3 ms·
Well, American Indians and probably most of the indigenous peoples of the Earth would thoroughly and fundamentally disagree that the invented concept is "public
by titzer 9y ago
Well, American Indians and probably most of the indigenous peoples of the Earth would thoroughly and fundamentally disagree that the invented concept is "public land", but rather "private land".
In a world where corporations buy land, pillage all of its natural resources, then sell off a smoking crater, the loser is always the environment, as corporations and people downcycle real estate constantly, extracting their profits, destroying what was there before, dodging externalities, and then often defrauding the next investor. Look what was there before and what is left over after the whole cycle. It's shit.
You should take a look at the forests of New Zealand and the movement to make logging on public lands illegal.
- golergka 9y agoIf you're talking about the pre-colonization state of these cultures, they would disagree with a lot of concepts we use now. For example, zero and negative numbers. Does it mean that zero and negative numbers are morally bankrupt?
- titzer 9y agoThe universe is amoral and mathematics doubly so, but the OP was talking about how the "invented concept" of public land gives rise to this tragedy of the commons. I am directly disagreeing in that A.) public land is the invented concept (it isn't, private land is) B.) public land is where the tragedy of the commons occurs (it isn't always, as tragedy happens on private lands, perhaps moreso). I can give more examples of B.) where corporations visit environmental destruction on lands they own (e.g. gold mines) and then sell off the leftover, ruined real estate, having still profited handsomely in the end.