See the above text from my original post? I'd like to see discussion centering around that if possible. Since everyone has their ideas of what political ideology would be best, please describe what that political ideology will get us between now and a hundred years from now. If possible, please factor in all of the following (or more): resource management, population growth, urban environments, the natural environment, application of technology, space exploration, global trade, privacy, etc.

There is not guarantee here at all. B does not necessarily follow from A in any way, shape or form. History certainly indicates otherwise. But based on what you're implying here, I could argue that my proactive stance on certain issues is in fact the precursor to causing our ways to be altered. On the other hand, your rejection of the importance of what I'm saying could in fact be an example of humanity's failure to alter our ways.

From an economic point of view, the price rises, thus reducing consumption. But the harvesting of said resource destroys countless other resources which are not figured and valued into an economic model and their value may not yet be known. This is happening all around us all the time, and it's a lack of knowledge of the long term effects which wreaks havoc on our future.

Consider this post which I made in another thread which ultimately deals with water quality due to the biodiversity of microorganisms: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40394.msg509546#msg509546

Please take a moment to read it.

You're dodging the question. You've stated that an important metric to you is production. And unhindered efficient production. And in another thread (The Next One Hundred Years), you've mentioned societal desires. My contention is that unhindered efficient production to satisfy societal desires does not appear (based on past history) to mean efficient use of Earth's finite resources, but rather efficient exploitation of Earth's finite resources.

And those societal desires will result in what?

We can assume that the fruits of your labor are nothing more than the production of thought. But in the general case, everyone's fruits arising from their labor, which are not just thoughts, but tangible things, what are the input components? Where do they come from?

I'd be happy to discuss this with you. By fruits of your labor, what are the input components to allow you to engage in production?

Product output? Be more specific. Do you mean GDP?

That is a blanket statement against socialism which does nothing to address why Americans vs. some other nations have the feelings they do about socialism.

Two things: The Bible belt and the ingrained sense that there's still a frontier out there.

Where do you see things headed over the next one hundred years? I don't just mean year 2111, but all the years between now and then. Given the way things are, what scenarios do you see playing out?

How should things be by 2111, and all the intervening years? What is important? What are the means to get there?

Feel free to discuss and debate with others after addressing the questions above. You needn't feel compelled to describe all the aspects of humanity and the Earth, but at least the points which are important to you.

Sadly, this is pretty much true.

Bitcoin2cash has all the answers for you on roads. It's very simple. Someone will buy land and build the road for you and charge you for it and provide enforcement and infrastructure. Not satisfied with their service? Bitcoin2cash suggests that you build your own next to it and compete. A third enterprising party can build a tunnel underneath both. And another party can build a bridge over all of them. These are his words almost verbatim, I kid you not. As a driver, you will have choices galore. Just be sure to keep in mind that each road can have different laws as per the owners, and you'll want to keep track of all of the differing laws, and changes of ownership, which inevitably will lead to different fee structures, regulations, etc.

Why have one road going straight from A to B when you can have four? Never mind the waste and damage to the environment.

He said that halving the funding plays a significant role in causing a program to fail. Nowhere did he say that 1/2 equals 0. Just maybe you are a dumb fuck, as you suppose, or maybe you think we're dumb fucks and will fall for your spin of what he said. Which is it?

I think you've made some good points, and your last one was good. However, your pictures fail to capture some essential themes of biodiversity, and its role. Your pictures show land which has been landscaped and meddled with. They're better than concrete sidewalks, but the real preservation of biodiversity is in leaving ecosystems in their natural state, and as large as possible, to reduce edge effects.

I think you'd really enjoy these two books:

The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson

Rewilding North America: A Vision For Conservation In The 21St Century by Dave Foreman

Political ideals are like a hammer without any building materials. Mostly useless. Furthermore, is your focus on building houses or blacksmithing? One would require a framing hammer, the other a ball peen hammer. Choose your vocation, then acquire the building materials, then your hammer.

Books on political ideals are like hammers as well, and the knowledge upon which to apply them are the building materials. Choose your calling, then acquire the knowledge, and then select the political ideal which furthers that calling.

Thus, recommending books whose main focus is a political ideology is like recommending a hammer in the vacuum of any knowledge about the real world. Far more constructive (the metaphorical use of the word 'constructive' works well here) is to recommend or request books on real world issues that the world faces.

There is a definite imbalance here related to the book recommendations.

To further the analogy, I suspect that many libertarians here like to call themselves libertarians the way another likes to wear a costume. You too can buy a tool belt and fit a framing hammer into its loop and walk around feeling like a can do handyman. So go arm yourself with the latest book on libertarian thought, and walk about spouting the latest libertarian values - the ultimate rebel without a cause.

Of course, we all know what the term rebel without a cause means - it means you've got a political ideology, but no cause. Like I was saying, find a cause first.

Government is definitely not doing a good enough job. But to relax their regulations even further is to go in the direction the libertarians want.

In a nutshell, we need stricter environmental regulations which severely restrict exploitation of the environment, which in turn spurs capitalistic markets to competitively discover the technology faster that will allow prosperity for people.

EDIT: And relaxed or no regulations will only accelerate the exploitation of the environment, as individuals race to pick the lowest hanging fruit before their competitors do.

Excellent question/observations. To begin, preaching to the choir is not necessary, but pointing things out to those with very different views allows one to hone their arguments and points, as well as spread ideals/ideas, because as you know, forum posts aren't just for the one you're debating, but for all the other readers/lurkers as well. Regarding conservation goals, I'm seriously evaluating what and how I might engage in such activities, and this forum in the mean time allows me to explore and share my growing knowledge base on the subject.

Now, I think that was a reasonable answer.

One more note: this is the real world we're living in. If you want to debate about a (as of yet nonexistent) libertarian society and how it might address Global Warming, that's a fine hobby. But also consider the state of the World as it exists right now, and the value in discussing how environmental issues within the context of the world we are currently living in can be addressed. One of the most serious issues we all face right now is the industry which manufactures propaganda in an attempt to malign the science behind climate change, and the libertarian community is hugely responsible for a large portion of that brownlash. So consider that to be another reason why I hang out here. To put it bluntly, there are probably no small number of individuals here who choose to wear libertarian values like a costume, because of its novelty and supposed independent thought it spawns. If I can bring to their attention an alternative viewpoint, then I consider my efforts successful.

You may like Immanuel Go's picture better, but you haven't indicated that you're interested in methods to make sure that such environments will be around much longer or in abundance given your political ideological beliefs.

False. There is no guarantee that any or all will regulate, hence the unpredictable nature of such a system. Furthermore, some problems benefit from a uniform, consistent and continuous application of policy, otherwise continued degradation will occur, at the expense of the entire population, as well as future generations. The environment is such an example.