I acquire property, and through my hard work, improve the land I now own.

[FirstAscent]

This very tiny blue dot in space is our only place we can survive.. Instead of fighting to own part of it or it's ressources, we must all aim to preserve it for everything alive on it.  It's our duty, has it's the only place we all have to survive.

No, it's not. We can survive just fine elsewhere. We just need less protection here.

What exactly do you mean by this?

[myrkul]

This very tiny blue dot in space is our only place we can survive.. Instead of fighting to own part of it or it's ressources, we must all aim to preserve it for everything alive on it.  It's our duty, has it's the only place we all have to survive.

No, it's not. We can survive just fine elsewhere. We just need less protection here.

What exactly do you mean by this?

It's in English. Where did I lose you?

[FirstAscent]

This very tiny blue dot in space is our only place we can survive.. Instead of fighting to own part of it or it's ressources, we must all aim to preserve it for everything alive on it.  It's our duty, has it's the only place we all have to survive.

No, it's not. We can survive just fine elsewhere. We just need less protection here.

What exactly do you mean by this?

It's in English. Where did I lose you?

Where you said elsewhere and mentioned something about less protection. Precision in articulation is golden. Half assed hand waving is decidedly not.

[myrkul]

This very tiny blue dot in space is our only place we can survive.. Instead of fighting to own part of it or it's ressources, we must all aim to preserve it for everything alive on it.  It's our duty, has it's the only place we all have to survive.

No, it's not. We can survive just fine elsewhere. We just need less protection here.

What exactly do you mean by this?

It's in English. Where did I lose you?

Where you said elsewhere and mentioned something about less protection. Precision in articulation is golden. Half assed hand waving is decidedly not.

Elsewhere = not Earth
Less protection = from radiation, the elements (meaning storms and temperatures, not Carbon and Helium), vacuum, etc.

Sorry. Kinda figured you knew what these words meant. Especially "elsewhere." I don't think the meaning of that word could have been more clear.

[FirstAscent]

Elsewhere = not Earth
Less protection = from radiation, the elements (meaning storms and temperatures, not Carbon and Helium), vacuum, etc.

Sorry. Kinda figured you knew what these words meant. Especially "elsewhere." I don't think the meaning of that word could have been more clear.

It's not an either/or. Your science fiction dream of abusing here and heading out there is not trumped by the science fiction dream of preserving here and going out there: Here you go!

[myrkul]

Elsewhere = not Earth
Less protection = from radiation, the elements (meaning storms and temperatures, not Carbon and Helium), vacuum, etc.

Sorry. Kinda figured you knew what these words meant. Especially "elsewhere." I don't think the meaning of that word could have been more clear.

It's not an either/or. Your science fiction dream of abusing here and heading out there is not trumped by the science fiction dream of preserving here and going out there: Here you go!

What makes you think I wish to "abuse here and head out there"? Perhaps I wish to "preserve here by going out there"? Think of all the industrial processes which could be moved to space to prevent pollution down here.

[JoelKatz]

Usually the land is already teeming with wildlife and inferior human subspecies. However, because the existing occupants don't have an identical culture involving guns and convoluted paper-signing rituals as the invaders, the man-apes cannot evict the 'new owners' in a way that would be both clear and polite. In some cases, the old inhabitants don't have the same concepts of ownership, and don't realise that the first few settlers are just a trickle ahead of a flood. This makes things much easier for the settlers.

Historically, stronger groups have always taken whatever they want from weaker groups. The challenge with any attempt to concentrate force to prevent this from happening is that such concentrations can very easily be subverted into perpetuating it.

[myrkul]

Historically, stronger groups have always taken whatever they want from weaker groups. The challenge with any attempt to concentrate force to prevent this from happening is that such concentrations can very easily be subverted into perpetuating it.

I don't doubt it. However, I'm struggling to think of a practical example (a bit slow today). Something like a neighbourhood watch group turning into a lynch mob and doing unprovoked attacks on nearby residents who happen to be sex offenders/on parole, perhaps? Could you elaborate?

This:



Turning into this:

[HDSolar]

It's funny that no-one seems to be able to give a decent explanation right here.  How about this: you make the land more fertile. This could be:

1. You remove all the rocks & stones making plowing, seeding, harvesting all easier.
2. You engage in crop rotation for some years, and improve the range of nutrients in the soil.
3. You construct some irrigation channels.
4. You otherwise add some nutrients, e.g., with manure or fertilizer - organic, if necessary.
5. You do other stuff that somehow renders the land more useful or productive.

Is this the kind of answer you're looking for?

Ok so I will have some fun here.  So lets get into some deep thoughts, do you acquire the property or does it acquire you?  As for the list above lets try number 3, you can only do that if you have water rights and you pump you water out but then your hitting the water table so that is a shared item anyways.  Now if you don't have water rights then your accessing water from somewhere else so that means your getting water off someones land who will want something in return or no more water.  Now number 4 is where we run into a whole mess of what did you put in the ground, did it go off and spread to other lands around you and so on?  The times when one could farm the way they did back about 100 years ago are over unless someone does a reset button on all our electronics but then we will have bigger issues such as making sure the guy next to us does not beat our heads in with a rock probably from their property which will be hard work and then using the bodies as fertilizer will improve the land.

Deep thoughts 

[FirstAscent]

Everyone should have an opinion on this, one way or another. Which of these are improvements, and which are "improvements"?

- A developer builds a housing tract at the boundary between a preexisting suburban town and wilderness
- A house is built on a vacant lot amidst a fully developed neighborhood
- A preexisting dam is removed
- A landowner increases the value of his land by ten-fold by building infrastructure on his parcel bordering a wilderness zone
- An old growth forest is converted to a tree farm
- A dam is built to provide electricity
- ANWR is opened up for drilling
- A toll road is built which cuts through wilderness to alleviate traffic jams in an 'L' shaped set of cities
- A huge wall is built along the border of Mexico and the U.S.
- Ranchers begin to use fencing heavily in a rural area between two wilderness zones

[myrkul]

This is starting to sound suspiciously like you trying to "educate" us, FA. You know where to do that.

[FirstAscent]

This is starting to sound suspiciously like you trying to "educate" us, FA. You know where to do that.

I know exactly where to discuss the topic of this thread which I started. Others are welcome too. You sound like a bitter person.

[myrkul]

This is starting to sound suspiciously like you trying to "educate" us, FA. You know where to do that.

I know exactly where to discuss the topic of this thread which I started. Others are welcome too.

Well, sure. But none of those were on topic. Remember, the topic of this thread is (and I quote:)

I see a lot of posts about "improving the land", such as:

- If I own the land, I have the right to improve the land.
- by improving the land, I have staked my ownership of the land.

... Or similar statements. If these are reasonable statements, or statements you might make, or, conversely, if you disagree with them, please chime in. Or if you would like to offer up variants, please do so.

Please try to stay on-topic.

[JoelKatz]

I don't doubt it. However, I'm struggling to think of a practical example (a bit slow today). Something like a neighbourhood watch group turning into a lynch mob and doing unprovoked attacks on nearby residents who happen to be sex offenders/on parole, perhaps? Could you elaborate?

How about the United States, formed as a liberation from tyranny abroad, which later killed every Indian it could and fought to annex Mexico.

[myrkul]

I don't doubt it. However, I'm struggling to think of a practical example (a bit slow today). Something like a neighbourhood watch group turning into a lynch mob and doing unprovoked attacks on nearby residents who happen to be sex offenders/on parole, perhaps? Could you elaborate?

How about the United States, formed as a liberation from tyranny abroad, which later killed every Indian it could and fought to annex Mexico.

And then went on to engage in tyranny abroad.

[JoelKatz]

I don't doubt it. However, I'm struggling to think of a practical example (a bit slow today). Something like a neighbourhood watch group turning into a lynch mob and doing unprovoked attacks on nearby residents who happen to be sex offenders/on parole, perhaps? Could you elaborate?

How about the United States, formed as a liberation from tyranny abroad, which later killed every Indian it could and fought to annex Mexico.

And then went on to engage in tyranny abroad.

Yeah. The history of the United States is, unquestionably, a mixed bag. I think it's a very good example of how concentrating force, even for good purposes, has inherent risk. Every sane political system is a purported solution to this very problem.

[FirstAscent]

Everyone should have an opinion on this, one way or another. Which of these are improvements, and which are "improvements"?

- A developer builds a housing tract at the boundary between a preexisting suburban town and wilderness

Do the residents at the boundary feel deprived when their extended back yard is taken away? With some foresight, maybe these concerns could be covered with some town codes so that people know what to expect? An extra layer of housing also means more traffic, higher school populations, and generally more pressure on existing infrastructure.

I think the real issue here is suburban sprawl. It rarely goes the other way - i.e. suburban retraction. It only takes one interval of time in which those who defend against suburban sprawl let their defenses down for suburban sprawl to move further out. Thus you essentially have a never ending growth outwards, which destroys the existing infrastructure of wilderness and the ecosystem services it provides.

Do existing landowners benefit? Yes and no. If the preexisting community was rather small, then they likely will benefit, because as the population around them grows, new infrastructure is built, which can both cause home values to rise, while the availability of services rises. On the other hand, if it's already a well developed community, an oversupply of housing might occur, traffic congestion occurs where there is little room for increases of traffic flow, and the inevitable suburban sprawl continues.

Ultimately, it's the developer that wins. This is their business. They are a business whose interest is to make money. They don't live in the community. The environment is not a concern, except for where lawsuits might occur.

[myrkul]

I think the real issue here is suburban sprawl. It rarely goes the other way - i.e. suburban retraction. It only takes one interval of time in which those who defend against suburban sprawl let there defenses down for suburban sprawl to move further out. Thus you essentially have a never ending growth outwards, which destroys the existing infrastructure of wilderness and the ecosystem services it provides.

I thought this was a thread seeking opinions on the philosophy of homesteading. If you want to discuss ecosystem services, and the like, I believe you had a thread for that, too.

[FirstAscent]

I think the real issue here is suburban sprawl. It rarely goes the other way - i.e. suburban retraction. It only takes one interval of time in which those who defend against suburban sprawl let there defenses down for suburban sprawl to move further out. Thus you essentially have a never ending growth outwards, which destroys the existing infrastructure of wilderness and the ecosystem services it provides.

I thought this was a thread seeking opinions on the philosophy of homesteading. If you want to discuss ecosystem services, and the like, I believe you had a thread for that, too.

Really? Why don't you start a thread entitled "Myrkul's thoughts on what threads are about and where posts should be routed"? That's where your posts belong. You're being the ultimate hypocrite.

[myrkul]

I think the real issue here is suburban sprawl. It rarely goes the other way - i.e. suburban retraction. It only takes one interval of time in which those who defend against suburban sprawl let there defenses down for suburban sprawl to move further out. Thus you essentially have a never ending growth outwards, which destroys the existing infrastructure of wilderness and the ecosystem services it provides.

I thought this was a thread seeking opinions on the philosophy of homesteading. If you want to discuss ecosystem services, and the like, I believe you had a thread for that, too.

Really? Why don't you start a thread entitled "Myrkul's thoughts on what threads are about and where posts should be routed"? That's where your posts belong. You're being the ultimate hypocrite.

You sound like a very bitter person. I'm sad for you.