I'll get back to you now. Get educated, so that you're qualified to discuss these matters.

Read Edward O. Wilson, John Terborgh, Paul S. Martin, Michael Soule, and Paul Ehrlich.

Why are you always so contradictory? It does nothing for your arguments.

This already is happening in big ways. The Nature Conservancy is buying up huge areas of rain forest where it can, but it can't do it fast enough, and before you declare that you understand or don't understand the significance of "fast enough", be prepared to research the magnitude of the problem. The first thing you need to understand is the importance of preserving ecosystems for our own continued existence on this planet. Then you need to understand the extinction rate acceleration that is occurring. Over the past 450 million years or so, the average extinction rate has been one species per million per year. Currently, almost entirely due to man, the extinction rate is 1,000 to 10,000 species per million per year. That's 0.1 to 1 percent per year. Do the math.

Other philanthropists buying up land are Yvon Chouinard and Doug Thompkins, owners of Patagonia, Inc. and The North Face.

Regarding buying specimens to relocate - this contributes to the problem. Not the idea, but the fact that there are people like you who think this will work. Species are part of their ecosystem. It's not so easy to just relocate them. And this brings me to the spotted owl. Perhaps you've heard of the spotted owl and the controversy between the ESA and the logging companies? What's that controversy about, anyway? I'll explain. Protection of the spotted owl is not about saving the spotted owl - it's about that and a whole lot more. You see, by saving the spotted owl, which has been identified as an umbrella species, what's really happening is setting in motion the necessary rules to save the very important and last remaining old growth forests in the country, because the spotted owl cannot survive anywhere else. They can live in secondary growth forests, but cannot resist going extinct unless the old growth forests are saved. And by saving the old growth forests, whole ecosystems which hundreds, perhaps many thousands of species depend on can also survive. So the spotted owl provides the umbrella to the whole region.


Short term, there may be some negative consequences. But on balance, generally both in the short term, and the long term, the benefits far outweigh the negative effects. And what is required, before speculating too much on these matters, is to really understand the ramifications of what you're saying.

I challenge you to enumerate all the benefits of preserving biodiversity and ecosystems off the top of your head. But I also encourage you to make an earnest attempt to research the matter enough so that if you can't name those benefits off the top of your head, you will be able to after researching the matter.

Here are some particular things you might want to become familiar with:

The Great Amphibian Dying: amphibian extinctions are considered to be early indicators of bad things to come. Why? They spend their adolescent years in the water, and their adult years in the soil, typically in forests. They breathe through their skin. This means they're susceptible to toxins in the water, toxins in the soil, pollutants in the atmosphere, and deforestation. In other words, they're more vulnerable than most species, and thus a sort of early warning indicator of the Earth's natural systems going bad. Do you care to speculate why there were massive amphibian extinctions on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada but not on the east side? I can spell it out for you if you can't figure it out yourself.

The Sumatran rhino: here's a classic example of exploitation and collateral damage to satisfy free markets. Furthermore, it's an example of increased rarity contributing to an accelerated harvesting of these creatures.

The Blue whale: there used to be hundreds of thousands of blue whales. In 1930-31, 29,400 were hunted in the Antarctic alone. They nearly went extinct (down to a few hundred), but due to regulations enacted, they are recovering, and now number in the thousands, but less than 10,000.

Learn about trophic cascades caused by predators, and how these cascades are responsible for important things you might take for granted, like water quality, via natural regulation of riparian zones. As mentioned earlier, learn about umbrella species, and keystone species, and what their significance is.

Learn about how future technology can both aid in development of new technologies through the study of species that we haven't yet fully studied. It would be a shame to lose all those species, and instead find ourselves on a desolate desert world devoid of a wealth of information embedded in the ecosystems we destroyed.

You might want to learn about ecosystem fragmentation, and edge effects as well.

You might want to educate yourself on deep sea fishing, and what the limiting factors are which determine the annual global fish haul, and how those limiting factors have changed over the past several hundred years.

Perhaps you might want to take the time to learn about wildlife corridors, and what their importance is.

And of course, become familiar with the overkill hypothesis. The areas of of interest would be New Zealand, Australia, the Pacific Islands, North America, South America, and Europe. Ever wonder why all the megafauna extinctions on all those land masses coincided exactly with the appearance of man? Ever wonder why we have so few large animals on all those continents? Ever wonder why we do have large animals (megafauna) in Africa?

I could go on here. Do you need some book recommendations?

Actually, that was my point. The value of the environment, it's ecosystems, etc is separate from an emotional attachment to it. Learn about the value of the environment and its ecosystems, the services they provide, and then reformulate your arguments such that they don't sound like they've been written by one who is ignorant of those values and services.

Also, you might want to study ethics while you're at it.

Containment defines ownership? Well, I suppose I could buy the road that your property has access to, since you're in favor of private roads. Then I could buy the properties on both sides of your land and behind you. Then I could build a wall around your property. And I'm assuming that you haven't yet claimed the air above your property because you haven't built a bubble over your property, so if you haven't claimed that air, I'll just claim it, and then I can engage in construction in that space and build a roof over your property as well.

Guess what? I've just contained you - therefore I get to say I own you. Now what were you saying about owning a whale? Oh, I see - it's beneath you on the scale of sentience. Like I said, study ethics.

Now, as for you owning insects on your property, I won't play the ethics card there. But I will point out your ignorance with regard to the complexities of ecosystems. Recall the post I made about wolves, trophic cascades and riparian zones? Either you do, or you decided it wasn't convenient to your belief system. Better to remain naive than to be inconvenienced by knowledge.

Are you familiar with the spotted owl and the controversy surrounding it? I'm quite certain you don't understand what the purpose of saving the spotted owl is, based on your general remarks. Or do you?

Emotionally? As usual, you're being naive. It's analogous to you being informed that you had better put tires on your car that are rated for its weight, and you accusing the guy making that recommendation that he just likes the way the tires look.

The less you know, the more cool your ideas look. And the arguments against your ideas must just be emotional. You've said some very strange things in this forum.

Give up?

No, you see, according to these guys, that wouldn't be OK if it detonated. Upon detonation, he would then be subject to being sued. Perhaps bitcoin2cash had friends and family in Tucson. He could then file a lawsuit. Remember, everything is reactionary, not proactive.

Sounds like you're trying to impose a human construct (the notion of property rights) on things because it's convenient for your beliefs.

You can own a whale? Really? Why is that? Wait, let me see - it's because you believe you have that right. Who enforces that right?

That river in your backyard - by your logic, you can contain it (create a dam), and thus you own the water in the river. Is that acceptable?

To be clear, I understand the necessity of property rights, and believe in them. To a point.

Any idea which leads us down the road of having to address these questions when they don't require addressing with our current solution. Why do you obsess over this stuff? I think most people do not want all roads to be private. It would suck. Is that too hard to accept?

The idea of private roads really sucks. How can you tell? Because you have these dilemmas when you start discussing them.

This is the whole point. Consider this:

Y is the owner of road A. Y charges 5c/mi. Now Z buys road A from Y. Z ups the rate, and changes the way the road can be used. Ever had your cell provider be bought out? It's not uncommon for service providers to buy other service providers, and then phase out programs, pricing, etc. It's very annoying. If we're annoyed enough, we switch providers. But how do you switch roads?

Ever here the phrase "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? Sure you have. Is the government broken? In many ways. Is road management one of them? Not really.

Let's be honest. The current system of road management is much preferable to these crackpot solutions. And it already exists! The takeaway from all this is this: stop the silly debates about proposing to the letter the concept of property rights for everything. It doesn't make sense.

Air. Water. Moisture. Invertebrates. Fish. Whales. Migratory animals. Eroded soil. Soil in the rivers. Heck, rivers (but I said that when I said water). Oceans (it's like air). Aquifers (it's water, you know). The negative space in caves (air, you know). Birds (free as a bird?). Heck, let's just say wild animals. Of course, now we need to acknowledge that they are beings, and by extension, we need to acknowledge their homes, which is the air, sea and ground.

Ecosystems.

Ah! Ecosystems are like air! They move around, they change, and what happens over here affects over there - just like air, because it mixes.

We need air. That's just plain fucking obvious. But do we need ecosystems? Ummm, they're really complex. Yeah, so unless one makes the effort to understand them, maybe one should be careful about who has what rights to change them.

Well, what if the road outside my front door is one of those businesses that is like hell? And I don't want to keep lawyers in reserve so I can walk out my front door onto a street. And do I have to pay a toll every time I do that? Or am I billed monthly? Neither sounds appealing at all.

That will be your house, somewhere underneath all of that.

There is no point in stating it's impossible. I will state that it's highly unlikely. I'll let you refute that as long as you address other points and questions I've raised in the past few posts.

Then try and detail a path to achieving that. But even so, you're failing to address a lot of issues.

Did you see me make a post advocating non-slavery recently? If I had, I might be inclined to explore the idea further. Your request is akin to me suggesting you demonstrate how we can colonize the moons of Jupiter this century, which is something I would only ask of you if you had been incessantly saying we should colonize the moons of Jupiter this century.

You have incessantly been saying that we should make everything privately owned. My request of you is justified.

Oh for crying out loud. Stop it with that. You honestly don't know enough about the environment, ecosystems, the oceans, human behavior, or the events that have transpired over the last 40,000 years to slap your ideology on it and call it solved. Furthermore, we live in this world, not your fabled world where we just make everything privately owned.

Read this book: Valuing the Earth. One of the contributors is Garrett Hardin, the author of The Tragedy of the Commons.

Note: Show your mettle. Write a clear path demonstrating how everything can become privately owned given the state of today's world. Then start weighing the pros and cons of your solution, assuming you've demonstrated how it can be achieved, after you've educated yourself more thoroughly in a number of subjects.

And while you're at it, consider these questions. What was the limiting factor to deep sea fishing 150 years ago? What is the limiting factor today? How does the tragedy of the commons apply? How does private ownership address these issues? How is this problem analogous to other problems?

Bridges and tunnels, man. Over and under your house. Bitcoin2cash suggested that at least once. He said, don't think two dimensionally.

It's not just the reactionary crap. It's the idea that there will be three roads side by side as competitors each build roads. Or that being taxed is horrific violence. Or that you each pick a court that has its own set of laws which it believes are appropriate, some being NAP, and others not. It's the idea that everyone just agrees to NAP. It's the idea that the environment plays second fiddle to minor rights of people. It's the idea that everyday people will know complex stuff in order to not cause cascading effects in the world. It's the idea that there is no might makes right except it all devolves to exactly that. It's the idea that an HOA is not taxing you. It's the idea that everyone in here arguing these point of views is using and taking for granted a myriad of services that they could not do without. It's the idea that all this talk will ever ever actually be implementable, which makes it moot. It's the idea that all this philosophical talk is more important than addressing real issues. It's the idea that knowledge of political ideology is all you need, and not real world knowledge of things external to political ideologies. It's the idea that everything will just work. It's the idea that the neighbor will always keep you in line through lawsuits, instead of actually colluding with you and causing damage to others. It's the idea that anyone would want to learn and keep up with private enforcement, different sets of laws on different roads or businesses, that you would want to spend all your time researching and hiring services, paying tolls, and monitoring changes in policies for every service provider.

Sounds like hell.

Actually, I was being sarcastic. It's not that interesting unless you can elicit an 'Aha!' moment for most of the world's citizens by presenting a solution with precise terms that can be shown to be better than current systems, and can realistically supplant current systems. Demonstrate not just the efficacy of your proposals, but a clear path towards its implementation and adoption.