5 ms·

If you think owning property is more important than the metrics in the article, I think something is objectively wrong with your belief.

zepto 10y ago
You are replying to someone who said nothing whatsoever about owning property.
ctdonath 10y ago
If you were raised in a self-sufficient rural mindset, owing property is a very important value - to the point that someone saying it's "objectively wrong" is offensive.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Is it a more important value than not having your children die by the age of five? kmicklas said "more important". He/she is right. If you think available land is more important than your kids not dying, something's very wrong with you.
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    Consider that other people hold different axioms. For many of us, it's not that one is valued above the other, it's that one facilitates the other. When much of your survival comes from the land, having sufficient (or more) land is a major factor in preventing your kids from dying, and in doing much better than "not dying". Food comes from land. Shelter (wood, brick, rocks) comes from land. Heat (wood, straw, dung) comes from land. Growing up, half my family's food came from our backyard, and most of our heat could have (easier to get firewood delivered, but the fallback was there). You may look at a city and praise the wonders of modern upscale living. I look at a city and see a million people dead in a week if the water/gas/electricity gets shut off. You may look at a rural community and see sub-optimal living conditions. I look at a rural community and see a culture that will continue on thru major EMP/Y2K/etc technological disasters. It's not that I think available land is more important than my kids not dying, it's that I think available land is a major component to ensuring my kids don't die.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      But under actual existing conditions, why do children die? It's not starvation (at least in the US and Europe), or EMP. It's lack of medical care. So, back to the question at hand. Isn't the availability of medical care more valuable than the insurance value of the land? Yes, the land lets your kids live if there's an EMP. But the medical care lets your kids live through all the years until there's an EMP, if there ever is. Isn't the actually-happening reality more important than the might-be? Or, to put it in more brutal terms: How many of your kids would you be willing to have die due to lack of health care, in order to have the land to keep all your kids from dying if there ever is an EMP? For most people, I think the answer is "zero".
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
Retric 10y ago
I don't think on it's own that's enough, but it's a clear example of something significant and worse. Fewer species is obvious, but not something most people really care about. Light pollution is on the other hand is something people are just used to. Having never known stars why would they care about never seeing them? Never mind the huge impacts of poor sleep that's just the way things are. Air pollution is again something people downplay. Sure it kills millions but air seems fine where I am.

zepto 10y ago

You are replying to someone who said nothing whatsoever about owning property.

ctdonath 10y ago

If you were raised in a self-sufficient rural mindset, owing property is a very important value - to the point that someone saying it's "objectively wrong" is offensive.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Is it a more important value than not having your children die by the age of five? kmicklas said "more important". He/she is right. If you think available land is more important than your kids not dying, something's very wrong with you.
- ctdonath 10y ago
  Consider that other people hold different axioms. For many of us, it's not that one is valued above the other, it's that one facilitates the other. When much of your survival comes from the land, having sufficient (or more) land is a major factor in preventing your kids from dying, and in doing much better than "not dying". Food comes from land. Shelter (wood, brick, rocks) comes from land. Heat (wood, straw, dung) comes from land. Growing up, half my family's food came from our backyard, and most of our heat could have (easier to get firewood delivered, but the fallback was there). You may look at a city and praise the wonders of modern upscale living. I look at a city and see a million people dead in a week if the water/gas/electricity gets shut off. You may look at a rural community and see sub-optimal living conditions. I look at a rural community and see a culture that will continue on thru major EMP/Y2K/etc technological disasters. It's not that I think available land is more important than my kids not dying, it's that I think available land is a major component to ensuring my kids don't die.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    But under actual existing conditions, why do children die? It's not starvation (at least in the US and Europe), or EMP. It's lack of medical care. So, back to the question at hand. Isn't the availability of medical care more valuable than the insurance value of the land? Yes, the land lets your kids live if there's an EMP. But the medical care lets your kids live through all the years until there's an EMP, if there ever is. Isn't the actually-happening reality more important than the might-be? Or, to put it in more brutal terms: How many of your kids would you be willing to have die due to lack of health care, in order to have the land to keep all your kids from dying if there ever is an EMP? For most people, I think the answer is "zero".
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

Retric 10y ago

I don't think on it's own that's enough, but it's a clear example of something significant and worse. Fewer species is obvious, but not something most people really care about. Light pollution is on the other hand is something people are just used to. Having never known stars why would they care about never seeing them? Never mind the huge impacts of poor sleep that's just the way things are. Air pollution is again something people downplay. Sure it kills millions but air seems fine where I am.