Vermont passed a law saying that any unused and undocumented old public roads will, after July 2015, revert to private ownership. As a result, groups of volunteers are joining city officials to examine old records to see if they can find “ancient roads” and return them to public ownership.
Is this someone’s private yard, or a public road? In Vermont, some homeowners won’t know until July, 2015.
Flickr photo by paul+photos=moody.
One person bought land after a complete title search plus assurances from the town clerk that there were no public rights of way on the land. But then someone unearthed “hand written set of surveyors notes from 1793 hidden in an old leather ledger in the town office vault” that showed a road on the property. This was made into “an encumbrance on our deed,” and as a result, “Our life has been put on hold, our farm has been put on hold, and our business has been put on hold. It’s the ultimate nightmare.”
Meanwhile, other people find it “thrilling” to “to sift through records for two or three days and find a road.” The hope is that, by making these roads public, they can give more public access to Vermont’s natural scenic beauty.
Officials worry that, “Once the public rights are lost,” says the Boston Globe, “towns will forfeit the chance to develop new recreational areas to attract outdoor enthusiasts and boost tourist dollars” (meaning snowmobilers). But that is hardly the case: towns will always have the right to offer to buy land and rights of way from willing sellers. Here, they are just too cheap to do so.
The test taken for sensitivity of the visual reaction likely to result from the inhibition of PDE6. cialis cheap online However, you must know that soft viagra click description now the Internet is a very large role in the treatment and the outlook is optimistic. cialis prices devensec.com Men feel uncomfortable to discuss his impotency issues with people around him. This amount gets deposited on the joints and further leads to male pattern free viagra for women baldness in men.
Some people commenting on the Boston Globe argue that this isn’t a case of the government stealing from people, it is landowners who stole from the government. But anyone who has ever looked at small-town plat maps knows how these things work. Someone lays out a bunch of streets and tries to sell property between the streets. Many of the streets are never built, never used, never needed. Landowners who own land crossed by the streets use the street itself, since no one — not the city nor any of its residents — need the street to access their property.
If the records are recent, people probably know that they are using a public right of way. But if they are hundreds of years old (which they are in Vermont) and no one has ever used the road, these things get forgotten, even in title searches. If the land were private, the user would get it by adverse possession — but the state exempts itself from this common-law precedent.
Many cities have a rule that, if someone uses a right of way that the city doesn’t need, they can purchase it from the city for a token amount. In other places, if a road is not used for 30 years, it is considered abandoned and reverts to the adjacent property owner. But Vermont had no such rule until the state created the 2015 deadline, and some cities in Vermont seem eager to grab land just for the sake of having it (or denying people the right to use their land).
The legal issues are discussed in detail in this Vermont Law Review article. What seems strange is not that government is trying to take away people’s land — that is to be expected — but that people are volunteering to help them do it.
Back in the Antiplanner’s environmental days, I met lots of people who thought this way. They think anything that is commonly owned is by definition better than things that are privately owned. Having a commons, they imagine, will encourage people to work together to figure out how to manage it.
Nevermind that most species extinctions happen precisely because we treat fish and wildlife as a commons. Nevermind that the tragedy of the commons is one of the most famous papers and terms in environmental history. Somehow, making something into or keeping it as a commons imbues it with a sort of magic that deserves our worship and veneration. That is just plain stupid.
More leftist ideology, inline with the BO administration: take others’ property.
Nevermind that most species extinctions happen precisely because we treat fish and wildlife as a commons. Nevermind that the tragedy of the commons is one of the most famous papers and terms in environmental history. Somehow, making something into or keeping it as a commons imbues it with a sort of magic that deserves our worship and veneration. That is just plain stupid.
No.
Species extinctions happen because of human overpopulation and overexploitation of resources. There is no inherent land management method that is better or worse in ameliorating human overpopulation effects. So stop with this just plain stupid argumentaton.
Now. Randal’s weak argument apparently is predicated upon you not reading the Vermont Law Review article. I suggest you read it and see if this is yet another Randal argument that holds water like a sieve, yet another outsider imposing their non-starter ideology on the locals.
DS
Dan posted:
> Species extinctions happen because of human overpopulation and overexploitation of resources.
> There is no inherent land management method that is better or worse in ameliorating human
> overpopulation effects. So stop with this just plain stupid argumentaton.
And please tell us how you explain the mass extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the
Cretaceous period?
Context, CP. Context of the italicized to which I responded. Or perhaps you are asserting that, say, Tyrannosaurs didn’t have property rights over the asteroid?!
DS
If you look at extinctions in the U.S., you will find that an overwheling number of are in Hawaii. The extinctions in Hawaii are because the species are only located there, and the introduction of non-native species wiped them out. Those extinctions might be human-caused, but not because of overpopulation, but rather because humans invented ships and planes that moved things to remote places.
…but rather because humans invented ships and planes that moved things to remote places.
This is true and I could have divided ‘overexploitation’ but kept it simple. Surely there are finer grains but at the macro level certainly ‘technology’ could be the third leg of the ‘extinction’ stool.
DS
The Great Megafaunal extinctions happened well before high populations and industrialisation. The great extinctions of marsupials in Australia and Moa in New Zealand for example were carried out by primitive tribes with small populations. (The Maori extinction of twelve species of Moa is claimed by some to be the most rapid extinction in history.) The same with the mammoths and other large animals in Europe although the Ice Age did its bit too.
The combination of Man and Dog is a dealy technology for all but a few animals – including kangaroos which are more energy efficient and can out hop this lethal symbiotic pairing. The American Indians were wiping out the buffalo – Europeans with rifles just finished off the job but then reigned themselves in which pre industrial tribes singularly failed to do.
There is no scientific basis for the worship of the Noble Savage.
Read “The Future Eaters” by Tim Flannery.
And by the way, our fisheries management is regarded as a model for the world because we created tradeable maximum quota for the fishing industry and by making these species private property have maintained them within sustainable fishing grounds.
The bluff oyster fisherman actually dramatically reduced their quota voluntarily a few years ago to ensure their recovery after being struck by a cyclical virus.
This is why farmed animals don’t go extinct.
Don’t blame modern techology for poor species management – blame human foolishness for refusing to learn a lesson which is staring them in the face.
Don’t blame modern techology for poor species management
I will blame technology, as all those knowledgeable in natual systems recognize.
Long-distance transport has increased invasives, technology speeds land clearing and simplification, technology has fragmented habitats, etc.
Anyone with a basic knowledge in the natural sciences knows this.
DS
I = P x A x T
Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology.
DS
Ships brought rats to islands, but also brought Darwin to the Galapagos. You don’t get one without the other, except in theoretical discussions.
Yes. Ships were a technology, as were sextants and star charts of the southern sky.
DS
Dan said:
Nevermind that most species extinctions happen precisely because we treat fish and wildlife as a commons. Nevermind that the tragedy of the commons is one of the most famous papers and terms in environmental history. Somehow, making something into or keeping it as a commons imbues it with a sort of magic that deserves our worship and veneration. That is just plain stupid.
No.
Species extinctions happen because of human overpopulation and overexploitation of resources. There is no inherent land management method that is better or worse in ameliorating human overpopulation effects. So stop with this just plain stupid argumentaton.
Now. Randal’s weak argument apparently is predicated upon you not reading the Vermont Law Review article. I suggest you read it and see if this is yet another Randal argument that holds water like a sieve, yet another outsider imposing their non-starter ideology on the locals.
THWM: Then for that matter what/who owns Mr.O’Toole?
Dan, you’re criticizing human Impact using Technology you procured through Affluence. If you truly think Population is increasing Impact, please feel free to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Or maybe you could just throw yourself off a cliff so you don’t have to use Technology that has an Impact.
Not to Get = Back On Topic:
As for me, I’ll stick with my recognition–based on years of field observations–that land held commonly, such as national forests, will continue to be abused by special interests and the general public.
Frank,
thanks for the babble. It negates nothing I’ve said.
Why did you bother?Are you trying to spam the thread to distract away from the point?
DS
Frank said:
As for me, I’ll stick with my recognition–based on years of field observations–that land held commonly, such as national forests, will continue to be abused by special interests and the general public.
THWM: Private property can also be abused too. This all comes down to the managenment or governance for what ever it is.
Dan, humans are pretty much just conceded apes & karma or the invisble hand will come back to hit us one day.
O’Toole: Somehow, making something into or keeping it as a commons imbues it with a sort of magic that deserves our worship and veneration. That is just plain stupid.
THWM: The commons can be a double edge sword, private property rights couldn’t exist with out a commons.
My “private” property(along with that of all my neighbors) touches on “public” property.
It’s also what hypocritical libertarians worship & drive on. Now that is just plain stupid!
For that matter even Henry David Thoreau, 150 years ago saw that the commons has an important value/function too, along side that of private property.
“Each town should have a park, or rather a primitive forest, of five hundred or a thousand acres, where a stick should never be cut for fuel, a common possession forever, for instruction and recreation. All Walden Wood might have been preserved for our park forever, with Walden in its midst…” Henry David Thoreau
I am not trying to spam the thread, Dan. You might ask yourself why you feel the need to dominate the discussion, having made almost half the comments up to #13. If anyone is approaching the level of spam here, it’s you, not me.
Frank, you’re implicitly correct: maybe characterizing your #14 as ‘spam’ was inexact. Or maybe a little over the top.
Perhaps better would have been ‘fact-free rebuttal lacking evidence or cogency’. I’ll try to be more exact next time to avoid confusion. How about you, Frank? A commitment to exactitude, mayhap? What exactly might the books you read say about the causes of the current extinction event?
DS
Frank:“If you truly think Population is increasing Impact, please feel free to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger.”
Human populations have had an enormous impact on species extinction. Are you saying otherwise?
Dan, I was intentionally using inflammatory/facetious language for my own amusement and to make a point. I guess my issue is not what you’re saying, but about the domination of discussion on this site by a few individuals who simply keep repeating the same arguments and points over and over and distract from the original post’s topic. I understand–and even embrace–the role of gadflies (and shun sycophantic drivel), but the constant nitpicking, fighting, and attacks are tiresome and limit participation. I feel that if someone has so much to say here that it dominates the conversation and/or forms the majority of comments, that perhaps he or she should consider starting his or her own blog.
ws, I understand the impact that human populations have. My problem is with the misanthropic and anti-technology attitudes embrased by the urban educated elite. Returning to hunting and gathering is simply not an option, nor is governmental population control. Therefore, those who complain about population have two practical choics, as I see it, other than whining: Don’t reproduce or end your own life.
Frank:“My problem is with the misanthropic and anti-technology attitudes embrased by the urban educated elite.”
ws: I am not familiar with this type of person. How can someone who lives in a technology rich environment (urban) be a ludite who wants people to live in the woods and collect berries? Acknowledging that technology has played a role in species extinction is paramount to finding new ways to reduce species extinction. I hardly think Dan is saying we should all live in the woods in small tribes.
Regarding population control, no I don’t think there should be bans or punitive fees. But if you pop out 5 kids, wouldn’t it be fair that you pay a little more in taxes especially for education? Interesting enough, having larger families gets you tax deductions, which is bad policy.
http://www.slate.com/id/2097913/
Overpopulation of humans hasn’t led to the extinction of cattle, horses, dogs, or cats. Why? Because people own them and have an incentive to protect them so they can benefit from their progeny. As long as people don’t own fish or wildlife, extinctions will be a threat.
Blaming extinction and extirpation on “overpopulation” is wrongheaded. Can we blame the extinction of the California grizzly on “overpopulation”? How ’bout the extirpation of buffalo from much of the plains? The extirpation of wolves? Whales? When these events occurred, humans were hardly “overpopulated”. Technology, I agree, played a large role, but as Randall has argued, had those animals not been on commonly held land, their fate may have been much different. The same might also be true for redwoods and sequoias, both of which were devastated because the government granted monopoly claims on commonly held land.
However, I wonder if owning wildlife is truly possible, and even if it were, would wildlife then cease to be wild? And if predators like cougars and wolves can be owned, what incentive would there be for ranchers to protect them? I don’t think some ranchers would see any benefit to their progeny. Certainly, though, wolves and coyotes are not fairing well on commons, as the government has long been one of the worst abusers, sanctioning and paying for predator reduction programs (aerial “hunts”). Part of the problem lies with interest groups’ (such as ranchers) success at lobbying the government to kill the predators on the commons. If I owned a chunk of the commons, I would not allow aerial hunting. Some private owners might, but the effect would probably be far less and more of a patchwork than the systematic slaughter carried out by our government in the commons.
Sorry for rambling. It’s Friday and I’m tired.
Randal, your premise is only true because we have set aside land – at the exclusion of other animals – for pastoral animals for our benefit. We don’t own species as they are not fixed in space. Surely, then, with this logic you advocate setting aside land for other animals that may not benefit man.
DS
Frank, again, you arguing incorrectly. What is the cause of today’s extinction event? Not in 1866 or 1891 or 1926. Today. Yesterday it was, for the grizzly, fear- and property protection-driven technology (don’t yew eat no more o’ mah sheep, Mr Bar).
That is: what are the books you are reading saying about the cause of the extinction event today? The links I provided above refute your assertion, so what what are the books you are reading say (that is: where is your evidence-based argument)?
DS
ROT: “Overpopulation of humans hasn’t led to the extinction of cattle, horses, dogs, or cats. Why? Because people own them and have an incentive to protect them so they can benefit from their progeny. As long as people don’t own fish or wildlife, extinctions will be a threat.”
ws: Of course, these are all animals that are domesticated and have high value to people. Like Dan said, they are highly controlled and maintained. You can’t do this with every single species. There are very few variables in regards to managing livestock as compared to actual working ecosystems.
A small change in an ecosystem can have broad impacts. Poaching of elephants in Africa has led to the encroachment of acacia trees on Savannah grasslands. The complete devastation of the wolf in the US had led to out of control populations of deer. These are keystone species.
Do you think a farmer cares about wolf population’s impact on deer or elk? People working independently for their own interests or personal gain can have broad impacts on complex ecosystems.
Frank:“Blaming extinction and extirpation on “overpopulation†is wrongheaded. Can we blame the extinction of the California grizzly on “overpopulationâ€Â? How ’bout the extirpation of buffalo from much of the plains? The extirpation of wolves? Whales? When these events occurred, humans were hardly “overpopulatedâ€Â. Technology, I agree, played a large role, but as Randall has argued, had those animals not been on commonly held land, their fate may have been much different. The same might also be true for redwoods and sequoias, both of which were devastated because the government granted monopoly claims on commonly held land.”
ws: Except humans were to blame for their reductions in populations. Define “overpopulation”, which has been absent in this discussion. You can’t put a whale in a penned area like domesticated animals. We’re comparing apples and oranges here. How is privatization going to save whales, especially privatization interests that can make millions off of the actual destruction rather than conservation of the animal (i.e. Japan and whaling)?
The problem with whales is that they are migratory over huge distances and we do not have the technology to brand them.
Privatising some ninety species of fish in New Zealand waters means that they are now sustainably (using that word in the legitimate and comprehensible sense of the word) managed.
Is there a problem with mass extinction & over-population in Vermont?
It’s funny how most posters have become preoccupied with a tangent of extinction. Extinctions have always occurred, long before humans; yes humans accelerate the process. So what?
Of all the extinctions caused by humans, how has that reduced our quality of life?
The faulty argument of the dodo bird having a cure for something is ridiculous.
Humans use the environment. If you want to use it less, then live like the Amish, which Dan apparently prefers. The Amish, as well as hunters & gatherers still use natural resources.
For those who think that all existing species should continue, I’m guessing that all of you are vegans, and also don’t use any products that have any animal contents in them or have been proven safe due to animal testing. As far as a home’s location, that displaces wildlife.
Also, for those talking about over-population, you seem to have missed Frank’s point of committing suicide (perhaps good in other ways too) or having no offspring. If people were morally & financially responsible for their children (unlike what Hillary-takes-a-village, & most Dems profess), then conditions would be much better.
Does nobody care about property rights, the main point?
US governmental units continue to ignore eminent domain, especially partial takings.
And people seem to be glossing over the fact of persons taking better care of their own private property, rather than nobody being accountable.
Totally off-topic, but very topical:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html
If you have your own negative views, please consider the substance, instead of people making personal attacks, based upon ignorance, without knowing or understanding his content. It’s similar to neanderthals first being scared of fire.
To counter the ideology of “spread the misery”, I’m trying to spread the education.
He’s certainly not alone in knowing that the BO administration is creating a worse disaster. Why is he repeating the mistakes of the New Deal, which lasted for the latter 8 years of the depression, until WWII? More recent is Japan’s lost decade.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/02/obama-tax-urban-opinions-columnists_middle_class.html?partner=relatedstoriesbox
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDIwZDU2NWEzZmE0MjA3ZGJjODVjNjlmNjA2MmE4MzE=
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629834716846367.html
Scott:“It’s funny how most posters have become preoccupied with a tangent of extinction. Extinctions have always occurred, long before humans; yes humans accelerate the process. So what?
Of all the extinctions caused by humans, how has that reduced our quality of life?”
ws: Of course extinctions have occurred many times in the history of the planet. It’s 4.5 billion years old, afterall. It’s the same argument used for anti-global warming debates: the earth has changed climates many times in its history, therefor it’s normal end of debate. This is erroneous statement, as the warming that has occurred over the last 150 years is alarmingly fast. 150 years is a mere blip in the face of 4.5 billion years (you cannot put into perspective, in human terms, what a billion years feels like).
Extinctions are normal, but it’s the rate at which they are occurring. Extinctions do affect you. Many plant species of the world are not identified, many of which have vast impacts for the medicinal world. Many anti-cancer medicines get their basic ingredients from tropical rainforests.
Knowing that most of the plant species are not identified in the rainforest, the potential cure for many life ailing illnesses can be found.
“Ingredients obtained and synthesized from a now-extinct periwinkle plant found only in Madagascar (until deforestation wiped it out) have increased the chances of survival for children with leukemia from 20 percent to 80 percent.”
http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/rainforest_drug.htm
Now, tell me how extinctions don’t affect humans? There’s plenty of historical examples of civilizations falling from environmental degradation:
http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/0143036556/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236495801&sr=8-1
(the author of Guns, Germs, and Steel).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon
ws, regarding extinctions, you didn’t address anything new (@33) that I didn’t cover in 32.
Please try to pay attention.
You did bring up GW though, which is irrelevant. I can easily counter your weak claims.
You did not even say that temperature is increasing at a faster rate. Maybe you implied that when you mentioned rate. I can go on for pages to explain why AGW is not a problem.
Are you aware that of the 1.7F increase in the last 150 years, 1/3 of it occurred before much increase in CO2?
And that temps decreased for 3 decades after WWII?
Are you aware of the fact that for the temp increases over the last 800,000 years, CO2 increased AFTER?
So how is your life only eating plants?
Dan said: That is: what are the books you are reading saying about the cause of the extinction event today?
Dan, it’s not what I’m reading, but rather how I think about what I read. I often hear the (bogus?) statistic that 50,000 species a year are going extinct. How is that measured? Was a study done? Who did it? Using what methods? What types of species are going extinct? Where is this happening?
I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical of all the gloom-and-doom predictions. When I started college in the early ’90s, I was taught that the Amazon Rain Forest would be 50% devastated by 2010 and virtually all the rain forests in Central America (Panama, Belize, Mexico, Costa Rica) would be gone. Didn’t happen. The future’s a tricky thing, and predictions hold as much value as fiat money.
And to comment on another diversion (thank you Randall for being so liberal on your comment policy), global warming is another gloom-and-doom prediction that I’ve been skeptical of since the early ’90s.
Take a look at the 400-year record of sun spot activity and compare it to temperature records. And look what happens when the trough of the sun spot cycle extends for more than a half century.
We’re in an extended low in the sunspot cycle, and here in Portland, I’ve scraped ice off my window more this winter than any other in the last decade. We also set a record for the most December snowfall in recorded history.
Everyday, I check spaceweather.com and pray for the sunspots to return.
Global warming caused by CO2? I’m very skeptical.
Look.
The adherents of a small-minority ideology are neither up to speed on population biology/ecology nor do they do work in the discipline. That much is glaringly obvious, from the weak argumentation here.
Fortunately, these same adherents don’t have access. The vast majority of decision-makers have staff that are briefed by scientists on population dynamics. They are not briefed on population dynamics by adherents of a small-minority ideology, many of whom have never taken a class in the natural sciences, let alone pop biol or pop ecol.
So the issues are clear to many: there is a good chance we are in – or are entering – a sixth mass extinction event, despite the ignorant proclamations of the adherents of a small-minority ideology.
The solution set to reverse this issue, however, is nowhere near being anything other than a non-starter. There is no political will to take the necessary actions to avert, slow, or reverse this trend of biodiversity loss, as the solution set involves reducing the multiple on one or more terms on the right side of the equation I = P x A x T.
DS
Scott: “You did bring up GW though, which is irrelevant. I can easily counter your weak claims. You did not even say that temperature is increasing at a faster rate. Maybe you implied that when you mentioned rate. I can go on for pages to explain why AGW is not a problem.
Are you aware that of the 1.7F increase in the last 150 years, 1/3 of it occurred before much increase in CO2? And that temps decreased for 3 decades after WWII? Are you aware of the fact that for the temp increases over the last 800,000 years, CO2 increased AFTER?
So how is your life only eating plants?”
ws: The “latent effect” is very interesting in the realm of GW. It is preliminary theory, but all it means is there is a lag between co2 rises and temperature. Past climate reconstructions show a connection between GHG and warming, but not an immediate rise, and you admitted to it. Your statement about “1.7F” increase would be wrong if you asserted there was a 800,000 year lag in co2 spikes to temperature, as the temp increases would not immediately correspond.
Scott:“I can go on for pages to explain why AGW is not a problem”
ws: Please, spare us all. You have absolutely zero climate science knowledge. I don’t know much, but I can at least make a cogent argument.
Frank: I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical of all the gloom-and-doom predictions. When I started college in the early ’90s, I was taught that the Amazon Rain Forest would be 50% devastated by 2010 and virtually all the rain forests in Central America (Panama, Belize, Mexico, Costa Rica) would be gone. Didn’t happen. The future’s a tricky thing, and predictions hold as much value as fiat money.”
ws: Actually, your predictions of the Amazon rainforest that you were told are not that far off. From 1970-2006, the ARF has been reduced 18% (700,000 sq. kilometers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_Rainforest
At the current rate, in two decades it will be 40% destroyed. That predictions you heard in college is not that bad, and I might add, that world-wide attention definitely reduced the level of deforestation. Point of the matter is, the Amazon Rainforest, which is biologically rich and diverse, is being destroyed at alarming rates so fat aces can stuff their mouths with cheap beef at McDonalds (although McD’s doesn’t use Amazon beef anymore).
Hypothetically, what do you think would be the deforestation rate in the Amazon if everyone applied your “no care attitude” toward the environment?
Frank:“Take a look at the 400-year record of sun spot activity and compare it to temperature records. And look what happens when the trough of the sun spot cycle extends for more than a half century.
We’re in an extended low in the sunspot cycle, and here in Portland, I’ve scraped ice off my window more this winter than any other in the last decade. We also set a record for the most December snowfall in recorded history.”
ws: Many things play a role in climate change. Anyone who studies it understands this and applies natural occurrences, such as sun spots, in its modeling forecast. Are you under some notion that a climate scientist has never heard of suns spots before and would be astounded by your wikipedia link on the subject?
Oxford Trained Climate Scientist: “OMG, sunspots, I’ve never heard of these before! Thanks wikipedia, you’ve changed my opinion.”
Portland also had a terrible drought in 2004-2005 in the winter, is this proof of climate change? Dunno, let’s wait and see. I think the next two decades we are going to know so much more about GW than we do.
PS: I did not start the GW debate. I merely used it as an analogy for better understanding of my point regarding rates and extinctions. Some erroneous points were made in response to my post (ehem, Scott), to which I felt necessary to reply to in defense.
Get off the man-made climate change, quick. Nothing hijacks a thread faster on a conservatarian site than bringing up something that disagrees with the ideology, esp man-made climate change.
Stick to the original topic that disagrees with the ideology.
DS
ws wrote: Hypothetically, what do you think would be the deforestation rate in the Amazon if everyone applied your “no care attitude†toward the environment?
First of all, you’ve mischaracterized my attitude. It’s not that I don’t care; I do care, and I spent ten seasons as a NPS environmental educator. My attitude is this: I refuse to be afraid any more. I refuse to worry about things that haven’t happened yet. It’s not productive and it benefits no one, except maybe the fear mongers themselves.
As for the Amazon, it is a man-made environment, at least according to Mann’s book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. I’m hopeful that reforestation will occur, as a recent study (that I bookmarked on my home computer) has shown.
As for Dan’s comment that “there is no political will to take the necessary actions to avert, slow, or reverse this trend of biodiversity loss”: Duh. American politicians have presided over some of the most egregious biodiversity loss in the history of the world; why would you look to government for solutions?
why would you look to government for solutions?
Well, market capitalism is based on resource exploitation, so that’s the last place for preserving resources or for reducing multiples on I = P x A x T. And our society somnambulates from metal box to concrete box to big box to wood box to HDTV, and as such is disconnected from nature; so judging from recent performance unless something changes (like reality) hoping for bottom-up changes are little solace.
So we have government, who initiated the CAA (which has paid for itself ~7x over) and the CWA, etc., which are much more efficacious than anything else we’ve come up with. Unless there’s something other than economic, societal, or governmental…I guess that would be environmental solutions…you know, nature taking back the land. To come full circle.
DS
market capitalism is based on resource exploitation
Our fascist government is based on resource exploitation. Large corporations influence government, and government influences large corporations, and the line between the two has blurred to complete indistinctness. It is the manner in which government officials are able to buy votes from the proletariat in logging and mining towns. It is in this manner that our “national” forests were sold to the highest bidder (both in terms of lobbying resources and campaign donations) and shipped overseas. It is how our “national” parks were sold to industrial tourism and corporatist concession companies.
Market capitalism is based on private property rights. If a private company or individual damages or pollutes private property, including the frogs, bats, trees, shrubs, mushrooms, caves, canyons, lakes, rivers, etc., the company or the individual must be held liable for the impairment.
As it stands now, government is able to grant corporations permits to pollute. See the paragraph before last for that system. And government? It pollutes and damages collective land–and often private land–with impunity. It allowed and participated in the nuclear contamination of the American Southwest. The federal government is the largest polluter in the history of the world.
I disagree with your assertion that market capitalism is based on resource exploitation; that’s government’s role, a role it’s had for a long, long time from ancient Summer, Egypt, Rome, and Byzantium in the Old World to the Mayans in the New World (someone referenced Diamond above). In each case, it was a despotic government (often with by a divinely appointed ruler at the helm) that ordered the resources exploited.
And if you really believe your assertion, Dan, please consider all the resource exploitation that went into crafting that marvel of modern technology through which you can interact with almost anyone and almost anytime from almost anywhere on the planet. So if you really believe this, you must act; if not, your words are hypocritical. By all means, please move to the country, leave all your stuff behind, grow your own food, make your own clothes. Or at least do us all a favor and unplug your computer.
Frank wrote to Dan: So if you really believe this, you must act; if not, your words are hypocritical.
Ah yes, the only test of logic is human action. Emmer effin’ brilliant.
If a private company or individual damages or pollutes private property, including the frogs, bats, trees, shrubs, mushrooms, caves, canyons, lakes, rivers, etc., the company or the individual must be held liable for the impairment.
Hahaha. Good one. Too bad it rarely works that way on the ground, as corporations game ‘the market’ and asymmetric information reigns.
Maybe the small-minority Objectivists can quit ululating about scientific results that negate their ideology, and instead expend that energy to come up with a system that society can accept that makes the italicized real. Instead of some ideological proclamation of ‘shouldawouldacoulda’.
DS
Dan wrote:
Maybe the small-minority Objectivists can quit ululating about scientific results that negate their ideology, and instead expend that energy to come up with a system that society can accept that makes the italicized real. Instead of some ideological proclamation of ’shouldawouldacoulda’.
THWM: Dan, these guys aren’t “objectivists”, they just have objectives.