EDIT: Oh, I see you did post some links. Sorry, I didn't see those.

Are all of you familiar with Frederick Seitz?

Ok, I've looked at quite a few of your links. A lot of what you're saying is based on the premise that CO2 follows warming by the sun.

Take a hard look at this graph which you provided: http://www.biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg

Please try and explain it to me as best you understand it. I'm not asking you because I don't understand it. I want your interpretation of it.

Now, you may accuse me of performing biased research by selectively choosing to find science which backs up my claim, however, I have plenty of methods of demonstrating to you that my research is nowhere near as biased as yours. I suggest, while engaging in your own research, you look hard at the funding sources for a lot of the material you're digging up. Look hard at the political agenda of those who are behind the information you're researching.

Are you familiar with Milankovich cycles?


So you're in agreement with me that Global Warming is happening - just not the cause. Here's another test to determine the integrity of the programs you're seeking information from: are they explaining to you what the effects of Global Warming are? Let's say a number of the literature you've read or the number of the global warming documentaries you've watched concede that Global Warming is happening (regardless of cause), then, if they're comprehensive and their goal is to engage in real science, as opposed to simply furthering the agenda that Global Warming is not anthropogenic, then it stands to reason that they would have no reason to conveniently not address what the effects of Global Warming are, regardless of cause. So, my test of the unbiased quality of the research you're absorbing, is to ask you how much information you've gleaned along the way regarding the effects of Global Warming.

Be prepared for a long debate.

Call me when the solution to the environment is NOT socialism.

Thank you for pointing out the deficiencies of your approach: i.e. you offer no solution.

A more rational approach involves people asking: "what are all the problems and how do they interrelate, and what can we do to address these problems?" Rather than insisting on a particular political ideology to solve the problem, why don't we seek to understand the problem in all its finer nuances, and then see what can be done. That's a better approach.

As time permits, all your links can pretty much be shown to be lacking in substance, full of holes and inconsistencies, or even better, shown that they are in fact arguing against your theory. However, let's start with just a few. How about this one:


Rather than expend the time myself to explain the problems inherent in how this article might support your theory, why don't you just read the article yourself, as it casts some pretty heavy skepticism on your preferred theory that solar radiation is the cause of our planet's global warming.

Now on to this one:



Read the article itself, and you'll see that it's actually debunking the theory you're promoting. And while you're there, take a look at the solar irradiance chart provided. You might want to notice how the solar irradiance is actually declining for the period in which claims are made that some (not all) of the solar system's planets are undergoing warming.

By the way, thanks for the links on the theory of the solar system heating up - they pretty much save me the time in collecting articles myself to disprove your point, because the articles you posted do it so well.

Just FYI, those are the same articles.  They do seem to indicate that the sun isn't the main cause behind earth's warming, though.

Fixed it. The second referenced article is now the article that I meant: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

the sun is heating up.

its causing the solar system and other planets to heat up on the same scale the earth is heating up.

i am no scientist, but i know if i make a fire in the fireplace, anything in that room heats up as the fireplace heats up.

the solar system is a room and the sun is a fireplace, and the earth is in that room, as are all the other planets that are being heated up.

everything in it will heat up if the sun heats up.

i dont need to debate it. Its irrefutable fact as far as I am concerned, which is alot more evidence than the man-made global warming proponents have when they say the earth is heating up + there is more Co2 = man must be heating up the earth.

case closed as far as I am concerned.

it is "settled science".

but hey if you have anything more than supposition and conjecture, feel free to post it. I am sure some progressive pantywaste will listen.

The solution lies in property rights.

But that does not fit into the game plan of "what can we use to get people to accept socialism..."

Nobody has commented on the CLOUD experiment so far? http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/

Scientists in CERN have confirmed that cosmic rays can seed clouds. The more cosmic rays hitting the Earth, the more clouds, the colder the planet gets. And vice-versa. And, yes, the main driver on the amount of cosmic rays that hit the Earth is the Sun's magnetic field. The stronger it gets, the more cosmic rays it repeals.

So, yeah, who would guess, it seems the sun is probably more important to the climate than our car's exhausts... :D

Stop talking about socialism. Seriously. And I don't really give a rat's ass about your pet theory of property rights. What I do care about is discussing environmental issues, the science behind it, who here actually understands it in detail, and what the solutions are. If you want to share how property rights are a solution, the first thing you need to do is demonstrate an understanding of the problems. Can you do that?

It's hard to hear the clarity and strength of your arguments when your head is in the sand.

Take a hard look at this graph which you provided: http://www.biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg

Please try and explain it to me as best you understand it. I'm not asking you because I don't understand it. I want your interpretation of it.

Did you know that Forbes has demonstrated itself to be one of the brownlashers based on the selective reporting they do on the subject of climate change. It all stands to reason, when you stop and take a look at their readership. They're not exactly science people, you know.

It's a CERN experiment they're talking about. Which confirms the cosmic ray theory of a guy named Henrik Svensmark. At least direct your Ad Hominem to the appropriate target.

No, you don't understand. There are thousands of experiments, studies, etc. out there. In general, a publication like Forbes will only publish the results of a study which may cast doubt on Global Warming. If 25 out of a 1,000 studies cast doubt, then before the study has undergone a healthy peer review, publications like Forbes will happily publish an article on such a study, but will, in general, not publish articles on the other 975 studies which lend strength to anthropogenic global warming.

The first question you want to ask yourself, is how do you search out your information on climate change?

Then you do not give a rat's ass about what the solutions are.


The problems are corporations being allowed to pollute our environment under the protection of our very own government.

Brief history lesson.

Back in the day when property rights were actually followed and pollution just started to kick in people started going after these polluters that were encroaching on their property rights.

This was also back in the day where you called a private detective to solve your crime issues and not the government (remember the old PI movies?). Just as there were private detectives
that would hunt down murderers or thieves, there were private detectives that would hunt down the source of pollution. They would find the source, the land owner would sue the company
and the company owner would be prosecuted rightfully for property rights violations and the property owner would be compensated.

Around this time, pollution detectives were starting to catch on getting more and more popular.

The companies that were polluting did not like this one bit. How could they produce anything with no pollution? So they went to their friendly government officials to save them from these
law suits.

The government stepped in and decided to create "standards" and "guidelines" for pollution which essentially made it so that you could not sue a company if they were adhering to these guidelines
and the fines paid by the companies would go to the government to do with as they pleased. A nice little quid pro quo between corporations and government.

The private pollution detectives fell by the wayside and an industry was destroyed. The EPA became the protector of polluters and we have what we have now.


So, when you say you do not want to hear about property rights and you want solutions...you are basically saying that you only want to hear the solution that best fits your social agenda.

Why do all you guys think that we have a social agenda? Very strange. I am so limited on time right now, but I'd like to say that you need to first understand what environmental problems exist before you can even begin to qualify your cute method as being effective. For example, demonstrate how your method addresses trophic cascades.

Because you do.

Whatever. Actually, what I want is protection for the environment. That requires understanding the environment. Now, how does your system address trophic cascades?

Depends on how the property owner wants to treat the species on his land/waterway. Anyone introducing something that disrupts the wildlife on the person's land/waterway would be held responsible for the introduction of a harmful species.

No, it doesn't depend on what the property owner wants. It depends on an area that deals with many property owners, many of which don't care, nor even know the ramifications. If you don't know, and your neighbor doesn't know, then nothing gets properly dealt with. Every property owner can't sue every other property owner. And besides, they won't, because half of them don't know they should sue, or don't care, resulting in an inconsistent application of what needs to be done - and that doesn't effectively deal with the problem consistently.

Now, tell me, how would your system deal with the near decimation of the blue whale population that occurred in the mid twentieth century?

What would happen if someone came into your back yard and killed your dog? Would you have legal ramifications?

What if someone came into your waterway and killed one of your whales?

Blue whales will never be in my backyard, nor will they ever be on my property. However, since you the bring the dog up, explain to me what cattle ranchers do to address riparian growth, or more correctly, why they don't care, since that's closer to your dog scenario.


Study the causes of the near extinction of the blue whale species. Get familiar with the history. Understand what the situation is with the blue whales today. Address how property rights fits into all of that. If you want, you can start also thinking about what the limiting factors are on the annual global fish haul today, as opposed to 150 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale

I hope you find this helpful as you clearly have no idea what a whale is.

How soon do you believe that chickens will go extinct? How about cows?


They could be... http://seasteading.org/

Seriously Elwar, read the wiki on whales.  Its embarrassing that you think they are domesticated animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale

Err... SeaWorld?

If you're trying to redirect a discussion about environmental issues to what is happening with regard to swimming pools, backyards, pet dogs and chickens on farms, then it becomes clear that you're out of your depth.

Surely "out of your depth" is the wrong phrase for someone who thinks whales live in backyards?  "Fish out of water" would be better, even if whales are mammals :P

These guys are definitely fish out of water. I mean, how difficult is it to grasp that a swimming pool at Seaworld is not representative of the ocean and its ecosystems. And what exactly does a dog in someone's backyard have to do with anything?

You have no idea how many times I have mentioned on these forums that being an enthusiast for property rights does not make you qualified to address environmental issues.

I will type slowly so that you understand.

Your dog is your property. If someone shoots your dog, they will be held legally liable.

With no public land then all animals in the world are someone's property. Any harm to someone else's property will be held legally liable.

Do I need to type slower?

I refer you to the second paragraph of my last post.

Is there a reason you think that whales live on land?  I've linked to information about the species twice.  What's stopping you from educating yourself instead of making a fool of yourself?

Hint: they live in the oceans which no-one owns.

Part of the problem.

Water is just fast-moving land.

Share your solution for the ocean - not someone's backyard. I'm not in the mood to point out the extreme differences.

You are wasting your time.  This is a guy who doesn't know what a whale is and you propose educating him as to marine conservation.  Even if you devote your life to it, he won't understand.

Whales and dogs and and a pair of pliers. They're all the same to these guys.

Congratulations on recognizing that whales, dogs and a pair of pliers are indeed different objects. What does that have to do with ownership? Do you really think those kind of "whales are not pliers, herp derp" arguments get you anywhere?

As long as you can't raise the discussion past the necessity of acknowledging such obvious facts, how can we get beyond that into more intelligent discussion? Believe me, I'd rather move on.

Then stop making straw man arguments as if we don't know the difference between whales and dogs...

Elwar thought that you can have a whale in your back yard and compared it to a chicken. 

If you acknowledge that whales and dogs are different, then you must acknowledge that a dog in a backyard does not suffice as an example of how to address property rights with regard to whales.

Cat and dogs are different too. Are you saying that a dog in my backyard does not suffice as an example of how to address property rights with regard to cats?

I thought we agreed to move on to more intelligent discussion.

In other words, you've got nothing.

I've got nothing with regard to what? Domesticated cats?

You are not making an intelligent point.  The discussion was about preventing extinction of whales.  Elwar thought a whale was a domesticated animal that lives in someone's back yard like a dog or a chicken.  

Since most whales are not owned and live in oceans which are also not owned, property rights to cats are not really relevant.

No, he didn't. You're being intellectually dishonest by claiming that, unless you really think it, in which case, wow...

Seems pretty clear to me that he had no idea that whales are wild and that they live in the sea. 

It's quite pathetic when you question the intelligence of someone and you don't even know what a waterway is...


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterway

Are you trying to tell me that whales don't live in the ocean now? You're the one that's confused, not Elwar. I'm not surprised since you seem to make a habit of it.

I have never heard waterway used to describe an ocean : http://www.thefreedictionary.com/waterway  You live and learn.

I have never heard of anyone owning an ocean.  The rest of his posts are nonsensical so I suspect that he hasn't either.

So I think my interpretation is the correct one.

Fail.

From your own link:

The fact that there is an interpretation of waterway I never heard of does not makes elwar's post about whales any the less nonsensical.  By and large, whales do not live in waterways that are owned by individuals.

Address property rights as it relates to the near decimation of the blue whale species. Show some knowledge of the subject matter, instead of trying to compare it to cats and dogs.

No, shit. That was his point. If whales did live in "navigable bodies of water" (last time I checked, the ocean was navigable and a body of water but don't let reality get in your way) that were privately owned, it would have the same consequences as someone shooting any other animal that you owned and kept on your private property.


It's already been explained to you in as simple of an analogy as can be. Let me try one more time to reach you. If you want to stop the tragedy of the commons, get rid of the commons. If you don't get it then there's no hope for you.

1. Its not likely whales will move to someone's private waterway.
2. Even on a private waterway, just like with all species, you still need protection against their being hunted to extinction.

So his point doesn't really relate to ensuring that whales are not made extinct does it?  At best its off topic.

When you say simple analogy, are you again referring to cats and dogs?

Regarding the tragedy of the commons, are you proposing private ownership of the oceans? Explain in detail how that works. Address property boundaries, ocean currents, fishing, alteration of temperature within parcels, migration, etc.

You are leaving reality totally behind here but even if all oceans are owned by one person, the still needs to be regulation to ensure that whales are not made extinct. 

Watch out. He will claim that Joe Smith in Memphis, Tennessee will sue the owner of the ocean if whales go extinct because Joe makes his living painting whales and needs new photos of living whales to continue painting.

There are several ways you can do it, radio fences, buoys, floating lines.


It's somewhat the same issue with leeching chemicals into the soil. You can do whatever you want until you affect someone else's property.


Radio tags.


Only property rights need to be enforced.


This is why it's so hard to take you seriously. You keep making childish straw man arguments.

All silliness.

Radio tags: what does that mean, exactly? You tag a whale, and then the whale ventures into my parcel of ocean - what are you saying?

I appreciate you made a short answer in the middle of a long post but you've lost me. How does enforcement of property rights prevent extinction if the owner of the whales is killing them off on his own property?

I really don't think he cares or understands the value of biodiversity, or ecosystems that are in balance.

That's not likely to happen. At the very least, even if there is no money to be made in keeping whales alive, there will be organizations like the Sierra Club that will homestead large chunks of the ocean and protect whales that live there. I'll donate $100 right now if there was such a system in place. I'm sure many people would too and a few rich people would donate much more.

You can't homestead an ocean.  Japanese whalers would have first claim. 

Interesting concept though.  It assumes that people will take care of the species if they own it.  I'd want a guarantee as there are a minority of jerks in the world and if one owned all whales he should not have the right to exterminate them but assuming a decent owner you are probably correct.

This seems like it would be hard to implement with ocean species, but not impossible.  It does seem more feasible for endangered land species like tigers which, despite laws and regulations and the best efforts of governments, are going extinct.  I'm not sure exactly how that would work, perhaps privately owned tiger reserves open to tourists, perhaps tiger "farms" where some percentage of the population was butchered and sold to the market for their hides, body parts, etc. but where a stable population was maintained to ensure continuity of the species.  I'm willing to try it though, because if something doesn't happen tigers will be extinct within a few decades. 

Tiger skins go for as much as $20k and their bones another $1000.  People own cow herds and chicken herds where these animals sell for far less a piece.  I understand that tigers require a lot more space and can't be kept in cost efficient herds like domestic livestock, but the much higher price they fetch might be enough to compensate private owners of tiger reserves, especially if combined with tourism.  The owner of the reserve would have a very personal incentive to crack down on poachers and protect his tigers: profit. 

And if you're worried that the owner might buy all the tigers and then slaughter all of them for a quick buck, you could have the governments relinquish control of the land and tigers under the condition that the owner had to keep some x number of tigers or y% of the population alive at any given time.  Work it into the contract.

The Nature Conservancy engages in activity such as this with regard to land. Individuals too, Yvon Chouinard and Doug Thompkins among them. The oceans are problematic though. If you wish to familiarize yourself with continental rewilding projects, the scope of the problem should become clear.

Now, regarding the question I asked you earlier: What do you mean regarding the use of radio tags, exactly? You tag a whale, and then the whale ventures into my parcel of ocean - what are you saying?

What about just preserving whale DNA and growing one for anyone who needs one?

 

Thank you for taking the time to intelligently think about the issues, rather than think that cats and dogs are really relevant.

Tiger reserves are definitely necessary - privately funded if that's the solution that presents itself. Tigers, like all big cats, are territorial. They certainly fit the criteria necessary to be declared an umbrella species, flagship species, or whatever you wish to call them. Since tigers are territorial, they need large expanses of land to maintain a small number.

A side not regarding umbrella species: often the purpose of declaring a species to be an umbrella species is because research has shown that by protecting an umbrella species, a by-product is the protection of the environment which is necessary to sustain the umbrella species. This has the net effect of preserving the entire food chain all the way down to the microscopic level, both flora and fauna. The spotted owl controversy wasn't just about protecting the spotted owl, but the entire old growth forest it requires to maintain a viable population. It has been shown that the spotted owl cannot survive effectively in numbers in secondary growth forests. Given that 80 percent (yes - 80 percent) of all the Earth's old growth forests have been decimated, mostly for agricultural and timber purposes, it is imperative that the remaining old growth forests be preserved.

Regarding tiger farms - is this realistic or desirable? Many animals are very difficult to breed in captivity, but it has been done with tigers at zoos. But you would promote breeding tigers for harvesting of their hides? At least with cattle, every component of a cow is used. For example, their hooves are used to make Jello and Gummy Bears.


It seems that you're implying that some portion of the free roaming tigers could be harvested for their hides. Given the space required for tigers, this doesn't seem realistic to maintain a viable population.


This reminds me of the scenario with the Sumatran rhino. Some affluent Chinese mistakenly believe that the Sumatran rhino's horn is of medicinal value. Research indicates there is no medicinal value. But the plight of the Sumatran rhino illustrates why harvesting rhino horns is not directly analogous to the supply and demand curve. Supply, as in economic theory refers to goods on the shelf, not an ever dwindling natural resource. Big difference. As the rhinos' numbers dwindle, the price of their horns skyrocket. Poachers then increase their efforts, methods, and technology to more efficiently exploit the last remaining Sumatran rhinos in existence. It only leads to extinction.

Regarding megafauna (typically animals over 100 pounds), ask yourself what kind of world you want to live in. One in which there are many wild places where large animals still roam, or one in which the wild places continue to disappear, along with the megafauna which lived there?

Are you familiar with the coincident extinction of megafauna on nearly all continents with the first arrival of humans? Think about this. How many new species of large animals has mankind witnessed in the past 20,000 years as opposed to those we will never see again? New large species are not just popping into existence. We live in a world decidedly less rich than it used to be. How far do you want to see it go? Tigers and Sumatran rhinos are nearly gone. Some whales are nearly gone. African elephants are in trouble. So is the cheetah and jaguar. Gorillas and orangutans too. Same for the mountain lion. The list goes on. Did you know the jaguar used to range through the southwestern portion of the United States?

What will you never see? Here's a list of megafauna species that disappeared with the arrival of humans to the continent in question:

North America: Mammoths, mastodons, camels, pronghorn antelope, giant beaver, tapirs, several bears, dire wolves, several sloths.

Australia and New Guinea: several giant wombats, a rhino, six different types of kangaroo, several giant marsupials, several giant flightless birds.

New Zealand: The Moa and a few other giant flightless birds.

Pacific islands: several birds, crocodiles and turtles.

South America and Eurasia suffered similar extinctions coincident with the arrival of humans.
 
Why were the large animals spared in Africa? First of all, isn't it interesting that there are such large and interesting animals on the African continent but not on other continents? The assumption might be that the other continents just don't naturally support megafauna. But that's not true! Megafauna are normal. So unless you live in Africa, you're not seeing the richness in animal life that is normal. Why does Africa still have its megafauna? Because the megafauna in Africa evolved in parallel with humans, and they developed a natural instinct to be wary of humans. As humans ventured out of Africa and ultimately onto the other continents, the megafauna there had no reason to be naturally wary of the skinny little humans, and thus made easy targets.

You really should learn about the value of whole ecosystems, and how they thrive to their maximal potential when not fragmented - i.e when not split up into zones by different property owners. An ecosystem is most productive when not disturbed and when not fragmented. Productivity describes the value that the ecosystem returns to the Earth - it's recycling ability, the bounty it can provide everyone, the knowledge and information that will still be there when the technology becomes available to understand it (think medicine, engineering, software algorithms, etc.).

It has been shown that the number of different species and the populations of each species increases more than an amount proportionate to the ecosystem's area. What this means is an unfragmented ecosystem which is four times the area of a similar ecosystem will yield more than four times as much biomass, and more biodiversity.

Read all my above posts. However, additionally, consider:

- This does nothing to preserve the ecosystem.
- Do you mean growing of whale meat, or making a new whale?

I meant new whale, for meat, or as a pet for an aquarium (or to save planet Earth from being destroyed by a power draining space orb in case Captain Kirk isn't available). But yeah, I wasn't considering the ecosystem part.

Whales in aquariums aren't really a good idea, when you start thinking about it. I mean, think about this: Eastern North Pacific gray whales travel 12,400 miles annually between their breeding and feeding grounds. Freedom is a beautiful thing.


Of course.


You should start considering it. It's interesting. It's complex. And it affects all us in many ways.

You can homestead a piece of the ocean in the same way that you can homestead a piece of land. You establish "residency" in a way that allows others to understand that you are the rightful owner. On land you have to clearly mark your territory and live there for a few years. There are plenty of ways with modern technology to mark your territory in the ocean.

As for whales, just like cows, whales could be herded and sold in the same way. There would be a disincentive to let whales go extinct.

Here is an article that addresses bluefin tuna: http://mises.org/daily/4879
"If people owned portions of the ocean, then the bluefin tuna would become as ubiquitous as cattle."

As for the fish or whales traveling from property to property:

Everything Robert P. Murphy says isn't really bad, but it's not well thought out all. This stems from the fact that he is no ocean ecologist. He simply isn't qualified to address the feasibility of his suggestions without a better understanding of marine ecosystems. Secondly, he seems to be completely unaware of the aesthetic quality of wilderness, unspoiled by humans. And aesthetics aside, he's apparently completely unaware of the productive capacity of unspoiled wilderness (in this case, ocean wilderness). I kind of feel sorry for these people - bean counters who don't really understand the fullness of life.

For one thing, the net idea is not only unrealistic, it's actually rather disgusting. Fences fragment ecosystems, and this doesn't even address the harm they would cause. Tagging isn't much better, for different reasons.

The immediate solution is to recognize the problem, stop overfishing, and educate the public. The ultimate solution might be to use technology to grow fish meat (not the whole fish) in high tech factories. Demand and innovation will likely make this possible once the real environmental issues are acknowledged.

So you live in a boat in the Antarctic whaling grounds a few years.  A Japanese whaler comes along and kills the whales around your boat.  What you gonna do?  Sue them?  Threaten to sink them? Stage a sit down protest on your little boat?  Or face the fact that homesteading the ocean is no more viable a concept than homesteading the clouds?

Please - its great to have new ideas but at least try to make them a little practical.

What would you do in that situation? Give up and quit?

I'd not get into such a ridiculous situation.  I don't have years to waste settling the oceans and I don't have a navy that could defeat the states that would have to be forced to accept my homestead.

Huh, OK. Can we all just agree that you have a severe lack of imagination, and leave it at that?

Is that your way of saying that homesteading the Antarctic seas requires a hyperactive imagination?  As in its just a fantasy?

I wholeheartedly encourage you to become a proponent of protecting the environment, in whatever way you can. Start by learning about it and its importance. From there, you'll be in a better position to understand that meddling with the environment is not a good thing. Then, when solutions that are proposed which can cause damage, you won't be the one proposing them. Instead, you'll be the one showing everyone that something better is required.

Consider this: the oceans, in their natural state, are probably the single most important thing on this planet. Everything else follows from that. Everything.

There is already work being done on this. They refer to it as seasteading instead of homesteading. Same concept.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3401/3496050729_4a1937df92_m.jpg

There is a lot being put into this in an open sourced way. Here is an engineering report on seasteading:
http://seasteading.org/files/research/TSI/engineering/Feb2011_Report_p1.pdf

You seem to be completely unaware of the aesthetic quality of purpose built engineering that fulfills a need.

Again, the key issue is that the Japanese and every other nation with a navy has to accept your "seastead"  I love the concept, but to scale up to the point where is matters, it will need a navy to defend it.

Absolutely untrue. Furthermore, if it was true, that does not make my statement any less true.

Nets in the ocean to demarcate property boundaries quite possibly qualifies as one of the most stupid, irresponsible and environmentally destructive ideas ever proposed by any human being.

Completely irrelevant. A decommissioned oil platform reconfigured to become a miniature city does not qualify as homesteading the ocean.

If a small community evolves in an area of the sea and creates an economy based upon harvesting and herding fish/whales, then they will be very resentful toward any ship coming into their proximity to steal their livestock.

And they would have the incentive to encourage replication and growth of the fish and whale populations. While having the incentive to protect it.

That is the key issue? Really?

Livestock are not representative of a protected environment. They are in fact the antithesis of it. Your scenario sounds like cattle ranching, which is destructive to the environment. As I've said many times, learn about the environment and ecosystems. You've already been called out because of your ignorant post about nets.

And if a warship comes along...the small community becomes history.  As an solution to pollution and overfishing by industrial countries, small seasteads are simply a distraction.  

Wow, I have been called out.  ::)

The article I quoted is speaking of harvesting fish. Nets are not a new concept in fish farming.


http://www.badinotti.com/news.html

http://www.badinotti.com/images/news_tunisia.jpg

You were asking about saving the whales...

Last time I checked the cattle population has done nothing but climb...at around 1.3 billion as of 2009.

Such growth at even 1 millionth through property rights would be worth it.

You just don't get it, do you? Cattle ranching is destructive to the environment. Whales, if left alone, neither destroy the environment, nor go extinct, except by natural forces. Leave the oceans alone. Let the massive amount of knowledge they have in store for us be discovered.

Stop overfishing. Small fish farms in certain areas are fine. But leave the vast expanse of ocean out there wild and free.

Seriously, pick up a book on the environment.

Yes - you've been called out. Your vision of herding whales like livestock and using nets to demarcate property boundaries across the ocean is absurd.

To be clear...are you saying that the use of force by a government against someone that has not initiated force against that government is a bad thing?

And you would rather treat humans like cattle instead? Or perhaps sheep?

The whales would probably not be conducive to nets, but fish would...and they do already as the story posted shows.

For whales, GPS would be an option.

The tragedy of the commons is that, without ownership then it is a free for all. First one to get it all wins. With no consequences.

This is the same with the government leasing out timber land and other natural resources to be bleed dry with no considerations for the future use of that land. If someone actually owned it, they would want the value to continue forever.

What is that line from Spider-Man?

"With great power comes great responsibility."

Just because you have the power and the technology to radically alter your environment does not mean it is the responsible thing to do. Educate yourself. Proposing solutions dreamed up by others, and linking to them here, does not mean anything. How much do you really know about the ramifications of the things you're suggesting?

How much do you know about marine ecosystems? You want to propose solutions and defend those solutions? Then acquire knowledge.

I have acquired plenty of knowledge on free market environmentalism. What knowledge do you have of it? Perhaps you should acquire knowledge.

A good start would be "Healing our World" by Mary Ruwart
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap8.html

I am saying that if you try to interfere with the fishing fleet of a nation, they will defend their fleet.

Just my way of saying that you can't even bring yourself to try to imagine being in that situation, or any that have been proposed. Every time someone brings up an example of how else things might work, or asks you to imagine yourself in a different world and think through the situation yourself, you, for whatever reason, can't or won't, instead just avoiding even the thought of it and resorting to replies of "that's not the way things are in the real world," or, "it needs government to work, period" without explanation, or diverting the conversation to strawmen and insults. I'm really thinking there's something wrong with you :(

What kind of a navy does Monaco, Haiti, Cuba, or Sealand, or any other small nation in the world ha... never mind. Every powerful nation will always invade and take control of any small nation without an army, because it's always preferable to spend your own money to fight a war than to increase your money through trade. Am I right?
Seriously, how can you ask this without taking the time to think about it? Maybe it would help if you thought of real life examples of what you propose would happen before you post your ideas?

It is great that you are coming up with all of these "holes" that nobody has considered with seasteading.

But you may be enlightened to actually do some research to know that others too have considered it and look for ways at solving them.

http://www.seasteading.org/search/node/defending

Of course, government is always the concern. Somalia is being stifled because of UN attacks. The answer to most threats of war is to trade peacefully with a nation and its citizens so that attacks would be unproductive and harm the nation doing the attacking as much as the one being attacked.

I have already addressed this issue a hundred times. The problems with all the libertarian proposals are fences, barriers, edge effects, inconsistent application, entrusting stewardship in part to those who are ignorant of effects, greed, fragmentation, etc., etc., etc.

Before Hawker responds, I figured I would help him out with this one.

Hawker: But what about people who want to go out and fish? How can you keep boats out of the ocean? What if the Japanese Navy wants people to kill whales, there is nothing you can do about it. How are you going to stop people from going to the beach? People on beaches step on ocean creatures. How do you stop that? 80% of people live within 2 miles of the ocean, how will you keep them out of the water? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming

You cannot stop greed. The best you can do is direct it toward being beneficial.

To try to fight greed only works with guns and oppression.

Exactly. Read the thread on Guiding Markets.

And regarding using your imagination, by all means, get to it. There are environmental issues out there that need imagination. But you need to understand things like edge effects, trophic cascades, riparian zones, ice albedo feedback loops, biodiversity, etc. while applying your imagination.

Using your imagination and using brain power to come up with solutions is a much better way than just fighting humanity, as tends to be the environmentalist solution.

I don't think you're aware of what "the environmentalist solution" is. However, I'm sure you have your preconceived notion of what it is. All that aside, for about the tenth time, learn about ecology, ecosystems, and the environment. A book written by a libertarian pharmaceutical research scientist does not exactly qualify as learning about such things.

Who knows more about a subject, someone who is interested in it and uses it as a hobby, or someone who's livelyhood and business depends on it? Wouldn't someone maintaining a chunk of the ocean to keep fish and whales for sale know way more about the environment and how to keep it working right than pretty much anyone else? Or are you worried about whale and fish populations exploding to the detriment of other species?

No.

Cattle ranchers and businesses selling stuff are not attempting conservation. They're attempting maintaining a black bottom line year to year. Why compare them to a hobbyist? Compare them to conservationists, ecologists, etc.

I can assure you that conservationists and ecologists do not cite cattle ranchers as being pro environment. As an example, here are the leading causes of deforestation in the Brazilian rainforest:

- Clearing for cattle pasture
- Colonization and subsequent subsistence agriculture
- Infrastructure improvements
- Commercial agriculture
- Logging

Things cattle ranchers do:

- Put up fences (bad for ecosystems)
- Poison, shoot and trap wolves (disrupts trophic cascading effects)
- Lobby for hunting of wolves (same as above)
- Overgraze to optimize business, but at the detriment of the environment


See above. Once again, the environment is not something you just slap your favorite political ideology onto. Learn about ecology.

That's the point. That's not their goal yet that's what they are achieving. Look at cows and buffaloes. They are practically the same animals. Yet, cows haven't been hunted to near extinction. Why? Why don't farmers go out into their fields and shoot all their cows dead today? Because if they do that, they won't have them tomorrow. Cows are privately owned. There's no rush to "kill as many as you can while you can" like was the case with buffaloes. Another example is with forests. If you sell forests to the highest bidder, they don't clear cut the land and never replant. Why? Because they'll be out of business within a few years. They want to make their resources last so they will replant new crops. Once you get rid of the commons, there's no more tragedy.

*Sigh*

Nobody listens.

Cows and replanted trees are not synonymous with ecosystems and old growth forests. There's a difference, and it has to do with the future of the planet.

Huge fucking difference.

"I'm almost speechless. Through your eloquent and well-thought-out post, I've completely changed my mind. The part where you said it was a 'huge fucking difference' sent chills up my spine. I've never really thought about it that way but having it so carefully and thoroughly explained to me, I have no choice but to agree with you. Have you ever considered writing an essay or perhaps even a book? I think that a book, if matched in the detail and intellectual weight of your post, could really open people's eyes. You've answered all of my questions and have left me with nothing but regret that I didn't see things your way sooner."

The above message was just a test. If there had been any actual thought-provoking content in your post, the text you just read would have been spoken in true sincerity instead of being followed by guffaws, belly-laughs and one-handed-wanking gestures.

I already answered these questions in prior posts here. Why would I spend the time answering it yet again? Chances are good I'm instead going to use some expletive to express exasperation.

If you were genuinely interested in the answer, you would have read those responses. For example, did you actually read the entire post I made that you initially responded to (this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=46532.msg562641#msg562641 ), or did you just quote the first line? My text in that post you responded to enumerates some pretty clear facts, and while you had the opportunity to address them, you instead chose to write some ridiculous and useless post about how I used the term 'huge fucking difference' in a post I made after that post, because you apparently decided to conveniently ignore what I said.