If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Florida Today)   Call it supply-side enviromentalism   (floridatoday.com) divider line 383
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

9864 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2003 at 6:07 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



383 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-12-29 12:05:27 AM
TRS News

I know selling portions of the ocean to fisheries has encouraged fisheries to install reefs on their property and create thriving fish populations.


You can't simply "install" a reef ecosystem. Preserving existing reef ecosystems is much more economically sustainable enterprise. The Biosphere projects should have taught everyone that lesson.


Re: communism sounding good in theory, Marx sounds good to people because it appeals to emotions and envy rather than a logical theory.

I totally disagree. Marxism appeals to emotions no more than any other ideology. Dialectical materialism and "from each according to his ability..." is rather dry and abstract. Which may be part of the problem with Marxism.
 
2003-12-29 12:08:59 AM
I'm going to lend my expert opinion to entropyblues and say that yes, it is possible for a species to evolve itself into extinction, albietit by a somewhat indirect route. Basicly, if a species becomes too well adapted to its particular niche, and that niche is lost (via rapid climate change, or human enchroachment) then that species is lost due to its own over-specialization.

Unfortunatly, having said that, I cannot think of any specific examples off the top of my head. So, I suppose you'll have to take my word for it.
 
2003-12-29 12:10:36 AM
You can't simply "install" a reef ecosystem.

Speak for yourself, smart guy.
 
2003-12-29 12:10:59 AM
TRS News

private ownership is the exception, not the rule in international waters. The places in the ocean where fishers are guaranteed property rights are what ecos would call "sustainable."


Are you aware of the impact of shrimp farms on mangrove ecology? My current line of work is "Free market" environmentalism so I have a pretty good idea of its limitations.
 
2003-12-29 12:11:41 AM

pontechango, what I am calling reefs are underwater shelters that function like coral reefs that fishers build.

No appeals to emotions in communism? Here's a soundbite I picked up somewhere:

Karl Marx and F. Engels, The Communist Manifesto: But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of existence of your class.


Fallacies?


Argumentum ad hominem . Appeals to a fact about their opponentsnamely, their economic class (which they identify as bourgeois)in order to dismiss their arguments (here, those appealing to notions of freedom, culture, law, etc.with the etc. probably meaning and anything else that is damaging to our position). Also petitio principii [begging the question] by arbitrary definition in their definition of jurisprudence as the will of the ruling economic class made into a system of law. And, given their assumptions contained within it, their constant use of the word bourgeois could be considered a question-begging epithet . It also contains the fallacy of the stolen concept since it denies (at least implicitly) several concepts upon which all reasoning depends, such as free will (since a persons will is determined by the economic conditions of his existenceproduction, property, etc.) and Aristotelian logic.

 
2003-12-29 12:12:46 AM
Communism works in theory. It's one of the best, if not THE best form of government out there, in theory. Once applied to normal life by corruption-prone humans, however, it becomes what we know it as today.
Something horrific.
 
2003-12-29 12:12:56 AM
EatHam

Speak for yourself, smart guy.


And we'll see how long your fish tank survives, smart guy.
 
2003-12-29 12:13:47 AM
Those turtles would eat a human child without thinking twice. Its kill or be killed out there, dood.

so intense.
 
2003-12-29 12:14:36 AM
TRS News

No appeals to emotions in communism?


That's not what I said.
 
2003-12-29 12:14:36 AM
And we'll see how long your fish tank survives, smart guy.

My fish tank will likely outlive all life on earth. Parts are made from plastic.
 
2003-12-29 12:16:13 AM
m-16sux0rz

Communism works in theory. It's one of the best, if not THE best form of government out there, in theory. Once applied to normal life by corruption-prone humans, however, it becomes what we know it as today.
Something horrific.


Exactly. That's what I said.
 
2003-12-29 12:17:14 AM
2003-12-29 12:02:19 AM m-16sux0rz
Judges. Immigration. Education. Campaign finance. And there are others that I can't remember right now. Also, keep this in mind. Bush has yet to veto anything
-----
Thanks for the reply m-16. Please excuse me if my next question sounds stupid. (I'm a Canuck, which isn't an excuse for being stupid, just an excuse for not knowing exactly the political process down there.)

I know Bush has theatened to veto, but since the Republicans control both the house and the senate there shouldn't be much for him to veto should there?
 
2003-12-29 12:18:52 AM
Pontechango-
Before today, I thought mangrove was some sort of Harry Potter monster. Are you going to explain the limitations of F-ME?
 
2003-12-29 12:19:44 AM
I think the moment communism breaks down is when there are more people than you can know in the society. If you've got a small village of 50 people, it'll work like a charm (Kibbutz (sp?) in Israel) but the moment you can abstact a person because you don't know them and thier life, you will have the abuse and travesty that all large scale communist governments have.

Sooooo off topic. Sorry.
 
2003-12-29 12:19:59 AM
trad16: Also, the farm bill. It's probably the best example of all the ones I put up there.
 
2003-12-29 12:20:36 AM
kieran57

Sounds like you could be talking about mankind.
 
2003-12-29 12:20:50 AM
Communism works in theory. It's one of the best, if not THE best form of government out there, in theory

Absolute garbage. Communism sucks the life, individuality, and will to live from all exposed to it. It is an evil that should never have seen the light of day. Last I looked, humans are not farking ants or termites or some other insect that needs this kind of bullshiat to survive. At the absolute BEST, Communism is completely insulting. At worst, it is a horrible way to kill off humans by slow torture, robbing them of spirit and personality.
 
2003-12-29 12:21:57 AM
Must Crush Capitalism!

-Zombie Lenin
 
2003-12-29 12:26:49 AM
trad16 sez: I don't have a problem if a species evolves it's self into extinction. I do have a problem if a species becomes extinct because of man.

tinian sez: If you think species evolve themselves into extinction you need to buy a clue.

therefore, tinian agrees that extinction is a result of man? looks like it. bam. we're responsible. or irresponsible. it's all us, it looks like.
 
2003-12-29 12:26:59 AM
TRS News

Are you going to explain the limitations of F-ME?


Certainly. It is idealistic to the extreme to presume that all commons property can be parcelled off and traded under enforcable property rights. Animals and plants do not respect political boundaries. Migratory birds, for example, will always be a form of common property. Nevermind that I find it repugnant to think of a pod of dolphins or a flock of geese as necessarily somebody's property.
 
2003-12-29 12:27:19 AM
Thanks for the reply m-16. Please excuse me if my next question sounds stupid. (I'm a Canuck, which isn't an excuse for being stupid, just an excuse for not knowing exactly the political process down there.)
I know Bush has theatened to veto, but since the Republicans control both the house and the senate there shouldn't be much for him to veto should there?


There is a theory that Bush is trying to take away the dem's issues so he can win their voter's votes come '04. So he's giving them all this stuff, (even though he doesn't have to), so they can't b*tch about it not being done and he gets the credit, FOR it being done. And I don't think that was a stupid question at all.
 
2003-12-29 12:27:48 AM
entropyblues

What happens is a mutation can be temporarilly beneficial, and then catastrophic over a longer period of time.

That's how many mutations are. Black Americans, for example, have no need for the sickle cell gene. But that's only because their environment has changed.

Remember -- mutations are rare and occur in individuals. No mutation will become common in a population unless it is benign/beneficial. A species, therefore, cannot evolve itself into extinction.
 
2003-12-29 12:28:03 AM
entropyblues

Sooooo off topic. Sorry.


Good point tho!
 
2003-12-29 12:31:11 AM
Also, the minority party holds quite a lot of sway. If they wanted to, they wouldn't have to let anything pass. Bush has to suck 'em off now and then to keep 'em happy.
 
2003-12-29 12:31:28 AM
EatHam

At worst, it is a horrible way to kill off humans by slow torture, robbing them of spirit and personality.


The same thing was said about capitalism up until slavery was abolished and a middle class was established.
 
2003-12-29 12:31:35 AM
EatHam

Absolute garbage. Communism sucks the life, individuality, and will to live from all exposed to it. It is an evil that should never have seen the light of day. Last I looked, humans are not farking ants or termites or some other insect that needs this kind of bullshiat to survive. At the absolute BEST, Communism is completely insulting. At worst, it is a horrible way to kill off humans by slow torture, robbing them of spirit and personality.

A system for the people, by the people, where each member of society contributes to the greater good of the entire society?

Yeah, sounds like a slow torture to me.

Admittedly, it can never work with human nature being what it is, but it is a very nice idea...
 
2003-12-29 12:32:53 AM
Weaver95 it's not that we are quality control, were more like parisites killing off things as we go.
 
2003-12-29 12:33:50 AM
EatHam: Notice my in theory italics I put up there? ;)
 
2003-12-29 12:34:38 AM
Remember -- mutations are rare and occur in individuals. No mutation will become common in a population unless it is benign/beneficial. A species, therefore, cannot evolve itself into extinction.

Absolutely. But a mutation can be beneficial in the short term, causing it to become the norm in a population, and then later devestating in the long term, causing the whole species to go extinct. I really wish I could come up with a better example. I could make one up: Species A develops a trait that allows it to gather food and an accelerated rate, the whole species takes on the trait, more food is gathered and the species grows in numbers. More A's cause a drop in the food supply, and the popultation crashes when the supply is exhausted. But like I said, I just made that up so take it with a pund of salt. Really, tho' it's a moot point. I think it's in our power to create extinctions or prevent them, and we should always try to prevent if possible. I think we all could agree on that. How best to prevent it is the debate.
 
2003-12-29 12:36:20 AM
Calvin Hobbes: Thanks for clarifying that much better than I did.
 
2003-12-29 12:36:24 AM
Pontechango
In response to your counterexample of migratory animals, is there a reason gaggles of geese or pods of dolphins be different from cattle? Similarly to any other type of animal, when people tame dolphins or geese, they become private property. And if you are suggesting some sorts of animal rights, I find that idea repugnant.
 
2003-12-29 12:36:34 AM
Poorlytoldjoke: as far as Oxygen (or, what I think you really meant: breathable air) goes, in a situation like I described it would have to be manufactured. Plenty of O2 in the oceans and Nitrogen, CO2 and the rest are out there for the taking. If it came down to the survival of the human species, I have no doubt that we could devise a way to do it.

As for the rest of your post. I do believe that we are, as you put it, Shepherds of the Earth. I love nothing more than to hike deep into the wilderness and gaze out at the beauty that is the current state of the world. I am glad that I have been lucky enough to see the beautiful expanse that is the Alaskan backcountry. I can get the same sense of majesty and wonder in the forests of my native North Georgia, even having never seen the old-growth forests that used to cover the eastern US. I also can appreciate the grandeur of a city skyline, devoid of trees or anything else that most call "natural". What I have a problem with are those that think that to be good stewards of the world we live in we must preserve it as it is and never change it. Change is a necessary part of life, as is death and destruction, contrary to what many so-called environmentalists would have you believe; most of whom, I have found, simply see something "pretty" and harbor a sentimental wish that the "prettiness" stay as it is forever.
 
2003-12-29 12:37:52 AM
Looks like I'm in the time machine again.
 
2003-12-29 12:37:55 AM
And if you are suggesting some sorts of animal rights, I find that idea repugnant.

How is it any more repugnant than Human Rights?
 
2003-12-29 12:39:52 AM
pontechango 'Because extinction is permanent. What don't you understand about that? Just because you don't need something now doesn't mean you won't need it later' your absolutley right. Say you were to kill off all the european honey bees in North America then alot of the european plants introduced here would die off. Like the red clover, the only thing that pollinates it is the honey bee.
 
2003-12-29 12:40:14 AM
Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice.
 
2003-12-29 12:42:24 AM
m-16sux0rz

Thanks for the poly-sci lesson. I'm not sure if I agree with you about Bush's domestic policy pandering to the Dems. I think I know enough for a pissing contest, but not enough for a debate, so I'm going to drop it.

I'm currently boning up on how the veto process works.

http://www.schoolhouserock.tv/Bill.html
 
2003-12-29 12:42:56 AM
Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice.

So your view is that all non-humans are mere biological machines, simply creatures of instinct with no sense of self?

What about chimpanzees or gorillas that can communicate in sign language, are they afforded rights?
 
2003-12-29 12:47:21 AM
TRS News

In response to your counterexample of migratory animals, is there a reason gaggles of geese or pods of dolphins be different from cattle?


Yes, there are very obvious reasons. Cattle are domesticated livestock and they don't migrate.


Similarly to any other type of animal, when people tame dolphins or geese, they become private property.

Perhaps I chose bad examples, some animals simply cannot be tamed. Yet, they still have a right to exist.


And if you are suggesting some sorts of animal rights, I find that idea repugnant.

I believe that wild animals have a right to be free as long as they aren't hurting anybody. Animals know what freedom means. Do you really find that repugnant?
 
2003-12-29 12:50:11 AM
entropyblues, if they can comprehend a code of ethics or reason, they have rights.

dgower82 said "alot of the european plants introduced here would die off." I thought eco's didn't like alien/invasive species. Isn't reversing man's effect a good thing for you?
 
2003-12-29 12:51:48 AM
-do not forsake your fellow creatures.

they are counting on you to do the right thing.
 
2003-12-29 12:54:04 AM
TRS News

entropyblues, if they can comprehend a code of ethics or reason, they have rights.


Do you believe that a human embryo has rights?
 
2003-12-29 12:55:36 AM
That theory that I talked about has many doubters. Not on "is he using it", but "if it will succeed". Even if he can get dem voters, he has pissed off his base in the process and that will hurt him. Also, he hasn't budged an inch on international issues, so it might not matter what he does domestically because he could very well lose on the grounds of the whole mess overseas.
 
2003-12-29 12:56:30 AM
if they can comprehend a code of ethics or reason, they have rights.

So, that's a 'No' on the chimps... Interesting. I... really don't know where to take it from here. I would make the point that many animals, not just the intelligent ones, follow a code of ethics and reason (don't harm your family, don't take more than you need, don't overconsume). I'd also probably make the point that human cultures have vastly different and varying codes of ethics and reason, so it's unfair to assume that human ethics are "correct" and non-human ethics are "not" simply on the species line, when many animal behaviors are more in line with our cultures code of ethics, than some other human cultures are. But I don't think we'll be changing each others mind's tonight. I think this is one of those fundamental belief questions... But thanks for answering honestly, I appreciate the insight.
 
2003-12-29 12:57:39 AM
TRS News it's not that i don't like non-native species it's just that some of them are so specialized that if they don't have what they need they simply die off. But some species like the zebra muscle are bad, nothing really kills them off over in the lakes here
 
2003-12-29 12:57:39 AM
The Symbol

And yes, we DID liberate the Iraqi's. 95% of them LIKE that we're there. Seek the news, don't just get bottle fed by it.

Because I just had this comment on another thread:

Iraqi Survey Number #1:

"Nearly 80 percent of Iraqis have little or no trust in U.S.-led occupying forces. The section on "trust in organisations" will make edifying reading for U.S. and British forces, grappling to bring peace to the country seven months after the war.

When asked to rate their confidence in 11 organisations -- including Iraq's governing council, the new Iraqi army, the police and the United Nations -- the U.S.-led coalition was the least trusted.

Some 57 percent of those questioned said they had no trust in the U.S.-led coalition and a further 22 percent said they had very little trust. Only eight percent said they had a great deal of confidence in the occupying force."

Iraqi Survey Number #2:

"50% of Iraqis say the US will hurt Iraq in the next five years compared to 50% saying the UN will help.

This poll (taken by a partisan organisation seeking support for the war and occupation) doesn't specifically reference support for UN troops because for some reason they have avoided asking the direct question "Would you prefer US or UN troops to stay and secure the country before Iraqis can secure it for themselves". I wonder why. All the questions avoid the UN, it's always "would you prefer US or nothing". "

If the question had been asked "Would you prefer US or UN troops stabilising the country" it seems likely they would have overwhelmingly chosen the UN.

Perhaps you should take your own advice on the news thing.
 
2003-12-29 12:57:49 AM
2003-12-29 12:51:48 AM Bauer
-do not forsake your fellow creatures.
they are counting on you to do the right thing.


End their suffering by shooting them in the head?
 
2003-12-29 01:00:08 AM
tadlette

Iraqi Survey Number #1:


Wow. That's coming from Murdoch's rag, too.
 
2003-12-29 01:00:31 AM
Pontechango, so should lions be prevented from killing gazelles? Animals know what freedom means? Please stop with the pop psychology! Right to exist? Rights are for rational beings.

Ownership of land implies ownership of animals. When a hunter shoots an animal (that nobody else has rights for), he mixes his labor with the natural resource to create property.
 
2003-12-29 01:09:51 AM
TRS News

so should lions be prevented from killing gazelles?


Non sequitur.


Animals know what freedom means?

Yes. Absolutely. Animals love liberty.


Please stop with the pop psychology!

But Farkers love pop psychology!


Right to exist? Rights are for rational beings.

What about human embryos? Heck teenagers aren't exactly rational. Neither are women for that matter. And come to think of it, you're not being very agreeable.


Ownership of land implies ownership of animals. When a hunter shoots an animal (that nobody else has rights for), he mixes his labor with the natural resource to create property.

Really? What if the hunter shoots a bald eagle on federal property? What then does he "create" with his "labor"?
 
Displayed 50 of 383 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report