>>16285989
Good news

File: 6a7f30cfgw1dtawo2aqsrj.jpg (351 KB, 1231x2048)

351 KB JPG

>>16285989
>the Pacific bluefin tuna are doing so great
Good news indeed! Let's leave them alone and let them recover even further, perhaps to the levels of pre-human exploitation!
>catch quotas on them has been massively increased
ah shit, I guess not. Bad news.

What's the working threshold?

What quantity are caught by China?

>>16285989
These are not real. All tuna pictures are plastic fakes. Tuna is a trick for the elites to eat human meat. That's why I never eat tuna.

File: peta.jpg (109 KB, 1170x1435)

109 KB JPG

>>16286083

>>16286083
>everyone on the planet has to starve to death because of my narcissistic savior complex

File: photo_2024-02-08_12-43-09.jpg (171 KB, 960x1280)

171 KB JPG

>>16287555
Oh, but I do eat fish, I love to eat fish. Pic relevant.
What I don't want to is for fish population to be lower than their natural levels, before we started killing them. I want just as many fish in the ocean as when we first found them there, and if we, myself included, must make sacrifices (and I do, but that's already beyond the scope of this thread), so be it.
>>16287957
>everyone on the planet has to starve to death
Strawman fallacy

>>16288170
>their natural levels
Nirvana fallacy

>>16285989
I bet 1500% of 15 years ago is like 15% of 100 years ago

>>16289155
>I bet that this statistic I just invented in my schizo head based on no evidence is totally true
you're definitely wrong, but so what even if it you weren't? whats your point? are you just trying to highlight the fact that people who claim to be environmentalists always get triggered into a rage every time they see good news about the environment?

>>16288909
>Nirvana fallacy
I was pretty clear about what I meant, anon:
>before we started killing them. I want just as many fish in the ocean as when we first found them there
You misrepresented what I stated, the Strawman Fallacy.

>>16289187
>people who claim to be environmentalists always get triggered into a rage every time they see good news about the environment
[citation needed]
Personal anecdotes don't count much on /sci/, sorry

>>16289428
you're getting upset over good news about the environment in this itt thread. how come the health of the pacific bluefin tuna population rustles your jimmies so badly?

>>16286083
Why should you dictate to people how many fish they catch?
Only the owner of something has the right to dictate to others how to use it.
If you want rhinos, fish, tree-frogs etc to be protected: Allow them to be owned and farmed. If we allowed people to farm rhinos for their horn, they'd have zero risk of extinction so long as the chinks exist.

Why are environmentalists such rabid leftists who oppose libertarianism, free markets, even property rights despite those being the solution to all their problems. Are environmentalists just stupid?

>>16288170
>natural levels
This is a concept that I don't understand the importance of. Why do envrionmentalists believe:
A) natural levels are important
B) their importance is enough to warrant violating people's rights

It's my firm belief that environmentalists use environmentalism as a front to conceal their true desire of manipulating other people against their will. That is; environmentalists are just leftists.

>>16289946
>A) natural levels are important
it's important because the ecosystems which we depend on, which our economies depend on, have finely-tuned and balanced interactions between different species, and selectively removing a few of them beyond certain thresholds throws those interactions out of equilibrium and the entire ecosystem might even collapse.

The biosphere is like a savings account, and the natural replenishing rates of wild species is the "interest". That is, living individuals produce new individuals to replenish and replace those who die. If we're smart, we live a modest life and live off the interest. If we're dumb, we spend beyond our means and we start spending the principal and not just the interest.
Since this thread is specifically about fishing, if we fish enough individuals of a certain species, soon there won't be enough of them to sustain their population. Ideally, our consumption would be low enough as to not affect their natural dynamic, so that we have not just food, but something resilient and also beautiful to enjoy by snorkeling, scuba diving, sailing, studying, and just know that all is well out there for us and for the people who will be born in the future.

>their importance is enough to warrant violating people's rights
This is subjective. In many people's views, killing as much as one feels like doing is also violating other people's rights to enjoy and maintain a healthy ecosystem. Using the savings account analogy, one person should not have the right to spend so much that they'd burn a whole in everyone's savings account.

>It's my firm belief that environmentalists use environmentalism as a front to conceal their true desire of manipulating other people against their will.
Paranoia, anon. Snap out of that shit.
It has nothing to do with left or right. It has only to do with what kind of planet you want this to be: a consumed wasteland, or a self-renewing spaceship for us and those that will come in the future.

File: environmental economics.jpg (38 KB, 453x420)

38 KB JPG

>>16290562
relevant. Mankind and that which it produces is but one piece in a giant global puzzle or natural interactions that must be kept intact, balanced, and functioning. The human economy grows within the natural ecosystem, it is therefore our duty to make sure it doesn't overwhelm it or the economy starves itself like a bacterial colony on a petri dish.

>>16289875
I don’t think anyone is mad about it, rather you’re looking to stir shit

>>16290562
>if we fish enough individuals of a certain species, soon there won't be enough of them to sustain their population
And this is why passenger pigeons no longer exist kids

>>16290562
>because the ecosystems which we depend on, which our economies depend on
Such as what?
We do not have any such ecosystems under threat.
>The biosphere is like a savings account, and the natural replenishing rates of wild species is the "interest"
Is this a copy pasta? I've seen it before. Being lectured to about economics by a communist is insulting. You do not understand economics at all.

>This is subjective.
No it's not. Stealing from somebody is objectively wrong and evil.
>people's rights to enjoy and maintain a healthy ecosystem
No such right exists. You cannot have positive rights.
>one person should not have the right to spend so much that they'd burn a whole in everyone's savings account.
The analogy is completely flawed and will convince nobody who is neither evil or stupid. Even then, suppose it were the case; why not get a separate savings account i.e buy your own land with which to keep your own biodiversity(tm) on?

>Paranoia, anon. Snap out of that shit.
Everything you've just said has confirmed without a doubt that you are either very stupid, or toughly evil. You are clearly a Satan worshiping communist whether by ignorance or desire.
>It has nothing to do with left or right.
The hallmark of the "left" is statism. They adore the state and believe it's use can solve all problems.

>a consumed wasteland
With property rights, why would the planet become this way? If someone like you likes biodiversity(R) why wouldn't you simply buy some land, and keep animals on it? What's so hard to comprehend about property rights?

This is what I mean. Environmentalists/Leftists can only ever be stupid, or despicably evil.

>>16290565
This is just an excuse to steal other peoples things. You make this excuse because you are ether evil or stupid.
>>16290613
Consider keeping endangered species as pets if you believe they're so important.

>>16290832
>This is just an excuse to steal other peoples things.
I mean this in the most well-intended way: you obviously suffer from paranoia, seek help.
Good luck is what I wish you.

>>16290831
>Satan
>>>/x/

>>16290565
>that must be kept intact, balanced, and functioning
They balance themselves and keep themselves functioning by doing so.

>>16290832
>Consider keeping endangered species as pets if you believe they're so important
Been there done that

>>16290831
>We do not have any such ecosystems under threat
The Amazon rainforest, Madagascar’s dry rainforest, Oregon’s old growth forests, etc
>Being lectured to about economics by a communist is insulting. You do not understand economics at all.
>communist
NTA but lol
>why not get a separate savings account i.e buy your own land with which to keep your own biodiversity(tm) on?
>If someone like you likes biodiversity(R) why wouldn't you simply buy some land, and keep animals on it? What's so hard to comprehend about property rights?
Even ignoring the feasibility of this, it doesn’t matter if you buy and protect new land if it’s already degraded. You can’t restore it back to its original biodiversity without existing intact habitat connected to it since you will never be able to source and re-release every species that originally inhabited the area, and if you could it wouldn’t make a difference if Joe on the next block over is still pumping poison into the waterways

>>16291838
>They balance themselves and keep themselves functioning by doing so.
yes, if you leave them the fuck alone

>>16290838
>>16290839
You openly state your desires to control other people in order to maintain a particular ecosystem. There is no paranoia or mysticism here. It is fact that you are evil.

>>16291863
>Even ignoring the feasibility of this, it doesn’t matter if you buy and protect new land if it’s already degraded. You can’t restore it back to its original biodiversity without existing intact habitat
Feasibility? Buy some rainforest. Keep the animals on it as pets.

Why cant you understand this? Why on earth do you think your justified in violating others rights? Are you stupid, or evil?

>>16291849
Then why do you think you can violate others rights?

>>16285989
More tuna to eat for everyone, win-win situation

>>16291863
>The Amazon rainforest, Madagascar’s dry rainforest, Oregon’s old growth forests, etc
Why are these important? Suppose we replace these with pine plantations (or whatever tree most suited for wood production+local climate), what problem has been made?

It seems like the "problems" that exist with ecosystem damage come in two groups:
"I like these animals" or "this ecosystem is used by another animal"
Problems from either of these groups is not an existential threat for humanity, thus such a problem has no justification for government intervention.
If it's a problem from the former group, remedy it by buying property with that ecosystem on it as explained >>16292000.
If it's a problem from the later group, it's irrelevant as animals aren't humans. Again remedy by keeping the animals as pets.

>>16292000
>Feasibility? Buy some rainforest. Keep the animals on it as pets
Try harder
>>16292010
>what problem has been made?
Assuming you’re a nihilistic cunt who doesn’t care about the extinctions it would cause then a single massive pine monoculture would sorely lack in soil turning, pest resistance, pollinator diversity, etc and would result in massive desertification of the region especially in the case of the Amazon making the entire area useless for agriculture
>It seems like the "problems" that exist with ecosystem damage come in two groups: "I like these animals" or "this ecosystem is used by another animal"
If you truly believe this then you’re no better than an animal that can’t see past what’s in front of its face. The consequences of degradation of wild areas goes beyond an animal being in danger

>>16292003
You have no rights and that’s what you deserve thirdie

>>16292038
>Try harder
What do you mean? I've given you a perfectly viable option. You desire a particular ecosystem, that's fine by me. You claim said ecosystem is being removed by various human activities, again I agree. But then you make the jump of claiming this means you get to violate other's rights.
If you want to preserve some ecosystem, under simple libertarain principles that option is avalible to you by purchasing property with that ecosystem on it.

Obviously you will face limits: if you want to preserve the entire amazon you'll run into financial constraints, and other property owners being unwilling to sell. I do not see how running into these constraints justifies your use of violence to get your way.

>>16292045
>If you want to preserve some ecosystem, under simple libertarain principles that option is avalible to you by purchasing property with that ecosystem on it.
People already do this genius. It’s not possible or practical to do so for every major ecosystem
>I do not see how running into these constraints justifies your use of violence to get your way
>laws that limit degradation of natural areas is violence
ngmi

>>16292042
Go back to /k/.
>>16292038
>you’re a nihilistic cunt who doesn’t care about the extinctions
I don't actively desire extinctions outside of some parasites obligate pathogens.
What I don't understand is how the threat of a species going extinct provides you with the justification of violating other's rights, especially when you yourself have the peaceful option available to buy spend your time and money keeping said species from extinction.

>single massive pine monoculture would sorely lack in soil turning, pest resistance, pollinator diversity, etc and would result in massive desertification of the region
I'm going to assume this is a probable outcome. I'm glad we've found a problem that sounds relevant to humanity: A pine monoculture would cause desertification resulting in low wood production i.e no profits.
Now why would the land owner allow a scenario wherein he produces no wood? His entire business is producing wood. If he's not making any he goes bankrupt.

Therefore, without any government intervention we have found motive for this land owner to prevent desertification.

Thus the bulk of landowners in this hypothetical unregulated amazon will use measures to prevent desertification: Because if they don't, they'll make no money.
Not because the government told them to. Not because they're charitable. Not because they don't like deserts or prefer forests.
Because they'll profit from doing so!

>The consequences of degradation of wild areas goes beyond an animal being in danger
You need to expose these scenarios, then explain why a particular degradation will not encounter the negative feedback that I've just outlined.
You're like the Netherland government demanding farmers stop using fertilizers; as if farmers want to waste fertilizers!

>>16292046
>It’s not possible or practical to do so for every major ecosystem
We don't need to preserve major ecosystems. Keeping a "terrarium" is good enough: We don't need the extreme complexity of every single creature of every single habitat of the amazon rainforest to prevent desertification for instance.

>laws that limit degradation of natural areas is violence
Christ on a bike. Are you the sort of person who doesn't realize that all laws are enforced by either direct violence, or the threat of violence?
This is what I mean by leftist being either evil or stupid; so many of you have a fatally flawed understanding of the world, which leads you to come to completely wrong conclusions.

>>16290832
But private property actively steals from me. I can't walk on this land because some guy from Houston owns it? That is theft of a divine gift from God.

>>16292055
>Thus the bulk of landowners in this hypothetical unregulated amazon will use measures to prevent desertification: Because if they don't, they'll make no money.
topkek
are you an economist by chance?
heres how it works in the real world:
they go in an log the one valuable hardwood tree per hectare. then they burn the rest of the vegetation. after that they grow søy for two or three years. after that, the thin layer of top soil and the minerals from the ask has been washed out by the rain and all thats left is pure clay. it grows a little bit of shitty gras that is then used for very low density cattle grazing.
your rational landowners just turned a highly productive and diverse ecosystem into miles of mostly empty grasland. do that with a high enough % of the amazon and you disrupt the water cycle, drying out half the continent and also destroying the rainforest of the landowners that wanted to keep it forested.
the people that then get displaced by their food and water disappearing will start moving up to the states and enrich your life btw, but thats ok, since you can just buy property and hang up some "no trespassing" signs.

>>16285989
That is fantastic news and proof that managing our natural resources rationally is key to sustainable economies.

File: central-planner-comic.png (78 KB, 928x336)

78 KB PNG

>>16292265

>>16292162
>But private property actively steals from me.
You're an idiot. Either that or you're lying and evil.
Only two types of leftist: Evil or stupid.

>>16292243
>heres how it works in the real world:
>Proceeds to give example with government intervention.
Sorry but Brazil like most south american countries is essentially a socialist nation. Bolsonaro briefly tried to remedy this until he was barred from office after his competitor (a literal thief) rigged the election.

Another socialist who doesn't understand that government intervention is the thing causing the problems he points out. Evil or stupid.

>>16292168
>fucking greedy fishermen keep them artificially inflated.
Highly regulated market. Few competitors can enter due to government regulations, thus prices are far away from cost to create.

Government made problem. What solution do statists have? More government interference, because they are evil or stupid.

>>16292055
>What I don't understand is how the threat of a species going extinct provides you with the justification of violating other's rights
Destroying an environment is not a right that you have, on the contrary doing so violates the rights of those relying on that environment. Is it the right of the natives in the Amazon to keep their home? What about farmers relying on a groundwater aquifer or river system?
>I'm glad we've found a problem that sounds relevant to humanity
The problems were always there, you just didn’t think to look for them before saying something retarded
>Thus the bulk of landowners in this hypothetical unregulated amazon will use measures to prevent desertification: Because if they don't, they'll make no money.
And to do so, it would require large intact tracts of rainforest. Shocker
>You need to expose these scenarios, then explain why a particular degradation will not encounter the negative feedback that I've just outlined
That’s already been done several times in this thread
>>16292446
>Bolsonaro briefly tried to remedy this
Bolsonaro was the one encouraging the slashing and burning
>Evil or stupid.
If you cannot see the issues with destroying the environment beyond how it might impact you personally then you are stupid, and seeing as you don’t care about what gets destroyed then you are evil. Keep going on about imaginary evil communists in this thread though

File: 1682051594888191.jpg (198 KB, 800x800)

198 KB JPG

>>16292838

>>16292841
Not a climate change thread sweaty, there enough of those to entertain you up already

>>16292437
Not an argument, pussy

>>16292838
At a glance everything you posted is wrong. I’ll explain why another time.
>Is it the right of the natives in the Amazon to keep their home?
Brief, obvious solution your small mind has overlooked: Respect the native man’s property rights. A concept completely foreign to a leftist like yourself. And what a surprise that leftists are in power of these countries!
>>16292847
No argument was levelled against me, you’re a stupid person saying things to get attention.

File: what is this.jpg (19 KB, 283x334)

19 KB JPG

>>16292866
>Respect the native man’s property rights

>>16292866
>Respect the native man’s property rights. A concept completely foreign to a leftist like yourself. And what a surprise that leftists are in power of these countries!
On the contrary. Bolsonaro was the one who said he would not designate “one more centimetre” of rainforest for the indigenous people in the Amazon, instead actively seeking to undermine their rights in order to take away their home. On top of that he turned a blind eye to illegal logging and invasion of native lands, to the point that it nearly doubled in frequency under his government. So either you didn’t know that this was happening and didn’t bother to check before saying this (stupid) or you simply don’t care about the murder and displacement of those people (evil)

>>16286083
Fewer boats

>>16290562
>The biosphere is like a savings account, and the natural replenishing rates of wild species is the "interest". That is, living individuals produce new individuals to replenish and replace those who die.
Incorrect. There is a carrying capacity and as it is reached growth slows down because you get "overpopulation" scarcity of resources. The fastest growth is where the most number of individuals thrive to a harvestable size.

I put "overpopulation" in quotes because it isn't a true overpopulation as the population is not above carrying capacity and still in a growing state.

>>16293018
>Incorrect
It is correct. What you further said is already implied in that statement, obviously. You truly like to be argumentative just to argue pedantic shit. Convo is done.

>>16293147
Fuck off with your naturalistic fallacy.

>>16293006
>Bolsonaro was the one who said he would not designate “one more centimetre” of rainforest for the indigenous people in the Amazon, instead actively seeking to undermine their rights in order to take away their home.
Suspect the situation is just like red indian reservations here: If I go to a member of the Apache tribe and ask to purchase their portion of the reservation, I can't. This is the government's doing, acting like the Apache "own" the reservation, yet individually nobody owns it; i.e they do not own the land.

So if I go down to the reservation of the ongobongo tribe of the amazon and ask joe blogs of the ongobongo tribe for his share of the reservation, I strongly suspect that I can't simply get just his consent for "his" land. That is to say "indigenous" land is completely differently to private property by the government.

> instead actively seeking to undermine their rights in order to take away their home.
Let's assume they actually have property rights to a specific patch of land as opposed to a vague dedication to a large area as mentioned above. This is a government carrying out these actions.
Government = not my problem, it's in your corner.
>On top of that he turned a blind eye to illegal logging
Clarify, do you mean illegal logging as a separate thing to invasion of "native lands"? If it's separate, in what way is the logging illegal? Remember that my position is if you own the land, you may do with it as you please. If logging is considered "illegal" as per some treaty on "chopping trees is reawwy mean :(" that's not my concern.
>murder and displacement of those people (evil)
Let them have guns. Oh, you won't because you prefer us all being disarmed.

>>16292874
What don't you understand?

>>16286083
>ah shit, I guess not. Bad news.
What the fuck did you expect? Even Asians only have like 105 average IQ, don't expect 125 IQ moves from them.

>>16292838
>Destroying an environment is not a right that you have
Correct in the sense nobody has a positive right to anything, e.g. the right to destroy X is a positive right thus isn't a right.
>on the contrary doing so violates the rights of those relying on that environment
Wrong, nobody has a positive right to anything, e.g the right to have a particular environment X is a positive right.

What you're bumping into here is solved by having property rights: If you own patch of land with a particular environment on it which you enjoy, I can't come over with a bulldozer and knock everything over. In just the same way you can't order me not to use a bulldozer to knock everything over in my patch of land.

See a better angle of attack by you would've been to start off by saying what I've already said, but then go on to point out that things like water and air and animals can move across the boundaries between property. E.g I could build a dam which incidentally cause your rivers to run dry, or produce sulfurous emissions which incidentally poison your plants, or hunt bison which migrate through both our property which incidentally reduces the herd size you may like to watch.

>What about farmers relying on a groundwater aquifer or river system?
This, like the examples above results from you relying on the environment. If you're not in absolute control of all the water passing through your land, you shouldn't bet on it. E.g. before you build something which requires a lot of water, consider if there's enough rainfall on your property, if not, you're not self sufficient and are outliving your means (perhaps there's something to be said there). Before you plan to have tree plantation, consider if with air and rainfall is and will continue to be clean enough for good growth. And before you plan to set up a safari park, consider if you've enough land to keep large herds of bison on.
1/3

>>16292838
2/3
Of course you’ve no obligation to do all these things, you could just chance it: Set up a rice farm, using a river for the water, set up a small pine plantation a few miles outside a city, set up a 5 acre safari park without a fenced border taking advantage of the herds passing though.
But this leaves you open to other humans using their own rights to do with their own land as they please too.

Key thing is that just because you didn’t go to sufficient lengths to insulate yourself from other people’s existence (and it is their mere existence, their actions impact you incidentally), doesn’t mean you have the justification to infringe their rights.

>The problems were always there, you just didn’t think to look for them before saying something retarded
I can consider situation which might seem like a problem at first glance, yet as I showed you, the problem is defused by obeying the simple algorithms of property rights and free markets.

>And to do so, it would require large intact tracts of rainforest.
Let’s suppose so. See above. You don’t have justification to infringe other’s rights because you didn’t expend sufficient effort to achieve your personal goals.

>That’s already been done several times in this thread
List them by replying to them, I suspect they’re all solved by similar means to the one you gave me.

>Bolsonaro was the one encouraging the slashing and burning
Importantly, he’s the one encouraging the property rights which if left uninterfered with a free market result in a sustainably productive use of that land. Again, a farmer isn’t going to set up his business to be unsustainable knowingly.
2/3

>>16292838
3/3
> the issues with destroying the environment beyond how it might impact you personally then you are stupid
I can see how effecting the environment could affect me. I cannot see how a free market would continue to effect the environment to the point the free market (civilisation) is destroyed, because of the feedback loops I’ve explained to you.

Here’s a simplified example of how things might play out, which would not end civilisation, but if you looked at one part of the system in isolation it could seem bad:
The amazon is cut down, replaced with palm/cows. Due to worldwide economics, it’s uncompetitive to continue sustainable farming of palm/cows, so the topsoil is allowed to erode away. Perhaps some mining takes place after this, or housing development. At this moment environmentalists will point out the deficit in CO2 recycling or somesuch; sustainable farming is carbon neutral, since there is no sustainable farming due to the aforementioned economics, the treatment of this hypothetical amazon produces CO2.
Let’s suppose this CO2 recycling deficit is somehow important to the human economy (not sure how, I’m just using CO2 as an example). This opens a market niche to increasing CO2 recycling; people will be willing to pay someone to recycle CO2 because CO2 recycling is important to the economy.
Thus the potentially civilisation ending CO2 recycling deficit is remedied by the free market, in spite of environmentalists claims only a government can handle it.

>seeing as you don’t care about what gets destroyed then you are evil
Why? Remember nobody can have positive rights.

>>16292843
replace "climate chance" with "habitat destruction"

>>16289929
>If we allowed people to farm rhinos for their horn, they'd have zero risk of extinction so long as the chinks exist.
Didn't that already happen and essentially kill off Rhino poaching?

>>16286083
If tuna numbers are up 1500% then raising the catch quota by 50% won't stop the tuna population from increasing further.

>>16289155
With all the fertilisers that get into the sea by our rivers it wouldn't surprise me if there were actually more fish in total than before we started industrialised farming.

>>16290562
>the ecosystems which we depend on, which our economies depend on, have finely-tuned and balanced interactions between different species,
But there are constantly boom and bust cycles happening where some species spread explosively and then cause die offs. Nature only appears fine tuned because chaos is its natural state.

>>16293501
>Didn't that already happen and essentially kill off Rhino poaching?
I've heard some countries allow it, but it's so heavily regulated that it's not a popular business.

>>16293504
the fertilizers create death zones in coastal waters. they fuel algae blooms, then the algae die and rot, depleting oxygen in the water. low oxygen makes bigger animals die than then rot too and further lower the oxygen levels. next thing you know, you have a million dead fish wash up on the beach and all of multimillion $ florida beachfront villas sit in rotting fish smell for a couple months.

>>16293877
Deregulate and legalize it, then people won't keep them in small and easily hidden rooms.

>>16293868
where do the dead algae go?

>>16293868
>fish never died before fertilizer was invented
>algae blooms never happened before fertilizer was invented
>I know this because I've never studied marine science
>nature is perfect in all ways, except for humanity, which is 100% evil (except me of course)
>humans aren't part of nature, evolution isn't real
so was humanity was created artificially by god 6000 years ago or something? how come humanity isn't part of nature?
why does evolution even exist if nature is so perfect?

>>16293320
>If I go to a member of the Apache tribe and ask to purchase their portion of the reservation, I can't. This is the government's doing, acting like the Apache "own" the reservation, yet individually nobody owns it; i.e they do not own the land.
It’s not like that at all. The government under Bolsonaro were the ones trying to undermine the indigenous people’s rights to their home
>Clarify, do you mean illegal logging as a separate thing to invasion of "native lands"?
They are not the same but are not mutually exclusive
>in what way is the logging illegal?
It’s done in protected areas, indigenous reserves, in excess of legal logging regulations and on private property bought by people trying to protect it as you so suggested
>Let them have guns. Oh, you won't because you prefer us all being disarmed.
Not an argument

>>16293352
>If you're not in absolute control of all the water passing through your land, you shouldn't bet on it
This is not a choice people have. If you believe otherwise you know fuckall about agriculture
>>16293354
>Importantly, he’s the one encouraging the property rights which if left uninterfered with a free market result in a sustainably productive use of that land.
That’s bullshit. In no way is large scale deforestation for basedbean plantations sustainable and it never will be. If it just magically became sustainable then these issues wouldn’t exist
>Again, a farmer isn’t going to set up his business to be unsustainable knowingly
Blatantly false. Farmers know that slash and burn tactics are not sustainable, in many cases they either don’t care or have no choice. Unsustainable land use by farming is seen all over the world. Indonesian palm oil, overuse of water by Australian cotton farmers, etc
>>16293358
>Thus the potentially civilisation ending CO2 recycling deficit is remedied by the free market, in spite of environmentalists claims only a government can handle it.
A free market is not a magic wand that fixes everything, and if you believe so you’re dumber than I thought
>Why?
Because that is behaviour befitting poor third worlders or the chinese communist party

>>16294034
>what is excess
Anon…

>>16294109
>It’s not like that at all. The government under Bolsonaro were the ones trying to undermine the indigenous people’s rights to their home
Can you tell me how they work? I presume you're suggesting any particular individual indigenous person has their exact property written down on government books like everyone else. If that's so, how could Bolsonaro selectively undermine only an indigenous person's property rights when there is no legal difference between land owned by an indigenous person and a normal Brazilian?

>It’s done in protected areas, indigenous reserves,
Hang on "indigenous reserves" sounds a whole lot like what I just talked about. Can I buy a parcel of land on an indigenous reserve by purchasing it from an indigenous individual who owns that parcel?

>in excess of legal logging regulations and on private property bought by people trying to protect it
Then the remedy to reduce this type of illegal logging is to remove regulations restricting how much logging you can do with your property.

>Not an argument
It is actually. Gun ownership is the best form of defense you can have. This is even more pronounced when your 500 miles away from the nearest police. Of course the Brazilian government strictly regulates firearms ownership.

>>16294120
>This is not a choice people have.
The vitally important thing you've not noticed is it's nobody else's fault that you either can't capture sufficient rain falling on your land, or there isn't enough rainfall for your purposes.

An analogy: There is a starving man on the street, without food they will die shortly.
Now suppose two scenarios could play out:
A rich man passes by, is aware of the starving man but does not give them food. The starving man dies.
A rich man walks down a neighboring street, he never detected the presence of the starving man. The starving man dies.

In the former scenario, many people, like you, socialists, statists etc would claim that the rich man is RESPONSIBLE for the starving man's death, and would demand punishment and retribution from him. Yet I've just demonstrate that the rich man logically can't be responsible for the outcome of the starving man's death; because removing the rich man from the picture results in the exact same outcome.
You can't be said to have "done" something if you've never taken an action in the first place.

>That’s bullshit. In no way is large scale deforestation for basedbean plantations sustainable
I didn't say it was. I said that a farmer on deforested land will always intend to keep his business sustainable because it is his livelihood. A farmer might still farm beans, but use a multi culture to prevent soil erosion. How the farmer does it isn't important, the fact that he will make it sustainable PURELY because of profit motive, is.

I really hope you see where I'm coming from here. The concept that people are incentivized to do things sustainably by free market forces.

>If it just magically became sustainable
Currently there's not enough incentive to bother innovating such methods because property rights are not adhered to by the government, E.g. indigenous having some strange separate property system, e.g. not being able to use your land exactly how you see fit.

>>16294120
> Farmers know that slash and burn tactics are not sustainable, in many cases they either don’t care or have no choice.
Again see above. You're looking at matters statically: At the moment the government is interfering in the market. As a direct consequence the market pressures which would select for land management practices which are sustainable, are destroyed.

>overuse of water by Australian cotton farmers
Please tell me more. What water is being overuses? Aquifers being depleted? Downstream river flow diminishing? I'd suggest you're thinking statically again.

>A free market is not a magic wand that fixes everything
People fix everything. A free market just provides the environmental pressures which incentivize people to innovate.
Going back to my example, if CO2 recycling is important, there will be a market niche for it.
If there's a market niche for something, businesses will be created to fit it.
Free markets are very similar to evolution, but far more adaptable because humans can think and innovate.

What part of this do you disagree with?

>Because that is behaviour befitting [of people i don't like]
Perhaps, but what's the reason for treating your property how you want to be considered evil? I'm not seeking to harm anyone.

>>16294558
>how could Bolsonaro selectively undermine only an indigenous person's property rights when there is no legal difference between land owned by an indigenous person and a normal Brazilian?
By preventing the renewal of existing land protection laws that were created as a way to legally protect native people who have been living their traditional way of life since before private property laws existed
>Can I buy a parcel of land on an indigenous reserve by purchasing it from an indigenous individual who owns that parcel?
No, the point was they are indigenous reserves where logging is illegal yet still occurs
>Then the remedy to reduce this type of illegal logging is to remove regulations restricting how much logging you can do with your property.
The remedy to reduce illegal logging is to reduce laws constructing illegal logging? Real intellectual weapon over here. The illegal logging is not being done on the logger’s land you moron, nor do they care about how much logging is or is not allowed
>Gun ownership is the best form of defense you can have
Not when you can’t afford a gun in the first place, and even if you could the illegal loggers have more guns
>the Brazilian government strictly regulates firearms ownership.
Do you seriously believe Brazil of all places has any handle on the weapon trade?

>>16294568
>In the former scenario, many people, like you, socialists, statists etc would claim that the rich man is RESPONSIBLE for the starving man's death, and would demand punishment and retribution from him. Yet I've just demonstrate that the rich man logically can't be responsible for the outcome of the starving man's death; because removing the rich man from the picture results in the exact same outcome.
The analogy is not accurate though. It’s more like the starving man has a few dollar bills placed in his hat, before the rich man comes along and burns them, he starves. The farmers have a water resource, the water is poisoned/drained/whatever, farming is now non viable in the region
>I said that a farmer on deforested land will always intend to keep his business sustainable because it is his livelihood
Which is simply not true in far too many cases. Farming frequently leaves land degraded and useless, the extent of overgrazing in Nigeria causing widespread desertification is a good example. The deforestation in the Amazon will have a similar fate if too much is removed, and there seems to be little care for how much forest is cut down by those farmers currently
>E.g. indigenous having some strange separate property system, e.g. not being able to use your land exactly how you see fit.
They can use their land how they see fit. They are not the large scale farmers or loggers, I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about that
>>16294577
>What water is being overuses? Aquifers being depleted? Downstream river flow diminishing?
Murray river, artesian basin, etc
>What part of this do you disagree with?
A free market can’t bring back an extinct ecological community, regardless of how much incentive there is. Once it’s gone, it’s gone
>but what's the reason for treating your property how you want to be considered evil?
in the cases I’ve mentioned it’s not their property being destroyed in the first place

>>16294579
>preventing the renewal of existing land protection laws that were created as a way to legally protect native people who have been living their traditional way of life
Right, so I was correct in originally stating that the reason for bad things happening to indigenous people is because they lack property rights.
>No, the point was they are indigenous reserves where logging is illegal yet still occurs
Right so nobody owns that land. It's not their private property. To solve the matter of loggers fucking over indigenous people: Ensure the indigenous are the OWNERS of the land. That is to say, if I point to a man in a tribe and inquire what land he owns, you can point to that parcel of land.

I'll reiterate: The problems indigenous people face result from a lack of property rights.Remove this ridiculous reservation system.
Have you any questions on this idea? I want to know the flaws you see with my suggestion.

>The illegal logging is not being done on the logger’s land
You stated (>>16294109) logging is illegal when it occurs in 4 separate ways:
>in protected areas
>indigenous reserves
>in excess of legal logging regulations
>on private property bought by people trying to protect it
I retorted against:
>in excess of legal logging regulations
By quoting it in (>>16294558):
>">in excess of legal logging regulations and on private property bought by people trying to protect it
Then the remedy to reduce this type of illegal logging is to remove regulations restricting how much logging you can do with your property."

To reiterate: The remedy to logging which is considered illegal because it occurs to excess of a regulation, is to remove that regulation.

I did not suggest that was the remedy to illegal logging wherein the logger invades property not owned by them. You have misunderstood my statement.
1/2

>>16294579
>Not when you can’t afford a gun in the first place
Guns can be made incredibly cheaply. Before South African guns became even stricter, manufactures were selling a package deal of a cheap handgun, safe, and a back of cermet to the poor of SA.

If firearms were as unregulated as any other item, there would be a market niche for cheap firearms.
Not to mention I'm sure charitable individuals like yourself would be happy to donate firearms to these people so that they can protect themselves.

>even if you could the illegal loggers have more guns
That's the brilliant thing about firearms, numbers are longer a great advantage. To kill a hundred people armed with guns, even if you've got a thousand, you'll still lose about as many people.

In the current situation, criminal loggers might be able to muster up a gang of men with guns, because they know with certantuy the people they intend to murder will not be shooting back.
If tribes are armed, even with with something as poor as a FP-45 Liberators, assembling such a gang will become much harder and less successful.

You've got the flawed, cattle-like, democrat mentality that only certified "goodies" can be allowed to have guns, and that these "goodies" will always be loyal to you.

>Do you seriously believe Brazil of all places has any handle on the weapon trade?
For law abiding citizens, absolutely. For criminals, of course not.
If guns aren't legal, a well meaning citizen cannot defend himself, because if he does, he will be sent to jail.
Surely you understand this concept?
2/2

>>16294586
>the starving man has a few dollar bills placed in his hat, before the rich man comes along and burns them
That's not remotely similar at all. What you've given there is an example of the rich man mugging the starving man: He's stolen the money out of the starving man's hat.

Perhaps an analogy you'd prefer is:
As before, a starving man and a rich man exist. The starving man is very poor.
This time let's suppose there's food available for purchase at some 3rd party.
Now the scenario diverges again into two outcomes:
The rich man goes some time before the starving man to the 3rd party to purchase a bulk order of food. Demand for food increases whiles supply is the same, so the 3rd party increases the price of food.
When the starving man goes to buy food from the 3rd party, he cannot afford it and starves to death.
In the second scenario the rich man does not buy a load of food. The 3rd party does not raise the price of food. When the starving man goes to buy food, he can afford it and does not starve.

Can see how both the rich man cannot logically be blamed for the starving man’s death, yet also see how socialists might nonetheless accuse him of killing the starving man?
Can you also see how this analogy more closely matches a situation where a farmer comes upon hard times due to someone damming the river he uses to irrigate his crops?

>>16294586
>Which is simply not true in far too many cases.
Again you're giving examples which are NOT in a free market. Government intervention distorts and destroys the selection pressures of a free market which would normally promote beneficial activities.
>the extent of overgrazing in Nigeria causing widespread desertification
What are property rights like in Nigeria? Can just anyone own land, or does the head honcho have to sign off on it first?

Also remember what I mentioned in >>16293358 :
>Due to worldwide economics, it’s uncompetitive to continue sustainable farming of palm/cows, so the topsoil is allowed to erode away.
It could well turn out that farming in a particular place is not economical due to international market forces, so that particular area of land will be put to use in other ways.

Additionally, you're getting tied up in knots that removing a rainforest is inherently bad. I've already established that the even in the event of some area of land becoming disused due to market forces, any potential role that land once played in it's virgin state is taken up and replaced by businesses which will be created to inhabit that market niche. Again see >>16293358:
>CO2 recycling deficit is somehow important to the human economy
>This opens a market niche to increasing CO2 recycling
1/2

>>16294586
>They can use their land how they see fit
You've misunderstood my comment. I was giving two separate examples of the government not following property rights:
>E.g. indigenous having some strange separate property system
>e.g. not being able to use your land exactly how you see fit.
The government not following the principles of property rights is what causes the dysfunction you see.

>Murray river, artesian basin, etc
I'm going to assume the "overuse" of water is classified by farmers using more water than falls as rain.
I don't see a problem here, my response would be in line the with the examples I've already given.

>A free market can’t bring back an extinct ecological community
A free market brings the market pressures to replace the role that extinct ecological community had. Of course we're assuming there was ever such a role.
I can think of an example; the ecological community of swamplands can absorb runoff of heavy rainfall and slowly release it, reducing flood risks. This ecological community can be replaced by a dam built by humans.

Bare in mind that a free market may select for either: In some places swampland might be selected for as the the most suited flood control.

>Once it’s gone, it’s gone
As the vast majority of all ecological communities. The loss of ecological communities is not an existential threat to humanity.

>in the cases I’ve mentioned it’s not their property being destroyed in the first place
In the situations where people are invading another person's property, I completely agree with you, that's trespassing and evil.
You have been suggesting the government burdens property OWNERS with regulations that prohibit them from cutting down trees on their land. It should be clear to you that these are not the same.
2/2

>>16294740
>It’s not their private property
Your obsession over private property is telling. Under Brazilian law the land is not owned by individuals but by a community and that would work perfectly fine if those laws were upheld, it does not need to be private to be owned
>Remove this ridiculous reservation system.
Which is a terrible idea. These people can’t afford to buy plots of private land, they have no income. Their way of life has existed before any of this, to expect them to just up and buy land is ridiculous
>Then the remedy to reduce this type of illegal logging is to remove regulations restricting how much logging you can do with your property."
The majority of that logging is not done on private land. Private land owners can already slash and burn as much as they like. It is done in excess of laws on government land
>>16294752
>Guns can be made incredibly cheaply
Doesn’t matter how cheap it is when you have literally no money
>You've got the flawed, cattle-like, democrat mentality that only certified "goodies" can be allowed to have guns, and that these "goodies" will always be loyal to you.
Nowhere did I say or imply this. People can have guns, but in this scenario it would not make a difference whether or not the government is regulating it
>>16294773
>What you've given there is an example of the rich man mugging the starving man: He's stolen the money out of the starving man's hat.
Yes that’s the point. If I dam a river upstream of farmland then I have stolen their water. If I poison an aquifer with waste sludge then I may as well have stolen it. Trying to justify practices that directly harm other people like that is telling

>>16294785
>Again you're giving examples which are NOT in a free market
Doesn’t matter if it’s a free market, farmland degradation happens the world over even where free markets do exist. I already mentioned Australia, Chile is another, Uruguay, etc
>What are property rights like in Nigeria? Can just anyone own land
Depending on where you live yes
>so that particular area of land will be put to use in other ways.
Or it’s simply abandoned and left in ecological ruin
>removing a rainforest is inherently bad
It is. You don’t need to agree, but if you think that it’s not then that says a lot about your worth as a human being
>>16294807
>to replace the role that extinct ecological community had
That’s the thing about extinction, it can’t
>The loss of ecological communities is not an existential threat to humanity.
It doesn’t need to be a threat to all of humanity, even if it’s just a threat to a single community that’s enough of a reason. If the only thing preventing you from doing something is the immediate risk to your way of life or a law and the threat of the consequences standing behind it then you’re no better than an animal
>You have been suggesting the government burdens property OWNERS with regulations that prohibit them from cutting down trees on their land
No I haven’t, private owners in Brazil already have no issue clear cutting their own land. I have said multiple times this is about logging on native or public lands

>>16295308
>Your obsession over private property is telling.
Because it's the base unit of human society. When somebody says "that's mine" or "that's yours" the values of "mine" and "yours" are denoting that object as the private property of someone. I'm not sure how this can be subdivided further. We (humans) assign who an object belongs to in order to determine who's responsibility it is. So if we were in a tribe and you made an axe, if I took that axe off you, you'd notice that there's something wrong there. That's because it's your axe and I just took it from you. I.e I stole your private property.
I hope this helps to understand my "obsession" over private property.

>Under Brazilian law the land is not owned by individuals
Yes, which violates the concept of private property, which is why everything is going wrong.
Claiming a law is what denotes right and wrong is a completely flawed: Two countries can have laws which completely conflict, e.g chucking gays off rooves is directly prescribed in many muslim countries. While such an act would be rightly considered murder in the USA. Similarly, many laws that have existed are considered barbaric and are noticably illogical, e.g the Nazi Germans making it legal to round up and murder loads of people, and re-terming their murders as no longer murder.
Clearly (I hope) laws can't be used to show right from wrong.

>it does not need to be private to be owned
There are many ways to skin a cat. You could achieve a large and rapid increase in GDP and industrialization at the expense of increasing authoritarianism and slaughtering tens of millions of people like the various governments of the USSR did.
You could achieve a similar industrialization by following the British by respecting private property and (comparatively) letting people get on with it.

If we respect private property rights we'll have nice things while being far more moral.
1/3

>>16295308
>These people can’t afford to buy plots of private land
They don't need to buy new plots of land, just devide up the reservation they live on equally amongst all the members of that tribe:
Suppose the Ongobongo tribe is 150 members strong with a reservation 150km^2 in area. The government just allocates each member 1km^2.
Now I'm sure this would cause a fuss while breaking the idea of the noble savage: The head honcho of the tribe may well want a bigger area. There might be a few slackers in the tribe and so on. I'm afraid that's tough, equal area will have to do, and they can always trade with eachother to settle these matters.
The point is each individual tribe member has his patch of land in a book somewhere so everyone else knows what's up.

I'd rather avoid treating these people like pets or subhumans, which is really what we're already doing.

>Their way of life has existed before any of this
I'm sure some of them used to do baby murdering too, yet I doubt you'd allow them to do that. This is another reason why I suggest we treat these people like everyone else.

> It is done in excess of laws on government land
You're winning my argument for me. It's well known renters don't take as good a care of someone else's property. If the logger doesn't even own the land they're logging on, why on earth would you expect them to act sustainably?

The solution is clear as day: Put the government land up for sale. That way the owners of that land will have a vested interest in looking after it for obvious reasons. I'm genuinely surprised you've given this as an argument to me.
2/3

>>16295308

>Doesn’t matter how cheap it is when you have literally no money
I really think you're over estimating how primitive these people are and strongly suspect the majority of these indigenous tribes make use of modern resources such as medicine.

There's a youtuber, Isaac Arthur, he mostly does space stuff, but he's gone over situations wherein either aliens of different technological advancement encounter each other, or different factions of space-faring humans with differing philosophies which cause one group to act comparatively primitively (space amish) coexist. At some point I think you unfortunately have to move on.
Either you move on, or you have to become literal pets of other more advanced people who like to keep you as you are charitably. I.e a human zoo.

>People can have guns, but in this scenario it would not make a difference whether or not the government is regulating it
It would, because if guns are illegal, these tribe members would not be allowed to own firearms. I presume the individuals of tribes are subject to, and care somewhat about the country's laws, e.g they can't just run around murdering people.

>I have stolen their water.
It was never their water to begin with. The water of the river flows through their property.
Water doesn't just flow into their land, become their water, then flow out to the neighboring land and instantaneously become their neighbors water, that would be quite ridiculous. The only water you could say they own, is that which falls as rain onto their land.

Supposing the man who builds a dam has a stream flowing into is property, he doesn't own the water being contributed by that stream either, hypothetically someone could dam that stream, and so on.

The farmer is not having their water stolen by the dam being built, because the water which enters their property via the river was never theirs to begin with.
3/4

>>16295308
>If I with waste sludge then I may as well have stolen it
But you haven't. That's not say people would be unimpeded if they ran around poisoning aquifers: Free market forces limit these actions, you'll get people knocking on your door asking you to stop. If you're selling products, some people won't buy your stuff. If you want to purchase things from other people, they might refuse you service.
4/4

>>16285989
how do i make this stuff taste good?

[spoiler]>>16295315
>Doesn’t matter if it’s a free market
It absolutely does, because we're discussing if a free market would cause the end of the world via destruction of the environment.
Establishing that a free market would not cause the end of humanity is what I hope will make you understand why governments are not a necessary evil.
>farmland degradation happens the world over even where free markets do exist
Elements of a free market exist, but the reasons for why there is dysfunction is due to government interventions of the marketplace. I have explained why several times in several posts.
>Australia, Chile is another, Uruguay
All of which are not free markets and are heavily regulated by governments. They could be used as examples of why government intervention causes dysfunction.

>Depending on where you live yes
I suspect the situation of overgrazing results from the same issue of logging in Brazil on government lands, for the same reasons. I'll be lazy and assume this is so, and dismiss this.

>Or it’s simply abandoned and left in ecological ruin
Correct, that's what I said and addressed in the paragraph directly below that >>16294785:
>I've already established that the even in the event of some area of land becoming disused due to market forces...

>It is. You don’t need to agree
You need to explain why. Otherwise this just sounds like the "it just IS OK???" meme. With this sort of "reasoning" you'll be able to justify executing people over nothing.

>It doesn’t need to be a threat to all of humanity, even if it’s just a threat to a single community that’s enough of a reason.
I think I've already established that somebody can't be said to have committed a moral wrong by their actions incidentally affecting someone else. Otherwise, following this principle we could end up in a world were you literally need permission to breathe because you exhale CO2 or carry disease which affects others.
1/2

>>16295315
>even if it’s just a threat to a single community that’s enough of a reason
Also, without the principles of private property, consent, and free markets, how can we determine what the correct "balance" of violating someone else's rights because their actions incidentally infringe on someone else's way of life?
Because you've removed consent from the matter, there's no way to know if you're doing something right, because neither party has to have consented to your actions.

>If the only thing preventing you from doing something is the immediate risk to your way of life or a law and the threat of the consequences standing behind it then you’re no better than an animal
I'm afraid at a large enough scale this is how the overwhelming majority of people act. Far more importantly, this exactly how governments act. You're very very very naive if you believe the individuals in governments, despite coming from the market, are somehow more virtuous than the market itself.

If governments are, through unknown means, better than markets at organizing things, why don't we go 100% government? We have quite a few examples of extreme governments: Fascism, Socialism, Communism, and they're all very undesirable places.
They are so undesirable because the governments are big.

>private owners in Brazil already have no issue clear cutting their own land.
I don't think that's accurate, there are doubtless many laws which dictate what can and can't be done with your property in Brazil. I strongly suspect you'd need a license to do logging for instance.
>I have said multiple times this is about logging on native or public lands
Which I've already retorted by pointing out that I agree that trespassing is evil, and is explicitly against the principles of private property.
You've also in your earlier post admitted that much of the excessive logging occurs on government land, which also goes against the principles of private property.

These are not my ideology's failings.
2/2

>>16295377
yeah, amazing idea. you just turned the tribal land that they can reasonably hope to defend together into 150 individual targets that logging and mining cartels can trick, scam or pressure into selling it to them one at a time for a fraction of it's value.
you're free market ideas are more delusional than the "real gommunism hasn't been tried" crowd, and that's saying something.
remember, once these people run out of food and water, they don't lay down and die, they start walking north and end up as your new neighbours.

>>16295367
>Because it's the base unit of human society
The base of your society, not theirs. Their society existed before private property laws, what you are suggesting is that their rights be violated by forcing those laws on them
>which is why everything is going wrong
Everything is going wrong because the government did fuck all to control illegal logging. It being private property makes no difference, since the loggers will just as happily invade private property bought by conservation groups
>>16295377
>just devide up the reservation they live on equally amongst all the members of that tribe
So it’s tribal land divided between individuals instead of a community. That in no way protects them from loggers or the government undermining their rights
> If the logger doesn't even own the land they're logging on, why on earth would you expect them to act sustainably?
What the fuck are you talking about? You missed the point entirely. Nobody is expecting illegal loggers to act sustainably, the expectation is that the government cracks down on it rather than encourage it as Bolsonaro did
>>16295386
>because if guns are illegal, these tribe members would not be allowed to own firearms
It’s not illegal. Civilians can legally own a gun in Brazil so long as they meet a few basic requirements like being of age and not being a deranged psycho
>Water doesn't just flow into their land, become their water, then flow out to the neighboring land and instantaneously become their neighbors water, that would be quite ridiculous
Legally it does. Most countries have protections in place to maintain that specifically. Even if that weren’t the case, doing so would still make you directly responsible for the loss of water downstream
>>16295392
>you'll get people knocking on your door asking you to stop
That won’t magically remove toxins from groundwater. Once the damage is done it’s often hard to fix

>>16295404
>It absolutely does
No it doesn’t, since the same thing has happened in separate countries regardless of whether it’s a free market
>All of which are not free markets and are heavily regulated by governments
All three of those rank higher than the USA in terms of economic freedom and are among the highest ranked in the world. If they aren’t free markets then what is? I’m not surprised you think those aren’t free markets when you apparently thought Bolsonaro wasn’t trying to get rid of indigenous land rights
>I'll be lazy and assume this is so
You do that a lot, and it’s pretty telling
>that's what I said and addressed
You addressed nothing, you made up a hypothetical that is not based in reality. A hypothetical about what could be without considering any case-specific factors isn’t addressing a very real problem
>You need to explain why
Done that already. See pine plantation.
>With this sort of "reasoning" you'll be able to justify executing people over nothing
I’m not the one pretending that removing indigenous land rights is helping indigenous people
>somebody can't be said to have committed a moral wrong by their actions incidentally affecting someone else
If you know the consequences of your actions and simply don’t care, then yes they committed a wrongful act.

>>16295410
>because neither party has to have consented to your actions
In this case it’s pretty obvious they have. The indigenous Amazonians have been pretty clear about what they want
>I'm afraid at a large enough scale this is how the overwhelming majority of people act
I’m talking about at a small scale and what’s in front of your face specifically
>I don't think that's accurate
It is. Legal limits rarely stop anything when they’re not readily enforced
>I strongly suspect you'd need a license to do logging for instance
Even if that were the case it makes no difference if someone like Bolsonaro ignores the issue. The 2012 forest code reduced the previous amount of protected land required on private farmland massively leading to increased deforestation. So much for reducing government interference to reduce deforestation.

>>16292058
>We don't need to preserve major ecosystems. Keeping a "terrarium" is good enough
Consider suicide, Chang. Your disregard for the inherent value of the natural order simply because every last species doesn’t shit out money for you is subhuman. You deserve the pod

>>16295420
>you just turned the tribal land that they can reasonably hope to defend together into 150 individual targets that logging and mining cartels can trick, scam or pressure into selling it to them one at a time for a fraction of it's value.
You're treating these people as human pets. At least acknowledge that's what you think their place should be: Literal human safari park.

>>16295541
>not theirs
Not really. My same post explained that even in a primitive system, property rights are intuitive. It's your axe because you made it.
> their rights be violated by forcing those laws
Stupid reasoning. Are you violating their "rights" to murder each other without being punished like anyone else outside the tribal system, because they used to do so for the past 6,000 years?

>Everything is going wrong because the government did fuck all to control illegal logging.
I've already explained why government interference makes the problem. You're merely stating the opposite.
>since the loggers will just as happily invade private property bought by conservation groups
Respect people's right to keep and bare arms: Shoot the criminal loggers or hire men to do it for you. Problem solved, once again by REDUCING government interference.
I've already told you this.

>So it’s tribal land divided between individuals instead of a community.
A community can't own something because a community is a collection of individuals not a separate being.
> That in no way protects them from loggers or the government undermining their rights
It invites them into the real world and treats them like normal humans. By treating them like human pets, you're just coddling them and leaving them vulnerable.
As I said earlier >>16295386:
>Either you move on, or you have to become literal pets of other more advanced people who like to keep you as you are charitably. I.e a human zoo.
You can't fight modern equipped people off with bows and arrows. If you let yourself get too far behind technologically you'll have to rely on defense from a zoo keeper/master. You're suggesting this is a desirable outcome.
I think this speaks to the unspoken direction of all statists (more accurate for those on the left wing, socalists and fascists); you want everyone to be subservient to a master which is the state. This is not a society that is optimal.
1/2

>>16295541
>What the fuck are you talking about?
Respecting property rights etc will limit environmental damage. Haven't you been reading any of my posts?
>expectation is that the government cracks down
Already explained why this is stupid. Are you reading anything I've posted, let alone taken any of it in, nor ruminated on it at all?

>It’s not illegal.
Highly regulated. You can't have them outside your residence, requires a license, can't own particular kinds, and so on.
That residence requirement immediately disarms those tribesmen: Can't carry a gun around in the jungle legally.

>Legally it does.
Back to this old chesnut are we? Clear signs of not reading my posts! Give it a go >>16295367:
>Claiming a law is what denotes right and wrong is a completely flawed: Two countries can have laws which completely conflict...

>doing so would still make you directly responsible for the loss of water downstream
Already addressed the flaws with this reasoning >>16295404:
>following this principle we could end up in a world were you literally need permission to breathe because you exhale CO2 or carry disease which affects others
By your reasoning you could blame me for murdering your grandmother because she caught the flu off me. Can you see why no society can follow these principles to their logical conclusion?

>Once the damage is done it’s often hard to fix
People won't do things that they know will harm their business: dumping poison in wells will predictably upset people and destroy your social standing. An infinitesimal number of people with the means to do significant damage will do this sort of thing, thus this situation is not a problem.

It pales in comparison to the real problem of a system relying on government (as opposed to free markets) to prevent pollution etc: Corruption is real and rife. Just bribe, lobby, or obfuscate the supreme environmental board and you can do as you wish!
2/2

>>16295553
>No it doesn’t,
OoooOOOhhh yes it does! He's behind you!
>same thing has happened in separate countries regardless of whether it’s a free market
Huh? So you're saying a free market is not the common factor in the presence of extensive environmental damage?
But what is a common factor? What's universally present? Oh, that's it, GOVERNMENTS!

>those rank higher than the USA in terms of economic freedom
Ignoring the "we have investigated ourselves and found us innocent", they all have highly regulated economies. Earlier you mentioned cotton farming in Australia, having briefly looked, I found plenty of rules and regulations that farmers are ordered to follow on their own land. That's not remotely free.
>If they aren’t free markets then what is?
Like free speech is the ability to say anything, free markets are utterly devoid of government interference.
>You do that a lot, and it’s pretty telling
I've evidence the opposite, I've explained why you're wrong for the bulk of what you've thrown at me, and have explained so in multiple different ways.

>You addressed nothing, you made up a hypothetical that is not based in reality
I've used logic. You've done very little of this.
>without considering any case-specific factors
I think I've been rather specific, going through things in extreme detail would be enormously time consuming and likely futile: The moment I've thoroughly explained piecemeal why every element of a societal problem is the result of government interference, you'll retort "Uhuh, well that's probably just a fluke, now do the same for THIS problem.".

>Done that already. See pine plantation.
You didn't explain why removing a rain forest is inherently evil when back in >>16292038, instead you explained why my example (>>16292010) of the destruction and replacing of a rain forest with a pine plantation would result in further degradation of the land. The most relevant thing to morality you made in that post was name calling.
1/2

>>16295553
>Done that already. See pine plantation.
Continuing; perhaps you meant that it is inherently evil to render species extinct? If this was your intention, explain why.

>I’m not the one pretending that removing indigenous land rights
I'm not doing that. Please read my posts again, I think the indigenous problem is solved by ensuring they have, and then respecting their property rights. Many times I've repeated this now.

>If you know the consequences of your actions and simply don’t care, then yes they committed a wrongful act.
If you believe this, then I direct you to >>16294568:
>An analogy: There is a starving man on the street, without food they will die shortly...
I've explained why this is idiotic. Read my posts before replying thoughtlessly.

>>16295556
>In this case it’s pretty obvious they have
Is there someone you forgot to ask? When a government orders someone to do something, they aren't requiring that person's consent, isn't this obvious to you?
Again, my examples in >>16295404, >>16295583:
>end up in a world were you literally need permission to breathe because you exhale CO2
>blame me for murdering your grandmother because she caught the flu off me.
The government makes a rule which we must all follow at the threat of violence, so it has >>16295410:
>removed consent from the matter

>I’m talking about at a small scale and what’s in front of your face specifically
And I was retorting to ad hominem.

>Legal limits rarely stop
My expression of doubt refered to your suggestion that >>16295315:
>private owners in Brazil already have no issue clear cutting their own land.
I took your statement of "no issue" to mean that there were few regulations pertaining to deforestation.
>Legal limits
Are very important, because honest good people care about staying legal. If you've got lots of regulations, good people won't bother, leaving only the bad people who don't care. As I've said countless times, regulations encourage bad behavior: Governments are the source of evil.

>it makes no difference
See above.
>protected land required on private farmland
Regulations make things worse.
>So much for reducing government interference to reduce deforestation.
Remove regulations, don't simply attenuate them.

>>16295559
To conclude for today: Almost every one of your posts evidenceis my prior claims that there are only two subtypes of statist/fascist/socialist:
Stupid: If given the information, comes to the wrong conclusion
Evil: Knows the information and it's conclusion, but does wrong anyway.

At best I could offer a 3rd subset: Ignorant; Has the wrong conclusion because they've not yet encountered the information. The potential existence of this group is what I've got to frequently remind myself with in order to not condemn all statists as a group.

>>16295569
>My same post explained that even in a primitive system, property rights are intuitive. It's your axe because you made it.
Except that doesn’t necessarily translate to land ownership, as is the case with those people
>Are you violating their "rights" to murder each other without being punished like anyone else outside the tribal system, because they used to do so for the past 6,000 years?
Do they murder each other? This sounds like an assumption you’re making. Even if they did nobody is going to punish them in the jungle regardless of legality so it makes no difference
>I've already explained why government interference makes the problem
What you’ve explained is incorrect. Government inaction makes the problem
>Respect people's right to keep and bare arms: Shoot the criminal loggers or hire men to do it for you. Problem solved, once again by REDUCING government interference. I've already told you this.
And I’ve already told you that gun laws in Brazil really aren’t as strict as you seem to think
>A community can't own something
Seeing as they own it, yes they can
>By treating them like human pets, you're just coddling them and leaving them vulnerable.
Respecting their way of life and ensuring they can continue to live the way they please is not treating them as pets you moron
>If you let yourself get too far behind technologically you'll have to rely on defense from a zoo keeper/master. You're suggesting this is a desirable outcome.
Maybe in a made up dystopia, but this isn’t a thing in the real world

>>16295583
>Haven't you been reading any of my posts?
Yes, and they’re all retarded. Your idea of respecting property rights clearly hasn’t limited environmental damage, but the complete opposite
>Already explained why this is stupid
It’s stupid to crack down on illegal logging on land they don’t own?
>Are you reading anything I've posted, let alone taken any of it in, nor ruminated on it at all?
I’m reading it, and it’s nonsensical
>That residence requirement immediately disarms those tribesmen: Can't carry a gun around in the jungle legally.
Sure they can. There are no cops in the jungle and nobody is going to care. The same way Bolsonaro turning a blind eye to people clear cutting in excess of legal limits on private property means those laws go unenforced
>Clear signs of not reading my posts! Give it a go
Pot, kettle
>People won't do things that they know will harm their business: dumping poison in wells will predictably upset people and destroy your social standing
That’s funny, then why does it happen so often?
>An infinitesimal number of people with the means to do significant damage will do this sort of thing
Fucking lol

>>16295592
>So you're saying a free market is not the common factor
I’m saying a free market is not the solution
>having briefly looked, I found plenty of rules and regulations that farmers are ordered to follow on their own land. That's not remotely free
>free markets are utterly devoid of government interference
No shit there’s regulations. By that definition free markets don’t exist anywhere in regards to agriculture. Having regulations does not equate to not being a free market. To suggest otherwise is fucking retarded. Not having any government overreach at all is anarchy, and is not going to result in sustainable practices of any sort in any field. If you seriously think that then you are even less intelligent than I thought
>I've explained why you're wrong for the bulk of what you've thrown at me, and have explained so in multiple different ways.
You’ve attempted to do so, but the best you’ve come up with are hypotheticals and falsehoods
>I've used logic. You've done very little of this.
Ah yes, the infallible logic that reducing protections will reduce deforestation. It’s almost like unchecked deforestation before the introduction of any sort of conservation laws is why places like the UK are almost entirely devoid of their previous wild spaces
>The moment I've thoroughly explained piecemeal why every element of a societal problem is the result of government interference
Those explanations are complete drivel though. Your thinking is based on a lie from the start. Government interference is not the reason
>You didn't explain why removing a rain forest is inherently evil
Explaining that it would result in the area being useless for agriculture and depriving the people living there of a stable livelihood isn’t explaining why it’s evil? Your disregard for the people that would live in that hypothetical is exactly what I meant when I said you’re in no position to talk about violating other’s rights

>>16295595
>I think the indigenous problem is solved by ensuring they have, and then respecting their property rights. Many times I've repeated this now.
And many times I have repeated that the respecting property rights is the issue. As I’ve said, illegal logging occurs on both privately owned conservation land and indigenous reserve land
>>16295603
>Is there someone you forgot to ask?
No? Who else would there be to ask about indigenous land other than the indigenous people living on it. Do you think the consent of illegal loggers is needed?
>Again, my examples
For the good of anyone who can read, please never make up a hypothetical again
>As I've said countless times, regulations encourage bad behavior: Governments are the source of evil.
No regulations encourage worse behaviour, because now there’s nothing stopping those bad people from doing literally whatever they want
>Remove regulations, don't simply attenuate them.
Reduced regulations nearly doubled deforestation and you think the solution is remove regulations entirely? Right
>>16295611
>Almost every one of your posts evidenceis my prior claims that there are only two subtypes of statist/fascist/socialist:
>Stupid: If given the information, comes to the wrong conclusion
>Evil: Knows the information and it's conclusion, but does wrong anyway
NTA but you fit these yourself pretty well
Stupid: Given information about free markets not doing anything to stop environmental destruction, still believes the opposite because it fits his pre-conceived world view
Evil: Doesn’t recognise what’s wrong with extinction and ecological degradation, doesn’t believe indigenous protection rights should exist in a country where they’re frequently murdered, doesn’t think the careless destruction of the livelihoods of surrounding people is something one can be held accountable for

>>16295902
>>16295904
>>16295907
>>16295918
I've already explained why your points are wrong. You won't address my arguments. As I've already said, statists are either stupid or evil, so this is probably a futile effort as there's no chance to convince you.

>>16293322
how come native europeans don't have property rights to be respected?

>tuna populations explode
>suddenly all other fish in the oceans are at the brink of extinction because of voracious tunas eating them all
>environmentalists blame the disappearance of fish from the oceans on cars, farmers and trump
>tuna go extinct after theres no food left for them to eat
>only creatures left in the oceans are microorganisms that feed off tuna shit and deep sea crabs living off the carcasses of starved tunas

>>16296083
>I've already explained why your points are wrong. You won't address my arguments
Ironic

>>16296571
>tuna populations explode
>open season for the Japanese
>tuna problem solved

>>16296571
I had tuna for lunch today, everyone thats worried about squid or herring population decline should be thanking me. humpback whales owe me bigtime

>>16293946
>>16293868
Lmao btfo

File: have to stop somewhere.png (101 KB, 1000x1000)

101 KB PNG

>>16296540
Because the government doesn't respect property rights. Or are you trying to insinuate this stonetoss meme invalidates all property rights because we can't find the individual who originally claimed the land 20,000 years ago?
In that case we have to draw the line somewhere, and I think the people who own the property currently is a good enough place to draw that line.

>>16296701
I've addressed his attempts at arguments and questions far more than he's done in return. I might get around to doing so for his latest ones, but he doesn't seem to be taking in much of what I've said.

>>16293868
Any idea what would happen if we bubbled vast quantities of air into a river delta releasing fertilizer? Basically just a sewage treatment system.

>>16297235
Nah. A free market isn’t gonna stop deforestation and you’re naive if you think it will.

>>16289946
>This is a concept that I don't understand the importance of. Why do envrionmentalists believe:
>A) natural levels are important

Take heed of this post. It's literally Satan convincing Adam and Eve that the Garden of Eden wasn't that great.

>>16298029
Not saying it's gonna stop it. Read my posts.
I've been saying free market forces limit creation of wasteland and that deforestation and even the creation of wasteland isn't the disaster environmentalists claim it to be.

>>16298037
Saying "because God said so" is a vastly better justification than most environmentalists normally give. I congratulate you. That being said, I don't think God forbids us from using the land to our advantage, as we're already doing that and he hasn't taken action against us.

>>16298154
>as we're already doing that and he hasn't taken action against us.

Said Satan, posting from Hell.

>>16298170
I'm earth with you, right now, fellow human.

>>16298154
>I don't think God forbids us from using the land to our advantage
God commands it. "Let them be masters over the fish in the ocean, the birds that fly, the livestock, everything that crawls on the earth, and over the earth itself"

>>16298149
>I've been saying free market forces limit creation of wasteland
Then why does it create so much wasteland?
>and that deforestation and even the creation of wasteland isn't a disaster
Ahaha

>>16297238
At the very least it would help stop oxygen deprivation from killing all the fish

File: LAI-Change-Global.jpg (189 KB, 580x430)

189 KB JPG

>>16298029
>>16298384
deforestation and creation of wasteland plainly isn't happening. earth is greener now than it has ever been recorded as being ever.
go to >>>/pol/ if you want to engage in your narcissistic savior complex "this is what i would do if i was president" fantasy play

>>16298424
>Leaf Area Index
That’s the relative size of the leaves of plants, it gives you no idea what the state of vegetation communities in those areas is. The study that image is from used satellite imaging and measured leaf area by how green a given region was, which is why the Sahara is white when it’s a relatively healthy ecosystem and the UK is green despite Bongs having chopped down nearly all their forests long ago. That study doesn’t differentiate between a cloud forest with a large number of endangered species and a field of nothing but grass and sheep
>deforestation and creation of wasteland plainly isn't happening
Sure it is. Nearly 30% of the Amazon is degraded or deforested, 50% of Borneo’s rainforest is gone, Madagascar has lost 80%. If you chop down a forest and replace it with palm oil plantations then it doesn’t matter what the leaf area of those palms is, that’s still an ecological wasteland