Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 07:37:18 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: What is environmentalism, really?  (Read 7632 times)
TheBitcoinChemist
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 03:44:17 AM
 #101

I suppose you have your proof then, because I have not the time to read any such thing even if I were inclined to do so after your attitude.

I'm sure you have the time to lessen your ignorance. Didn't you just say that in your last post that you use Google, Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites?

Over the course of a decade.

Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking.

I will not accept homework assignments from my students.

I don't care about your students, except for the fact that given how you let your ideology influence your study habits, it's a crime you would have any students.

I was refering to yourself, young man.

Quote
What I'm witnessing here is a classic case of willfully putting on blinders for fear of putting a chink in your view of the world.


What you are witnessing is the refusal of an old man to bend to the will of some young asshole who want's him to watch some youtube video that the young one thinks will change his mind.

Quote
The article is a reasonable and solid rebuttal to your silly conception of species migration. I must only assume that your refusal to read the article is a clear example of your general approach to things which disagree with your belief about various things.

Assume what you want, but even if it is as you claim, it doesn't make much difference.  I don't believe that global warming is predominately caused by humans, so I don't believe that it's our fault whether some spotted lizard can't make it over the mountians.  If it concerns you, you are free to join others like yourself and capture, then transport and release, whatever species you believe deserves the aid.  If you believe that I could only hold that viewpoint because of some personality fault, mental block, or simply because I haven't had the benefit of reading the same articles as yourself; I care not. 
1513021038
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021038

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021038
Reply with quote  #2

1513021038
Report to moderator
1513021038
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021038

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021038
Reply with quote  #2

1513021038
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513021038
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021038

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021038
Reply with quote  #2

1513021038
Report to moderator
1513021038
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513021038

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513021038
Reply with quote  #2

1513021038
Report to moderator
TheBitcoinChemist
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 03:45:53 AM
 #102

Quote
17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.  

Some scientists, others have lost their jobs.

Are you familiar with the Oregon Petition? Can you defend it's existence, if there was solid science behind denying AGW? What are your views of Frederick Seitz? Do you understand the nature of his activities?

Please address this.

I am not familar with any particular petition.  I do not know, or care, who Fred Seits is.

Is that an example of willful ignorance?

It's an example of willful defiance.
TheBitcoinChemist
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 04:20:04 AM
 #103


The original point was that "it's the sun". Planets like Venus and Earth respond relatively little to solar forcing, while other planets respond greatly.

Okay, granted.

Quote

Quote
Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong.
In hindsight, most things are wrong. But they tend to be useful approximations: after all, Columbus reached America without the Coriolis effect even theorized.

And even Columbus's own theories were incorrect.  He was lucky enough to survive the trip at all, and wasn't looking for a new land.  Thus, his approximations were not useful.  Had he not landed in America, he & his crew would have starved to death before making it to their original destination, India, because his approximations were that far off.  Sometimes a guess is just a guess, but that doesn't qualify as science in my view.  Columbus was a fail.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  
CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.
Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.
And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.
What if it is a bad thing? Isn't this an unnecessary risk?

Compared to what?  A 30 ton metor strike would be a bad thing too, should we be pooring billions into a planetary defense system?  If not, isn't that an unnecessary risk?  There is no way to really know the actual risks, or even if the warming can even be avoided.  Whether it's the Sun or carbon-dioxide,  warming is a distant risk and there are much bigger issues worthy of destroying economies over.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  
And contradicted by many others.
Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.
And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too.  Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.
Unnecessary change is probably not good.
You're guessing.  It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far.
Can you speak for them? Are you a Torontonian yourself?

No, I'm not.  I'm speaking as an observer from distance.  However, my own winter past was pretty mild also.  Hard winters kill as many people as hard summers, maybe more.  Thousands of homeless freeze to death every year, but how often do you hear of some homeless man who died from lack of air conditioning? Usually a decent supply of drinking water is enough to remedy that, but nothing short of heat and warm clothing will keep the homeless vet alive in Toronto during a hard winter.
Quote

Quote
Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there.  got any support for those?  The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets.
Yes in fact.
  • More total area of Earth is near the equator than near the poles. This is because the Earth is round.
  • This also applies for land area.


The first is true, the second is not.

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm

Just Russia & Canada together are three times the size of the US.  This doesn't consider the size of Greenland, which is itself larger than Texas & Alaska combined.  Then there is, of course, Alaska & Iceland.

Quote
  • No cold land is usable in the Southern Hemisphere. The only lands that exist are: 1) a huge mountain range and 2) a huge ice sheet (that probably isn't going away anytime soon).

Conceded.
Quote
  • The part of Canada that will melt does not have soils suitable for agriculture anyways. Because of the acidic Boreal forest, it likely won't develop the necessary soil in a reasonable timeframe either.

While this is true, it misses the main point.  It's not about how much of the permafrost zone might actually be able to grow something later, it's about the increases in the growing seasons of portions of Canada that already can grow something.

Quote
  • Siberia is already pretty much a desert. If it melts, it probably won't become arable land.


Siberia is a wide area, the majority of which is actually a frozen swamp, not desert.

Quote



Slowly, and the processes involved are almost certainly unrelated to carbon0dioxide concentrations in the atmostphere.

Quote
Wouldn't you agree that there is more untainted data on this side than the other?

Perhaps, but why should I trust either side?  Both has shown a willingness to spread falsehoods & propaganda to achieve a political end.  What should we do, if the outcomes are uncertian?  Should we "do something even if it's wrong"?  What if we're wrong & the something destroys the fragile economy at present?  Is it okay that millions would starve to death in the next couple decades because we meant well?
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 04:03:45 PM
 #104

Is that an example of willful ignorance?

It's an example of willful defiance.

It isn't very productive, is it? You're (as you've put it) willfully defying to improve your knowledge about the mechanics and messy details about species extinction, species migration and habitat relocation as it applies to climate change, which only serves to limit your ability to carry on an intelligent discussion on the matter.

You're really not in a position to discuss the subject (and very definitely not in a position to speculate on the contents of the article) until you've read the article.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 04:15:13 PM
 #105

Read the article, as it clearly will provide you some insights that you are currently lacking.

I will not accept homework assignments from my students.

I don't care about your students, except for the fact that given how you let your ideology influence your study habits, it's a crime you would have any students.

I was refering to yourself, young man.

I quite know what you were referring to, according to the way you see the world. As for our age differences, I neither find it relevant, and I think your speculations are, shall we say, a little too speculative.

What I'm witnessing here is a classic case of willfully putting on blinders for fear of putting a chink in your view of the world.

What you are witnessing is the refusal of an old man to bend to the will of some young asshole who want's him to watch some youtube video that the young one thinks will change his mind.

No. What I'm witnessing is someone who thinks he's a stubborn old man speculating about whom he is talking to and thinking wrongfully that I'm posting links to youtube videos.

The article is a reasonable and solid rebuttal to your silly conception of species migration. I must only assume that your refusal to read the article is a clear example of your general approach to things which disagree with your belief about various things.

Assume what you want, but even if it is as you claim, it doesn't make much difference.  I don't believe that global warming is predominately caused by humans, so I don't believe that it's our fault whether some spotted lizard can't make it over the mountians.  If it concerns you, you are free to join others like yourself and capture, then transport and release, whatever species you believe deserves the aid.  If you believe that I could only hold that viewpoint because of some personality fault, mental block, or simply because I haven't had the benefit of reading the same articles as yourself; I care not.

I'm not making many assumptions here. I'm simply observing your behavior, as admitted by yourself as 'willful defiance'. When you want to stop willfully defying, and actually studying research and results, let me know. 
TheBitcoinChemist
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 04:39:12 PM
 #106



I'm not making many assumptions here. I'm simply observing your behavior, as admitted by yourself as 'willful defiance'. When you want to stop willfully defying, and actually studying research and results, let me know. 

You invited me into this debate only to begin to insult me after you began to have your worldview challenged.  I understand that you think that you know all and that the perspectives of others who disagree are worthy of contempt, but this will only lead to conflict in your life.  I, for one, will not be participating in your delusions of grandeur.  You now have the honor of becoming the very first person I shall ignore on this forum.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 04:53:49 PM
 #107

I'm not making many assumptions here. I'm simply observing your behavior, as admitted by yourself as 'willful defiance'. When you want to stop willfully defying, and actually studying research and results, let me know.  

You invited me into this debate only to begin to insult me after you began to have your worldview challenged.  I understand that you think that you know all and that the perspectives of others who disagree are worthy of contempt, but this will only lead to conflict in your life.  I, for one, will not be participating in your delusions of grandeur.  You now have the honor of becoming the very first person I shall ignore on this forum.

My worldview hasn't changed. You have in fact, reinforced my worldview, by witnessing how you approach these issues. You yourself summed it up quite nicely: "Willful defiance", a term you used to justify not reading a scientific article. As for invitation, you messaged me to create the thread. I then created the thread as a place to (as defined in the title) discuss what environmentalism is. From there, it became rather obvious that many, if not most, thought of environmentalism as recycling bottles and such. I was the first in the thread to provide a categorical list of much larger environmental endeavors, much of it falling under what I would call scientific research. From there, it wasn't long before "scientific" (note the quotes) rebuttals to climate change started showing up, taken right from what would appear to be the standard libertarian playbook. I pointed out issues with regard to the sources, even predicted it, and then demonstrated it.

I then asked you several times to cite where the bulk of your learning came from with regard to ecology, the environment and climate change. Each time you refused. That's very strange, as most people who actively research are quite proud of where they have obtained their knowledge.
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 10, 2012, 05:47:32 PM
 #108

Quote
Quote
Quote
Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong.
In hindsight, most things are wrong. But they tend to be useful approximations: after all, Columbus reached America without the Coriolis effect even theorized.
And even Columbus's own theories were incorrect.  He was lucky enough to survive the trip at all, and wasn't looking for a new land.  Thus, his approximations were not useful.  Had he not landed in America, he & his crew would have starved to death before making it to their original destination, India, because his approximations were that far off.  Sometimes a guess is just a guess, but that doesn't qualify as science in my view.  Columbus was a fail.
Would the world have been better off without Columbus?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  
CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age.
Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat.
And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either.
What if it is a bad thing? Isn't this an unnecessary risk?
Compared to what?  A 30 ton metor strike would be a bad thing too, should we be pooring billions into a planetary defense system?  If not, isn't that an unnecessary risk?  There is no way to really know the actual risks, or even if the warming can even be avoided.  Whether it's the Sun or carbon-dioxide,  warming is a distant risk and there are much bigger issues worthy of destroying economies over.
Why would economies need to be "destroyed" to help this planet? The US government gives tens of billions of dollars as subsidies for fossil fuel production, so that the citizens can enjoy reduced energy prices (which only lead to overconsumption). If anything, our economy would make more sense if we stopped funding destructive practices.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.  
And contradicted by many others.
Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high.
And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too.  Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative.
Unnecessary change is probably not good.
You're guessing.  It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far.
Can you speak for them? Are you a Torontonian yourself?
No, I'm not.  I'm speaking as an observer from distance.  However, my own winter past was pretty mild also.  Hard winters kill as many people as hard summers, maybe more.  Thousands of homeless freeze to death every year, but how often do you hear of some homeless man who died from lack of air conditioning? Usually a decent supply of drinking water is enough to remedy that, but nothing short of heat and warm clothing will keep the homeless vet alive in Toronto during a hard winter.
I live in the area, and I can tell you that there was an abhorrent lack of snow. Ski areas were terrible, and the hardware stores were replacing ski equipment with golf clubs. Sure, change is possible, but this is hurting many businesses if anything.

Toronto issues cold alerts that open up many shelters to homeless people, so it is rare to hear of a homeless person dieing. During the heat wave of 2011, however, the Great Lakes warmed considerably. This is hypothesized to have contributed to the deadly and destructive tornado.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there.  got any support for those?  The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets.
Yes in fact.
  • More total area of Earth is near the equator than near the poles. This is because the Earth is round.
  • This also applies for land area.
The first is true, the second is not.

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm

Just Russia & Canada together are three times the size of the US.  This doesn't consider the size of Greenland, which is itself larger than Texas & Alaska combined.  Then there is, of course, Alaska & Iceland.
The Tropics, that will not benefit, include most of Africa and South America, two very large continents, and northern Australia. The Middle Latitudes, that will benefit include the largest continent in the world Eurasia, and third largest North America, as well as southern Australia. The Polar regions include Antarctica, and will not benefit significantly if at all. I would say that this is roughly equal, and any net benefits are not worth disrupting the status quo.

Quote
Quote
  • The part of Canada that will melt does not have soils suitable for agriculture anyways. Because of the acidic Boreal forest, it likely won't develop the necessary soil in a reasonable timeframe either.
While this is true, it misses the main point.  It's not about how much of the permafrost zone might actually be able to grow something later, it's about the increases in the growing seasons of portions of Canada that already can grow something.
Sure, this is a net benefit of warming.

Quote
Quote
  • Siberia is already pretty much a desert. If it melts, it probably won't become arable land.
Siberia is a wide area, the majority of which is actually a frozen swamp, not desert.
A frozen swamp will melt out to none more than a thawed swamp, which is still a swamp.

Quote
Quote
Slowly, and the processes involved are almost certainly unrelated to carbon0dioxide concentrations in the atmostphere.
Even if unrelated, if we're losing land to desert, shifting the usable land is hardly useful.

Quote
Quote
Wouldn't you agree that there is more untainted data on this side than the other?
Perhaps, but why should I trust either side?  Both has shown a willingness to spread falsehoods & propaganda to achieve a political end.  What should we do, if the outcomes are uncertian?  Should we "do something even if it's wrong"?  What if we're wrong & the something destroys the fragile economy at present?  Is it okay that millions would starve to death in the next couple decades because we meant well?
What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Nemo me impune lacessit


View Profile WWW
August 10, 2012, 05:58:20 PM
 #109

What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

Humans acting like gods... that never ends well.

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 06:02:36 PM
 #110

What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

Humans acting like gods never ends well.

You've got a completely wrong take on the matter. And when I say wrong, I mean really wrong.

The real solution (as everyone who is educated on the matter) is to not act like gods, but to do less. Less means less pollution, less suburban sprawl, less population growth, less resource extraction, less consumption, less deforestation, and so on. That's not acting like gods. That's being informed, and unifying the public on the matters.
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Nemo me impune lacessit


View Profile WWW
August 10, 2012, 06:50:37 PM
 #111

If you're going to be condescending, don't come up with Quixotic, godlike "solutions". Just admit that the final solution for environmentalists is THE Final Solution, part deux ("lessening" until eventually homo sapiens is made extinct, because even a single human left harms the planet, all living organisms on it, including himself).

TheBitcoinChemist
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 07:02:03 PM
 #112


Would the world have been better off without Columbus?


Impossible to know, but I would have to say yes.  All Columbus managed to do was terrorize an island tribe and improperly end up credited with discovery of a land that he wasn't looking for, didn't believe in and died with the idea that he actually made it to India.

There is a good reason that we don't call this landmass "Columbia".

Quote
Why would economies need to be "destroyed" to help this planet? The US government gives tens of billions of dollars as subsidies for fossil fuel production, so that the citizens can enjoy reduced energy prices (which only lead to overconsumption). If anything, our economy would make more sense if we stopped funding destructive practices.
That would be a fine first step.  It's going beyond that, that is my concern.

Quote
I live in the area, and I can tell you that there was an abhorrent lack of snow. Ski areas were terrible, and the hardware stores were replacing ski equipment with golf clubs. Sure, change is possible, but this is hurting many businesses if anything.

The ski industry might be hurting, but the local tourism will adapt in time.  Who knows how many people didn't freeze to death this past winter?

Quote
Toronto issues cold alerts that open up many shelters to homeless people, so it is rare to hear of a homeless person dieing. During the heat wave of 2011, however, the Great Lakes warmed considerably. This is hypothesized to have contributed to the deadly and destructive tornado.

Well, that is interesting.
Quote
The Tropics, that will not benefit, include most of Africa and South America, two very large continents, and northern Australia. The Middle Latitudes, that will benefit include the largest continent in the world Eurasia, and third largest North America, as well as southern Australia. The Polar regions include Antarctica, and will not benefit significantly if at all. I would say that this is roughly equal, and any net benefits are not worth disrupting the status quo.

As already noted, the tropics will not benefit, but nore will they significantly be effected unless they live on the shore.
Quote
A frozen swamp will melt out to none more than a thawed swamp, which is still a swamp.

Even swampland has value to mankind, moreso than deserts.
Quote
Even if unrelated, if we're losing land to desert, shifting the usable land is hardly useful.

Depends on the relative rates.  I'm guessing that the rate that  the growing seasons of northern nations outpaces the growth of deserts, but I can't know that either.
Quote
What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

How do you know that?  "Nothing" is what we've been doing for 6000+ years, and the planet has managed to take care of itself.  The question is, is there anything that we can do to help mankind in the long run that won't cause significant harm in the short run?  So far, the correct answer to that question is, "Not that we know of."
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 07:50:14 PM
 #113

What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

Humans acting like gods never ends well.

You've got a completely wrong take on the matter. And when I say wrong, I mean really wrong.

The real solution (as everyone who is educated on the matter) is to not act like gods, but to do less. Less means less pollution, less suburban sprawl, less population growth, less resource extraction, less consumption, less deforestation, and so on. That's not acting like gods. That's being informed, and unifying the public on the matters.

How are you going to go about implementing your nature protection suggestions? Persuasion or force? Education or statism? Individual choice, or authoritarian central planning?

You see I'm not going to discuss your views on proper stewardship of the environment, you will probably have the upper hand in that knowledge department, but I will definitely defy you every step of the way if you think you're going to lord over me by participating in the rampant theft and plunder of private land so you can have your utopian nature preserve.

Some of the science is questionable, some of it is not, but your implementation methods are definitely what's at stake here. I could be the smartest "god/man" on earth, but I'm not about to make you my serf, subject, minion, or liege because I know what's the "best" use for your land.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
byronbb
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414


HODL OR DIE


View Profile
August 10, 2012, 07:59:45 PM
 #114

I used to be fairly cynical towards greenpeace etc. But really, these guys were doing their thing in the 1960s and everyone thought that they were just crazy hippies, now they rake in revenues of nearly 200million. It's impressive.

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 11, 2012, 12:47:40 AM
 #115

What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either.

Humans acting like gods never ends well.

You've got a completely wrong take on the matter. And when I say wrong, I mean really wrong.

The real solution (as everyone who is educated on the matter) is to not act like gods, but to do less. Less means less pollution, less suburban sprawl, less population growth, less resource extraction, less consumption, less deforestation, and so on. That's not acting like gods. That's being informed, and unifying the public on the matters.

How are you going to go about implementing your nature protection suggestions? Persuasion or force? Education or statism? Individual choice, or authoritarian central planning?

You see I'm not going to discuss your views on proper stewardship of the environment, you will probably have the upper hand in that knowledge department, but I will definitely defy you every step of the way if you think you're going to lord over me by participating in the rampant theft and plunder of private land so you can have your utopian nature preserve.

Some of the science is questionable, some of it is not, but your implementation methods are definitely what's at stake here. I could be the smartest "god/man" on earth, but I'm not about to make you my serf, subject, minion, or liege because I know what's the "best" use for your land.

I'm curious. Consider:

Let's say someone hires you on the East Coast. They pay you wages to fulfill their vision for their land. By doing so, the "improvements" to the land are environmentally neutral. However, we could consider the cases where the "improvements" are positive or negative as well. After years of toil, you have saved up your money from these labors, and you set out for the West Coast, money in tow.

You have converted your labor to money, possibly at the expense to the environment. However, we won't hold it against you.

You arrive at the West Coast and purchase land, becoming a proud property owner, whereupon you commence in creating your own "improvements" to the land you purchased. Let's assume that your "improvements" have a negative environmental impact to your land, but not the surrounding land. This, incidentally is unlikely, due to how the environment interacts, but for the sake of argument, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, let's summarize:

- Your labor (and the desires of your employer) resulted in a net neutral effect of the environment on the East Coast.
- Your labor granted you the rights to receive compensation in the form of money.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you having money.

- Your money afforded you the right to travel to the West Coast and purchase land.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you owning land on the West Coast.

- Your ownership of land now provided you the ability to make "improvements".
- These "improvements" have a net negative impact on the land you own, environmentally.

Thus, your net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast, according to you, provides you with the right to negatively affect the environment on the West Coast.

Now, imagine if your labor on the East Coast actually resulted in a net negative effect on the environment. Whatever the case, your argument appears to be that labor, which earns you money, then earns you the right to purchase land, own the land, and harm the land. This is not a sustainable model, yet it's one you support.

Regulations can and do help alleviate this.

Let's examine other models you support:

1. Being born to rich parents provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
2. Being given money provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
3. Inheriting land from your parents gives you the right to negatively affect the environment.

And, as described in detail above:

4. Labor, regardless of what type and where performed, affords you the right to negatively affect the environment.

In all cases, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt such that your "improvements" actually don't extend beyond your property boundaries, which would be a rare case. However, that really doesn't seem relevant.

The issue then, is what defines effective stewardship of land, and the consistent application of it through individual ownership among thousands.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
August 11, 2012, 06:04:25 AM
 #116

I'm curious. Consider:

Let's say someone hires you on the East Coast. They pay you wages to fulfill their vision for their land. By doing so, the "improvements" to the land are environmentally neutral. However, we could consider the cases where the "improvements" are positive or negative as well. After years of toil, you have saved up your money from these labors, and you set out for the West Coast, money in tow.

So far so good, except that what I do to the land I own, whether I "affect" positive or negative things to it, is perfectly fine. It's my property. You must prove I have negatively affected the property of others. To wit, you must demonstrate direct harm, not inconvenience. If I can't do what I want to my property (including burn it to the ground) only means that my property, becomes your property. My property rights are destroyed, and yours are automatically improved. Do this on a grand scale, and you have communism all over again. I'm seeing red.

Quote
You have converted your labor to money, possibly at the expense to the environment. However, we won't hold it against you.

Glad you agree with private ownership, assuming it's only the environment constrained by and within my property boundaries, we're good. Again demonstrate actual harm, trespass, or vandalization of your property, and we have something to "fight" over. Otherwise, bugger off.

Quote
You arrive at the West Coast and purchase land, becoming a proud property owner, whereupon you commence in creating your own "improvements" to the land you purchased. Let's assume that your "improvements" have a negative environmental impact to your land, but not the surrounding land. This, incidentally is unlikely, due to how the environment interacts, but for the sake of argument, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Everything affects everything in some way, including your environmentalism. It's unavoidable. Shall we all just prostrate ourselves upon the earth and die now? It seems Humans are less than the dust of the earth these days. Sometimes I feel I'm on par with the snails.

Quote
So, let's summarize:

- Your labor (and the desires of your employer) resulted in a net neutral effect of the environment on the East Coast.
- Your labor granted you the rights to receive compensation in the form of money.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you having money.

- Your money afforded you the right to travel to the West Coast and purchase land.

Thus, a net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast resulted in you owning land on the West Coast.

- Your ownership of land now provided you the ability to make "improvements".
- These "improvements" have a net negative impact on the land you own, environmentally.

1. So what? Neutral doesn't mean anything to me. Define it. Put context to the words. Do it concisely.
2. Who cares whether or not I received money. That's not the issue.
3. I purchased land. Again, who cares. Not the issue.
4. Net neutral meaning what? Affecting who, or what?
5. Improvements??? Ok, whatever.
6. A negative impact on my land is my business, not yours.

Quote
Thus, your net neutral effect to the environment on the East Coast, according to you, provides you with the right to negatively affect the environment on the West Coast.

No it doesn't. Never implied that. Your just reaching now. Your logic is now fallible. Having achieved a transfer of land does not accord anybody the right to use that land to affect changes (specifically negative changes) to other persons' property.

Quote
Now, imagine if your labor on the East Coast actually resulted in a net negative effect on the environment. Whatever the case, your argument appears to be that labor, which earns you money, then earns you the right to purchase land, own the land, and harm the land. This is not a sustainable model, yet it's one you support.

Purchasing, transfering, or assigning of land, does not give anybody rights to destroy the property of others, including affecting their environment (whatever that might actually mean). However, if it is my property, then I can do with it whatever I want, with the exception that I can't use it to harm others, or from proscribing the right of others to use their property how they choose. Define "sustainable". Very crafty you are...

Your putting words in my mouth I never uttered. Nice try. Caught you, careful next time, or you might make an fool of yourself. Your much smarter than that. You've got the right scientific knowledge, but your political leanings are extremely dangerous, if not borderline sociopathic.

Quote
Regulations can and do help alleviate this.

False. It assists the statist/elitist/corporatists in fradulently obtaining property that was never theirs to begin with. Or at a minimum, it confuses and obfuscates who actually owns what, who is responsible for the stewardship thereof, or at the very least, distorts the markets attempt to evaluate the utility of the land in question.

Quote
Let's examine other models you support:

1. Being born to rich parents provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
2. Being given money provides you the right to negatively affect the environment.
3. Inheriting land from your parents gives you the right to negatively affect the environment.

1. False. Your 'ass'uming. Never said that. Those are your words.
2. Also false. Similar premise to 1, just reworded.
3. False again. See 1 and 2.

Your leaving out critical information. It's like saying it's okay to kill somebody. Hmm.... Well that depends. Are you being attacked by a vicious mugger, in your home with a large knife? Well duh!! It's called self defense. Pick up your side arm and put a bullet in him center mass. However to kill with no provocation, well that's a very different story now isn't it? Keep your facts straight, and at a minimum, include all the relevant criteria. Makes you look stupid if you don't.

Quote
And, as described in detail above:

4. Labor, regardless of what type and where performed, affords you the right to negatively affect the environment.

In all cases, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt such that your "improvements" actually don't extend beyond your property boundaries, which would be a rare case. However, that really doesn't seem relevant.

The issue then, is what defines effective stewardship of land, and the consistent application of it through individual ownership among thousands.

Labor does not equate to "damaged" environment. All physical activities (that would include everything, in case you were wondering) will always affect the environment around you, including your manipulation of the environment thru "environmentalism". The only thing that matters, is whether or not the environment I affect within the boundaries of my property, somehow "spill/effuse/emit" physical material matter onto your land. If I do that, you have yourself a potential lawsuit.

Anything beyond that only means you don't like what I've done with my microenvironment, and so instead of trying to convince me that I could find a better use of my resources, thru education, you use the long arm of the law to try to plunder me. In which case, you now believe you have a right to take my property from me, and keep it for yourself, or give it to others (likely your government cronies who've crafted laws to ensnare me in some purported "criminal" environmental activity).

It is the only thing that's relevant here. Don't be so snide to think that your utopian environmentalist world won't just end up being the private playground of the rich, the famous, and the politically inclined. I'm not interested in destroying the environment for me or my successors, but I'm certainly not going to quitely let my life become overridden by elitist ego-maniacal highwaymen, who have nothing better to do with their time but play gods on earth, and pretend to be do-gooders, when they just want more slaves to play with.

Your must think I'm as dumb as a rock.


http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
zveda2000
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 60


View Profile
August 15, 2012, 09:11:34 PM
 #117

So should there be any limits to private property, then? Can somebody in theory buy the oceans, the atmosphere, the underground water systems? In the Nordic countries there is the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam which places limits on ones' rights even within their private property. There is a difference between having freedom to live your life as you want on your own ranch, say, and controlling so much resources that allows you to impudently affect the lives of millions of people, and even a significant portion of the earth, under the protection of private property laws.

The fact is there are hardly any non-chlorinated lakes or rivers left in the world where one could safely swim. Here in Sydney, Australia, fishing is banned in Sydney harbour due to DDT poisoning, and the Parramatta river has turned brown and is lifeless. Whatever laws allowed this to happen, libertarian private property laws or government misusing public property, to me seems like a crime against humanity and against nature in general.

My view is that not everything in this world should be for sale. Should a successful investor, beyond having the capital to direct resources and labour in the economy, also have the right to make decisions that will affect the earth for thousands or even millions of years ahead? This kind of decision should be beyond any individual's right to make.

In answer to a previous posters' question regarding how to enforce an 'environmental paradise', I would suggest direct democracy; i.e any project that affects the earth (which we and our descendants all share whether we own this piece of land or not) in any significant and non-reversable way, has to come before a referendum, giving every person on earth the option to vote. If you don't care, you don't have to vote. But since your children and your children's children ewill likely end up being affected by this project, you should have a say in it, regardless of your financial clout.

The trouble with government regulation, the court system, or any other centralised form of government is that inevitably it can and will be manipulated - as all bitcoiners understand. The power to create money is too great for any individual or group to have, but the power to destroy the earth, acquired by private means or otherwise, is even more important to decentralise.
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 15, 2012, 09:15:00 PM
 #118

So should there be any limits to private property, then? Can somebody in theory buy the oceans, the atmosphere, the underground water systems? In the Nordic countries there is the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam which places limits on ones' rights even within their private property. There is a difference between having freedom to live your life as you want on your own ranch, say, and controlling so much resources that allows you to impudently affect the lives of millions of people, and even a significant portion of the earth, under the protection of private property laws.

The fact is there are hardly any non-chlorinated lakes or rivers left in the world where one could safely swim. Here in Sydney, Australia, fishing is banned in Sydney harbour due to DDT poisoning, and the Parramatta river has turned brown and is lifeless. Whatever laws allowed this to happen, libertarian private property laws or government misusing public property, to me seems like a crime against humanity and against nature in general.

My view is that not everything in this world should be for sale. Should a successful investor, beyond having the capital to direct resources and labour in the economy, also have the right to make decisions that will affect the earth for thousands or even millions of years ahead? This kind of decision should be beyond any individual's right to make.

In answer to a previous posters' question regarding how to enforce an 'environmental paradise', I would suggest direct democracy; i.e any project that affects the earth (which we and our descendants all share whether we own this piece of land or not) in any significant and non-reversal way, has to come before a referendum, giving every person on earth the option to vote. If you don't care, you don't have to vote. But since your children and your children's children ewill likely end up being affected by this project, you should have a say in it, regardless of your financial clout.

The trouble with government regulation, the court system, or any other centralised form of government is that inevitable it can and will be manipulated - as all bitcoiners understand. The power to create money is too great for any individual or group to have, but the power to destroy the earth, acquired by private means or otherwise, is even more important to decentralise.
In ideal anarcho-capitalism, someone can't own something unless they either buy it from someone who owned it or can persuade the market to accept their ownership (this is done by producing value from it). If people disagree, they won't have the rights to own it unless they can economically convince those people to agree.

Of course, direct democracy is an excellent solution if and only if it is scalable. It doesn't seem so yet.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 15, 2012, 09:33:14 PM
 #119

So should there be any limits to private property, then? Can somebody in theory buy the oceans, the atmosphere, the underground water systems? In the Nordic countries there is the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam which places limits on ones' rights even within their private property. There is a difference between having freedom to live your life as you want on your own ranch, say, and controlling so much resources that allows you to impudently affect the lives of millions of people, and even a significant portion of the earth, under the protection of private property laws.

No, there should not be any limits whatsoever to what one can own. Private ownership is, and will likely remain, the single best way to ensure that the resource is not damaged or depleted. You can't really own the atmosphere, being as it is entirely fluid, and not something you can really "fence off". What you can own is the air above your land, or at least insofar as it affects the quality of your life. The oceans are a special case, since while you cannot alter the surface aside from some buoys or the like, the seabed certainly can be farmed or otherwise improved. What private ownership of these resources means is that should someone harm it, you will have recourse to seek damages from them.

If I own a lake, and you come along and dump chlorine in it, and I don't want chlorinated water (who would?!?), Then I can seek damages, which would certainly include the cost of cleanup, as well. If I own land, and you pollute the air above it, you are damaging my property, and I can seek damages. If I own a river, and you dump DDT into it, I can seek damages, which again, would include the cost of cleaning up your mess.

This provides economic incentive not to pollute, at least in such a way as is felt outside your property (and honestly, what pollution really keeps itself contained?) Furthermore, the desire to retain the value of your land (in the economic sense) will provide incentive to not pollute your own property as well, if for no other reason than to have a good resale value. Historically, it has been governments that have allowed (or even, in some cases, perpetrated) the greatest pollution, not private individuals. Just look at the air quality in China.

The trouble with government regulation, the court system, or any other centralised form of government is that inevitable it can and will be manipulated - as all bitcoiners understand. The power to create money is too great for any individual or group to have, but the power to destroy the earth, acquired by private means or otherwise, is even more important to decentralise.

Which is exactly what private ownership of all land and water would do.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
zveda2000
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 60


View Profile
August 15, 2012, 10:15:59 PM
 #120

The trouble with government regulation, the court system, or any other centralised form of government is that inevitable it can and will be manipulated - as all bitcoiners understand. The power to create money is too great for any individual or group to have, but the power to destroy the earth, acquired by private means or otherwise, is even more important to decentralise.

Which is exactly what private ownership of all land and water would do.

So if I have bought North America, say, how is that not centralisation? I can now decide to mine the entire state of Alberta for oil export. If my profits for doing this are greater than the perceived advantages of maintaining the environment, what would stop me?

This idea of providing incentives after power is conferred, is similar to say, providing incentives to the central bank to not debase the currency, as it would reduce the value of its legal monopoly powers over said currency. Once power is conferred, it is too late for providing incentives IMHO.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 »  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!