Bitcoin Forum

If you see a ocean in danger of pollution and you want to protect it, get some friends together, buy some defense, protect it.

See an endangered species? Capture them, nurture them, protect them.

Is your favorite rainforest in trouble? Make a contract with the lumber company and pay them not to wreck it. Pay a local militia to protect it.

Tired of people hunting and camping on a piece of land? Buy it. Protect it.

It's very simple. All the tools you need to promote your cause are in front of you. You just need to organize your labor to make things happen. It's a lot simpler than begging for world government to take everything over and tax everyone into your cause.

My last post in the other thread explained to you how environmentalism works, practiced by people who know a lot more than you. Why don't you let them suggest to you how to practice it, and let them educate you as well?

And if you want to start on some education, then read one of my posts here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

Feel free to address that post first.

Their suggestions consist of me sacrificing my money, my property, my land and my way of life. You and your "experts" can go fuck themselves before they impose their solutions on me.

Your solutions and their supposed authority mean nothing to me because they go against my interests. They say I am an animal that is supposed to be controlled.

I will accept that after I am dead.

Address this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

The value of all the animals and plants you list is subjective. You value certain parts of them over desires of certain people.

That's all see.

There is nothing objective here. You can't force all people to value these things.

You can force them into submission though.

Based upon the timing of your posts, I doubt you have read the post in question. You are an example of willful ignorance.

Tell me, why does the lumber company have the rights to the rainforest? Do they really create more value than non-destructive groups? Who decides who gets the rights to the rainforest?

Fact is, all this is subjective. Lumber companies may produce some value by exploiting the rainforest, but many would argue that more value is produced by leaving it alone. So why, why, should these lumber companies own the rainforest in the first place? Who sells it?

Because they have the cooperation, force and will necessary. They're stronger.

If you want your desires met, I suggest you start working towards them.

You can wait for your all-knowing god government to meet your desires or you can get them yourself.

Are you advocating for a society in which a greater cooperation, force, and will implies the ability to rob others?

If so, expect to be robbed by the Mafia. Working with the Mafia might be the only way out of this. Be prepared.

Tim, gain some respect. Here's how:

1. Understand what an ecosystem service is.
2. Understand the purpose of an umbrella species.
3. Understand what edge effects are.
4. Understand the causes of edge effects.
5. Understand how climate change will disrupt precipitation patterns and disrupt agriculture.
6. Understand how biodiversity is essentially one of the most important knowledge sources for medicine, material science, computer science and engineering.
7. Understand how the elimination of biodiversity essentially removes our technological potential.
8. Understand how trophic cascades affect you.
9. Understand how the rainforests are the repository of most of the world's biodiversity.
10. Get a clue.

You just described today's society.

Replace Mafia with Governments and Corporations.

All I want to do is to keep my land. UN Agenda 21 designed by environmentalists says I shouldn't have it in the name of the greater good.

You can't make an effective point from the pulpit of ignorance. When you're ready to truly understand what you're discussing, I'll stop laughing at your remarks and consider them.

When you try to take my way of life away in the name of environmentalism, you will get a point of a bullet in your head.

I have yet to meet a man who can outsmart a bullet.

Look, I care little about what you believe me to be supporting, but I can assure you it is nowhere near as disastrous as what you are. I have neither supported the "governments" nor the "corporations". You have supported such a society by stating that all must "work with" a tyrannical forestry industry. Effectively, you have advocated breaking up the government and instilling a fascist regime of industries that gain the right to exploit and rapidly deplete every bit of the Earth's resources, with the only barrier being pesky organizations left with no option but to "consult" with them. Does this sound like a government?

I, on the other hand, have supported organized societal movements. I have rejected this right that you proclaim for a forestry industry to "own" a rainforest. Let me ask you again: who sells the rainforest? Who gets to use it?

You know what you want. And I know what you want. But being able to define what you want is not being able to justify what you want. You're like an infant who has learned how to scream for a toy. But you definitely don't appear to be like someone who knows what he wants and knows what humanity depends upon ultimately derives from.

Whoever is allowed to by the organization or man with the most military force.

You have to use force or persuasion to get your way in this world. There is no other way.

I am only preaching reality.

Guns justify wants. They can justify yours too.

I'm sorry, but I was hoping for some intellectual discussion here. Try again.

You'll find that that ideology is overwhelmingly antiutopian.

Society is a powerful force programmed into humans. Without it, quarreling would have driven us to extinction. Military force has in the past been used neither chiefly for terror, nor chiefly for the robbery of power. Rather, it has been employed for reunification, for development of an ideology, or for the betterment of society as a whole.

Eventually, society improves. We are built as a species to work together, not to persuade each other to get our way. A rainforest offers us necessary components for life. Society can easily topple the will of a destructive forestry industry if the problem gets worse. But for now, environmentalism can reduce the cleanup we might need later if a crisis occurs.

The reality you speak of is distant from the reality we live in.

During the cold war, there was a state coined "MAD": mutually assured destruction. Neither party struck first, because neither party could gain from it. Society is not zero-sum.

It's worse than that though. We can't get back rainforests (or old growth forests) and its biodiversity in any timescale relevant to the current plight of humanity. Deforestation is occurring and has been occurring at a horrific rate.

The problems are unawareness, ignorance, and greed. Some benefit near term and don't care. I've tried to explain what biodiversity is all about. But most people don't get it. To summarize:

1. Biodiversity is our primary repository of undiscovered knowledge for the sciences, whether medicine, material science, engineering or computer science. Examples are molecular compounds, the microscopic structure of shells, internal biological methods and processes, products of animals such as spider silk, social dynamics, such as in bees and ants, etc.

2. Biodiversity co-evolved, and works in synergy to provide ecosystem services, which in turn regulate the environment. Removing components is often like removing organs from a human body. 
 

Look at our current wars, the victimless crimes that are persecuted and say that again.

I dare you to tell all the kids that have lost their parents to drones that the reality we live in is fine.

All I want to do is evenly distribute all the worlds powers among all people.

No nations, No UN, only voluntary groups.

We already know what you want. As I said earlier, that's like an infant who is screaming for a toy. We need to put those wants into a context which factors in what we know about the mechanisms of the world.

You apparently care about the "future generation". Instead of forcing others to work for your desire how about you do it yourself?

How about you find others? Don't be so self-important and say you are the only one and everyone else is a retard.

How about the poor? You care about them. Take care of them.

Oh, but you're the only caring person on the planet. Everyone else is a dumbass. There is no way others could possibly want to voluntarily care for others because you're special.

Every once in a while, a real pearl of wisdom drops...

Myrkul, of course there are others who care. A large fraction, even. But we need an even more unified approach, so the bad apples don't fuck it up for everyone else. Do you recall the concept of Edge Effects?

I do. People gotta live, too you know. If enough people care about the environment that a government policy to protect it would be enacted, then enough people care enough to contribute voluntarily to buying large, contiguous tracts where the ecosystem can be preserved.

The buying of large contiguous tracts for conservation is happening. In general, it happens by the cooperation of NGOs and governments. And philanthropists do this as well. Perhaps the two most famous are Yvon Chouinard, famous climber and mountaineer, and founder of Patagonia and Black Diamond, and Doug Thompkins, founder of The North Face. Yet still, these efforts are not enough, given the current rates of deforestation, which, I will admit, is partly the fault of various governments, influenced by various factors, including poverty, lobbying, and greed.

I wish you'd spend an hour listening to this guy, even if you disagree, because there's a lot to be learned from what he's saying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnOcJpVA88

*mostly

My only advice is to destroy and change this economic system that is the first responsible for the environmental destruction.
That's all

You mean as in an economic system as favored by Herman Daly, former Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941

Yep, something like that

Re: who gave them the right to the rainforest, and land rights in general (spilling into the taxation thread)

When multiple parties are in contention over a piece of land, they must negotiate to find the most mutually beneficial path. If that can't happen, then there is no invisible hand, and capitalism is fundamentally flawed.

The right to land is given by value produced. If a significant amount of people believe that lumbering destroys more value than it produces, then it follows that lumbering companies do not have the right to the land.

An aristocratic state, whether a corrupt government or a malignant forestry cabal, is the only reason why forestry companies do and will continue to have the rights to the land. This is not capitalism, that is aristocratism, and there is a difference (although they can overlap).

In short, we have a aristocratic Brazilian regime today (a flawed democracy at best), and unless traditionally liberal capitalism or another populist regime is instilled (a forestry-based stratocracy does not qualify as populist), environmentalists are fully justified when they demonstrate against the forestry cabal.

Easy. The previous owner sells and the owner uses. That is, once we remove the violation of property rights institutionalised by the government.

It's really simple guys. If the value of the forest to society is higher in it's natural state than it is in it's harvested state, the forest will be saved. It depends on the aggregate of the subjective values of all individuals. All the edge effects and biodiversity are factored in by the market.

Now if there is $1000000 dollars worth of wood in a forest and $1000 worth of endangered species would be destroyed in harvesting that wood, then the species die. But FA values the species at $infinity and is willing to use violence to subjugate others to his value system. This is why he can't accept ancap, because he needs the state to proxy his application of violence.

This attitude is everything that is wrong with our society today.

No, all the factors are not factored in. The value between two parties is equivalent to who can pay what and what can often be earned in one lifetime. In general, a party is not going to pay more than what he believes he can derive near term.

Why would an individual pay an amount equal to a value that factors in the rainforest's value to all of the future of humanity? He can't afford it, and the seller will be more than willing to lower the price until he is satisfied personally.

Furthermore, in a fractured model of ownership, it's easy for one to justify his sale, and allow the others to share the burden of valuing their properties to the full environmental value.

Yeah, and the previous owner was only instilled there because the government did it. The market clearly values endangered species more than wood: most of the logging there is for the purpose of clearing land, and the wood is simply burned.

FA isn't the only one that values the species at more than the wood. Many people would agree. The market agrees. If one supports ancap, it only makes sense that they would rationally decide to preserve the forest rather than burn it down so some greedy company can produce value from it.

If I destroy the Pyramids so I can grow crops, and cite that "nobody owned it", than clearly I haven't produced more value according to the market. Same deal here: the forest stays in a perfect ancap society.

asdf,

A classic example was the harvesting of the Blue Whale in the mid 20th century. Near term gain won out over long term valuation of Blue Whales. It was enforced regulations that saved the Blue Whale.

Before you cite the Commons and property ownership as a rebuttal, let me just head off that silliness right now. If a Japanese whaler is able to catch a whale, then clearly they have proclaimed themselves the owner of the whale, whether one considers that legitimate or not. But even so, they obviously only valued the whale as a source of blubber and other various derivative products. Therefore, what we witnessed was a free market valuing the whales at a certain price (for their food and oil products). Is that the correct price?

In the absence of regulation, what would have been the ultimate outcome? Perhaps extinction, especially if the free market worked as you believe it should, that is to say, the price of blue whales rose significantly as their numbers were reduced, for that would've only invited greater effort to hunt the last of the blue whales.

I'm not sure about the intelligence of the market. Look at my last two posts.

Whaling is not allowed in AnCap because the market will prohibit you from using the land. How many people support blue whales? How many people want to kill them? I think you'll find the number is in favor of supporting the whales. The ocean is not a "free-for-all" zone: it can only be used if you own it. Whalers don't.

Are we discussing AnCap? Let's not, as it's flawed. Are you suggesting ownership of the oceans? Let's not, as it's flawed.

AnCap is not flawed, it's just not perfect. Personally, I find some other governments better: An (without the Cap), AnCom (without possession), or a small centrist government.

I don't support ownership of the oceans (then again, I don't support ownership of any land), but it is a necessary evil to prevent the chaos in the first place. An owned ocean is much less vulnerable to whaling than an unowned one.

This simply is not true. People only value their property to the extent that they can fulfill their vision for it and within the limits of their own knowledge as to its potential.

Right, and the forest is not property of someone who isn't capable of understanding its value. Whoever creates the most value out of it, which are the people who understand the value, owns the forest. Not the forestry cabal in a fair anarcho-capitalist society.

How is it determined who owns the forest?

My suggestion:
It's going to get hot and dry, then we are all going to starve. Enjoy the last days of humanity.  :D
The odds of turning things around must be less than 1 in 10,000? There is not even a theoretical way to address our problems, let alone a solution.

http://cdn.mars-one.com/images/logo_marsone.png (http://mars-one.com/en/)

Leave the damn thing be for a few hundred years, it'll find equilibrium again. Next time try not to fuck with it so much.

Can I go short Mars One? I'll liquidate the position when it reaches its funding goal.

Ah, Mars. A even more delicate planet for us to mess up. Honestly, better to go somewhere we probably can't mess up if we tried. Coincidently, there's a nice place to live that's also probably the third-easiest heavenly body to get to. We probably couldn't mess that up for a while. Maybe too easy to get to...

Something like this. (http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/sun-update-1.jpg)

A little too warm for my tastes.

The advantage of Mars is that there is zero other life to fuck up. Literally all we have to worry about is what we bring with us. It additionally has the advantage of forcing us to figure out how to work with ecosystems instead of against them, and when we go back home, maybe we don't fuck up this time.

Yeah, but prices are set by the market. What one party can "derive near term" depends on how the market values his resources, not just on his personal values. If biodiversity is valued by the market, then he can derive value from his resources as a biodiverse system. So the the values of the market are factored into the price.

Similarly, a coal mine only has value to the entrepreneur because the market values coal. So one may buy the land to mine the coal if it's profitable. Profit is the indicator that the markets values are being met.

All economic activity in a free society is just a reflection of the aggregate values of the market. With the state, it's a function of a tyrants values.


He wouldn't, he would only pay an amount based on what he may yield in return. What he may yield is a function of the markets values. If he can't find the capital for this investment, then clearly society doesn't value the rainforest enough for the proposed utilization.

Just because you personally might value it higher than the average market value per individual, doesn't mean you have the right to initiate force to impose your values on others. If you think people misrepresent the value of the rainforest then you are charged with the task of education; a non-violent solution to the problem.


It's not a burden to have a valuable asset. You're thinking in a collectivist mindset. If non-fractured forests are more valuable than fractured ones, the market will answer this demand. Again, edge effects are factored in by the market.

In summary: the market does not value the ecosystem as it should due to near term interests, ignorance and greed, and our children, their children, and so forth are left to pay the price.

I really wished we could have saved the dodo bird, I think they're kinda cute. Alas... it can never be.

Education not violence. Try it on for size. It might just suit you. It's certainly less painful for others.

What is your point about the dodo bird? All I can imagine is, you think concern over species extinction is about aesthetics. Is that correct? Is it safe to assume that you don't understand ecosystem services, trophic cascades, coevolution, nutrient cycling, water quality, flood control, and so on?

What do you think I've been doing for the past twelve months here? Read my posts. Start with this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

Ranting, getting perilously close to educating but shying away, and advocating violence?

I admit that I do get disgusted with a very prevalent way of thinking here based on basically ignoring any information that is not convenient to the popular ideologies around here. I have been educating and sharing links to reputable scientific studies for a long time here. They largely go ignored, and then the person(s) come back and present more material that is clearly indicative that they are operating with a minimal set of knowledge about certain issues.

I do not advocate violence. But I do advocate rules and regulations. If in your world, even the idea of a rule or regulation means violence, then go ahead and think that way.

You advocate forcing people to be nice to Gaia. I've not heard you give, or agree to, any market incentives to encourage that, you just say they should be made to do it. That's advocating violence.

Have you read all my posts? I doubt it.

I love to be proven wrong. It happens so rarely that it's a real treat. Feel free to provide a post that does so.

Actually, it does go beyond aesthetics, of course that's a given. And no, I don't understand all of the nuances, specifics, and infinite interactions of all species in relation to all other species and their environment. All I'm trying to say is, if you're going to educate people, then do just that. Do not use the law to force it down their throats.

Unfortunately, that is what you appear to do. Your discussions are slanted in the direction of using force and coercion, if not outright violence, imprisonment, and death of another human being, if they don't respect the environment as much as you do. You will never convince anybody of anything good, if you wave a "gun" in their face (or get your disciples to do it for you).

This is what most governments do. They use the "religion" of "environmentalism" and science to manipulate less educated individuals into relinquishing their property. And for what? The elite? The few? The educated minority? The "perfect" ecosystem -which would be what exactly? Even you couldn't possible assume to know this (gives new meaning to hubris, if that's your claim).

It seems humans are being relegated to beasts of the field. Except that the educated aren't beasts, they're our masters. Weird how that happens. Sounds so last millennia. I thought we got over this slavery thing.

People don't seem to realize that environmentalists aren't trying to save the Earth. They're trying to save our home. We don't have anywhere else to go at the moment. Once it's fucked, we're fucked.

I understand that completely. We are part of a self-regulating system. What the environmentalists want to do is to start poking around in that self-regulating system to nudge it back to some arbitrarily defined "norm". Activities such as this have historically ended poorly.

Right now it's self regulating us right into waterworld or another ice age. With the human population growing so quickly there's no way for the Earth to self-regulate itself in a way that doesn't end in our extinction eventually. Even if climate change isn't the end of the world most people believe someday we are going to have to do something to adjust the environment to grow food or lower/raise temps simply to sustain our growth. Asteroids are part of the environment. Should we not use our technology to save ourselves even though an asteroid hit would be nature self-regulating us into vapor?

Well, all of those (except the asteroid) are good points to indicate we should change our behavior if we desire to continue living on this planet. My main complaint with environmentalism is that it isn't honest with itself. I can't remember whether it was this thread or the other that I called FirstAscent out on it, and of course, he dodged it. Environmentalists don't care about the earth, as you said. They care about making sure NYC isn't flooded. They don't want humans to go extinct, and neither do I. I think that's a noble goal. But preach it honestly, don't whine about the thistle-breasted nuthatch or whatever.

The asteroid, however would not be nature self-regulating, since by definition nothing we do here can affect the orbital trajectory of an asteroid way the hell out in one of the belts. That would be an aberration, and I would certainly advocate doing something about it.

But it is precisely because of these sorts of aberrations that I am strongly in favor of "moving out of mom's basement", and setting up shop elsewhere. If all the eggs are in one basket, it's far too easy for them all to get broken.

My goal is eventually start Marscoin since the network lag would make BTC mining on Mars impossible.

Idea: Locate Bitcoin miners in space (iiiiin spaaaaaace!), at some relatively central Lagrange point, and use it for interplanetary settlements or transfers of wealth. Each planet, then would have its own coin, which you would then convert into when you land. Perpetual travelers could just keep their funds in Bitcoin, or convert small amounts as needed.

Just like how currency works now. It hasn't changed for millennia, and aside from a 10-20 year range where Bitcoin will dominate, eventually different planets will have different currencies again.

Don't get used to Bitcoin being the universal currency, because that's about to change.

So what if I don't want to obey your rules and regulations? Violence!

Don't bullshit yourself; you're pointing guns in peoples faces and telling them to hug trees. You wonder why people here are ignoring your "education", because it's education at the point of a gun.

Try finding voluntary solutions to environmental issues. Using violence doesn't work. The government doesn't and never will give a fuck about the environment, except as an excuse to grab more power.

"I can't figure out how to solve this problem through persuasion and cooperation so I'll use violent force" -- FirstAscent

Here is all the education you need to see whats happening with the global climate...

Earth's Temerature History from Sediment Cores(5mY):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg/1000px-Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg.png

Earth's Temerature History from Ice Cores (800kY):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg/1000px-EPICA_temperature_plot.svg.png

... and to realize you are being indoctrinated, manipulated, propagandized, lied to, and stolen from to advance an agenda not based on bad science, but instead based on psychology. They know if they repeat themselves often enough, we eventually believe regardless of the accuracy, becasue we are stupid, apathetic, disinterested creatures who are irrational and can be easily scared into doing/approving/accepting things spoon fed to us. As to the bad science, I think that label is giving the science alot of credit. I prefer to think of it as treason, war crimes, and/or crimes against humanity, punishable by death. Which would certainly fix the problem of bastardized/bad science to advance an agenda that tries to steal wealth, land, auto-immunity, state sovereignty and the sovereignty of the world citizens.

Did you notice the massive increase in both temperature and the degree of temperature fluctuation ... before humans and our industrial technology existed?

The earth is alive and in a constant state of flux ever-changing. We can only affect the earth locally. Earth repairs itself. I am not saying we cant hurt it, but I am saying that the evidence shows that we have not hurt it.

It's very easy to identify a perfect ecosystem. It's an area (the larger the better) that has yet to have been changed by humanity. Lands that were designated protected wilderness before humanity had any chance to do anything but really walk through it on foot are examples.

What an absurd statement. Dam busting would be an example of an activity to revert a system back to its norm, and they don't end poorly.

So again, the implied solution to all planet earth's "problems" (completely manufactured bullshit repeated over and over to brainwash people to agree to be subjected to every form of tyranny imaginable) is extinction of the human race. Mhm...

FirstAscent, the sooner you realize that human beings are part of the ecosystem, like wolves and beavers, and not external to it, the quicker you will become less annoying to the rest of us.

That's exactly why it's in our interest to preserve it.

Preserve it, yes. By, say, not shitting in the water supply. That would be a good start. We could start using composting more, instead of throwing things in landfills. That would be great too. It would also provide fertilizer that we didn't have to strip-mine for. There's a huge difference between undoing change just because it was done by humans, and changing our behavior to fuck up the environment less.

Preserve/=destroying liberties and ultimately exterminating humanity.

They're not, that was an attempt to approximate the character ≠.

You're agreeing with him. :)

It's not my fault facts and knowledge annoy you. The sooner you stop trying to conflate ideology with terms, processes and general knowledge about the environment, the sooner you'll be able to digest the full picture, and then more powerfully derive solutions that are derived from your new found knowledge, rather than assumptions that conveniently dovetail with your ideology.

Your statement above is obviously driven by your ideology, rather than understanding. Can you think what the one huge difference is about humanity which justifies thinking about ecosystems sans humans?

I can think of several large differences which set us apart from other animals, the largest being our sapience, but none of those justify thinking about ecosystems without our presence. We need to think about ourselves as part of the ecosystem, not as a cancer to be purged.

Nobody mentioned cancer to be purged in the sense that you meant it. Consider how cancer purges itself though.

Anyway, back to the question at hand. While it's relevant to think of ourselves as part of the ecosystem under certain circumstances in an ideal world, it's important to understand the motivation to understand why there is a difference between a natural ecosystem sans humanity, and one affected by humanity. If you can't grasp what that fundamental difference is, and how it affects ecosystems, then you need to continue studying.

Take a look at it now...

Please don't misquote me.

By the way, it's obvious that you do not understand the difference between beavers and humanity. Think harder. I can help you to determine the difference (and strengthen your understanding) by suggesting you set aside your ideology, as you obviously want the answer to support your ideology. Sadly, that's not a solid way to think.

Try harder. I know you're intelligent enough to get the answer. Think about the beavers, and think what's different about beaver actions and human actions.

Myrkul,

I know you're smarter than this. But by clinging to your ideology, you're coming up short with regard to deriving the answer.

I didn't misquote you, I changed the words for effect. Don't like it, edit my post... oh, wait, you can't. And since I can't edit your post either, your words are safe. Suck it up and deal.

Look, I'm all for not fucking up the environment. What I am not OK with is your methodology for changing our current course. Humanity is part of nature. That we build our dams out of concrete and steel and beavers build theirs out of locally sourced wood only means that they cut down trees to do so. Could we learn a thing or two about dam construction from beavers? Sure. Does that mean you should tear down every human-built dam simply because it was built by humans? No.

You wanna "save the planet"? Go out and educate people. Don't advocate forcing people to change, teach them, make them want to change.

Humanity cannot kill the Earth. It will not happen. However, if we continue on the path we're on, the Earth may well kill humanity. Perhaps the next species to rise to dominance will not be so self-destructive.

Awesome! Are you interested in learning about that subject? Someone motivated in not fucking up the environment would be interested in hearing about some books on the subject. Would you like to hear my recommendations?


I am trying to educate you right now.

Now, back to the beavers and humans. Why are you still missing the fundamental difference? I do believe I know why. It's because you can't think objectively about the subject, and you're not well educated on the subject. Do you want to remedy that?

Feel free:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92952.0

Try this exercise: assume, momentarily, that there really is a fundamental difference between humanity's actions and those of animals that is so significant that it justifies thinking about humanity separate from natural ecosystems. I know you're smart enough to figure this out. But unfortunately, you're doing a great job of making my secondary point, which is that you can't research or think without being influenced by your ideology.

Show me I'm wrong. Demonstrate that you are indeed capable of articulating the difference, even if it requires some objective thinking on your part.

Just as soon as you finish your thoughts in that other post. I am genuinely fucking interested, and your ignoring that thread is starting to piss me off.

I'm glad that you're fucking interested. Like I said, I can recommend some good books for you. There comes a point where your education is not entirely my responsibility. In the mean time, please try and set aside your ideology and answer the question here.

No. I'm not listening, or responding, to any more of your environmentalist drivel until you cogently explain your position in the thread linked above. Now get to it, or shut the fuck up.

Closing your ears, are you? Just so you know, while you wrote the above post, I was answering your question in the other thread.

FirstAscent,

Say you won't force a man to use his property like you want him to, and we're all ears. Say you won't use coercion or threats to change his opinion about the utilization of his property, and we're all ears. Say you won't commit violence upon another man unless you can directly show trespass or vandalization of the property of others, and we're all ears.

Say it, or you're no different than any other robber baron out there. A political thief, hack, and back-room highwayman parading as the saviour of the Earth. You tell us to concede our ideology. I say, you first. If you're going to engage in the determination of what is "right" and "wrong", you'll have to be the first to abandon your religion.

And just so we're clear science is not religion.

I dare you. I'm waiting...

What is the relevance of an ideology here? I'm saying (to you and myself), let's not discuss ideology. Instead, let's toss out ideologies, look at how things work, and discuss solutions. So what if I suggest regulation? I am not personally doing any regulating. What I am doing is trying to get others to at least know how things work before they render an ideology that solves the problem.

I don't have an interest in discussing application of an ideology (promoting mine, whatever it may be, or listening to others promoting their's) until we understand what the problems are. Even presupposing I'm as evil and control minded as you think, it's not relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is understanding the dynamics of the problem space. Why don't we focus on that?

For example, look at the title of this thread (which I did not create). Isn't it rather absurd, given that its goal is to make recommendations to those who actually take the time to study ecology, environmental science, biology and such from someone who is almost certainly far behind the curve within those fields? Isn't that kind of ridiculous? Before you answer, consider: it's not always healthy to do whatever you want, and especially when you're not fully informed on the ramifications of what you're doing.

I expected, when I clicked that "show" link, to be presented with evasion, condescension, and general ass-holery.

I was not disappointed.

I present, Environmentalist Dalek:
https://i.imgur.com/84Sl5.jpg

How many libertarians does it take to bolster their own rhetoric and thinking when debating environmentalism?

I bolded some of the key words you used. The first is the word 'discuss'. Nothing wrong with that one. We can do that all day long and nobody gets hurt. The second word was 'regulation'. Despite the fact that you think that it's okay to regulate someone and their things, you rang the philosophical ideology bell (again). You've now just stepped back into the "ideology ring" and put your boxing gloves back on. You may not actually be the one "regulating", but you are complicit in its implementation if you agree with it. Say it ain't so.

If you aren't interested in discussing ideological implementations, why are you in this thread in the first place? Why not just start a science thread outside the 'politics and society' blog? Then you wouldn't get so confused and accosted by the likes of other "politically charged" characters such as myself.

And finally, and last but not least, you use the word 'healthy'. Healthy for who? Me? What if I want to be a big fat slob? Should you regulate what I eat? Make laws that increase the cost of specific foodstuffs you think might ruin my life?

Oh wait, that's not what you mean. Of course not, you're talking about the little creatures and plant life that live on my property. You want to make them healthier... So nice of you to care... Exactly how are you going to achieve that? How many times do I have to ask the same question over and over again? Are you going to sacrifice my life for a creature that roams my land (or hire others to do it for you)?

Because if you do, then I could just as easily consider you a creature too and hunt you like prey. If you stray onto my hunting ground that I've marked (I'm territorial), I might just have you for dinner. All's fair in prey and predator right? We're just a bunch of animals right? No right nor wrong, just food and apex predatory behaviour.

Try discussing, rather than forcing others to say things. It's kind of hypocritical, don't you think? Nobody is stopping you from discussing and sharing knowledge about how the environment works, are they? Instead, what you're doing is demanding that someone state a position on a solution that agrees with you before discussing the mechanics of the problem. Kind of backwards, isn't it?

Feel free to discuss the mechanics of the problem any time you like: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92952.0

Is that because you expect someone else to educate you and wipe your ass, instead of being encouraged to learn on your own?

No, that's because you started that thread indicating you wanted to educate people. Go. Do.

FirstAscent is a tyrant. He wants to use the force of the state to implement his ideal of environmental harmony. However noble the intent, such an implementation is misguided, destructive.

He might change his mind and see that violent interactions are inferior to peaceful ones. He might not. What is certain though is that we have and are wasting way too much energy in these "debates" where he constantly avoids the core principal. He only want's to preach his doctrine of violent control. He is too attached to his regulatory framework to accept reason.

If you want to spread the message of AnCap, you can surely find some lower hanging fruit. I suggest you stop banging you heads against this wall of bigotry and find people more receptive to the principals of a free society. I personally, am done.

I know you persist because it bothers you that one cannot see a message so clear and pure, but it's time to accept that some people just don't want to understand. We will have to drag them kicking an screaming into a society free from institutionalised violence - metaphorically, of course  ;)

I have no hope that FirstAscent will ever give up his position. I take comfort in this, as it affords me an eternally available target to demonstrate the folly of. My goal is not to convert FirstAscent, but those who chance upon our discussions, and see a well-reasoned argument for peace and education met with evasion and calls of "there oughtta be a law". And if, in the end, I do show FirstAscent the error of his ways, well, that's just a bonus.

Is that because you want to be educated? Please demonstrate that by considering the notion that your analogy of beaver engineering to human engineering does not work, even when ignoring the magnitude of the differences. What is it about humanity which makes it valid to separate it from nature when evaluating the impact of humanity on the environment? Are you unable to figure this one out? Must this discussion end with the obvious conclusion that you are mentally unable to think on a matter without being influenced by your ideology?

I see myrkul still can't figure out the difference between beavers and humanity. Hint: it's more than just a difference in magnitude. Tell me now, do you still have those blinders on which causes you to see the world in a way that makes it convenient for you to defend AnCap? Debating while wearing blinders only shows that your ideas are not sound or robust.

Ecology isn't a position. It's not a political thing anymore than astronomy is. If you wish to call ecology drivel, then explain how it qualifies as such.

You say you want to educate me. Do so, at the thread linked. Until you do, I'm not responding to you other than to deliver another link to that thread, and repeat this demand.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92952.0

Deflection on your part will not hide how you aren't able to think outside the boundaries of your own ideology.

I'll ask again, since you made the analogy about beavers and humanity. What is it about humanity that makes it worthwhile to think of them and their actions as separate from natural processes?

You say you want to educate me. Do so, at the thread linked. Until you do, I'm not responding to you other than to deliver another link to that thread, and repeat this demand.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92952.0

I'll take your request to be symbolic of the following:

1. You demand others educate you, rather than being proactive about your own education.

2. You realize you're deficient with regard to the subject matter.

3. From (2), we can conclude you're not qualified to make judgements about the applicability of the ecological sciences to economics, policy or society, and conversely, you're not qualified to make judgements about the effects of your ideology on ecosystems.

However, my question to you, repeated now several times, offers you the opportunity to discuss the matter further in such a way that both your understanding of the matters would be increased, your thought processes exercised, and additionally, would offer you the opportunity to gain some respect from your foes, something which is generally worth more than respect from your group think buddies.

You say you want to educate me. Do so, at the thread linked. Until you do, I'm not responding to you other than to deliver another link to that thread, and repeat this demand.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92952.0

I have noted your demand and your threat. Of what significance it is to me, I neither know nor care.

I make no threat... Getting bored yet?

You say you want to educate me. Do so, at the thread linked. Until you do, I'm not responding to you other than to deliver another link to that thread, and repeat this demand.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92952.0

I'd ignored you, but looking at the quote above, it looks like you are a still a bald-faced liar, FirstAscent. I look forward to your claim that I threatened you in this very post, so it is absolutely clear to everyone that you are a pathological lying sack of crap.

Is this really necessary?

The visceral hatred of science expressed by the libertarians here makes all of you appear very strange. Most of you are a confused and hypocritical lot.

Let's get something straight: ecology is not politics anymore than astronomy is. If you think it is, than you're kind of stupid. And if you keep using your ideology to change how you think about ecology, then you deserve all the disrespect you get.

Exactly. Science is not politics. So don't argue about politics in a thread about science.

The OP in this thread is a politically motivated attack on environmentalism.

Also, apparently you missed the part where I present information about ecology, and then get replies claiming that information is political.

I tell you what, dree12, I'll leave you and your buddies to convince all of yourselves that you actually know stuff you don't about the subject, so that you can continue to wallow in your own ideas (bereft of any scientific basis), and then you'll be blissfully happy as each of you pats each other on the back for believing all of your own rhetoric.

In case you haven't realized, I've attacked OP on numerous occasions for his ignorance of science. The subject is about "environmentalism". That has nothing to do about politics.

You can have whatever political view you wish. This goes to everyone in this thread. But that is irrelevant to a discussion about ecology and the human environment.

The OP seems to be all about politics, specifically that practiced by environmentalists who want to use violent force (directly or by proxy) to achieve allegedly "scientific", ultimately tyrannical, ends. Why try to decouple politics from its inextricably linked "science" (which, in this case, wouldn't exist if tyranny and the bankroll thereof, didn't). Do environmentalists have that little faith in their "science" that they can't stand it being criticized for what it is? An instrument of control and ideally, the eventual extinction of the human race?

Apparently it was, since it took that long to get him to respond in the other thread.

Way before politics was discovered or invented, there was science. Way after politics become obsolete, there will be science. The OP was dumb enough to dispute science to achieve a political end.

Environmental science and ecology are sciences. They are not political instruments of control. If for some reason you believe they are, try to reason why these crucial sciences are more politically motivated than physics, for example. There was a period of denial politically of many sciences, and politically many still deny crucial advances in environment and ecology. This won't last.

Science > Politics.

The point wasn't related to the other thread, nor was my response in that thread related to you, obviously. The point was to get you to think about your statements about how to view humanity's role within the realm of nature - something you still haven't demonstrated any real knowledge about.

Furthermore, I believe you were named an equal culprit in the argument.

The other thread is specifically about humanity's role in the environment. You want me to think about that, you go do that in the thread you started specifically to do so. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92952.0

The more you understand ecology, ecosystem services, biodiversity and biology (all scientific subjects) the more you'll understand how your views are expressed from the pulpit of ignorance.

Let's examine the following statement which is a classic example of stupidity:


If you don't understand the science, then you're not qualified to criticize it. On the other hand, if you can demonstrate knowledge on the subject, then you begin to earn the right to criticize it. So, start demonstrating knowledge. You sound like an uneducated blowhard ranting on and on about stuff you've learned by reading the latest group think branwashing anti-government anti-science propaganda sites.

My challenge to you: demonstrate some knowledge on what you criticize.

Not since that dumbfuck posted in the thread right before my recent response.

So, you're just going to let one off-topic post derail your thread?

LMFAO. /endthread

But not the end of quality science despite ignorant blowhards who neither understand it nor appreciate what it has to offer.

Probably not, but the post in question is symbolic of ignorance, and touches not just lightly on the parallel discussion here.

Educate yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#Science_in_the_Ancient_Near_East).

How to handle off-topic posts in your thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88296.msg978683#msg978683

You're right. I should have said something like that.

Gotcha!

Ever since humans have been organizing themselves into groups, politics has existed.

/endthread

Uh, no. Politics refers to the science of running states, true ones which did not appear until 2100 BCE in Sumer (now Iraq). Thousands of years ago, there was still science without states.

Thanks for that highly debatable estimate without a source. How very "scientific" of you.

Science?: 3500BC, in the Uruk period, according to your link
Politics?: The Ubaid period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period) ca. 6500 to 3800 BC at the very least, if not dating all the way back to tribalism/primitive democracy

That source mentions neither a government nor a state. This source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer#Legacy) states that Sumer was the first state to gain a government.

It sure doesn't, if you ignore the obvious government and state.