Topic: My suggestion to environmentalists. - page 5. (Read 5474 times)

I love to be proven wrong. It happens so rarely that it's a real treat. Feel free to provide a post that does so.

Have you read all my posts? I doubt it.

You advocate forcing people to be nice to Gaia. I've not heard you give, or agree to, any market incentives to encourage that, you just say they should be made to do it. That's advocating violence.

I admit that I do get disgusted with a very prevalent way of thinking here based on basically ignoring any information that is not convenient to the popular ideologies around here. I have been educating and sharing links to reputable scientific studies for a long time here. They largely go ignored, and then the person(s) come back and present more material that is clearly indicative that they are operating with a minimal set of knowledge about certain issues.

I do not advocate violence. But I do advocate rules and regulations. If in your world, even the idea of a rule or regulation means violence, then go ahead and think that way.

Ranting, getting perilously close to educating but shying away, and advocating violence?

What do you think I've been doing for the past twelve months here? Read my posts. Start with this one: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1073879

What is your point about the dodo bird? All I can imagine is, you think concern over species extinction is about aesthetics. Is that correct? Is it safe to assume that you don't understand ecosystem services, trophic cascades, coevolution, nutrient cycling, water quality, flood control, and so on?

I really wished we could have saved the dodo bird, I think they're kinda cute. Alas... it can never be.

Education not violence. Try it on for size. It might just suit you. It's certainly less painful for others.

In summary: the market does not value the ecosystem as it should due to near term interests, ignorance and greed, and our children, their children, and so forth are left to pay the price.

Yeah, but prices are set by the market. What one party can "derive near term" depends on how the market values his resources, not just on his personal values. If biodiversity is valued by the market, then he can derive value from his resources as a biodiverse system. So the the values of the market are factored into the price.

Similarly, a coal mine only has value to the entrepreneur because the market values coal. So one may buy the land to mine the coal if it's profitable. Profit is the indicator that the markets values are being met.

All economic activity in a free society is just a reflection of the aggregate values of the market. With the state, it's a function of a tyrants values.


He wouldn't, he would only pay an amount based on what he may yield in return. What he may yield is a function of the markets values. If he can't find the capital for this investment, then clearly society doesn't value the rainforest enough for the proposed utilization.

Just because you personally might value it higher than the average market value per individual, doesn't mean you have the right to initiate force to impose your values on others. If you think people misrepresent the value of the rainforest then you are charged with the task of education; a non-violent solution to the problem.


It's not a burden to have a valuable asset. You're thinking in a collectivist mindset. If non-fractured forests are more valuable than fractured ones, the market will answer this demand. Again, edge effects are factored in by the market.

A little too warm for my tastes.

The advantage of Mars is that there is zero other life to fuck up. Literally all we have to worry about is what we bring with us. It additionally has the advantage of forcing us to figure out how to work with ecosystems instead of against them, and when we go back home, maybe we don't fuck up this time.

Ah, Mars. A even more delicate planet for us to mess up. Honestly, better to go somewhere we probably can't mess up if we tried. Coincidently, there's a nice place to live that's also probably the third-easiest heavenly body to get to. We probably couldn't mess that up for a while. Maybe too easy to get to...

Something like this.

Can I go short Mars One? I'll liquidate the position when it reaches its funding goal.

Leave the damn thing be for a few hundred years, it'll find equilibrium again. Next time try not to fuck with it so much.

My suggestion:
It's going to get hot and dry, then we are all going to starve. Enjoy the last days of humanity. 
The odds of turning things around must be less than 1 in 10,000? There is not even a theoretical way to address our problems, let alone a solution.

How is it determined who owns the forest?

Right, and the forest is not property of someone who isn't capable of understanding its value. Whoever creates the most value out of it, which are the people who understand the value, owns the forest. Not the forestry cabal in a fair anarcho-capitalist society.

This simply is not true. People only value their property to the extent that they can fulfill their vision for it and within the limits of their own knowledge as to its potential.

AnCap is not flawed, it's just not perfect. Personally, I find some other governments better: An (without the Cap), AnCom (without possession), or a small centrist government.

I don't support ownership of the oceans (then again, I don't support ownership of any land), but it is a necessary evil to prevent the chaos in the first place. An owned ocean is much less vulnerable to whaling than an unowned one.

Are we discussing AnCap? Let's not, as it's flawed. Are you suggesting ownership of the oceans? Let's not, as it's flawed.