Capitalism is all cool and stuff, but can anyone explain to me where capitalism or bullshit like objectivism seriously take the enviroment into account? Did anyone believe that consumers will have enough time to analyse every porduct they buy to then decide if its not fucking up the river next to them?
You are aware that moer and more and more people do analyse every product, and decide to buy more enviromentally friendly, right?
Besides capitalism as a system has nothing to do with the enviroment. The market does.
>>1018090
People are just able to "care" more because of social media trends. Nestle is still one of the biggest food companies.
Doesnt really change my question, how does the market then doesnt fuck up the enviroment
>>1018077
in all fairness to them, ancaps have come up with some methods of solving collective action problems using market mechanisms
>>1018092
The market itself takes the enviroment into account if people want to buy enviromentally friendly stuff. Basically, if you and everyone you know buys eco-friendly milk instead of enviromentally hazardous milk, companies will make less and less of a profit on the enviromentally hazardous milk, and thus produce less so they don't have to eat the costs, meaning that less enviromentally hazardous wares are made. Tadaa.
>>1018077
It doesn't.
Ayn had a massive boner for cities, and didn't consider nature important.
That particular sense of sacred rapture men say they experience in contemplating nature- I've never received it from nature, only from. Buildings, Skyscrapers. I would give the greatest sunset in the world for one sight of New York's skyline. The shapes and the thought that made them. The sky over New York and the will of man made visible. What other religion do we need? And then people tell me about pilgrimages to some dank pest-hole in a jungle where they go to do homage to a crumbling temple, to a leering stone monster with a pot belly, created by some leprous savage. Is it beauty and genius they want to see? Do they seek a sense of the sublime? Let them come to New York, stand on the shore of the Hudson, look and kneel. When I see the city from my window - no, I don't feel how small I am - but I feel that if a war came to threaten this, I would like to throw myself into space, over the city, and protect these buildings with my body.
The Fountainhead (1943)
Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death.
The Objectivist February 1971
...observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for 'harmony with nature'—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears...
Contrary to the ecologists, nature does not stand still and does not maintain the kind of equilibrium that guarantees the survival of any particular species - least of all the survival of her greatest and most fragile product: man.
>>1018116
tfw we evolved in nature and it still gives psychological benefits regardless of the long term economic necessity of sustainability.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4204431/
>>1018105
Dude, I get how this should theoretically work. But its barely working with heavy state regulations. Most of the consumers are caring for the cheapest prices and fastest delivery and the enviroment is only a small factor.
They probably will start caring if they cant see 10 meters because of smog and when rivers are full of acid.
It's called "Free Market Environmentalism"
>Elephants in danger of going extinct
>Elephants provide valuable products which can be bought and sold (ivory, meat, etc.)
>private ranchers buy the elephants and start breeding more in order to get in on the elephant products trade
>Elephant populations rise.
>Anyone who attempts to kill or steal a privately owned elephant is now more severely punished, especially if trespassing is involved, since elephants are just like cows, dogs, pigs, sheep and chickens
>people 200 years from now will be surprised extinction of the elephants was even a remote possibility cause there's so many of them and now the main concern is thousands of elephants packed in tight factory farm cages.
>>1018190
>Making shekels isn't in direct competition with protecting the environment.
>>1018077
>Did anyone believe that consumers will have enough time to analyse every porduct they buy to then decide if its not fucking up the river next to them?
Usually not, but it serves the self-interest of the polluters.Their bootlickers do believe it to some extent, but since they get aggressive and start making personal attacks and dishonest arguments when challenged, even they know at some level they are full of it.
>>1018190
It's obviously not happening, so once again the model of the markets has nothing to do with reality.
>>1018199
Because changing locations isnt an option
>>1018138
As if consumers in the USA care for the recreational capacity of chinese nature
>>1018190
> The only species worth preserving is the ones you can exploit for profit
Gee, I wonder why no one likes libertarians.
>>1018190
not sure if irony or not
>>1018274
Regardless of ironic or not it's wrong, but making ivory legal and flooding the market by harvesting horns from rhino etc is probably the best current option. shooting poachers hasn't been effective.
>>1018278
You're a fucking retard, you know that? You do understand that elephants have slow reproductive cycles, right? And that outside of non-profits they are prohibitively expensive to raise and care for? The money you'd get for the ivory of one adult elephant (note: a one time profit since they can't grow their tusks back) would absolutely NOT be worth the hundreds of thousands of dollars you'd have to spend on it over it's entire life. All that legalizing their trade would do would be to create an explosion of poachers who would kill all the remaining wild (read: free) elephants out there until they're extinct.
Libertarians once again proving they're dogmatic morons.
>>1018215
>It's obviously not happening,
Because for the most part, elephant reservations are not privately owned ranches and you can't buy elephants like that. Another problem is that current environmental organizations, for all their good intentions, are not very profit-oriented and probably rely much on more charity that comes from the good will of people who have extra money to just give away rather than providing products that the average consumer with his lower income wants to buy
But when you pitch "Hey, we're gonna fence off this area and just keep them here so you can look at but never touch them and you're not gonna be making that much money off of this,probably not any at all, so you'll only get satisfaction out of knowing there's a few elephants who aren't of any relevance whatsoever to your life somewhere alive." Where's the incentive for the average investor? Except for the really sentimental or the really wealthy and bored, nobody has much reason to care. Add to this the tendency of people to think that since the goal is just preventing extinction of the elephants, as long as 500 still exist, that may be sad, but hey mission accomplished, there are still enough elephants for wealthy hollywood stars to spend tons of money the rest of us can't afford to ride on safari vacations while no one else can use them for anything. Humans are just as much a part of the ecosystem as any other creature, what distinguishes us from animals is not only our greater ability and willingness to consume, but also our greater ability to restrain ourselves and exercise more intelligent and complex uses for things, which throughout history has encouraged us to cultivate the environment more often than it has encouraged us to destroy it.
Your overarching philosophy of life doesn't have to be one of pure self-interest with respect to nature to make use of the market, which in this scenario is used more to establish a mutually beneficial relationship between men and nature
>>1018316
>which throughout history has encouraged us to cultivate the environment more often than it has encouraged us to destroy it.
Oh wait you're serious.jpg
>>1018312
https://theconversation.com/to-reduce-rhino-poaching-take-demand-for-horns-seriously-34265
I'm talking about rangers anaesthetising and removing horns and releasing the individuals again with no incentive for poaching when there is no horn or tusk.
I'm not certain about elephants but for rhino this seems to be the best option.
>>1018344
Ah, my bad. I thought you were the guy saying that "the best thing to do to save elephants would be to open up ivory farms."
In that regard, I actually agree with you.
>>1018312
>You do understand that elephants have slow reproductive cycles, right?
Not really a problem actually. For one thing, with new medicine and technology, we could possibly develop ways to speed up their reproductive cycles, especially if there's a good promise of future profits that people might be interested in putting money towards that cause.
But even if exclude that possibility, no one is saying the elephant population is going to bounce back over night as soon as you make producing and purchasing ivory legal. The main point is that it's easier to make sure there's plenty of a certain animal if that animal has use to the average human being. If you're admitting elephants are totally useless, why spend so much of our time and effort to keep them alive at all? Are we not just interfering with nature at point for our selfish desire just to be able to look at elephants when they serve no purpose at all to the world? My own personal belief is that there's no such thing as a useless animal and that it's all a matter of human finding creative ways to use them for different circumstances.
With elephants, we know that ivory is something people want. If the money you'd get for the ivory of one adult elephant is not enough to justify the cost of rearing the elephant, then ivory cannot, at least at this moment in time. be the product the demand for which can be expected to suddenly boost the population within a short period of time. But are you saying that allowing people to more easily buy ivory harvested from elephants legally would do absolutely nothing to help conservation and breeding efforts? Or, again, are you suggesting that besides ivory, the elephant and by extension the rhino is totally useless
>>1018348
>Ah, my bad. I thought you were the guy saying that "the best thing to do to save elephants would be to open up ivory farms."
You do realize that i never suggested that the elephants HAD to be killed in such "ivory farms", right?
>>1018360
> My own personal belief is that there's no such thing as a useless animal and that it's all a matter of human finding creative ways to use them for different circumstances.
They server there own purpose in regards to maintaining the ecological equilibrium in natural habitats. The degree of impact can vary in regards to the trophic level.
>>1018342
>"Shit, yo, this cow thing or whatever you call it tastes fucking good, we should breed more of them!"
>"You know, this stuff called corn seems like it can be used for a lot of stuff, I bet we can put in practically any and everything if we just put our minds and money to it."
>"People seem to like the shade these palm trees provide them on the beach, let's plant a few more."
>"hurr, humans don't cultivate nature, they only destroy it."
>>1018368
>"hurr, humans don't cultivate nature, they only destroy it."
For a start, humans only "cultivate" nature when it serves their own purposes, rather than ecological ones, and even then it's not really "cultivation" as it is simply "reappropriating" or "remaking." Now, I'm not going to dogmatically argue that things like agriculture, animal domestication, etc. have been unanimously bad things for the environment, and it's pretty clear that for most of human history farming etc. has coexisted more or less peacefully with the rest of the ecosystem, but if you think that this endeavour is somehow actually *beneficial* to the environment you're seriously misguided.
Just look at the state of the world today. We are on the brink of destroying oceanic ecosystems. Human industry resulting in unprecedented climatic change that will invariably change the face of the earth in the coming centuries. Hell, even something as basic as animal husbandry is causing more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars in the world combined.
>>"People seem to like the shade these palm trees provide them on the beach, let's plant a few more."
What a fucking weak argument. You do realise how insignificant human horitculture is compared to the rest of the fucking planet? Sure, it's nice that you're planting some superfluous palm trees to make more turismbux, but you can't use that as an argument for mutual benefit when you're at the same time destroying literally thousands of acres of foliage in the Amazon rainforest.
>>1018360
>Are we not just interfering with nature at point for our selfish desire just to be able to look at elephants when they serve no purpose at all to the world?
>what is the fucking ecosystem
>>1018342
> Oceans are full of plastic, fish soon to be extinct
But hey, fish farms are awesome!! XDDDDDD
Holy shit, there are some dense motherfuckers around
>>1018365
Right, cause the Dodo going extinct really had immediate and devastating impact on the lives of most human beings.
Human beings have interest in preserving the environment the less their interests are in conflict with the interests of other creatures and the more they can derive use from other things in nature. By removing the dependency on certain natural resources and denying human beings the right to use nature, even if this is done in the name of environmentalism, you risk humans ceasing to care about actually preserving or producing more of these resources for future generations.
If for instance, we were all forced by some contrived set of circumstances to build nothing but plain wood houses to live in for the rest of our lives and the lives of those after us, we'd have a lot of interest in making sure there are plenty of trees around to use and would probably have a healthier respect for nature under those circumstances because even though they overpower nature in that kind of situation, men nonetheless depend a lot on it in that same situation. But if let's say everyone was forced to make their houses out of plastic and yet still had to destroy acres of forest in order to build these houses for the human population, you don't have as much of a relationship of potential mutual benefit between men and the forests in this case. Whether humans choose to find use in something or are forced to use something by circumstances beyond their control has a major impact on whether people are motivated to preserve this or that part of the environment.
>>1018407
>cause the Dodo going extinct really had immediate and devastating impact on the lives of most human beings
That's why I mentioned trophic level being a factor.
>>1018407
You seem to have a lot of assumptions, resource efficient technology seems like a sensible advancement to me.
And there are many examples of unsustainable resource use, see the anasazi and easter island etc.
>Did anyone believe that consumers will have enough time to analyse every porduct they buy to then decide if its not fucking up the river next to them?
Of course not. It is to be assumed that someone is being paid to prevent the fucking up of said river.
>>1018385
>Now, I'm not going to dogmatically argue that things like agriculture, animal domestication, etc. have been unanimously bad things for the environment, and it's pretty clear that for most of human history farming etc. has coexisted more or less peacefully with the rest of the ecosystem, but if you think that this endeavour is somehow actually *beneficial* to the environment you're seriously misguided.
Define "beneficial".
>Just look at the state of the world today.
Nobody is denying that human greed and materialism and just our inability to say when can and does have destructive effects though. The question is what is the best way to help nature: by denying our appetites or by indulging our appetites? Most human beings fall either somewhere in the middle where they are able to deny themselves to a degree but not a very big degree, or they will indulge any appetite they can get away with in whatever they quantity they can get away with. The majority of human beings can't be expected to go live butt naked in the mountains living on nothing but meditation and grass, even if we can agree that this might be an honorable way to live that his its own rewards for those willing and able to live that way. There are plenty of people who are compassionate to the point that they will deny themselves to an extreme degree. And there is merit in encouraging moderation and self-denial. But most of us aren't on a very exalted level and most human beings can only be expected to observe a certain amount of restraint before they just can't help themselves. It's one of the reasons why a religion like Jainism doesn't have that many followers in the world, not because the compassion it preaches for nature isn't respectable but because the ideal way of life it encourages for the sake of realizing its particular philosophy of nature is very impractical for the majority of people.
>>1018385
>>1018702
Also, on top of this, the idea of protecting raw, untapped ecosystems for the sake of it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even from the point of view of compassion towards other living things. There are probably more organisms in danger of going extinct or which have already gone extinct without being the result of anything human beings have done. And is it any more compassionate or moral to let the last of a particular species of plant or animal die due to "natural" causes that have nothing directly to do with human beings' actions when one has the power and tools to save it, than it is to allow this same species to be poached to extinction by humans? If the elephant was dying out because of complex series of natural causes that had nothing to do with us, would people be saying it's all okay because nature has selected them to die, as though we are not members of this community called nature and have no say at all in the kind of environment we want to live in, whether that would include the elephants or not?
Man has every right, as the dominant species of this planet, to exercise his right to control and transform nature in order to create the world he wants to live in and the world he wants generations after him to live in, just as any plant or animal struggling for survival right now would do the same had it the power human beings have. There is certainly a difference between a world based solely on man's self-interest to the absolute exclusion of the interests of other creatures, as if these creatures own interests have no impact on his own future whatsoever, and that's a great part of the malady what we see today. But this kind of paranoid fear of a massive domino effect happening if man so much as touches anything in nature or this idea that man should have radically less self-interest than any other animal or even plant impairs the human ability to create ecosystems in which more than just human self-interests are satisfied.
>>1018708
How can you anticipate the flow on effects?
>if man so much as touches anything in nature or this idea that man should have radically less self-interest than any other animal
That's not true though, man does have a greater awareness of the impacts of our behaviour however.
>>1018077
The death of canned tuna caught in mets that killed Dolphins is an excellent case study in how consumers can vote with their dollars. But you can't always get that kind of agreement and participation, so mostly government intervention is necessary to prevent the tragedy of the commons.
>>1018453
protecting international waters with a company...thats totally gonna work
>>1019009
The fact that tuna is nearly gone in the oceans, full of quicksilver and lead and that the japanese are stuffing cooling houses full with thousands of tons of tuina is a case study for the opposite.
>>1018708
If you deny the long term effect of human transformation on the wellbeing of future generations, than your point would make sense.
The Problem is, that the average person is just too short sighted to be able to get a glimpse of what e.g. the immense use of cement as a building material has on our nature.
Also, being not retardedly hypercapitalistic doesnt mean living in a mud hut
>>1018385
>moving the goalposts
>>1018077
Private property solves tragedy of the commons. Capitalists are not short term opportunists, they are long term investors, that is how an individual can accumulate several orders of magnitude more wealth than they could possibly generate on their own in a lifetime.
If someone wants to bellow tons of soot into the air they have to gain permission from whoever the soot lands on. We might even be able to privatize the atmosphere some day.
>>1018116
based Rand
>>1018138
>attention fatigue
Nature doesn't have magical properties, nebulae, city skylines, gardens and rainforests are all beautiful to me and not overstimulating, they have the same effect.
>>1021078
>Private property solves tragedy of the commons.
The tragedy of the commons has been repeatedly debunked.
>>1018734
>>1020965
The main problem is that the premises and the general line of reasoning of many environmentalists is just not good and doesn't encourage others to adopt healthy approaches to the environment. Instead, it often creates a greater gap and disharmony between human self-interests and the needs and interests of other organisms.
A good environmentalist system has to take into account that most humans are slaves to their appetites in either middling or extreme degrees.
The fear of domino effects to the negative also is balanced out and perhaps overcome by the possibility of a domino effect or chain of causation that might result in a generally positive outcome. Human involvement can just as easily have a long term positive effect as it can have a long term negative effect. And no human involvement or interference can just as easily have a negative effect. To say that because there is a possibility of a negative causal chain or because we can't be 100% certain there won't be then we should stay back completely is obviously not practical.
While making sure there are plenty of untapped and untouched ecosystems unaffected by human hands may have some real or relative value and the belief some such ecosystems may be way too sensitive for humans to penetrate them without extremely negative consequences may be perfectly valid of an argument, the argument that we don't have a right to play God here goes both ways as there's no difference between one man presuming nobody has the right to tell him he can or can't penetrate these areas for his own self-interest and another man who thinks no one has the right tell him he must allow anyone to penetrate those areas he arbitrarily decides are worthy to be saved.
>>1021283
On top of this, we have this myth that nature is something totally balanced and fair, when by most human moral standards it is not and even from a purely logical outlook divorced of any sentimental moral considerations, it is a bitter environment of flora and fauna struggling for survival without a whole lot of concern for those aren't their own. Even if on some level the wolf respects the deers and is able to say "hey, they're just trying to survive like me," it doesn't have any special concern for protecting anything but itself and its own kin. Proper respect for nature involves a respect or fear of its potential cruelty. But man is in a position to the rest of nature much like a king ruling over a variety of peoples with competing interests. It would be stupid to say to a king who sees his subjects slaughtering each other in order to survive "this is the natural order, how dare you interfere" when he has the power to mediate these conflicts so that all sides can live in much less bitter state of struggle and violence against one another, even if the complete elimination of conflict is impossible. And obviously the king does have a self-interest and personal benefit to derive from doing so. Humanity has the right, the ability and the duty as the de facto rulers of this world to mediate conflicts within nature as much as it mediates conflicts within human society. The free market is a much more useful tool for this purpose, especially if non-human organisms are taken into account as kind of silent trade partners who also expect some return for their investment in one's industries.
I mean, who is the greater friend and protector of the turtle? The seagull who just eats them without a care for their population growth rates or man who eats them but is intelligent and equipped enough to make sure that for every one turtle he eats, he breeds five more?
>>1021283
>Human involvement can just as easily have a long term positive effect as it can have a long term negative effect.
Theoretically yes, but in practice the negatives almost always outweigh the positives, A positive example I know is an introduced tree species growing in previously cleared land that native trees were unable to, and this creates more habitat and increased the population of many native plants and animals.
>one man presuming nobody has the right to tell him he can or can't penetrate these areas for his own self-interest and another man who thinks no one has the right tell him he must allow anyone to penetrate those areas he arbitrarily decides are worthy to be saved.
The same argument could be made about saving historical sites (tfw palmyra).
>On top of this, we have this myth that nature is something totally balanced and fair.
Of course it's not fair and balanced, but the adaptations found in a particular ecosystem are in relation the the local biotic community, and without outside influences most environments tend to remain in some form of equilibrium.
>I mean, who is the greater friend and protector of the turtle? The seagull who just eats them without a care for their population growth rates or man who eats them but is intelligent and equipped enough to make sure that for every one turtle he eats, he breeds five more?
Or the man who removes the beach itself to create a resort.
>>1021354
>Theoretically yes, but in practice the negatives almost always outweigh the positives
I would say the opposite. The environmental crisis of the modern world is characterized by the fact that it is a relatively rare moment in history where man has in fact done more harm than good. But it is an exception, not the rule. And your logic here, again, is suggesting humans stay out of the environment or not touch it at all, which is totally impossible and will only result in most humans just saying " it's them or us."
>The same argument could be made about saving historical sites (tfw palmyra).
Yes, what's your point? I don't believe in saving historical sites for the sake of it either, unless one has some direct connection to them and/or practical use for them. If we tried to preserve every historical site from any kind of destruction or modification, we'd never be able to build anything new which humans actually need.
With Palmyra, nobody really uses it and the only thing justifying it is a connection it provides for some people's sense of personal identity, even if they don't actually use it, but this has a limit for reasons I stated above.
>and without outside influences most environments tend to remain in some form of equilibrium.
The goal is not simply creating equilibrium though as equilibrium does not preclude that life is "good" for all the organisms that live within that ecosystem. The goal is to improve the lives of humans and the greatest number of the greatest variety of organisms. Environments can retain a form of equilibrium, but still not be very good places for any creature to live who wants to live without as much fear or pain. Equilibrium should be sought to the degree that implies justice and fairness, but also improving the conditions of all creatures and organisms as well as man should be the goal too.
>Or the man who removes the beach itself to create a resort.
And nobody on that resort likes turtle soup?
>>1021501
>And your logic here, again, is suggesting humans stay out of the environment or not touch it at all
I didn't suggest this, just that the overall impact of humans has been degradation for many natural systems, often unintentionally. I'm not saying that we should stop anthropogenic impacts on the environment (this is impossible), more so that we should try to understand the impacts and long term effects and change our actions accordingly.
>Environments can retain a form of equilibrium, but still not be very good places for any creature to live who wants to live without as much fear or pain. Equilibrium should be sought to the degree that implies justice and fairness, but also improving the conditions of all creatures and organisms as well as man
Fear and pain are evolutionary adaptations and are a necessity in most species for survival. The equilibrium I'm referring to is more in terms of populations maintaining themselves overtime. It also sounds like you're trying to apply a principle like maximising pleasure to the natural world, when it operates on reproduction not fear, pain or pleasure (see salmon dying after spawning, or octopus starving while protecting their eggs).
And in terms of capitalism I'm not sure that it responds quick enough to mitigate problems such as >>1018199 pic related
>And nobody on that resort likes turtle soup?
Most turtle are long living and not a very economical species to farm in terms of turnover, also many species nest exclusively at the beach where they were born.
>>1021592
>I didn't suggest this,
Your logic seems to only point to that conclusion
>just that the overall impact of humans has been degradation for many natural systems, often unintentionally
degradation is not a negative thing in and of itself. What you were basically saying that human involvement as a rule does more harm than good, but the fact that humans existed for thousands of years in a relationship with the environment, using it, cultivating and manipulating it and only in the last 300 years or so have we seen catastrophic consequences of man's meddling in nature that were never seen before in earlier periods even when man was in his biggest conflicts with nature for survival, suggests that something is different about how we go about using and manipulating nature now than before.
I would say that this is the result of particularly modernist paradigms, particularly the view the world of nature is little more than a soulless machine as well as other philosophical views of nature emanating from Descartes. Also the rise of certain worldviews that see man's maximum pleasure in this world as the only rule for life, worldviews that didn't really exist in any prominent capacity in previous eras
>Fear and pain are evolutionary adaptations and are a necessity in most species for survival.
Most species have no innate desire to feel fear or pain if they don't have to.
>The equilibrium I'm referring to is more in terms of populations maintaining themselves overtime.
And I'm saying that this doesn't mean there is an abundance of different organisms or that those organisms exist in a state of pleasure, which you would think people who say they love animals and plants and regard them as living things like themselves that feel pain, fear and even affection and a desire to multiply would care just as much about increasing as making sure populations are at fair and sustainable levels.
>>1021592
You make sure that the turtles are laying plenty of eggs so there are plenty of young turtles to eat.
We know for a fact that turtle populations actually are much lower when humans aren't chasing off the gulls to make sure only they're eating them
>>1021658
>but the fact that humans existed for thousands of years in a relationship with the environment, using it, cultivating and manipulating it and only in the last 300 years or so have we seen catastrophic consequences of man's meddling in nature that were never seen before in earlier periods
But we have, the megafauna extinctions at the end of the ice age were likely the result of both climate and human activity (hunting, intentionally lit fires etc). Species which had survived through multiple ice ages went extinct across the world coinciding with human expansions.
https://theconversation.com/new-analysis-finds-no-evidence-that-climate-wiped-out-australias-megafauna-53821
>which you would think people who say they love animals and plants and regard them as living things like themselves that feel pain, fear and even affection and a desire to multiply would care just as much about increasing as making sure populations are at fair and sustainable levels.
Of course, and I do care about fear and pain, and minimising population crashes, but it's always going to be the case that population size fluctuates around the carrying capacity once it reaches it.
>>1021090
proof?
>>1021592
capitalism solves this >>1018199 by lengthening the time people are willing to wait for a return on their investment
Imagine a lake full of fish, you could either fish all the fish at once or fish only 10% a year. Essentially for every $10 of fish in the lake you get $1 in return. However on the stock market p/e is usually much higher, above 20, so due to capitalism the fish are worth twice as much alive and breeding as they are dead. The lake is bought by a good wholesome capitalist who evicts the ruffians and poachers and ensures a sustainable economy.
>>1021716
Well turtle reproductive strategy of having many offspring with the majority not surviving to maturity shows some features of the r strategy.
>>1021745
>and ensures a sustainable economy
Does this ensure a sustainable ecosystem? can the lake be considered on it's own without taking the interconnected nature of an ecosystem into account, say a farm nearby has fertiliser run-off flowing into the lake leading to algal blooms and eutrophication. In this case the sustainable extraction of fish wouldn't prevent the population collapse due to factors which were overlooked.
>>1021501
The problem which i think you have, is that you picture the human on top of some arbitrary enviroment which he can form by his will. While picture might be a good model in some cases, its stupid when it comes to backlash. its not like polluting the oceans is a thing which has effects on other species alone. Even if we say, which doesnt suit me but follows your line of argument, that all other species have to struggle for their own survival, than we are still killing our own.
Saying we dont care if fish survives is one thing, but saying that we cant eat fish in the future because of our own opportunistic actions is the other.
God wouldnt create a species which comes up to heaven to fuck him over, so whats the point in fucking with out habitat until it destroys our own kind?
>>1021658
Are you trying to say that human involvement is mostly positive because our reach and technology wasnt as efficient 300 years agop and then suddenly sth happend?
The impact of human on the enviroment scales with his abilities to manipulate his surroundings and these have grown massivly in the last 300 years.
>>1021745
In what arbitrary would should this happen when there are enough lakes to fish from and you can accumulate wealth until all lakes are empty and you just invest you money in another company.
I would go as far as saying that capitalism doesnt really work with globalism. If creating a sustainable location is less effective than fucking over a place and hop to the next, than your romantizised capitalism just doesnt work.
>>1018105
Hardly.
Pre-established companies with existing infrastructure and capital can outprice and outmarket threats to their profits.
Possibly even ruin their public image and tie up their resources if possible.
>>1018077
Op, that's why we have a government! The solution here is called pigouvian taxes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
The government taxes whatever product it may be by the amount it damages a 3rd party, and uses that money to recompensate them. With the new higher, taxed price , the quantity demanded decreases so the market reaches the socially optimum equilibrium. Tbh this sorta thing should be included in the definition of the free market
>>1018077
> Capitalism is all cool and stuff, but can anyone explain to me where capitalism or bullshit like objectivism seriously take the enviroment into account?
Well, the idea is that civilization which do not regulate environment properly go extinct (i.e. lose in free market competition).
>>1018098
> in all fairness to them, ancaps have come up with some methods of solving collective action problems using market mechanisms
Yeah. See above. Fair voluntary competition.
>>1021078
> We might even be able to privatize the atmosphere some day.
A-a-and I don't even know if anon here is being sarcastic or not.
