Topic: What is environmentalism, really? - page 4. (Read 7932 times)

I see. AnCap is unfair, because some people will want your stuff, and they can't just take it.

Well, that sounds like my kinda unfairness, frankly.

Structured anarchy, by definition, has certain "norms" or "rules". AnCap, for example, has a strong sense of possession. There are people who won't agree with those "norms" or "rules". It's therefore unfair.

True.

True.

False.

It's well known that direct democracy doesn't scale, true anarchy is not sustainable, and structured anarchy (no matter the structure) is unfair. That's why all those governments will eventually be obsolete (after all, Monarchy was the preferred government in the past; look how well that works now).

But none of this really matters. What matters is that the current states that ruin the Earth by warring over it, scorching it, deforesting it, and mining it to oblivion are eliminated.

Except that land is fundamentally different from Bitcoin mining. It is more closely analogous to Bitcoins themselves. Buying lots of them is increasingly expensive, and is only possible currently due to the relatively low price. Land is already expensive, and I would wager there simply does not exist enough capital to purchase an entire continent, or possibly even a few states, and certainly, that much capital isn't in a single person's hands. You are fearing something that is, frankly, impossible. And even if it were, the answer to a feared concentration of power is not a concentration of power.

And yes, your actions on even a small plot of land do indeed affect all future owners of that land. This is reflected in the reduction, or increase, in the value of the land. A blasted wasteland is not worth as much as a verdant forest, even assuming that the creation of that blasted wasteland from the verdant forest doesn't effect - and thus, incur damages from - other people's properties. (Which is not a valid assumption.)



TL;DR version: Techno-democracy devolves to techno-dictatorship because direct democracy takes up too much time.

Obviously this is an extreme example, but your argument was that private ownership will decentralise control of nature. This seems clearly untrue.

Bitcoin is designed to limit the accumulation of power of any individual -- one needs 51% of network power just to reverse transactions. This is important because reversing transactions potentially affects everyone in the network. However there is nothing about private land ownership that limits accumulation of power. Even if I own a small plot of land, I can affect thousands of future generations that will inhabit it, and all of the earth's systems that come into contact with it. Yet you suggest that I should have no limit on the power I have over this plot.

Besides this, with regard to bitcoin mining, even if I have 40% of hashing power I still cannot reverse transactions, whereas controlling just North America, or even a couple of states, I have already significantly centralised and consolidated my power. It is inevitable that some people will control exponentially more land than others - as is already true with bitcoin mining.


I don't really want to read the entire story. Could you summarise it for me?

Well, I suppose if you could manage to buy all of North America that would indeed be centralization. You could, then, strip-mine Alberta. Of course, where are you going to get all that money? And how are you going to convince everyone to sell? Buying an entire continent would require massive amounts of capital. Even if your plan is to strip mine entire provinces, I doubt the profit could ever outweigh the capital expenditure of buying all that land. Remember, the more you buy, the more expensive the next purchase is.


And Tobias Buckell has an idea what might (almost certainly would) happen:
http://www.johnjosephadams.com/seeds-of-change/?page_id=66

With the power of the internet and public key cryptography, it doesn't look like such a difficult task? There are already a number of movements of this kind all over the world.

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.

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.


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

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.

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

That would be a fine first step.  It's going beyond that, that is my concern.


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?


Well, that is interesting.

As already noted, the tropics will not benefit, but nore will they significantly be effected unless they live on the shore.
Even swampland has value to mankind, moreso than deserts.
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.

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."

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).

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.

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