To think about.
post-191007
Post #16 of 52

Mr.PD

Lives to Take It Outside.
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
6,581
Reaction score
13
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Posts
6,581
Likes
13
I think G.W. Bush has an idea that should help the situation.

You see the whole problem is not just because of greed, or economics. The reason we have so many endangered species is because there are too many humans. We are literally eating our selves out of house and home. I mean that not just in Food but also in habitat. Cars, homes, clothes, hobbies, etc, etc. Remember how the evil white man destroyed the buffalo. Think about that. There were plenty of buffalo for the indians, but there were way more white men than there were indians and there wasn't enough buffalo for all them. So if the problem is too many people, then the solution is fewer people. That's where GW comes in. He is going to start WW III which should eleminate millions of excess people. And the enviromentalists thought GW was no good .


Makes me glad I voted for him.
 
     Share This Post       
post-191014
Post #17 of 52

TripsRight

New Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
38
Likes
0
It's ALL about economics! If resources were as scarce as you say they are, then prices would go up to reflect scarcity. The fact that they've tumbled means we are not "eating ourselves out of house and home." This was already settled years ago and you're beating a dead horse.
 
     Share This Post       
post-191033
Post #18 of 52

mbriant

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Messages
9,536
Reaction score
28
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
9,536
Likes
28
Prices have tumbled?

Have you checked out what a pound of shrimp, lobster, halibut, scallops, crab, or pretty much any seafood product costs these days?

And when was this all settled years ago? I missed it.
 
     Share This Post       
post-191061
Post #19 of 52

TripsRight

New Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
38
Likes
0
That would be a result of the tragedy of the commons. If these sea creatures were privately owned (which does NOT equal stuck in some pen in some building), prices would decrease because the owners (whether they be Greenpeace or Red Lobster) would have an incentive to keep the populations of seafood increasing, and not decreasing. In one case in Africa, tribes were given ownership of elephants. Those populations of elephants have been increasing while the rest of the elephants have been decreasing. No privately owned natural resource has ever been depleted.

In 1980, there was a famous bet between Paul Ehrlich, leader of the Zero Population Growth Movement, and Julian Simon, an economist, that the prices of 5 natural resources would increase, rather than decrease, over a decade. Simon won -- copper fell by 18 percent, chrome by 40 percent, nickel by 3 percent, tin by 72 percent, and tungsten by 57 percent. In 1996 Simon announced that he would bet $100,000 that by any material measure, living standards would only improve. No one took the bet.

Do a search on Google for "Julian Simon Paul Ehrlich" and you can read more on this.

Here's an article on Simon & that bet written by a mildly famous economist, David R. Henderson.
 
     Share This Post       
post-191066
Post #20 of 52

NotoriousBIG_PJ

Step 1: Plug power cable into wall. Step 2: Plug other end of power cable into....umm.... Step 0.5: Order something to power with power cable.
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
3,487
Reaction score
18
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Posts
3,487
Likes
18
I wish more people cared about the environment. I know my parents do not, they figure they will be dead before the hurting of the earth effects them.


I know I don't do enough to help, but you know, being lazy in all... ^.^;

Biggie.
 
     Share This Post       
post-191071
Post #21 of 52

disturbed

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 26, 2001
Messages
831
Reaction score
10
Joined
Jul 26, 2001
Posts
831
Likes
10
We are all gonna die. Nukes, Bio Weapons and god knows what. Worse I'm living very close to politically unstable areas. bah!

Nature should be protected. I may be living in the desert but I appreciate it and the variety of life it supports. I say stop those desert rallies.

I want the next generation to enjoy what the earth has to offer.
My mom was fortunate enough to Kashmir, India before the war broke out there. She said it was beautiful. Now it's gone.

Some of the prettiest islands I visited in Thailand 5 years ago are ruined by tourists. Blame the Thai govt. for letting certain passport holders come in without visa, blame them for not caring about nature.

New Zealand and Australia are some of the nicest places I ever visited naturewise. I recommend a vist to New Zealand especially.
 
     Share This Post       
post-191072
Post #22 of 52

squirt

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 26, 2001
Messages
557
Reaction score
11
Joined
Jul 26, 2001
Posts
557
Likes
11
If the West Nile virus finds its way to Hawaii the result will very likely mean the extinction of many already endangered native species...in particular the Hawaiian Crow would likely be the first to be added to the extinct list since corvids (crows, jays, magpies) have basically no resistance to the virus...when i think about it how could any native Hawaiian species hope to have any resistance of any sort against an African native virus?...will the Pacific Ocean shield us or just delay West Nile? Its already reached California...all we can do is pray...

i was really hoping i wouldn't witness the extinction of a native Hawaiian species in my life time...unless i die real soon i may instead witness the demise of what's left of the native animals...
 
     Share This Post       
post-191077
Post #23 of 52

mbriant

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Messages
9,536
Reaction score
28
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
9,536
Likes
28
TripsRight:

I'll admit, there are some interesting points of view there. I wouldn't go as far as saying the matter has been settled because of a few radical theories however.

Just because someone's doomsday prediction didn't come true in the timeframe predicted, doesn't necessarily mean there's no validity to the doomsayer's concern.

As far as the prices of 5 metals falling in a 10 year period, that doesn't prove much other than the known fact that resource prices do rise and fall due to supply AND demand. It definitely doesn't tell me that there is more oil, nickel, zinc, or anything on planet today than there was 10 years ago. Sure, thanks to technological advances, we've been able to locate more resources...possibly at less expense than in the past...but that cannot continue on forever. Finite is finite. The same holds true for food production.

This thread was originally about the loss of animal species. The polution/destruction of rainforests, wetlands, lakes and oceans, ..... the habitat required to maintain life, is well documented and publicised. Perhaps a tribe in Africa has managed to increase their elephant herd, but there are less elephants on the planet today than there were 30 years ago. They and hundreds if not thousands of species of animals, insects and plants are definately dwindling in number ..... thanks to man.

Do you really think the earth can support an exponentially growing population forever?

I also disagree with the claim that in every category, life continues to improve. Again, perhaps at the moment, medicine is staying ahead of disease and increased productivity has kept the graineries full, but I don't think these improvements are any more infinite than fresh air, water, oil, or anything for that matter. In my own lifetime, I can remember when nobody felt a need to buy bottled water or walked around the city with masks over their faces to filter out air polution.

30 years ago, homeless people ( in Toronto at least ) were very few. Now they are in the hundreds. Perhaps the wealthy will be able to afford real food in the future, but the rest of us, if we're lucky, will likely have to settle for Soyant Green.
 
     Share This Post       
post-191088
Post #24 of 52

NotoriousBIG_PJ

Step 1: Plug power cable into wall. Step 2: Plug other end of power cable into....umm.... Step 0.5: Order something to power with power cable.
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
3,487
Reaction score
18
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Posts
3,487
Likes
18
Quote:

Originally posted by mbriant
In my own lifetime, I can remember when nobody felt a need to buy bottled water or walked around the city with masks over their faces to filter out air polution.

30 years ago, homeless people ( in Toronto at least ) were very few. Now they are in the hundreds


Oh man, I've seen people with masks down in the t.o. but I never thought it was of the polutants in the air lol. And the whole bottled water thing is a totally 90's, I can't believe people bought into the idea of BUYING water! Also, all the homeless down there make me feel uncomfortable... its like I would give them money if it meant they wouldn't be there tomorrow.. I don't like to see people living like that, something not right about it.

Biggie.
 
     Share This Post       
post-191091
Post #25 of 52

ai0tron

Banned
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
10
Joined
Jun 22, 2001
Posts
1,627
Likes
10
Oh no Im gonna die, were all gonna die. Oh no, someone do something to stop it, oh no. Please stop the death of the world, because you know we can stop the sun from going nova, and we can stop the asteroids, and the diseases, and ourselves. Its a losing battle, the end is the same no matter how you spin it.

Exploit the world now, and get it over with, **** future generations people aren't really happy anyways. You all think your happy but your not, youve just got mass marketed consumer ******** stuffed so far up your ass your creaming your pants every 5 seconds and somehow our primitive minds manage to pass off pleasure as happiness. So thus we sit around as a deluge of incapacitated psycho-somatic druggies secretly praying to god that Iraq puts the nuke in our town and not the neighboring one. Oh no.

It's just so petty, so infantile, so lost, people are so lost. Obsessing over everything, every like or dislike is an obsession, an unhealthy paranoid overreaction to one of the completely unrelated chaotic events of life. Such as my dislike for wheel mice. On a certain level in this world, the wheel on my mouse as it exists, is unrelated to anything. I could pass by a wheel mouse and feel hatred, the thought of a wheel mouse could come to me as I'm driving down MLK Blvd. with my eyes closed on the wrong side of the road spurring an illogical feelign of anger, snapping my eyes open and saving my life. It's an unhealthy paranoid obsession, caring one way or the other is utter paranoia, pretending that these little events matter is delusion on a scale so vast it's perverted. Every human lifeform is utterly confused and deluded. I pity you all and myself. I pity humanity, I pity the monkeys because they still have millions of years of **** to go through before they realize it was all a big ****ing trick.

Stop fucn caring. Sit in your fucn bathtub all day long with your rubber ducky and choke yourself to death on your own retchedness. Make love to the end of time and the end of universe. **** all.

-ai0
 
     Share This Post       
post-191095
Post #26 of 52

myself, aka me

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 6, 2002
Messages
1,456
Reaction score
1
Joined
Sep 6, 2002
Posts
1,456
Likes
1
Quote:

Originally posted by dougli
A human life is simply worth more than a fish's life. Utlimately both lives are at the mercy of the ways of nature, and death is a
normal part of nature.

Just my humble opinion.


In my opinion, a fishes life = a human life.
If it's a fish that is threatened, no more will exist, I'd rather have them saved then a few thousand humans, after all theres a few billion more still there. I'm completely serious.

I don't think anyone wants to know what I think unwanted babies are good for

but meh, that's just me :\

My other side says we're all screwed anyway.. Would be kind of funny if we didn't save all these resources.. mmm human meat

I'll just shut up now :p
 
     Share This Post       
post-191096
Post #27 of 52

mbriant

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Messages
9,536
Reaction score
28
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
9,536
Likes
28
Quote:

I can't believe people bought into the idea of BUYING water!


There's some dead people in Walkerton whom I bet wished they'd bought bottled water now.

A couple of years ago I read about a guy who was traveling around North America and using lake water to develop photographs with. He did it with water taken straight out of Toronto harbour. No added chemicals, just lake water. It took 24 hours to develop the negs, but there was enough photofinishing chemicals in the body of water where our taps draw from, to develop film. The world's drinking water filtration systems work primarily to remove solid particles and bacteria. It doesn't do much to take out trace toxins, heavy metals, chemicals, etc.

A friend of mine is a Toronto cop who is a diver with the marine division. When the British air crew died during the air show a few years ago, he was one of the ones sent down to bring their bodies back. He's told me the most dangerous part of his job is diving in the Don River. The sediment at the bottom is so toxic from 200 years of industrial polution being dumped in the river, the divers have to be hosed off immediately after diving, and the waste water used to wash them down with, disposed of as toxic waste.
 
     Share This Post       
post-191099
Post #28 of 52

mbriant

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Messages
9,536
Reaction score
28
Joined
Jun 21, 2001
Posts
9,536
Likes
28
ai0tron: You're more upbeat than usual today. What's the occassion?
 
     Share This Post       
post-191113
Post #29 of 52

Mr.PD

Lives to Take It Outside.
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
6,581
Reaction score
13
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Posts
6,581
Likes
13
I still say there are too many people on this planet.
Don't make me go back to the buffalo analogy.
 
     Share This Post       
post-191235
Post #30 of 52

TripsRight

New Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
38
Likes
0
I'm not gonna directly reply to each and every point made, simply because I don't have the time. Please don't dismiss things as "radical" that have been proven to be true by economists simply because you haven't studied them. The idea of private property is not radical, and the tragedy of the commons has been well documented. Anytime a resource is in the public domain, it is abused. Water and the habitat it provides is the most obvious example. Take this example on for size -- The AUDUBON SOCIETY (try dismissing THEM!
) owns 26,800 acres in Louisiana known as the Rainy Refuge, and is a refuge (duh!) for threatened species. It also contains oil, natural gas, and minerals. Instead of zero sum political solutions, they came up with a private solution. The problem was, of course, of dual-use. Ecology vs. profit. They set up boundaries that the energy companies could not enter. In order to overcome this problem, Mobil Oil developed slant-drill technology. There was no politics over animals vs oil. Both got their way. The Audubon Society earns millions in royalties, and is able to buy more land, and maximized the total use value of the Rainy Refuge. How about NATURE'S CONSERVANCY? It has 680,000 members, and has annual revenue of $274 Million. It owns 25 Million acres of wilderness reserves, and extracts value from those reserves without harm, by selling hiking, camping, etc, rights. The Audubon Society & Nature's Conservancy's (sorry for the grammar if that's wrong
) have used the free market correctly, and have maximized the use of the land they own.

In the 3rd century A.D., the Romans believed that resources were depleted. On Dec. 31, 1900, the New York Times declared that resources were depleted. In 1798, a man named Thomas Malthus wrote "Essay on Population" in which he stated that there would be famine due to overpopulation. The population would increase at a geometric rate (2, 4, 8, 16, etc.) while subsistence would grow at an arithmetic rate (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). He never took technology & innovation into account. His followers (known as Malthusians) declared that the earth's population in 1970 of 4.5 Billion would increase to 12 Billion by 2000. In reality, the population has only increased to 6 Billion. The most densely populated countries are the richest, with no famine or starvation. Famine actually occurs in the least populated countries. Hong Kong is the most densely populated place on the planet, with some areas having a density of 400,000 per square mile. The capacity of the human mind for innovation is INFINITE. It is impossible to have limits on energy usage. Energy has been powered first by humans, then animals, then wood, then coal, then whales, then petroleum, then atomic. Recent and future innovations in energy include windmills, solar, biomass, hydro, fusion, and tidal.

The tragedy of the commons is well documented. The most common solution that environmentalists give to solving environmental problems is socialism, in which control by the government over the environment would protect it. The myth is that the free market is hostile to the environment. Well, the environment has not been in the free market domain for some time now. In the Soviet Union, the average life expectancy declined almost 10 years from 1969-1989 due to environmental pollution. The Aral Sea was targeted for elimination by the communist government. It diverted tributaries away from the sea, causing water levels to decline. Only 40% of the original water is left in the sea, greatly increasing its salinity. It has experienced the greatest extinction of species ever. It is now the fastest growing salt desert in the world. The wind blows salt & contaminants to surrounding fields, destroying the habitat there.

When the U.S. was first formed it adopted British Common Law. Under British Common Law, you own everything above and below your property, including the air. In the mid-1800's, industries were being sued for air pollution. They successfully lobbied the federal government that air was communally owned. As the U.S. expanded and territories became states, federal judges started vetoing British Common Law, and it became a race to the bottom. The ruling was that industry could access, but not destroy private property. Politicians shirked their responsibility because they can't see farther than 2 or 4 years into the future. The Hudson River - commons. GE dumped like crazy. The high seas - commons. It's a dumping ground. Paper companies make 30 year investments on private lands, but don't take care of the property they lease from the federal government. In the Amazon, governments subsidize the destruction of the environment. People don't take care of what they don't own. Do you take care of your car? Would you take care of a communally owned car? Of course not, and nobody else would either. If British Common Law was still in place, pollution would be a lot lower because of the threat of lawsuits.

Mr. PD, I'll go to the buffalo anology for you. By the 1900's buffalo were nearly extinct. After privatization, the population of buffalo went from 800 to 200,000. I'll say it again. Eight hundred to TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND. Buffalo extinction is no longer an issue.

Lastly, sorry mbriant to be blunt here, but you're not quite getting my points. The point about falling prices was not that the supplies of these resources is increasing, it's that humans have found new technologies to lower the use of these resources. Thus, if the supply of a given resource is finite, then the only reason that the price decreased was because of lower demand. No natural resource has ever been depleted for exactly that reason. Humans have INFINITE technological and innovative skills, and keep coming up with new techniques and materials. The point about private elephant populations rising while the overall population of elephants is falling is that private property applied to the environment works, and that the tragedy of the commons doesn't.

I love clean air, clean water, and being out in nature in general. But the solution is NOT government control over the environment. Government has proven time and again that they cannot protect the environment. The solution to the environment is private property. Whether it's the Audubon Society or Georgia Pacific, private property is taken care of. Economists have figured this out. The rest of the world is only starting to.

Now, after all that typing, I'm really busy for the next few weeks, so I'm checking out of this discussion.
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top