4 ms·
> Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably. That's up to the owner of the fish, who will raise the price of your license if you start de
by mdpopescu 9y ago
> Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably.
That's up to the owner of the fish, who will raise the price of your license if you start destroying his capital. You are talking about capitalism, where the fish is owned by someone - right?
(With the last paragraph you seem to argue against yourself. It is very disturbing.)
- supreme_sublime 9y agoThe most successful people change with the times. In this case some kind of fish farming is your best bet for long term sustainability. Just like foresters plant trees, or hunters are involved in wildlife conservation efforts. Obviously they don't always do that, but to assume you can simply run things the same exact way as your ancestors is foolish.
- syrrim 9y agoThe "owner of the fish" is mankind in common, of course. Generally, the owner's interest is defended by the government of a given territory. But the government is not always the best steward of the long term sustainability of the land or its resources. This is for the same reason as before: it is very easy to measure short term success, but difficult to measure long term success. And even when you can predict long term success, many people will argue that you shouldn't take it into account.
- mdpopescu 9y agoYou're just begging for a tragedy of the commons, which is a tragedy for a reason. I am an anarchist (the capitalist sort, not the weird "we're really liberals" socialist one) and I don't want the government to defend my anything. In any case, who defends what was not in question; I was just pointing out that sustainability is not an issue in a (truly) capitalist society, because the owner of a resource can always decide to limit consumption.