What is environmentalism, really? - page 2.

zveda2000

member

Activity: 60

Merit: 10

Quote from: myrkul on August 16, 2012, 03:17:26 AM

Quote from: zveda2000 on August 16, 2012, 03:09:31 AM

Quote from: myrkul on August 16, 2012, 02:58:20 AM

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?

Again I will try to be more clear. Bitcoin is designed exactly in such a way as to avoid needing to use courts in the first place -- and to avoid placing your trust in any individual. Every user has strong ownership of their coins, such that no court can take them away, and all transactions are final. If we are going to trust courts, public or private, to enforce justice and solve disputes, then the whole design of bitcoin is pointless. We can just have a centralised payment system and just sue someone if we are wronged. Alternatively we don't need every user to run a full node, we can just have a web wallet that everybody trusts, and just sue it if something goes wrong. Bitcoin is designed exactly to avoid all trust in any court or system or even any other individual. The only thing that is trusted is that 51% of the network is going to be honest.

You on the other hand suggest to trust individuals with large amounts of power over the environment, even to the point where they can seriously harm the entire world, but to use the threat of courts and regulations to keep them in line, and to provide them with positive incentives to make them good custodians of the environment. Do you see how this is totally inconsistent with the philosophy of bitcoin?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 16, 2012, 02:15:01 PM

Quote from: myrkul on August 16, 2012, 02:04:53 PM

Scenario:

I own land which I have kept a forest because I like old-growth forests. My new neighbor doesn't like old-grown forests, he likes cows. So he cuts down the forest on his land, which, as you stated, causes the border area to have thicker undergrowth, a different sort of wildlife, and generally no longer act like old-growth forest. Now, as stated, I kept my land forest because I like old-growth forest. If suddenly, large tracts of my land aren't acting like the old-growth forest that I bought, I'm going to be upset. Why would I not be?

It's a little bit late though. And your neighbor will probably counter sue you claiming that your suit against him affects his liveleyhood, which it does, to some extent. A more uniform policy named in advance with reasons set forth has more strength with regard to protecting lands.

Let me introduce you to a phrase: "Due Diligence". If the new neighbor had done some of that before cutting down the forest, or, better yet buying forest with the intent of cutting it down, it wouldn't have happened. Because of that, his countersuit would fall flat. I agree though, once the damage is done, it's too late. Thus why you should do the due diligence, so as to not do damage.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: dree12 on August 16, 2012, 02:18:10 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 16, 2012, 02:15:01 PM

Quote from: myrkul on August 16, 2012, 02:04:53 PM

Scenario:

I own land which I have kept a forest because I like old-growth forests. My new neighbor doesn't like old-grown forests, he likes cows. So he cuts down the forest on his land, which, as you stated, causes the border area to have thicker undergrowth, a different sort of wildlife, and generally no longer act like old-growth forest. Now, as stated, I kept my land forest because I like old-growth forest. If suddenly, large tracts of my land aren't acting like the old-growth forest that I bought, I'm going to be upset. Why would I not be?

It's a little bit late though. And your neighbor will probably counter sue you claiming that your suit against him affects his liveleyhood, which it does, to some extent. A more uniform policy named in advance with reasons set forth has more strength with regard to protecting lands.

You and your neighbour are not the only people who own the old-growth forest. Everyone else affected will join your lawsuit. People aren't stupid, and one can never beat a thousand.

Concessions, counter suits, and randomness will all lead to a less than consistent outcome. And it will all cost everyone money just as taxes would. Not that the current situation works perfectly either. Help me work out a solution that would work.

dree12

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1077

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 16, 2012, 02:15:01 PM

Quote from: myrkul on August 16, 2012, 02:04:53 PM

Scenario:

I own land which I have kept a forest because I like old-growth forests. My new neighbor doesn't like old-grown forests, he likes cows. So he cuts down the forest on his land, which, as you stated, causes the border area to have thicker undergrowth, a different sort of wildlife, and generally no longer act like old-growth forest. Now, as stated, I kept my land forest because I like old-growth forest. If suddenly, large tracts of my land aren't acting like the old-growth forest that I bought, I'm going to be upset. Why would I not be?

It's a little bit late though. And your neighbor will probably counter sue you claiming that your suit against him affects his liveleyhood, which it does, to some extent. A more uniform policy named in advance with reasons set forth has more strength with regard to protecting lands.

You and your neighbour are not the only people who own the old-growth forest. Everyone else affected will join your lawsuit. People aren't stupid, and one can never beat a thousand.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on August 16, 2012, 02:04:53 PM

Scenario:

I own land which I have kept a forest because I like old-growth forests. My new neighbor doesn't like old-grown forests, he likes cows. So he cuts down the forest on his land, which, as you stated, causes the border area to have thicker undergrowth, a different sort of wildlife, and generally no longer act like old-growth forest. Now, as stated, I kept my land forest because I like old-growth forest. If suddenly, large tracts of my land aren't acting like the old-growth forest that I bought, I'm going to be upset. Why would I not be?

It's a little bit late though. And your neighbor will probably counter sue you claiming that your suit against him affects his liveleyhood, which it does, to some extent. A more uniform policy named in advance with reasons set forth has more strength with regard to protecting lands.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Scenario:

I own land which I have kept a forest because I like old-growth forests. My new neighbor doesn't like old-grown forests, he likes cows. So he cuts down the forest on his land, which, as you stated, causes the border area to have thicker undergrowth, a different sort of wildlife, and generally no longer act like old-growth forest. Now, as stated, I kept my land forest because I like old-growth forest. If suddenly, large tracts of my land aren't acting like the old-growth forest that I bought, I'm going to be upset. Why would I not be?

dree12

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1077

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 16, 2012, 01:32:39 PM

Quote from: myrkul on August 16, 2012, 01:12:52 PM

Quote from: dree12 on August 16, 2012, 12:57:28 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 16, 2012, 12:47:16 PM

Quote from: zveda2000 on August 16, 2012, 02:48:17 AM

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.

Your prediction exists in part because you've actually learned the mechanics of the situation. As for a large part of the owners being idiots and being ignorant of the real damages caused by other owners, I think it's very clear from the responses to my posts in this forum that the majority do indeed not understand the consequences of others.

BitcoinTalk Forum ≠ General Public.

Just because 90% of BitcoinTalk users won't care doesn't mean 90% of the public won't. In fact, it's quite likely 90% of the public will.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on August 16, 2012, 01:12:52 PM

Quote from: dree12 on August 16, 2012, 12:57:28 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 16, 2012, 12:47:16 PM

Quote from: zveda2000 on August 16, 2012, 02:48:17 AM

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.

Your prediction exists in part because you've actually learned the mechanics of the situation. As for a large part of the owners being idiots and being ignorant of the real damages caused by other owners, I think it's very clear from the responses to my posts in this forum that the majority do indeed not understand the consequences of others.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: dree12 on August 16, 2012, 12:57:28 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 16, 2012, 12:47:16 PM

Quote from: zveda2000 on August 16, 2012, 02:48:17 AM

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.

dree12

legendary

Activity: 1246

Merit: 1077

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 16, 2012, 12:47:16 PM

Quote from: zveda2000 on August 16, 2012, 02:48:17 AM

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?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: zveda2000 on August 16, 2012, 02:48:17 AM

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.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mufa23 on August 16, 2012, 03:05:19 AM

Quote

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.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: zveda2000 on August 16, 2012, 03:09:31 AM

Quote from: myrkul on August 16, 2012, 02:58:20 AM

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?

zveda2000

member

Activity: 60

Merit: 10

Quote from: myrkul on August 16, 2012, 02:58:20 AM

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.

mufa23

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1001

I'd fight Gandhi.

Quote

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

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: zveda2000 on August 16, 2012, 02:48:17 AM

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.

zveda2000

member

Activity: 60

Merit: 10

Quote from: myrkul on August 15, 2012, 11:53:05 PM

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

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: zveda2000 on August 15, 2012, 11:42:39 PM

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

member

Activity: 60

Merit: 10

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

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 15, 2012, 10:43:25 PM

Quote from: myrkul on August 15, 2012, 10:33:47 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 15, 2012, 10:19:38 PM

Quote from: myrkul on August 15, 2012, 10:10:22 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 15, 2012, 09:52:47 PM

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.

Topic: What is environmentalism, really? - page 2. (Read 7902 times)