What is environmentalism, really?

[FirstAscent]

But don't go create a new Los Angeles in Oregon old growth forests. It seems almost inevitable,

Why? Cities are placed where they are for reasons. It's highly unlikely that a city would be placed in the middle of nowhere, simply because there was land available.

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

[zveda2000]

Las Vegas is an example of a city in the middle of nowhere. Also Dubai.

[myrkul]

Las Vegas is an example of a city in the middle of nowhere. Also Dubai.

A trade caravan of 60 men led by the Mexican merchant Antonio Armijo was charged with establishing a trade route to Los Angeles. By following the Pike and Smith routes through a tributary of Colorado River they came upon the Las Vegas Valley described by Smith as the best point to re-supply before going onto California. The travelers named the area "Las Vegas" which was Spanish for "The Meadows".

Las Vegas: not in the middle of nowhere. Resupply point along a trade route.

The earliest written mention of the area of Dubai was in 1095, by Abū 'Ubayd 'Abd Allāh al-Bakrī, in his Mojam Ma Ostojam men Asmae Al belaad wal Mawadhea, in which he describes many places of the world compiled from other accounts of them,. It was not until 1799 that the town had its first record. However the Venetian Gaspero Balbi, a renowned pearl merchant, when visiting in 1580, remarked on the area and how many Venetians were working there in the pearl industry.

Dubai: Not in the middle of nowhere, important trade hub for the pearl industry.

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

True enough, but what forces would drive sprawl into the redwoods?

[myrkul]

However when you control land, you have a very direct control over many other peoples' lives. You could poison their water supply for example. Sure people could go live somewhere else, and if land had an infinite supply then my argument would be bunk, but the earth is limited and we all have to share it. Your actions on your piece of land affect the community at large.

And if you negatively affect other people's quality of life or property values, you can be held liable for the damages you've incurred.

[FirstAscent]

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

True enough, but what forces would drive sprawl into the redwoods?

Population growth, logging towns, resorts, non-protected lands receiving proposals for new highways, which brings in gas stations, etc. Land is then parceled, and it never stops. This of course, is the classic case of edge effects pushing out native species, which has an effect on trophic cascades, and an ever spiraling progression towards a weaker environment. And as history shows, it never gets reverted back to true wilderness.

That is the history of the world, essentially.

[FirstAscent]

However when you control land, you have a very direct control over many other peoples' lives. You could poison their water supply for example. Sure people could go live somewhere else, and if land had an infinite supply then my argument would be bunk, but the earth is limited and we all have to share it. Your actions on your piece of land affect the community at large.

And if you negatively affect other people's quality of life or property values, you can be held liable for the damages you've incurred.

Not necessarily. Most people aren't aware of what they lost. Class action lawsuits can bring it to their attention though. Your proposed system sounds like a great system for lawyers. Instead of taxes and regulations, we'll be subjected to paying lawyer fees.

[myrkul]

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

True enough, but what forces would drive sprawl into the redwoods?

Population growth, logging towns, resorts, non-protected lands receiving proposals for new highways, which brings in gas stations, etc. Land is then parceled, and it never stops. This of course, is the classic case of edge effects pushing out native species, which has an effect on trophic cascades, and an ever spiraling effect progression towards a weaker environment. And as history shows, it never gets reverted to true wilderness.

That is the history of the world, essentially.

If you're concerned, protect the lands. Buy them up.

Instead of taxes and regulations, we'll be subjected to paying lawyer fees.

Only if you're a polluter. (or otherwise end up on the wrong side of an arbitration)

[FirstAscent]

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

True enough, but what forces would drive sprawl into the redwoods?

Population growth, logging towns, resorts, non-protected lands receiving proposals for new highways, which brings in gas stations, etc. Land is then parceled, and it never stops. This of course, is the classic case of edge effects pushing out native species, which has an effect on trophic cascades, and an ever spiraling effect progression towards a weaker environment. And as history shows, it never gets reverted to true wilderness.

That is the history of the world, essentially.

If you're concerned, protect the lands. Buy them up.

You yourself recently stated the difficulty in buying up large tracts of land (I believe it was in this thread). Try not to be more consistent in your statements, as everyone can see you talk outside both sides of your mouth. A lot of us try and remain consistent and truthful in what we say and we don't have time to defend our arguments against the likes of you. That's about three times in 24 hours that your statements have been called out by me alone*. Please, there exists the possibility for intelligent discussion here, but it gets watered down and polluted with a lot of your dumb tactics.

* 1. Beavers and technology. 2. Malignment of case 3 regarding the harvesting of resources. 3. Contradictory statements about the ease of buying up land.

[myrkul]

It starts with the suburbs, which are outlying areas of wilderness purchased by developers. And it just creeps outward from there.

True enough, but what forces would drive sprawl into the redwoods?

Population growth, logging towns, resorts, non-protected lands receiving proposals for new highways, which brings in gas stations, etc. Land is then parceled, and it never stops. This of course, is the classic case of edge effects pushing out native species, which has an effect on trophic cascades, and an ever spiraling effect progression towards a weaker environment. And as history shows, it never gets reverted to true wilderness.

That is the history of the world, essentially.

If you're concerned, protect the lands. Buy them up.

You yourself recently stated the difficulty in buying up large tracts of land (I believe it was in this thread). Try not to be more consistent in your statements, as everyone can see you talk outside both sides of your mouth. A lot of us try and remain consistent and truthful in what we say and we don't have time to defend our arguments against the likes of you.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were concerned with protecting a forest, not entire continents. You're right, you can't buy up a whole continent to protect it. But, you can certainly buy up enough forest to defend it against encroachment by suburbs.

[zveda2000]

myrkul, you tell me to go clean up the environment myself or go sue those that pollute. Well if you're concerned about government debt, then go help to pay it off. Some people in Greece are actually trying to do that - buying their government debt and forgiving it. Also if you think the Fed is abusing your savings and negatively affecting your quality of life, then go ahead and sue them. You see there is no problem with croney capitalism since you just create the right incentives and let the regulators punish bad behaviour. But we both know how it really works.

About Dubai and Las Vegas; well sure there had to be some reason for them to spring up there as opposed to some other place, but if you look at both of them, they are not just supply stations but big cities in the middle of the desert. They have to pump in all of their water supply and they are both completely unsustainable projects. I guess we meant different things by "middle of nowhere".

[myrkul]

myrkul, you tell me to go clean up the environment myself or go sue those that pollute. Well if you're concerned about government debt, then go help to pay it off. Some people in Greece are actually trying to do that - buying their government debt and forgiving it. Also if you think the Fed is abusing your savings and negatively affecting your quality of life, then go ahead and sue them. You see there is no problem with croney capitalism since you just create the right incentives and let the regulators punish bad behaviour. But we both know how it really works.

About Dubai and Las Vegas; well sure there had to be some reason for them to spring up there as opposed to some other place, but if you look at both of them, they have to pump in all of their water supply, they are both completely unsustainable projects. I guess we meant different things by "middle of nowhere".

There is a decided difference between crony capitalism and free markets. I advocate free markets, not crony capitalism. I'm also not the least bit concerned about government debt, I don't know where you got that. My plan is to let them choke on their debt. You can start addressing my actual points any time you like.

And yes, we do indeed mean different things by "middle of nowhere". I mean in the wilderness, not on the route to somewhere, not on the coast of the sea or a river, in other words, the very pristine wilderness that FirstAscent is so worried about. You seem to prefer the definition "in the desert"

[zveda2000]

There is a decided difference between crony capitalism and free markets. I advocate free markets, not crony capitalism. I'm also not the least bit concerned about government debt, I don't know where you got that. My plan is to let them choke on their debt. You can start addressing my actual points any time you like.

And yes, we do indeed mean different things by "middle of nowhere". I mean in the wilderness, not on the route to somewhere, not on the coast of the sea or a river, in other words, the very pristine wilderness that FirstAscent is so worried about. You seem to prefer the definition "in the desert"

This is not what I mean. I will try to be more clear. I am not arguing about crony capitalism or debt. My point is that your prescription for protecting the environment under Libertarianism is as pointless and futile as trying to regulate our current financial system. Once a party has monopoly power over creation of money, no amount of carrot-and-stick incentives or regulations is going to have any effect. Suing the Fed or the big banks for abusing your savings is about as hopeful as suing Coca Cola for destroying ground water in India or for Rio Tinto strip mining half of Australia. The mistake is letting them get that power in the first place.

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

[myrkul]

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

How? I agree trying to take the Fed to task for destroying your savings or Rio Tinto for strip mining Australia would be futile, but that's because the way to do that would be through the government courts. And in the Government courts, companies with a government license to do exactly what they have been doing will ultimately win. Take that government license away, and take them to a private court, and you'll have a better chance.

[mufa23]

What is environmentalism, really?

Richfags feeling bad about not doing anything, so they save the earth with a sense that they are super heroes.

Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

/thread

[zveda2000]

How? I agree trying to take the Fed to task for destroying your savings or Rio Tinto for strip mining Australia would be futile, but that's because the way to do that would be through the government courts. And in the Government courts, companies with a government license to do exactly what they have been doing will ultimately win. Take that government license away, and take them to a private court, and you'll have a better chance.

Well then why does bitcoin need strong ownership? We should just have a central payment processor or a single web wallet, and just go to bitcoin court if something goes wrong. All those hard disks full of blockchains, and miners running 24/7 just to take away a few jobs from some lawyers.. ? What a waste.

[myrkul]

How? I agree trying to take the Fed to task for destroying your savings or Rio Tinto for strip mining Australia would be futile, but that's because the way to do that would be through the government courts. And in the Government courts, companies with a government license to do exactly what they have been doing will ultimately win. Take that government license away, and take them to a private court, and you'll have a better chance.

Well then why does bitcoin need strong ownership? We should just have a central payment processor or a single web wallet, and just go to bitcoin court if something goes wrong. All those hard disks full of blockchains, and miners running 24/7 just to take away a few jobs from some lawyers.. ? What a waste.

Dude, you are all over the map. WTF are you even talking about?

[FirstAscent]

What is environmentalism, really?

Richfags feeling bad about not doing anything, so they save the earth with a sense that they are super heroes.

Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

/thread

I already stated what environmentalism was much earlier in this thread, and it was more detailed than your description. However, I'd like to point out the following about your own assessment:

- If gay people are effective at that, then that's fine.
- If it's wealthy people doing it, that's fine.
- If people feel bad about not doing anything, and that motivates them, that's fine.
- If they save the Earth, then not only would they probably feel like super heroes, they, in some sense, are.

[FirstAscent]

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

Just as dangerous (and this is what makes libertarianism so dangerous to the environment) is the idea of the land being divided up into small parcels and owned by many thousands and millions of individuals. In the libertarian environment, where there exist no regulations, each parcel is subject to the random whims of the individuals, some knowledgeable, some ignorant, some who care about the environment, some who don't. Each individual has their own agenda and view of life and the world. You'll get a classic checkerboard of damage and preservation, which is equal to less than the sum of preserved checks.

[dree12]

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

Just as dangerous (and this is what makes libertarianism so dangerous to the environment) is the idea of the land being divided up into small parcels and owned by many thousands and millions of individuals. In the libertarian environment, where there exist no regulations, each parcel is subject to the random whims of the individuals, some knowledgeable, some ignorant, some who care about the environment, some who don't. Each individual has their own agenda and view of life and the world. You'll get a classic checkerboard of damage and preservation, which is equal to less than the sum of preserved checks.

If you do something stupid on your parcel, there will be coalitions of people to sue. If you reject arbitration, there will be severe sanctions applied. If you do something stupid again, good luck keeping your land.

Think about it: if a forest is in your land, but by cutting it down you will have caused damage to the thousands of landowners adjacent to you, how will you win?

[myrkul]

So when you say let an individual have private ownership over large amounts of land and let them do whatever they want, but sue them if they negatively affect you, or appoint some kind of regulators -- this is a completely impotent strategy.

Just as dangerous (and this is what makes libertarianism so dangerous to the environment) is the idea of the land being divided up into small parcels and owned by many thousands and millions of individuals. In the libertarian environment, where there exist no regulations, each parcel is subject to the random whims of the individuals, some knowledgeable, some ignorant, some who care about the environment, some who don't. Each individual has their own agenda and view of life and the world. You'll get a classic checkerboard of damage and preservation, which is equal to less than the sum of preserved checks.

If you do something stupid on your parcel, there will be coalitions of people to sue. If you reject arbitration, there will be severe sanctions applied. If you do something stupid again, good luck keeping your land.

Think about it: if a forest is in your land, but by cutting it down you will have caused damage to the thousands of landowners adjacent to you, how will you win?

Prediction: he calls all the other owners idiots by implying or stating that they won't know that their land has been affected.