>>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.

>>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

>>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

>>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

>>16298384
>Then why does it create so much wasteland?
It doesn't. We don't have a free market. Are you stupid, or just being disingenuous?

>>16298384
>Ahaha
Frankly you're in a cult which teaches you that humans are evil and must live as miserably as possible for their sins against the environment.
I think this is an extension of marxist/leftist/socialist ideology; the man himself was an awful person trapped by his own sin.

>>16299736
Sure it does, you would have to be retarded to think no regulations brings out the best in people

>>16299739
>accuses people of socialism
>outlook on nature is like a member of the Chinese communist party
You’re fooling no one

>>16299989
>>16299999
Read my prior posts.

>>16295902
>Except that doesn’t necessarily translate to land ownership
Well it does I'm afraid. Everything in nature is either property or unclaimed.
>as is the case with those people
Appealing to a primitive moral system as proof that private property doesn't exist isn't a good argument: As I've said primitive cultures treated murder differently to today.

>Do they murder each other?
I'm trying to give an example of how primitive morality differs from modern legal code. If a warrior of tribe A kills member of rival tribe B, he's crowned as a champion, as per the primitive morality. That same action is treated as murder in the modern system.

Are you genuinely not capable of intuiting when I'm giving an example to explain, or are you obfuscating? This is the sort of thing that leads me to believe this evil or stupid thing.

>Even if they did nobody is going to punish them in the jungle regardless of legality so it makes no difference
Fuck off with this idiocy. Already told you that legality matters to good people.

>What you’ve explained is incorrect. Government inaction makes the problem
Again stating things without any attempt at explaining why I'm wrong.

>And I’ve already told you that gun laws in Brazil really aren’t as strict as you seem to think
Irrelevant, they are strict enough. Again already told you why.
1/2

>>16295902
2/2
>Seeing as they own it, yes they can
They literally don't: They can't sell the fucking thing, nobody can buy it from them.

>Respecting their way of life and ensuring they can continue to live the way they please is not treating them as pets you moron
It absolutely is. You're keeping them in a human zoo; mimicking their "natural habitat" and keeping outsiders from interacting with them.

>Maybe in a made up dystopia, but this isn’t a thing in the real world
It's reality. The unfortunate consequence of might making right. That's why the people of the world need guns; democratize might, increase freedom.
Are you stupid, so can’t intuit this? Or evil?

>>16295904
>Yes, and they’re all retarded.
Again stating things without any attempt at explaining why I'm wrong. That's n+1 times you've done that now.

>It’s stupid to crack down on illegal logging on land they don’t own?
More evidence you don't read or think before you post. I've already told you I support property rights. If the government defended property rights, such logging would be reduced without any laws regulating logging itself. READ, THINK.

>I’m reading it, and it’s nonsensical
Again stating things without any attempt at explaining why I'm wrong. That's n+1 times you've done that now.

>Sure they can. There are no cops in the jungle and nobody is going to care.
>blind eye to people clear cutting in excess of legal limits
Twice more you state the same fallacy. Good people don't want to break the law, regardless if it's enforced.

>Pot, kettle
Nope, you're the only one not reading the opponent's posts, let alone thinking about the argument or explaining why it's wrong.

>That’s funny, then why does it happen so often?
Already explained several times: Government interference distorts market forces. Read, think.

>>16295907
>I’m saying a free market is not the solution
Again stating things without any attempt at explaining why I'm wrong. That's n+1 times you've done that now.

>No shit there’s regulations. By that definition free markets don’t exist anywhere in regards to agriculture.
Correct.
>Having regulations does not equate to not being a free market.
False. A free market is specifically devoid of state regulations. Very simple sweetheart.
>To suggest otherwise is fucking retarded.
Ok, explain the titre of regulations which sours a free market into something else. Where is the line drawn? Is it the number of regulations, or the type?

>You’ve attempted to do so, but the best you’ve come up with are hypotheticals and falsehoods
Again stating things without any attempt at explaining why I'm wrong. That's n+1 times you've done that now.
Explain the flaw(s) in my hypotheticals, then I can either accept that I am wrong or clarify a misunderstanding.

>the infallible logic that reducing protections will reduce deforestation.
That's n+1 times you've done that now.
>before the introduction of any sort of conservation laws is why places like the UK are almost entirely devoid of their previous wild spaces
Yes, and England is a green and pleasant land, just as environmentalists predic- OH.
I think that's the third time you've walked into a rake.
>Those explanations are complete drivel though.
n+1.

>result in the area being useless for agriculture and depriving the people living there of a stable livelihood
The only way that could happen is if they're doing it to themselves. I've explained how several times prior.
Self harm is not my problem.
>you’re in no position to talk about violating other’s rights
I've already explained the "rich man" analogy twice now. Not doing it again. Read my posts. Think about the arguments. Explain why they're wrong.

>>16295918
>No? Who else would there be to ask about indigenous land other than the indigenous people living on it.
If I make a law banning the hunting of buffalo on someone's land neighboring the ongobongo tribe's reservation, under the guise of "protecting indigenous lifestyle", I am infringing that person's rights and am doing so in absence of their consent.
>No regulations encourage worse behaviour, because now there’s nothing stopping those bad people
False. I've explained that market pressures exist which disincentivize bad behavior.
>Reduced regulations nearly doubled deforestation
I've already explained that merely reducing (attenuate) regulations won't yield the benefits of a unregulated market, literally in the post you're replying to.

It's really ticking me off that you refuse to read or think about anything I've said. Everything in this post has already been addressed by me in previous fucking posts. Read my posts, ruminate, then if you believe theirs something I've overlooked with my theory; dissect it and point out the flaw so I can either accept that I am wrong or clarify a misunderstanding.

TLDR: Just read my fucking posts, and address the arguments if you still disagree.

>>16300283
>>16300286
>>16300288
>>16300290
>>16300291
>>16300293
Your arguments have been addressed you colossal fag.
>they don’t own the land
Yes they do, it is legally theirs. Your obsession with it having to be private property is retarded, whether or not it is private property or not does not change the legality of logging on that land
>You're keeping them in a human zoo; mimicking their "natural habitat" and keeping outsiders from interacting with them
It’s not mimicking anything since the land they live on is their original home. Nobody is prevented from interacting with them either, it’s not illegal to go there and people do go there. Stopping logging on their land isn’t preventing outside interaction
>they need guns
It’s not illegal for them to have guns, but that isn’t going to stop illegal loggers from pushing them out with more guns and the experience of having done so plenty of times before
>government involvement is the root of the issue
Then why was unchecked exploitation of the land occurring before there was any government involvement? Large scale deforestation began occurring in the 1960s BEFORE there were any legal protections for the Amazon
>Explain the flaw(s) in my hypotheticals, then I can either accept that I am wrong or clarify a misunderstanding
The flaws in your hypotheticals have been explained. They are non equivalent to the scenarios being discussed, like when you tried to compare a rich man simply ignoring a poor man resulting in the unintentional death of the poor man to deliberate, active and illegal deforestation
>Yes, and England is a green and pleasant land, just as environmentalists predic- OH. I think that's the third time you've walked into a rake.
Except it isn’t. 5% of England's temperate rainforest remains, to pretend it never had an issue with deforestation is a lie

>>16300283
>>16300286
>>16300288
>>16300290
>>16300291
>>16300293
>The only way that could happen is if they're doing it to themselves
Or if someone is trespassing onto your land and deforesting it
>Self harm is not my problem.
This is what I meant about you being incapable of seeing something as an issue unless it impacts you directly and is right in front of your face
>If I make a law banning the hunting of buffalo on someone's land neighboring the ongobongo tribe's reservation, under the guise of "protecting indigenous lifestyle", I am infringing that person's rights and am doing so in absence of their consent.
But we’re not talking about banning anything on someone else’s land. Logging is only banned on the protected lands, it’s not banned on farmer Joe’s land the next plot over. Again this is what I was referring to when I said your hypotheticals aren’t equivalent
>I've explained that market pressures exist which disincentivize bad behavior.
And yet this never actually seems to work
>I've already explained that merely reducing (attenuate) regulations won't yield the benefits of an unregulated market, literally in the post you're replying to.
You must be unbelievably retarded if you think removing protections entirely will fix the issue when reducing them doesn’t make any positive change but rather an overwhelming negative one
>It's really ticking me off that you refuse to read or think about anything I've said
I would say the same to you. I address what you say and then you bitch and moan and pretend nobody is listening to you. Spare us the sobbing you insufferable cunt

>>16300477
>Or if someone is trespassing onto your land and deforesting it
Read my posts. Do not post until you have read my posts, because I have answered this question many times.
>incapable of seeing something as an issue
It's not an issue that I have a duty to solve. If you dissagree, then by principle you litterally do not have the right to breathe: You use O2, excrete CO2, and harbor diseases; All of which can and do minutely impact everyone else's lives.

The only principled way to solve this problem is to accept that people don't intend harm by it and move on.

>But we’re not talking about banning anything on someone else’s land.
Yes we are moron. Don't you dare gaslight me. We've a myriad of regulations which do exactly that. You are scum.

>And yet this never actually seems to work
We don't live in a free market. I've told you countless times. THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERES IN THE MARKET. This results in MARKET PRESSURES BECOMING DISTORTED.
> reducing them doesn’t make any
Read my posts statist scum.
>I would say the same to you.
You never even attempt to read my fucking posts, let alone construct a counter argument which details which parts of mine I've got wrong. Instead I've made countless repetitions answering the same dull quips from you.

>>16300507
>because I have answered this question many times
That’s not a question
>It's not an issue that I have a duty to solve
Nobody asked you to. You missed the point entirely
>Yes we are moron. Don't you dare gaslight me. We've a myriad of regulations which do exactly that
None of which are relevant to the destruction of the Amazon
>don't live in a free market. I've told you countless times
And I’ve told you countless times it makes no difference. Under free markets in the past before those regulations existed widespread deforestation was commonplace, so saying it’s the solution is bullshit. As for today, claiming that a free market would fix the issue because of the market pressures is just speculation based on no facts and in direct contradiction to past proof. You have no proof that a free market with no regulation actually prevents overexploitation because it never does whether it’s deforestation, hunting, fishing, etc. There are plenty of examples that show that like the tuna in the OP which only recovered as a result of multiple countries agreeing on limits
>You never even attempt to read my fucking posts, let alone construct a counter argument which details which parts of mine I've got wrong
Yes I have. I just laid out those counter arguments plainly and simply in my last two posts. You are the one bitching about your posts not being read rather than actually presenting anything of substance

Why do tunas bring out maximum autismo in this board?

>>16300959
It’s the japanese

>>16300470
Sorry I didn't see this post earlier. Responding now.
>It’s not mimicking anything since the land they live on is their original home.
It literally is. The government preserves their natural habitat like they would an animal. A safari park or nature reserve would be a more accurate comparison.
> Nobody is prevented from interacting with them either
Yes we are. You can't purchase a tribesman's share of the reservation. You can't enter a contract with him to make a joint venture of a timber factory.
>Stopping logging on their land isn’t preventing outside interaction
It literally is. The interactions that you and the tribesman can do are literally regulated by the government in a literal manner literally. Leftists play this game a lot. "Oh, but we made murdering jews not murder now lol!" said the nazis.
>t’s not illegal for them to have guns
It's illegal in the same way it's as such for an Englishman to own guns. We've been over this before. Shove this non-argument up your arse.
>that isn’t going to stop illegal loggers from pushing them out with more guns
Yes it would. Already explained why, I'll even show you one of the times I did >>16294752:
>If tribes are armed, even with with something as poor as a FP-45 Liberators...

>and the experience of having done so
I think tribesmen who've been shooting bows and arrows from the age of 5 will get how to use guns aptly enough.
I also doubt some 3rd world criminal logger is going to have access to particularly high caliber mercenaries; there's better paying jobs.
1/2

>>16298605
>I own this planet and you have to do as I say
narcissistic personality disorder

>>16300470
>Large scale deforestation began occurring
I don't see why this is a problem. Trees and forests will still exist in places the free market "decides". I haven't been arguing that zero deforestation will occur in a free market. What will not happen in a free market is the world being taken over by an ever expanding zone of wasteland as you and environmentalists imply.
You've already correctly pointed out that much of the UK is deforested, yet it's one of the best environments on earth for human life. I think you've really got hung up on this idea that cutting down trees=evil.
>The flaws in your hypotheticals have been explained.
Where? Duplicate these "explanations" as I can't recall many of them.
>like when you tried to compare a rich man ... to deliberate, active and illegal deforestation
Which I amended to be a better analogy. Regardless this statement shows you don't understand: You're bringing up this legality nonsense. I've already addressed that appeals to law are not arguments.
So all that remains of your argument is that that the "rich man" analogy does not compare to the deforestation causing an incidental reduction in life quality. Well I hope you can now see that the analogy matches very well:
The rich man does not intend to cause harm to the beggar, nor care for his health.
The logger does not intend to cause harm to the neighboring man's land, nor care for it's quality.

Have I clarified this for you? If not please explain why.

>Except it isn’t.
Eh? I don't get what your retorting here. Are you insinuating that the UK is a barren wasteland uninhabitable by humans due to the unregulated deforestation that happened 4,000 years ago?
>5% of England's temperate rainforest remains
I fail to see the relevance to my arguments, please explain the relevance as you see it.
>to pretend it never had an issue with deforestation is a lie
But there's clearly no issue with deforestation in the UK.
Once again I think you're hung up on deforestation=evil.

>>16300946
>That’s not a question
Point, statement, whatever. I've already addressed it. Disagree? Explain why.
>Nobody asked you to.
Oh, so the government won't take any action against me then? Great! Stop being a disingenuous statist.
>None of which are relevant to the destruction of the Amazon
You're insinuating that despite laws existing which regulate what you can do on your own land in the amazon, they don't count because they are lightly enforced.
Stop being a disingenuous statist. Already addressed this.
>And I’ve told you countless times it makes no difference.
Not once have you explained.
>deforestation was commonplace
Which has not converted the planet into a barren wasteland devoid of life. In fact it hasn't often resulted in the total annihilation of forests. Thus you lose that argument on two counts instantly by your own evidence.
>so saying it’s the solution is bullshit.
Not once have you explained why. Small minded statist cuck. Stupid or evil?
>You have no proof that a free market with no regulation actually prevents overexploitation because it never does whether it’s deforestation, hunting, fishing, etc.
The vast bulk of people don't destroy the property they own. On a market scale the level of property destruction will remain at a tolerable level. Please concoct a situation where a person would destroy their own property.
>Yes I have. I just laid out those counter arguments plainly and simply in my last two posts.
Please highlight your counter arguments from >>16300477 I haven't found much of substance. I've only just replied to >>16300470, in which I think the points you've raised stem from misunderstandings.

>>16301044
>The government preserves their natural habitat like they would an animal. A safari park or nature reserve would be a more accurate comparison.
They seem perfectly happy with that arrangement given how hard they were fighting in court to have it that way. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to make protecting traditional people look like a negative
> Yes we are. You can't purchase a tribesman's share of the reservation. You can't enter a contract with him to make a joint venture of a timber factory.
>we
Logger confirmed, opinion discarded
Are those the only two ways it’s possible to interact with someone? If you asked them they’d probably tell you to fuck off
>The interactions that you and the tribesman can do are literally regulated by the government in a literal manner literally
That’s not preventing them from interacting with the outside world, that’s preventing illegal activity. You’re acting like if they can’t have a timber company come and cut the place down then that must mean they’re cut off from the outside world
>I also doubt some 3rd world criminal logger is going to have access to particularly high caliber mercenaries; there's better paying jobs
They’re armed to the fucking teeth you moron

>>16301059
>I don't see why this is a problem
And that’s the problem. You act like land not being privately owned by native peoples is the end of the fucking world but clear cutting is no biggie
>Duplicate these "explanations" as I can't recall many of them
The rich man and poor man is a non equivalent scenario, market pressures self regulating deforestation never happens, any others I missed?
>Which I amended to be a better analogy.
The amendment wasn’t any better. Deforestation isn’t incidental, it is deliberate. Your comparison to the rich man was way off from the start. The logger does intend to cause harm to the land, that’s his fucking job. If they weren’t intending to cause harm then they wouldn’t go an murder people to make way
>I fail to see the relevance to my arguments, please explain the relevance as you see it
You fail to see a lot of things it seems. England is not a green paradise as you seem to think, as is evident by the fact it’s devoid of so much life
>But there's clearly no issue with deforestation in the UK. Once again I think you're hung up on deforestation=evil.
And this is what I meant by your inability to grasp a problem that isn’t being directly shoved up your arse to get your attention

>>16301061
>Stop being a disingenuous statist
Stop being an insufferable liar who builds strawmen. Nobody said you had to fix the issue
>You're insinuating that despite laws existing which regulate what you can do on your own land in the amazon, they don't count because they are lightly enforced.
You mean the laws that were put in place to prevent the rampant deforestation happening when there was no regulation? I thought you said no regulation would control the issue
>Not once have you explained.
Yes I have, many times. I literally just explained it in the sentence following
>Which has not converted the planet into a barren wasteland devoid of life
So it only counts if it encompasses the entire planet? Don’t move the goalposts
>In fact it hasn't often resulted in the total annihilation of forests
Except in Brazil’s Atlantic forest, Australia’s big scrub, etc, etc
>Not once have you explained why
I have. As I said, all you’re doing is moaning about how I won’t address your arguments when I have several times. Just because I disagree with you and didn’t instantly flop to agree with your dogshit arguments doesn’t mean I didn’t read them or didn’t address them. As before, there are plenty of examples of unregulated exploitation showing no signs of self regulating under market pressure even without government involvement
>Please concoct a situation where a person would destroy their own property.
You mean like when lead miners in Wales created a polluted mess while they were mining only to leave it behind for someone else to clean up? Or when loggers in Madagascar cut down an enormous amount of monsoon forest leaving it to become an eroded dusty wasteland? You seem to be mistaken that because they own the land they must take care of it, when in reality they just destroy it and move on somewhere else

>>16289946
>B-B-But why is it bad tho?
If you can’t recognise the inherent importance of something then no amount of explanation will make you understand. That’s your own fault for being a subhuman bootlicker. Luckily most real people are able to look at it and recognise why destruction is bad
>>16298037
>It's literally Satan convincing Adam and Eve that the Garden of Eden wasn't that great.
Perfect comparison
>>16299999
Digits confirm

File: 57299.jpg (35 KB, 500x500)

35 KB JPG

I didn't realise the Once-ler browsed /sci/

Do we need a Ecology General Thread? I think we do, it sure is still ignorant around here.
Maybe even an Ecology and Economics General thread.

>>16288170
>What I don't want to is for fish population to be lower than their natural levels
Buy your fish from people who can prove they're fishing in the manner and to the degree which you approve. This creates a market niche for fishing in the manner and degree which approve. If you preferences are common in the wider population, this practice will be common in the market.

File: skull.jpg (38 KB, 625x417)

38 KB JPG

>>16301227
>They seem perfectly happy with that arrangement
>niggers enjoy being subservient
Perhaps so, but you're still treating them like you would animals on a nature reserve.
>serious mental gymnastics to make protecting traditional people look like a negative
You're treating them as pets. Coddling them as if they're not adult humans.
Under a system of property rights they're perfectly able to continue doing what they want on their own land. Your only retort against property rights for natives is the risk of criminals attacking them; which already occurs now, and would be no more or less widespread in under a government which treats native's as normal citizens with property rights like any other.

>>16301227
>Are those the only two ways it’s possible to interact with someone?
Are you stupid? Can't you tell I'm giving an example?
This is what I keep saying, is it stupidity or are you evil and just obfuscating?

>>16301227
>That’s not preventing them from interacting with the outside world
It's regulating it, so I am right.
>that’s preventing illegal activity
Your point?
>You’re acting like if they can’t have a timber company come and cut the place down then that must mean they’re cut off from the outside world
Government regulations do cut them off from much of industrial society: They can only do a limited number of things on a native reservation. I strongly believe this limits their economic mobility. Keeping them as pets.
>They’re armed to the fucking teeth you moron
With some AK47s. Legalize guns and the ongobongo tribe can have the same. Regardless, just having pistols would pose a vastly greater threat than having what they do now.
You worship the state and believe it's on your side.

>>16301235
>You act like land not being privately owned by native peoples is the end of the fucking world
No I don't. My position is that native people not having property rights like everyone else leads to a reduction and capping in their quality of life. The types of business they can conduct with the outside world is limited to selling jungle trinkets.
>And that’s the problem ... clear cutting is no biggie
You're forgetting to explain why I'm wrong. Why is cutting down forests so bad, yet where this has occurred historically, human habitation has continued merrily?

>The rich man and poor man is a non equivalent scenario, market pressures self regulating deforestation never happens
The rich man scenario was never used as an explanation of market pressures regulating X. Instead it explained why a polluting neighbor is not in the moral wrong when his actions incidentally cause a reduction in life quality to surrounding land owners. I clarified this in >>16301059:
>I hope you can now see that the analogy matches very well...

>Deforestation isn’t incidental, it is deliberate.
On the logger's own land, obviously.
>The logger does intend to cause harm to the land, that’s his fucking job.
On the logger's own land, obviously.
>If they weren’t intending to cause harm then they wouldn’t go an murder people to make way
This isn't anything to do with free markets or property rights. This is criminals doing criminal things like murder trespassing and theft. Why are you giving this argument to me when I've already addressed this countless times:
Theft is wrong. If you've a government, arrest them. If you've guns, shoot them.
Trespassing is wrong. If you've a government, arrest them. If you've guns, shoot them.
Murder is wrong. If you've a government, arrest them. If you've guns, shoot them.
Seriously why are you raising this argument over and over when I've agreed that criminals are bad and not relevant to my arguments?

>>16301235
>England is not a green paradise as you seem to think, as is evident by the fact it’s devoid of so much life
Perhaps in recent years due to mass migration, even then the country is perfectly habitable for humans, which is vitally important in thwarting the environmentalist dogma that if environmentalism isn't religiously followed, human life will end. The vast overwhelming bulk of time from 4000 years ago to now, the place has been a very nice place.
>it’s devoid of so much life
Genuinely don't understand what you mean by this. Please explain.
>And this is what I meant by your inability to grasp a problem that isn’t being directly shoved up your arse to get your attention
Please explain. You're doing the thing you do so frequently: Say I'm so wrong, but never explain in what way.

>>16301249
>Stop being an insufferable liar who builds strawmen
I'm not.
>Nobody said you had to fix the issue
Yes you have: The government will force me to stop doing X with my land because it causes Y problem. Do you understand that government regulations use violence to control other people's behavior? I really don't understand what you can't get by this.
E.g. If I cut down trees on my land, which reduces the nesting places of some wild birds, which normally fly onto your property, which you like to watch on a morning, the number of birds you can watch declines. This causes a reduction in life quality for you. At this point you go to the government and demand I be stopped from cutting down trees on my land: I cannot do with my property as I please, thus my rights are infringed by the state on your behalf.

Do you understand where I'm coming from at all?

>I thought you said no regulation would control the issue
Market forces in a free market will prevent deforestation becoming a disaster. A farmer wants to make money for his lifetime, so will not destroy his own land unless there's some sort of incentive to do so. A free market won't have enough of such incentives.

>Yes I have, many times. I literally just explained it in the sentence following
We're talking past each other. My position is that a free market will stop some disastrous level of deforestation occurring (assuming any level of deforestation can be disastrous). You position is that a free market will not prevent deforestation.
I agree that deforestation will not be made zero under a free market. But the deforestation that will occur under a free market will not bring about disaster.
1/2

>>16301249
>So it only counts if it encompasses the entire planet?
It only counts if the level of habitat change causes some particularly detrimental situation such that there's a widespread market demand for either that habitat change to stop, or for something to be innovated which pulls up the slack of the role that original habitat filled.
E.g as I said all the way back in >>16294807:
>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.
The market may "decide" to stop draining swampland, or it may decide to just build a dam. My goalposts haven't been moved.
>Except in Brazil’s Atlantic forest, Australia’s big scrub
Which is a mixture of governments distorting market incentives, and the market not really needing all that forest or scrubland.
Once again I think you're stuck in this way thinking that causes you to believe deforestation is inherently evil. If this is so, please explain why you think it is inherently evil.

>As before, there are plenty of examples of unregulated exploitation showing no signs of self regulating
The markets are distorted by government interference, and we probably don't need all that jungle. I suppose we could take a look at the UK to get an idea of how much forests we need to have a human civilization of medieval complexity. We can see not much is needed, but still some remains. Presumably if the brazlians were allowed to live under a freer market they'd leave a similar ratio of forested area to the UK.

The point is that this unregulated deforestation would not bring about disaster, as environmentalists constantly imply or openly state.

>>16301249
>lead miners in Wales created a polluted mess while they were mining only to leave it behind for someone else to clean up?
Why is it a problem that some areas of land are turned into spoil heaps? My position is that under a free market, the entire world will not be converted into a giant spoil heap, because market forces will exist to stop that occurring, because people need things like farmland, houses, and land for other uses.
>Madagascar cut down an enormous amount of monsoon forest leaving it to become an eroded dusty wasteland
Nobody was using it prior, so what's been lost? My prior arguments also apply.
>You seem to be mistaken that because they own the land they must take care of it, when in reality they just destroy it and move on somewhere else
The majority of people won't do that. People who spec out in resource extraction will, but the people who follow them, perhaps farmers, will act sustainably. This assumes that anyone needs to use this deforested land.

>>16301404
>If you can’t recognise the inherent importance
Try explaining nonetheless.
Otherwise you sound exactly like a cult leader: "If you can't hear the gods voices you're just a disbelieving sinner and you need to try harder."
>That’s your own fault for being a subhuman bootlicker.
Name calling and ad hominem, not an argument.

>>16301227
>we
If it wasn't obvious, I meant "we" to refer to everyone not part of the indigenous tribe on the reservation, wider society.

>>16301058
>narcissistic personality disorder
>*procedes to post massive self indulgent walls of text and seems to genuinely expect that other people will read them*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity
why are environmentalists always like this?

>>16301861
>Try explaining nonetheless
No I won’t. This thread makes it clear you can’t have information explained to you
>Name calling and ad hominem, not an argument.
No shit
>>16301948
They're calling the environmentalist narcissistic you lobotomite. Thanks for proving you can’t read

>>16301798
>>16301800
>>16301809
>>16301824
>>16301830
>>16301836
>>16301848
>>16301857
>>16301865
>>16301948
It’s shocking you can accuse someone of posting text walls after all this. Most of what you’ve just said has been answered previously, contrary to what you keep saying. It’s abundantly clear you just refuse to realise the stupidity of thinking a free market is the silver bullet

>>16293501
holy shit can you even do math

1500% increase over 15 years is 16x as many tuna over 15 years

the 15th root of 16 is 1.203 so the tuna population increases 20.3% per year

ignoring natural causes of death it doesn't make sense to raise fishing by 50% per year unless you're a brainlet

>>16303350
You never even thought about how much more 50% is. It's 50% more than... what? How much fishing will be happening in total if it's raised 50%? How much do they currently fish? You skipped some big steps jumping to your conclusion there.

>>16302913
Not me.

>>16302913
>Most of what you’ve just said has been answered previously
No, it's only been countermanded, never explained.
>t’s abundantly clear you just refuse to realise the stupidity of thinking a free market is the silver bullet
My opponent has not bothered to explain why I am wrong, only state that I am. If he just says "you're wrong" it's no more useful than me saying the same, we get nowhere.

>>16302481
>This thread makes it clear you can’t have information explained to you
You literally refuse to explain the matter.
>No shit
I can only assume you know you've lost the argument because you refuse to explain why I'm wrong, and call me names to hide it. You've been calling me names and refusing (or not understanding that you must) explain why I'm wrong from the start.

>>16293501
>Didn't that already happen and essentially kill off Rhino poaching?
Clearly not. Cattle farmers don't make cattle go extinct shockingly enough.
At best perhaps poachers (criminal trespassing thieves, who can be stopped by laws against trespassing and stealing) invaded "rhino farms" to steal their horns.

>>16303400
>My opponent has not bothered to explain why I am wrong, only state that I am. If he just says "you're wrong"
Yes I have, several times. As I said before you disagreeing with me does not mean I didn’t read or address what you said, I did so in painful detail. We don’t get anywhere because you just keep bitching about not having your arguments addressed while ignoring what I say. Market pressures clearly don’t self regulate without government involvement because they didn’t self regulate most of these issues before government involvement
>>16303402
Not me

>>16303878
>Yes I have, several times.
You have not. If you beleive you have: Quote yourself as I have when you give me an argument I've already refuted.
>I did so in painful detail.
Where? Quote.
>We don’t get anywhere because you just keep bitching
Wrong. We get nowhere because you do not adress my arguments or explain why they're wrong. E.g. you recently dissagreed with the rich man analogy claiming it's not comparable. I identified why you felt it was not comparable: you object to people invading somebody's land and logging on it.
I then addressed this grievance by agreeing this is not comparable to the rich man argument, but also pointing out that said grievance isn't relevant to my arguments against environmental regulations and rallying for property rights in their place.
You haven't explained why you still don't agree that my rich man analogy is comparable to logging which occurs on the logger's property, but incidentally upsets other people such as you.

>Market pressures clearly don’t self regulate without government involvement
How on earth can you claim this when all markets are REGULATED by government. There is markets you list are not devoid of government.

>most of these issues before government involvement
Vital flaw in your argumentation: You're assuming that deforestation is a problem (you've constantly restated you think deforestation is universally evil, without any explanation beyond claiming criminals trespass other people's land and cut down other people's property; both are not show that deforestation is evil, only that theft and trespassing is), when it is demonstratbly clear that deforestation (carried out on your own land which you own) is perfectly healthy: Most of Europe is deforested and a perfectly well place to live.

I've never been in disagreement that a free market would prevent ANY deforestation occurring.
Instead I've tried to explain to you that a free market will prevent an unhealthy degree of deforestation.

>>16303878
Since I've run out space as always, I reiterate: I desperately need you to explain to me why deforestation alone is evil. Not deforestation which occurs as part of another crime, such as stealing someone's land or cutting the trees down while they aren't looking.

>>16304705
>We get nowhere because you do not adress my arguments or explain why they're wrong
We get nowhere because you think this despite being told what’s wrong. For example -
>How on earth can you claim this when all markets are REGULATED by government.
- as said before that we can see what happened with unregulated deforestation before there was any government involvement, before legal restrictions were created there was no self regulation of deforestation in the first place. If there were then those restrictions would not exist. The big scrub in eastern Australia was almost entirely deforested during the 1800s, long before there was any government regulation on how much land could be cleared. Nowadays it’s one of the most bushfire prone areas in the world since cleared land is more susceptible to fire than wet rainforest
>when it is demonstratbly clear that deforestation (carried out on your own land which you own) is perfectly healthy
Lol
>Most of Europe is deforested and a perfectly well place to live.
someone should tell that to Portugal’s desertification issue
>Instead I've tried to explain to you that a free market will prevent an unhealthy degree of deforestation
And I’ve explained to you that this is false, through multiple examples. Your inability to grasp that is your own fault
>>16304709
>I desperately need you to explain to me why deforestation alone is evil. Not deforestation which occurs as part of another crime, such as stealing someone's land or cutting the trees down while they aren't looking.
As said before, it results in degradation of land that extends beyond the boundaries of where legal deforestation occurs. This impacts land uses and communities in other areas. It causes a loss of biodiversity, allowing proliferation of pests and ecosystem functions necessary for the health of industry like agriculture. It destroys the livelihoods of indigenous communities.

>>16305327
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

>>16306619
no point trying to get it through, he's either too stupid to understand, or knows perfectly what he's doing and is just evil. All environmentalists/statists/leftists are the same.

>>16306619
It’s happening. See >>16298424

>>16306895
And >>16298605

>>16306895
>>16306898
Wasteland is not being created as nobody has a use for that forest other than the wood it contains.
A rainforest serves little value. A cut down rainforest yields wood. Eventually the cut down land may be used for something else.

In the mean time, you will have to take your narcissistic savior complex up your ass and stop using environmentalism as an excuse to violate other people's rights. There's no tyranny more oppressive than one made by you cunts.

>>16307808
>deforestation isn’t happening
>yes it is, read the paper you took the figure from
>well ackshually that doesn’t count because I don’t think anybody has a use for rainforest so it may as well be cut down anyways
You’re retarded

Good news about the tuna, its hilarious to see all the environmentalists get so angry whenever they see good news about the environment. Its almost as if they lividly hate the natural world.

File: cringg.jpg (255 KB, 1079x1360)

255 KB JPG

>>16309315

>>16307808
>A cut down rainforest yields wood
and it also grows back extremely fast. the enviro idiots are so ignorant of reality that they act like cutting down a tree means nothing will ever grow in that location again.

>>16311858
>Rip every species that depends on hollows and old growth trees

>>16306895
Stop using violence to get your way.
>>16306619

>>16307859
>deforestation isn’t happening
Never said that.
>well ackshually that doesn’t count because I don’t think anybody has a use for rainforest so it may as well be cut down anyways
Correct. Explain why you disagree. What value does a rain forest yield which we can't cut down?

>>16310357
extremely cringe election tourist image

This thread reads like a captain planet villain

>>16311910
Again with this falacy.
>MUH BIODIVERSITY!!!!!!
These species aren't vital for human civilization. Their loss isn't a problem.

I don't wish for them to go extinct, but it's not my problem. Feel free to dedicate YOUR time and money to keeping them as pets.
You campaigning for the use of state violence to preserve these critters marks you as evil scum worthy of death.

>>16312066
captain planet was propaganda aimed at children used to normalize increasing the size of the state
>MUH BIODIVERSITY!!!!!
see >>16312067

>>16312064
>What value does a rain forest yield which we can't cut down?
Ecological dominoes
Carbon storage
Oxygen production
Undiscovered medicines
Aesthetics

You also have no moral right to make species extinct.

>>16312069
>captain planet was propaganda aimed at children used to normalize increasing the size of the state
This thread is propaganda used to normalise increasing the size of the Russian state
Kill yourself in Ukraine, vatnigger

>>16312064
I’ll add to what >>16312071 said with:
>water cycling
>tourism
>agricultural pest/disease resistance
>people fucking live there

>>16312067
>These species aren't vital for human civilization. Their loss isn't a problem.
>shift shift shift the goalposts
Not the point. You were acting like cutting it down is of no consequence since it’ll just regrow, which is obviously not true given all the examples you can see today.

>>16312095
Pretend you were asking the question, do I agree with what you are currently doing, and if it's not 'yes 100% I love it', I broke a promise.

>>16312096
>literal air

>>16312098
>literal air

^^^

It's what you posted.

>>16312100
Pot, kettle

>>16312098
Think about this deeply

TimeCube.

Don't think about the answer for more than a touch and pretend you don't know

Think there are a dozen other articles and a whole bunch of other stuff I'm being very very unkind here

Then just play about and shut your mouth

>>16312102
Did arguing for two weeks in this thread break something?

>>16285989
Refreshing good news.

>>16312095
>shift shift shift the goalposts
Not at fucking all mate. I've never ever moved the goalposts at all. This debate has always been about getting idiots like you to understand that there is no issue with environmental "damage". Right here >>16290831:
>Such as what?
>We do not have any such [ecosystems which we depend on, which our economies depend on] ecosystems under threat.
Right at the begining I set out with my position that there is no ecosystem which we depend on for human survival and is under threat by human activity exists. Right at the fucking beginning, no goalposts moved ever.
You government cocksucking environmentalists demand we become slaves in order to stop ecosystem damage; the justification is always that if we don't stop biodiversity loss, we all die.

People posting memes like >>16306619 draw attention to the fact you're a narcissistic statist who wants to control other people and use environmentalism as a justification to do it. Communists use class, gender, race etc as justifications. You're all the same scum, you're just using a particular flavor of excuse to carry out your government run desires.

If you cared about some fancy plant or animal, I've given you an answer right from the get go >>16290831:
> why not get a separate savings account i.e buy your own land with which to keep your own biodiversity(tm) on?
You've perfectly viable options available to you that DON'T require violence and controlling other people. But that's the real issue: You don't actually care about the environment, it's an excuse to control other people, that's what you're really here for. So giving you a solution that doesn't need the government will NEVER work for you.

File: buzz.jpg (407 KB, 1932x715)

407 KB JPG

>>16312429
None of those are me faggot. Try again

>>16312765
>None of those are me
I didn't say they were you utter moron. Read my post. The first quote of >>16290831 was my very early post in this thread. This post is evidence that I've not moved the goalposts, refuting that accusation you made.
The second quote of >>16306619 is another poster who responded to an environmentalist, this poster was making fun of the environmentalist claiming they're a narcissist. I highlighted this second post because it shows other people are picking up on the fact that environmentalists all demand that the government controls people on their behalf; fulfill their narcissistic fantasies.
The third quote is again my very early post in the thread, showing that I've given environmentalists the wide open option to solve their problems (which are actually just excuses to justify government controlling others) without the use of government violence.

It's like you've not read my post at all, just like the other environmentalist I've been talking to.

You and the other guy are just adding to the evidence that ALL envrionmentalists are just evil or stupid socialists/statists/fascists who want to control other people but use a justification to do it.

>>16285989
This sounds like horribly inaccurate data. I know of more than 3 attempts to ranch and farm bluefin tuna that have failed to bring the fry to viable populations. How could they outbreed farmed animals out in the wild where everything is hunting them?

>>16314489
The “everything is fine, nothing is wrong” crowd is equally as bad as the “we’re all gonna die in 5 more years” crowd. There’s microplastics in our blood, things are not fine

>>16314495
Wrong. The fact we have such large quantities of microplastics in us, yet we're alive and well, proves they're not a concern.

Suppose they are a concern, are you still using plastics? If so, why do you want daddy government to take away your ability to use them? Are you a cuc- of course you are.

>>16289929
Oceanic fisheries are commons, anon.

>>16314973
>they're not a concern
And I suppose you want us to eat ze bugs and live in the pods too? Fuck off rat

>>16285989
A Japanese article? The people who love seafood and killing dolphins are telling you over-fishing isn’t a problem?

>”one more sushi roll bro. I swear, the fish are great bro. We’ll always have fish bro I swear. Just one more roll”

Just kill your self and save us from your naivety

>>16315811
No, I just want environmentalists to fuck off and keep to their own pigsty. I hate the government interfering with people's property. Environmentalism is literally just an excuse to interfere with people's stuff.

fags

>>16317344
>>16316604
>>16315912
Take your meds.

>>16316604
They interfere because people like you clearly can’t be trusted to take care of that land

>>16317676
>YOU’RE ALL NARCISSISTS BECAUSE YOU JUST ARE OK
stop trying to ascribe traits that aren’t there to people who disagree with you

>>16319010
Thanks for the totally unbiased diagnosis Mr /sci/cologist. Nobody is pretending they’re in charge of the planet

>>16317923
Environmentalists literally demand they control what you do on your own land (like many other breeds of statist). That's blatantly narcissistic behavior.

>>16319159
>Nobody is pretending they’re in charge of the planet
What a lie. Environmentalists demand laws for what I may do to my property: They pretend they're in charge of my land. Are you thick?

>>16319281
>>16319286
The government decides what laws apply to your land. Even if environmentalists were the ones doing it, that’s not narcissism and nobody in this thread is telling you what to do with your land

>>16288170
Nobody gives a shit what you want

>>16319472
Pretty sure a fair few people care about that, environmentalist or not

>>16319205
Shit bait. You’ve said this a few times already and are still yet to get any worthwhile response

File: non-narcissistic people h(...).png (1.12 MB, 1078x718)

1.12 MB PNG

>>16319440
>The government decides what laws apply to your land. Even if environmentalists were the ones doing it, that’s not narcissism and nobody in this thread is telling you what to do with your land
You'd have to be either profoundly stupid, or particularly evil to make this statement. You're trying to suggest the leaders of a country aren't displaying enormous narcissism by pretending they've a right to control your life, I'm amazed you'd be so bold. Stupid or evil.

>>16319772
not any of the anons you've been talking to, but just what are you trying to argue for? anarcho-capitalism?

>>16319772
Is the government in this thread with us now?

>>16321882
Nice entirely unrelated question you got there. You would be retarded to think that and more retarded to ask it

>>16320175
As an end point, yes. But more importantly I'm trying to show environmentalists that they're really just begging for a bigger government, using the environment as an excuse to have it.

>>16320592
The government controls many if not most aspects of your life. Stop pretending to be retarded.

>>16322267
I’m aware. Does that mean they’re here telling you what you’re allowed to do?

>>16323946
Yes, obviously. Stop pretending to be retarded.

As I've said many times already; statists can only be either stupid or evil.

>>16324052
>Yes, obviously. Stop pretending to be retarded
Schizophrenia. This thread was not made by the government to stop you from personally chopping down the entire jungle

>>16287957
Not everyone; just niggers, shit skins, and chinks.

>>16325501
It’s good, but it won’t last given how quotas immediately shot up after their population rose

>>16325501
Yes, it is. Try harder

>>16314973
>The fact we have such large quantities of microplastics in us, yet we're alive and well, proves they're not a concern.
Evil damage control. It is a concern and you’re not fooling anyone

>>16325995
>its evil
You're using plastics and not personally assuring its being disposed in the manner you approve. You're either as evil as everyone else, or must accept there's no evil here.

>It is a concern
No it's not. I've evidence for this: We're not dead yet are full of the stuff.

>>16326673
>You're either as evil as everyone else, or must accept there's no evil here.
Plastic use isn’t what’s evil, nobody said that. What’s evil is you lying and trying to convince anyone it’s not an issue
>I've evidence for this: We're not dead yet are full of the stuff
This is an “I’ve been smoking for 20 years and I’m not dead yet so it must be fine” tier argument. A single search will bring up hundreds of papers about the health impacts of internal microplastics. We’re only just beginning to realise the impacts, and even the very early findings are worrying
>We summarize the toxic effects of microplastics in experimental models like cells, organoids, and animals. These effects consist of oxidative stress, DNA damage, organ dysfunction, metabolic disorder, immune response, neurotoxicity, as well as reproductive and developmental toxicity. In addition, the epidemiological evidence suggests that a variety of chronic diseases may be related to microplastics exposure.
>https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/envhealth.3c00052

>>16326768
What it boils down to is if you don't want to use plastic, i'm not stopping you. Just don't demand the government bans the stuff.

>>16326788
Nobody is demanding that the government ban it or that nobody use it. But pretending it’s not a problem is beyond retarded

>>16327097
>Nobody is demanding that the government ban it or that nobody use it
Plenty are, and many more will as "muh microplastics" gains traction. Fuck of subhuman statist scum.

>>16327425
Nobody in this thread you fucking lobotomite. You’re the one putting words in people’s mouths

>>16326788
you using plastic spreads microplastic on my property, exposing me to a healthrisk and breaking the NAP. accordingly I hire tribal headhunters and equip them with nightvision googles and sniper rifles to defend myself against your aggression and turn you into a shrinkhead that I sell to a rich collector to reimburse my costs of having to defend myself. I love not being a statist.

>>16328342
Are you stupid on purpose?

>>16328698
thats just life in the anarcho capitalist utopia. if you have a problem with that, you're a filthy statist

>>16329205
Believe it or not people have genuinely good interactions with each other when you aren't around.

>>16329363
your libertarian fantasies could work in places like iceland or japan, but would fall apart pretty much everywhere else. (you) being a prime example of the reason why, because you think that you are not dependent on functional ecosystems and its your right to destroy them if you own the land. a tiny proportion of people with than mindset can ruin it for everyone.

Is “statist” really the best one can think of when trying to insult someone for thinking that destroying everything and turning it into a giant parking lot is bad?

>>16287957
This but unironically. Tuna are more important than pajeets and Africans.

>>16328342
Holy based

>>16303350
Are you stupid?

The tuna population is X
The catch quota is Y

At a catch quota of Y the tuna population manages to grow from X to X * 15 over 15 years.

Tuna growth:
X * Z - Y

Now the catch quota is increased by 50%.

So tuna growth looks like this:

15X * Z - 1,5Y

Since we know that the tuna population of 1X has grown with a catch quota of 1Y, we also know that the tuna population of 15X will keep growing with a catch quota of 1,5Y

Oh and you need to check your logic on your calculation. You calculate by how much the tuna population grows if the new population is set as 100% each year. 20,3% of the population from year 15 is a lot more total growth than 20,3% of the population from year 1. But the 100% of the catch quota does not grow with the tuna population, so 150% of that quota is a lot less than 20,3% of year 15 tuna population.

>>16303404
Dude, learn to read.

Rhino farming obviously does not make Rhinos go extinct. But it might make Rhino poaching vanish, as it is a legal source of Rhino horns.

>>16331255
Who protected their prey species before humans invented fishing?

>>16298154
>he hasn't taken action against us
this is literally "if you slowly bring a frog in water to a boil it won't notice"

>>16331315
other sea predators that humans also killed

>>16288170
what's up gramps

>>16331476
Such as?

>>16328342
>>16328327
mentally ill statist obfuscators, hell awaits you

>>16329610
>t. doesn't know how guns work
you'll be in the camps with the rest of us, not even gonna entertain your non-argument. Read what's been said already

>>16329731
Not an insult retard. It's an accurate description of someone.
If someone want's bigger governments they don't necessarily want socialist policies. Normally all people who want this stuff are labelled socialists. Some even get called fascists. Socialism is just a subtype of ideologies calling for bigger government.
Statist is the more accurate label; people who want government rather than the market to solve problems.

>>16329731
>destroying everything and turning it into a giant parking lot is bad?
Won't happen; read the thread. If you don't understand you can only be evil or stupid.

>>16331476
>>16331315
>>16331255
>>16330091
>>16303350
Why are tuna sufficiently important to humanity that you want state intervention?
Supposing tuna are sufficiently important, why can't you see that market forces will come up a way to stop the extinction of tuna?
If tuna are not sufficiently important that a market is not incentivized to innovate a solution to prevent the extinction of tuna, tuna cannot be sufficiently important at all.

Why do you struggle with this logic? Are you pretending to not understand (evil), or are you stupid?

>>16336258
>why can't you see that market forces will come up a way to stop the extinction of tuna?
They literally went extinct in the Black Sea because of unregulated fishing and were well on their way to becoming extinct in the atlantic. Market forces didn’t do shit

>>16336591
>”Atlantic bluefins are native to both the western and eastern Atlantic Ocean, as well as the Mediterranean Sea. They have become extinct in the Black Sea”
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_bluefin_tuna#:~:text=Thunnus%20thynnus,-(Linnaeus%2C%201758)&text=Atlantic%20bluefins%20are%20native%20to,and%20the%20southern%20bluefin%20tuna.
You are frighteningly stupid

>>16336607
>retard

>>16336581
You're not reading my post.
I'm not arguing that X species will never go extinct under a free market.

I am stating that under the condition that a particular species provides sufficient value to humans, that species will not be permitted to go extinct.

So in your example of black sea fish, those fish did not hold sufficient value for their extinction to be prevented.

Of course we're omitting the fact that most nations around the black sea aren't anything resembling a free market, but that's just adding complications your tiny state-loving brain can't handle.

>>16336595
>>16336616
You're a statist. Automatically putting you into one of three camps: Evil, ignorant, or stupid.
I'm going the extra mile in the hopes you're ignorant, and have the capacity to understand why statism is wrong.
See >>16337765

>>16336258
Market forces are a gigantic meme. Lolbert economic theory always forgets that the market is made up out of fallible humans who do not have perfect knowledge. Real humans can't just switch over from tuna fishing to basket weaving just because that makes more economical sense according to some theory.

>>16338618
>Lolbert economic theory always forgets that the market is made up out of fallible humans who do not have perfect knowledge.
The statist always forgets: Any government possesses the same flaws a market has, because it is made up from the same population. However these flaws are compounded in a government by it being made up of a smaller subset of that group, and the total lack of consent that group requires to interact with the rest of the population.

>>16337765
>So in your example of black sea fish, those fish did not hold sufficient value for their extinction to be prevented.
They hold enormous economic value, a single large tuna can sell for thousands of dollars. The black sea’s fishing industry used to be huge. It had nothing to do with not providing sufficient value, it was because people didn’t have the forethought to realise the issue and because they were dependent on that lifestyle regardless of the decline.
>we're omitting the fact that most nations around the black sea aren't anything resembling a free market
As far as fishing was concerned, there were no limits. So yes it was
>>16338618
Exactly this

>>16338636
Yeah, no. Because an unguided market can only optimize for what is the most economically viable to its actors. A government on the other hand can strategize for other goals, such as putting longterm food stability or culture projects or scientific research that does not lead to a finished project above economic gain.

A government is also made up out of fewer people, which makes it easier for this group to be informed on issues while it also forces the members of government to heed other viewpoints as well instead of basing their decisions only on ones own economical gain.

>the total lack of consent that group requires to interact with the rest of the population.
That's not how people work. Stop thinking in these nebulous theoretical terms. What is the comorbidity between lolbertarianism and autism?

>>16340443
>you’re a communist if you think that regulations that stop stupid people from ruining things are a good thing
Lolbertarianism at its finest. It’s not even a power fantasy, government is reality. You’re the one fantasizing about an anarchist system with no government overreach, something that doesn’t exist in today’s society and would never work

>>16337765
global enforcement of limitations are free market forces

Lol what got the libertarian nuked? Did he try to chop down trees in a national park or something?

>>16285989
Fish bros’ we are so back

>>16339552
see >>16292430