My suggestion to environmentalists.

[FirstAscent]

Eventually, society improves. We are built as a species to work together, not to persuade each other to get our way. A rainforest offers us necessary components for life. Society can easily topple the will of a destructive forestry industry if the problem gets worse. But for now, environmentalism can reduce the cleanup we might need later if a crisis occurs.

It's worse than that though. We can't get back rainforests (or old growth forests) and its biodiversity in any timescale relevant to the current plight of humanity. Deforestation is occurring and has been occurring at a horrific rate.

The problems are unawareness, ignorance, and greed. Some benefit near term and don't care. I've tried to explain what biodiversity is all about. But most people don't get it. To summarize:

1. Biodiversity is our primary repository of undiscovered knowledge for the sciences, whether medicine, material science, engineering or computer science. Examples are molecular compounds, the microscopic structure of shells, internal biological methods and processes, products of animals such as spider silk, social dynamics, such as in bees and ants, etc.

2. Biodiversity co-evolved, and works in synergy to provide ecosystem services, which in turn regulate the environment. Removing components is often like removing organs from a human body. 
 

[Tim Johnson]

If you see a ocean in danger of pollution and you want to protect it, get some friends together, buy some defense, protect it.

See an endangered species? Capture them, nurture them, protect them.

Is your favorite rainforest in trouble? Make a contract with the lumber company and pay them not to wreck it. Pay a local militia to protect it.

Tired of people hunting and camping on a piece of land? Buy it. Protect it.

It's very simple. All the tools you need to promote your cause are in front of you. You just need to organize your labor to make things happen. It's a lot simpler than begging for world government to take everything over and tax everyone into your cause.

Tell me, why does the lumber company have the rights to the rainforest? Do they really create more value than non-destructive groups? Who decides who gets the rights to the rainforest?

Fact is, all this is subjective. Lumber companies may produce some value by exploiting the rainforest, but many would argue that more value is produced by leaving it alone. So why, why, should these lumber companies own the rainforest in the first place? Who sells it?

Because they have the cooperation, force and will necessary. They're stronger.

If you want your desires met, I suggest you start working towards them.

You can wait for your all-knowing god government to meet your desires or you can get them yourself.

Are you advocating for a society in which a greater cooperation, force, and will implies the ability to rob others?

If so, expect to be robbed by the Mafia. Working with the Mafia might be the only way out of this. Be prepared.

You just described today's society.

Replace Mafia with Governments and Corporations.

Let me ask you again: who sells the rainforest? Who gets to use it?

Whoever is allowed to by the organization or man with the most military force.

You have to use force or persuasion to get your way in this world. There is no other way.

I am only preaching reality.

The reality you speak of is distant from the reality we live in.

Look at our current wars, the victimless crimes that are persecuted and say that again.

I dare you to tell all the kids that have lost their parents to drones that the reality we live in is fine.

[Tim Johnson]

All I want to do is evenly distribute all the worlds powers among all people.

No nations, No UN, only voluntary groups.

[FirstAscent]

All I want to do is evenly distribute all the worlds powers among all people.

No nations, No UN, only voluntary groups.

We already know what you want. As I said earlier, that's like an infant who is screaming for a toy. We need to put those wants into a context which factors in what we know about the mechanisms of the world.

[Tim Johnson]

And you think that would be a better situation to our present one, everyone looking after their own with force when necessary? So who looks after those unable to take care of themselves, they die out?. Now extend that further, who looks after the world as a whole. If we only care about ourselves in the present day there will be nothing worth living in for a future generation.

You apparently care about the "future generation". Instead of forcing others to work for your desire how about you do it yourself?

How about you find others? Don't be so self-important and say you are the only one and everyone else is a retard.

How about the poor? You care about them. Take care of them.

Oh, but you're the only caring person on the planet. Everyone else is a dumbass. There is no way others could possibly want to voluntarily care for others because you're special.

[myrkul]

Oh, but you're the only caring person on the planet. Everyone else is a dumbass. There is no way others could possibly want to voluntarily care for others because you're special.

Every once in a while, a real pearl of wisdom drops...

[FirstAscent]

Oh, but you're the only caring person on the planet. Everyone else is a dumbass. There is no way others could possibly want to voluntarily care for others because you're special.

Every once in a while, a real pearl of wisdom drops...

Myrkul, of course there are others who care. A large fraction, even. But we need an even more unified approach, so the bad apples don't fuck it up for everyone else. Do you recall the concept of Edge Effects?

[myrkul]

Oh, but you're the only caring person on the planet. Everyone else is a dumbass. There is no way others could possibly want to voluntarily care for others because you're special.

Every once in a while, a real pearl of wisdom drops...

Myrkul, of course there are others who care. A large fraction, even. But we need an even more unified approach, so the bad apples don't fuck it up for everyone else. Do you recall the concept of Edge Effects?

I do. People gotta live, too you know. If enough people care about the environment that a government policy to protect it would be enacted, then enough people care enough to contribute voluntarily to buying large, contiguous tracts where the ecosystem can be preserved.

[FirstAscent]

Oh, but you're the only caring person on the planet. Everyone else is a dumbass. There is no way others could possibly want to voluntarily care for others because you're special.

Every once in a while, a real pearl of wisdom drops...

Myrkul, of course there are others who care. A large fraction, even. But we need an even more unified approach, so the bad apples don't fuck it up for everyone else. Do you recall the concept of Edge Effects?

I do. People gotta live, too you know. If enough people care about the environment that a government policy to protect it would be enacted, then enough people care enough to contribute voluntarily to buying large, contiguous tracts where the ecosystem can be preserved.

The buying of large contiguous tracts for conservation is happening. In general, it happens by the cooperation of NGOs and governments. And philanthropists do this as well. Perhaps the two most famous are Yvon Chouinard, famous climber and mountaineer, and founder of Patagonia and Black Diamond, and Doug Thompkins, founder of The North Face. Yet still, these efforts are not enough, given the current rates of deforestation, which, I will admit, is partly the fault of various governments, influenced by various factors, including poverty, lobbying, and greed.

I wish you'd spend an hour listening to this guy, even if you disagree, because there's a lot to be learned from what he's saying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnOcJpVA88

[myrkul]

Oh, but you're the only caring person on the planet. Everyone else is a dumbass. There is no way others could possibly want to voluntarily care for others because you're special.

Every once in a while, a real pearl of wisdom drops...

Myrkul, of course there are others who care. A large fraction, even. But we need an even more unified approach, so the bad apples don't fuck it up for everyone else. Do you recall the concept of Edge Effects?

I do. People gotta live, too you know. If enough people care about the environment that a government policy to protect it would be enacted, then enough people care enough to contribute voluntarily to buying large, contiguous tracts where the ecosystem can be preserved.

The buying of large contiguous tracts for conservation is happening. In general, it happens by the cooperation of NGOs and governments. And philanthropists do this as well. Perhaps the two most famous are Yvon Chouinard, famous climber and mountaineer, and founder of Patagonia and Black Diamond, and Doug Thompkins, founder of The North Face. Yet still, these efforts are not enough, given the current rates of deforestation, which, I will admit, is partly* the fault of various governments, influenced by various factors, including poverty, lobbying, and greed.

I wish you'd spend an hour listening to this guy, even if you disagree, because there's a lot to be learned from what he's saying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnOcJpVA88

*mostly

[knight22]

My only advice is to destroy and change this economic system that is the first responsible for the environmental destruction.
That's all

[FirstAscent]

My only advice is to destroy and change this economic system that is the first responsible for the environmental destruction.
That's all

You mean as in an economic system as favored by Herman Daly, former Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941

[knight22]

My only advice is to destroy and change this economic system that is the first responsible for the environmental destruction.
That's all

You mean as in an economic system as favored by Herman Daly, former Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941

Yep, something like that

[nimda]

Re: who gave them the right to the rainforest, and land rights in general (spilling into the taxation thread)

When multiple parties are in contention over a piece of land, they must negotiate to find the most mutually beneficial path. If that can't happen, then there is no invisible hand, and capitalism is fundamentally flawed.

[dree12]

Re: who gave them the right to the rainforest, and land rights in general (spilling into the taxation thread)

When multiple parties are in contention over a piece of land, they must negotiate to find the most mutually beneficial path. If that can't happen, then there is no invisible hand, and capitalism is fundamentally flawed.

The right to land is given by value produced. If a significant amount of people believe that lumbering destroys more value than it produces, then it follows that lumbering companies do not have the right to the land.

An aristocratic state, whether a corrupt government or a malignant forestry cabal, is the only reason why forestry companies do and will continue to have the rights to the land. This is not capitalism, that is aristocratism, and there is a difference (although they can overlap).

In short, we have a aristocratic Brazilian regime today (a flawed democracy at best), and unless traditionally liberal capitalism or another populist regime is instilled (a forestry-based stratocracy does not qualify as populist), environmentalists are fully justified when they demonstrate against the forestry cabal.

[asdf]

who sells the rainforest? Who gets to use it?

Easy. The previous owner sells and the owner uses. That is, once we remove the violation of property rights institutionalised by the government.

It's really simple guys. If the value of the forest to society is higher in it's natural state than it is in it's harvested state, the forest will be saved. It depends on the aggregate of the subjective values of all individuals. All the edge effects and biodiversity are factored in by the market.

Now if there is $1000000 dollars worth of wood in a forest and $1000 worth of endangered species would be destroyed in harvesting that wood, then the species die. But FA values the species at $infinity and is willing to use violence to subjugate others to his value system. This is why he can't accept ancap, because he needs the state to proxy his application of violence.

This attitude is everything that is wrong with our society today.

[FirstAscent]

It's really simple guys. If the value of the forest to society is higher in it's natural state than it is in it's harvested state, the forest will be saved. It depends on the aggregate of the subjective values of all individuals. All the edge effects and biodiversity are factored in by the market.

No, all the factors are not factored in. The value between two parties is equivalent to who can pay what and what can often be earned in one lifetime. In general, a party is not going to pay more than what he believes he can derive near term.

Why would an individual pay an amount equal to a value that factors in the rainforest's value to all of the future of humanity? He can't afford it, and the seller will be more than willing to lower the price until he is satisfied personally.

Furthermore, in a fractured model of ownership, it's easy for one to justify his sale, and allow the others to share the burden of valuing their properties to the full environmental value.

[dree12]

who sells the rainforest? Who gets to use it?

Easy. The previous owner sells and the owner uses. That is, once we remove the violation of property rights institutionalised by the government.

It's really simple guys. If the value of the forest to society is higher in it's natural state than it is in it's harvested state, the forest will be saved. It depends on the aggregate of the subjective values of all individuals. All the edge effects and biodiversity are factored in by the market.

Now if there is $1000000 dollars worth of wood in a forest and $1000 worth of endangered species would be destroyed in harvesting that wood, then the species die. But FA values the species at $infinity and is willing to use violence to subjugate others to his value system. This is why he can't accept ancap, because he needs the state to proxy his application of violence.

This attitude is everything that is wrong with our society today.

Yeah, and the previous owner was only instilled there because the government did it. The market clearly values endangered species more than wood: most of the logging there is for the purpose of clearing land, and the wood is simply burned.

FA isn't the only one that values the species at more than the wood. Many people would agree. The market agrees. If one supports ancap, it only makes sense that they would rationally decide to preserve the forest rather than burn it down so some greedy company can produce value from it.

If I destroy the Pyramids so I can grow crops, and cite that "nobody owned it", than clearly I haven't produced more value according to the market. Same deal here: the forest stays in a perfect ancap society.

[FirstAscent]

asdf,

A classic example was the harvesting of the Blue Whale in the mid 20th century. Near term gain won out over long term valuation of Blue Whales. It was enforced regulations that saved the Blue Whale.

Before you cite the Commons and property ownership as a rebuttal, let me just head off that silliness right now. If a Japanese whaler is able to catch a whale, then clearly they have proclaimed themselves the owner of the whale, whether one considers that legitimate or not. But even so, they obviously only valued the whale as a source of blubber and other various derivative products. Therefore, what we witnessed was a free market valuing the whales at a certain price (for their food and oil products). Is that the correct price?

In the absence of regulation, what would have been the ultimate outcome? Perhaps extinction, especially if the free market worked as you believe it should, that is to say, the price of blue whales rose significantly as their numbers were reduced, for that would've only invited greater effort to hunt the last of the blue whales.

[FirstAscent]

The market agrees.

I'm not sure about the intelligence of the market. Look at my last two posts.