|
|
#81
10-16-2007, 11:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The closest analogy is looking at some big piece of land containing 500 farms. If 5-10 of those farms chose the most very high short-term profit way of farming, they will destroy the long-term profitability (and survivability of hundreds of millions of people, but that's another issue) of all the other farms. But at the same time, if they do, they can get very rich and very powerful. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is a realistic analogy. I'm not sure what type of farming practices you are talking about here, but if there was a way for a farmer to get 'rich and powerful' from changing some of his farming practices, most farmers wouldn't hesitate to do this. [/ QUOTE ] Well I agree, using an analogy was bad in the first place - I was just trying to explain the principles and probably made a hash of it. It's like this, get a fairly big trawler...hawl it to a prime fishing spot, in the right (illegal) season, drop the bottom trawl using illegal masks, haul till you drop, find someone who will buy it - and you'll make a fortune. Doing it alot would effectively ruin the resource for a more long-term and ecologically sound plan, and make the same practice the only profitable way to make money untill the resource is destroyed - which is a shame, since it is naturally renewing when tended well. 
|
|
#82
10-16-2007, 11:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The closest analogy is looking at some big piece of land containing 500 farms. If 5-10 of those farms chose the most very high short-term profit way of farming, they will destroy the long-term profitability (and survivability of hundreds of millions of people, but that's another issue) of all the other farms. But at the same time, if they do, they can get very rich and very powerful. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is a realistic analogy. I'm not sure what type of farming practices you are talking about here, but if there was a way for a farmer to get 'rich and powerful' from changing some of his farming practices, most farmers wouldn't hesitate to do this. [/ QUOTE ] Well I agree, using an analogy was bad in the first place - I was just trying to explain the principles and probably made a hash of it. It's like this, get a fairly big trawler...hawl it to a prime fishing spot, in the right (illegal) season, drop the bottom trawl using illegal masks, haul till you drop, find someone who will buy it - and you'll make a fortune. Doing it alot would effectively ruin the resource for a more long-term and ecologically sound plan, and make the same practice the only profitable way to make money untill the resource is destroyed - which is a shame, since it is naturally renewing when tended well. [/ QUOTE ] The guy who owns the fish will stop you from doing this to his fish.
|
|
#83
10-16-2007, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling *DELETED*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The closest analogy is looking at some big piece of land containing 500 farms. If 5-10 of those farms chose the most very high short-term profit way of farming, they will destroy the long-term profitability (and survivability of hundreds of millions of people, but that's another issue) of all the other farms. But at the same time, if they do, they can get very rich and very powerful. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is a realistic analogy. I'm not sure what type of farming practices you are talking about here, but if there was a way for a farmer to get 'rich and powerful' from changing some of his farming practices, most farmers wouldn't hesitate to do this. [/ QUOTE ] Well I agree, using an analogy was bad in the first place - I was just trying to explain the principles and probably made a hash of it. It's like this, get a fairly big trawler...hawl it to a prime fishing spot, in the right (illegal) season, drop the bottom trawl using illegal masks, haul till you drop, find someone who will buy it - and you'll make a fortune. Doing it alot would effectively ruin the resource for a more long-term and ecologically sound plan, and make the same practice the only profitable way to make money untill the resource is destroyed - which is a shame, since it is naturally renewing when tended well. [/ QUOTE ] The guy who owns the fish will stop you from doing this to his fish. [/ QUOTE ] Only problem is that I would be on my land (or water, w/e), and it could be halfway across the globe.
|
|
#84
10-16-2007, 11:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The closest analogy is looking at some big piece of land containing 500 farms. If 5-10 of those farms chose the most very high short-term profit way of farming, they will destroy the long-term profitability (and survivability of hundreds of millions of people, but that's another issue) of all the other farms. But at the same time, if they do, they can get very rich and very powerful. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is a realistic analogy. I'm not sure what type of farming practices you are talking about here, but if there was a way for a farmer to get 'rich and powerful' from changing some of his farming practices, most farmers wouldn't hesitate to do this. [/ QUOTE ] Well I agree, using an analogy was bad in the first place - I was just trying to explain the principles and probably made a hash of it. It's like this, get a fairly big trawler...hawl it to a prime fishing spot, in the right (illegal) season, drop the bottom trawl using illegal masks, haul till you drop, find someone who will buy it - and you'll make a fortune. Doing it alot would effectively ruin the resource for a more long-term and ecologically sound plan, and make the same practice the only profitable way to make money untill the resource is destroyed - which is a shame, since it is naturally renewing when tended well. [/ QUOTE ] The guy who owns the fish will stop you from doing this to his fish. [/ QUOTE ] Only problem is that I would be on my land (or water, w/e), and it could be halfway across the globe. [/ QUOTE ] I suggest some sort of fencing arrangement.
|
|
#85
10-16-2007, 11:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The closest analogy is looking at some big piece of land containing 500 farms. If 5-10 of those farms chose the most very high short-term profit way of farming, they will destroy the long-term profitability (and survivability of hundreds of millions of people, but that's another issue) of all the other farms. But at the same time, if they do, they can get very rich and very powerful. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is a realistic analogy. I'm not sure what type of farming practices you are talking about here, but if there was a way for a farmer to get 'rich and powerful' from changing some of his farming practices, most farmers wouldn't hesitate to do this. [/ QUOTE ] Well I agree, using an analogy was bad in the first place - I was just trying to explain the principles and probably made a hash of it. It's like this, get a fairly big trawler...hawl it to a prime fishing spot, in the right (illegal) season, drop the bottom trawl using illegal masks, haul till you drop, find someone who will buy it - and you'll make a fortune. Doing it alot would effectively ruin the resource for a more long-term and ecologically sound plan, and make the same practice the only profitable way to make money untill the resource is destroyed - which is a shame, since it is naturally renewing when tended well. [/ QUOTE ] The guy who owns the fish will stop you from doing this to his fish. [/ QUOTE ] Only problem is that I would be on my land (or water, w/e), and it could be halfway across the globe. [/ QUOTE ] I suggest some sort of fencing arrangement. [/ QUOTE ] I think you'll find that poses even greater ecological dangers. Plus costs so high it would almost automatically be unprofitable. And probably world war 3.
|
|
#86
10-16-2007, 12:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
I think you'll find that poses even greater ecological dangers. Plus costs so high it would almost automatically be unprofitable. And probably world war 3. [/ QUOTE ] Sounds like there would be some money to be made in solving this problem. But *you* can't figure it out, so it must be impossible.
|
|
#87
10-16-2007, 12:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think you'll find that poses even greater ecological dangers. Plus costs so high it would almost automatically be unprofitable. And probably world war 3. [/ QUOTE ] Sounds like there would be some money to be made in solving this problem. But *you* can't figure it out, so it must be impossible. [/ QUOTE ] Enormous amounts of money actually. Being the first to make ecologically safe fish farming making good profits would be an incredible achievements. And if you can't stop with the cheap shots, why do you debate here at all? I have been nothing but forthcoming and to the point all along here, stating my opinions on a field I'm no expert in, but at least think have some good knowledge of. Not once in this thread have I spoken ill of sound capitalistic principles, I have even written a post where I think they should be applied in many, many circumstances and pointed out the dangers of for example subsidizing the wild fishing industry. If you guys have the answer to this problem, then by all means, I applaud you - by we can't go by what someone probably makes in ten years because it will be profitable - right now the problem is an immense destruction of a naturally renewable resource being done partially in the search for huge bursts of quick profit and partially by government stupidity.
|
|
#88
10-16-2007, 12:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The closest analogy is looking at some big piece of land containing 500 farms. If 5-10 of those farms chose the most very high short-term profit way of farming, they will destroy the long-term profitability (and survivability of hundreds of millions of people, but that's another issue) of all the other farms. But at the same time, if they do, they can get very rich and very powerful. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think this is a realistic analogy. I'm not sure what type of farming practices you are talking about here, but if there was a way for a farmer to get 'rich and powerful' from changing some of his farming practices, most farmers wouldn't hesitate to do this. [/ QUOTE ] Well I agree, using an analogy was bad in the first place - I was just trying to explain the principles and probably made a hash of it. It's like this, get a fairly big trawler...hawl it to a prime fishing spot, in the right (illegal) season, drop the bottom trawl using illegal masks, haul till you drop, find someone who will buy it - and you'll make a fortune. Doing it alot would effectively ruin the resource for a more long-term and ecologically sound plan, and make the same practice the only profitable way to make money untill the resource is destroyed - which is a shame, since it is naturally renewing when tended well. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, I understood the fishing practices you were talking about, I thought you were referring to land-based farming in your post.
|
|
#89
10-16-2007, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I understood the fishing practices you were talking about, I thought you were referring to land-based farming in your post. [/ QUOTE ] Just a silly analogy, my bad.
|
|
#90
10-16-2007, 12:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The case for recycling
[ QUOTE ]
And if you can't stop with the cheap shots, why do you debate here at all? I have been nothing but forthcoming and to the point all along here, stating my opinions on a field I'm no expert in, but at least think have some good knowledge of. [/ QUOTE ] This is not a cheap shot. Saying that *you* don't have the answer, then extrapolating from that to say that "coercive intervention is the only solution" is the "cheap shot". It's an unjustified conclusion. [ QUOTE ] If you guys have the answer to this problem, then by all means, I applaud you [/ QUOTE ] I don't. But you don't, either, and yet your pushing a "solution" upon others. One that you admit is making things worse. And note that you're begging a lot of questions. But I guess pointing that out would be a "cheap shot". Oh well, let's do it anyway: 1) if fish can't be owned, on what basis can governments restrict what is done with/to them? 2) why should we just blindly assume that something must be done in the first place? Is there some natural right to chilean sea bass?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
