Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our land

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any books/essays availiable online specifically concerning free markets and the enviroment? I mean there doesn't seem to be much rationale behind simply saying "you can bet" that free markets are better. Whereas I've read plenty of convincing arguments stating capitalism itself its by its very nature hostile and incompatable with nature and the enviroment.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's also try looking at the results of capitalism and communism upon the environment. Capitalism and the USA have indeed harmed the environment. Communism and the USSR and China have harmed the environment even more greatly than have the USA and capitalism. They polluted and trashed the rivers and land even more horribly. Did you read about that yet? Maybe you could search and read more about that, also.

What this might imply (if anything), regarding the matter under discussion, is unclear. I just wouldn't like for the discussion and criticism to be one-sided, that's all [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

It is worth adding that private land donations to conservation causes have taken place under capitalism. Baxter State Park was a private gift of two hundred thousand acres

"We strive to carry out the provisions of the trust, created by Percival P. Baxter, and known to the people of Maine as Baxter State Park. The Baxter State Park Authority exists to ensure that the Park "Shall forever be kept and remain in the Natural Wild State", to provide recreational opportunities to the public in accordance with trust provisions, to operate and maintain the Park for the use and enjoyment of Maine’s people. According to the donor’s wishes; the Park will be managed as a sanctuary for beasts and birds and "Katahdin in all its glory forever shall remain the mountain of the People of Maine."

http://www.baxterstateparkauthority.com

Other conservation gifts have occurred in the USA. Land trusts and protection forever under the law, and public access, are all possible under capitalism.

That said, I am dismayed at the extent to which our natural lands are being developed and harmed and reduced in size and scope. I don't so much blame capitalism for that, as I attribute the effect primarily to overpopulation. Too many people; it's that simple. That however is a tangential discussion.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's also try looking at the results of capitalism and communism upon the environment. Capitalism and the USA have indeed harmed the environment. Communism and the USSR and China have harmed the environment even more greatly than have the USA and capitalism. They polluted and trashed the rivers and land even more horribly. Did you read about that yet? Maybe you could search and read more about that, also.


[/ QUOTE ]

The USSR was, and China is, just an example of state-capitalism like the USA, not communist. Sweden is FAR more enviromentally sound than the USA. So what? I don't see your point. How is the discrpency between these countries relevant to the effects of a free-market on the enviroment?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's also try looking at the results of capitalism and communism upon the environment. Capitalism and the USA have indeed harmed the environment. Communism and the USSR and China have harmed the environment even more greatly than have the USA and capitalism. They polluted and trashed the rivers and land even more horribly. Did you read about that yet? Maybe you could search and read more about that, also.


[/ QUOTE ]

The USSR was, and China is, just an example of state-capitalism like the USA, not communist. Sweden is FAR more enviromentally sound than the USA. So what? I don't see your point. How is the discrpency between these countries relevant to the effects of a free-market on the enviroment?

[/ QUOTE ]

The USSR and China did great damage to the environment when they were communist. Capitalism has produced large land gifts from private owners to conservation causes, and that land is held in legal trust, protected from development, and accessible to the public, in perpetuity.

My point is that it isn't nearly as one-sided as you seem to be supposing, and that there is a lot more to the picture.

[zasterguava]

It is arguable whether or not these are examples of communism, again, they are just a different form of state-capitalism (but Ok, we will refer to them as they commonly are as communist- though this is not what all scholars will tell you- they certainly are not examples of socialism). And Im not being one-sided at all. It is my belief that without regulation of capitalism, or the abolishment thereof, the enviroment is in huge jeopardy. Im acknowledging by saying this that their lies alternatives to state power. But again Im confused as to what your getting at concerning communism; no one here is suggesting that communism is the answer to the enviroment.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
It is arguable whether or not these are examples of communism, again, they are just a different form of state-capitalism (but Ok, we will refer to them as they commonly are as communist- though this is not what all scholars will tell you- they certainly are not examples of socialism). And Im not being one-sided at all. It is my belief that without regulation of capitalism, or the abolishment thereof, the enviroment is in huge jeopardy. Im acknowledging by saying this that their lies alternatives to state power. But again Im confused as to what your getting at concerning communism; no one here is suggesting that communism is the answer to the enviroment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just pointing it out because many people seem to think that capitalism is the problem, when in actuality, all political systems have problems; and to my knowledge, no political system exists which inherently protects the environment.

I also wished to point out that under capitalism, large donations of private land have been made to conservation causes.

The entire subject matter is complex and not easily distilled into a few principles.

As noted before, I think pressures on the environment are occurring primarily because of increasing human population.

I don't think any government system, or system of laws, is likely to truly alleviate that. The natural world would benefit from fewer people, in my opinion; all the government regulation that can be dreamt of won't be capable of solving the environmental problems as long as the human population keeps increasing.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, I am dismayed at the extent to which our natural lands are being developed and harmed and reduced in size and scope. I don't so much blame capitalism for that, as I attribute the effect primarily to overpopulation. Too many people; it's that simple. That however is a tangential discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the right number of people?

Once you determine that, how are you going to determine which people to keep and which ones to kick off the planet?

[FooSH]

I think the ACists here have made a pretty big assumption that I'd like to challange.

They state that it is alway in a private company's interests to preserve an area to maximize long term profit, but consider this;

Company A want to buy an area of forest and carry out sustainable logging. They will receive a slow but steady profit for the foreseeable future.

Company B want the same area of forest. They will log it all in 6 months for a big profit then sell the inferior quality land for a reduced price, then they buy another area of forest and repeat.

As you can see company B will make more money in the short term and the long term as long as there is wood to cut, but hey, even then they can go into mining, or just buy a yacht and take early retirement.

Governments are defined by the area they occupy, they plan on being there for ever so naturally want to look at the long term preservation of that land. Private companies are not tied to any specific area, if the most profitable action is to rape the land and move on, it's a safe bet thats what they'll do. There was the example of the owner and tenants of a house. If an owner found out that if he gutted the house, selling all the fixtures and fittings and the empty shell, he would have enough money for 2 houses, what would he do?



Borodog, you mentioned that private land owners are opposed to "distant" bureaucrats meddling in their local affairs. As globalization increases I think you will find it is the local bureaucrats who will be fighting on the side of preservation against the distant private owner.

[tomdemaine]

But the market auto corrects so the benefits to be gained from slashing burning and moving on are already factored into the price of the land. If slashing and burning was the most profitable thing to do with the land then the guy selling it would just slash and burn it and make all the money for himself. So Company B can't just go round buying land ripping it up and moving on the difference between his purchase price and sale price will be money than any money gained from the destruction. Especially after they do it once or twice and get the reputation as a environment destroying company. The whole thing would be -EV.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That said, I am dismayed at the extent to which our natural lands are being developed and harmed and reduced in size and scope. I don't so much blame capitalism for that, as I attribute the effect primarily to overpopulation. Too many people; it's that simple. That however is a tangential discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the right number of people?

Once you determine that, how are you going to determine which people to keep and which ones to kick off the planet?

[/ QUOTE ]

You might wish to look at John Feeney's website, as it has much related material.

I think some study has been done, and the carrying capacity of the Earth (sustainable and environmentally friendly) is probably around 500 million or so, possibly up to around 1 billion. This meshes with my own subjective impressions, too. Growing up in the 60's the population pressures seemed much less extreme, even here in the USA. You also might wish to check out NumbersUSA.com although I haven't yet explored that site much. Congestion is SOOOOOOOO much more a problem than it used to be. Of curse if you don't have much earlier memories to compare today with, you might think that everyday snaffic snarls are just "normal". Well it didn't used to be that way, and gang violence such as in LA didn't used to be a significant phenomenon either.

The way to go about bringing population back down to better levels is not by kicking people off the planet but rather by reducing birthrates.

Since so many masses of human beings aren't reducing birthrates (except for masses of WESTERN human beings reducing birthrates by choice, and masses of CHINESE human beings reducing birthrates by government coercion), much of
the rest of the planet will continue to overpopulate until the population eventually probably crashes cataclymically - through the mechanisms of war, disease, famine, drought, or some combination thereof.

I'm betting on war and disease, given the ever-increasing tensions in the Middle East, and the fact that the continent of Africa seems especially conducive to disease.

The problem may eventually be self-correcting due to truly cataclymic tragedies, but not before immense destruction has been done to the environment. And wouldn't it be better not to have all those kids initially than for them to die in war or come to some other horrible end? But Africans and Arabs continue to multiply at rates FAR exceeding those of Westerners or Chinese, so the overpopulation problem will get far worse before it gets better. Europe's fertility rates have been in decline except for the vast recent importation of third-worlders. Pretty soon Europe's (and England's) fertility rates will be increasing to the positive side again due to the massive and unending influx of North Africans and Arabs who have different cultural traditions and values to uphold. It is already happening. England is importing 300,000 immigrants per year into a country of - what? 10 million? - and these immigrants are outbreeding the English by far. Within a couple of generations it will probably be time to say Goodbye to Merry England and Hello to Shari'a.

Those are just the demographic FACTS as unpalatable as pointing them out may seem to those who worship the dogma of supposed cultural equality. There is probably nothing that can or will be done about it except for Nature to eventually take its course and reduce the human population via time-honored effective methods. I hope we don't see that day but if we don't see it our children or grandchildren almost surely will.

And good luck effecting your AC-ist changes with people who were brought up to believe in a powerful State, or even worse, in the Shari'a.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the ACists here have made a pretty big assumption that I'd like to challange.

They state that it is alway in a private company's interests to preserve an area to maximize long term profit, but consider this;

Company A want to buy an area of forest and carry out sustainable logging. They will receive a slow but steady profit for the foreseeable future.

Company B want the same area of forest. They will log it all in 6 months for a big profit then sell the inferior quality land for a reduced price, then they buy another area of forest and repeat.

As you can see company B will make more money in the short term and the long term as long as there is wood to cut, but hey, even then they can go into mining, or just buy a yacht and take early retirement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you make a lot of assumptions about how much money they get from certain activities.

And notice that there's nothing stopping you from buying the "inferior" land at the cheap price and planting a ton of trees.

And remember, cutting trees down is good for the environment! The founder of greenpeace says so!

[ QUOTE ]
Governments are defined by the area they occupy, they plan on being there for ever so naturally want to look at the long term preservation of that land.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the future prospect of selling land *creates* incentives to preserve it! Nobody wants to buy a superfund site. Since the people who work in government are not personally harmed (economically) when government property is trashed, they have a much lower incentive to preserve it.

And BTW, governments are not defined by their territory. Governments trade land all the time.

[ QUOTE ]
Private companies are not tied to any specific area, if the most profitable action is to rape the land and move on, it's a safe bet thats what they'll do. There was the example of the owner and tenants of a house. If an owner found out that if he gutted the house, selling all the fixtures and fittings and the empty shell, he would have enough money for 2 houses, what would he do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't he gut the house in this situation? Is there something sacred about assembled houses that makes them untouchable?