Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 06:47:00 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Environmentalism  (Read 5942 times)
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 08:29:13 PM
 #61

Fail.

From your own link:

Quote
Noun   1.   waterwaywaterway - a navigable body of water           
body of water, water - the part of the earth's surface covered with water (such as a river or lake or ocean); "they invaded our territorial waters"; "they were sitting by the water's edge"

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.
1481395620
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395620

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395620
Reply with quote  #2

1481395620
Report to moderator
1481395620
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395620

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395620
Reply with quote  #2

1481395620
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481395620
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395620

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395620
Reply with quote  #2

1481395620
Report to moderator
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 08:32:24 PM
 #62

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

I have never heard of anyone owning an ocean.  

So I think my interpretation is the correct one.

Fail.

From your own link:

Quote
Noun   1.   waterwaywaterway - a navigable body of water            
body of water, water - the part of the earth's surface covered with water (such as a river or lake or ocean); "they invaded our territorial waters"; "they were sitting by the water's edge"

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.

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.

Fail.

From your own link:

Quote
Noun   1.   waterwaywaterway - a navigable body of water           
body of water, water - the part of the earth's surface covered with water (such as a river or lake or ocean); "they invaded our territorial waters"; "they were sitting by the water's edge"

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.

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.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 05, 2011, 08:37:03 PM
 #63


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.

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.

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 08:39:43 PM
 #64

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.

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.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 05, 2011, 08:42:04 PM
 #65

...snip...

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.

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. 

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 08:45:09 PM
 #66

...snip...

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.

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.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 08:46:03 PM
 #67

property boundaries

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

ocean currents, alteration of temperature within parcels

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.

migration

Radio tags.

...snip...

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.

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.  

Only property rights need to be enforced.

...snip...

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.

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.

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

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 08:50:08 PM
 #68

property boundaries

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

ocean currents, alteration of temperature within parcels

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.

migration

Radio tags.

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?
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 05, 2011, 08:51:41 PM
 #69

...snip...

...snip...

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.

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.  

Only property rights need to be enforced.

...snip...

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?

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 08:54:13 PM
 #70

...snip...

...snip...

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.

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.  

Only property rights need to be enforced.

...snip...

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.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 09:06:32 PM
 #71

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?

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.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
October 05, 2011, 09:13:29 PM
 #72

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?

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.

The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
October 05, 2011, 10:48:17 PM
 #73

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?

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.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 04:24:34 AM
 #74

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.

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?
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 04:39:06 AM
 #75

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

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 05:08:38 AM
 #76

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?

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.
 

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 05:20:48 AM
 #77

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

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.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 05:43:32 PM
 #78

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

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?
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 05:57:56 PM
 #79

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

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.

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
October 06, 2011, 06:25:01 PM
 #80

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

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

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.

(or to save planet Earth from being destroyed by a power draining space orb in case Captain Kirk isn't available).

Of course.

But yeah, I wasn't considering the ecosystem part.

You should start considering it. It's interesting. It's complex. And it affects all us in many ways.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!