3 ms·

We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability. I used to have hope; now it seems past the point of no return. I figure we should ju

We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability. I used to have hope; now it seems past the point of no return. I figure we should just try to enjoy it all while we still can, like everybody else.

dmichulke 9y ago
> We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability No. Damage to the environment is done because it's cheap. And why is it cheap? Because the owner of the thing (the state, the town, the "community") doesn't care. Now if there were a real market driven cost (throwing away a plastic bag or a TV would actually cost something), you would reconsider. Next in line is consumption: How about the houses built everywhere on the planet with low interest rates that will never be inhabited because there are not enough people nearby to inhabit it. Next is (as an example) military production in the US (>= 10x the military budget of Germany or Russia), using up money to destroy even more things of value. There are a million reasons and most of them lead down to - low interest rates (incentivizing producers to produce things people wouldn't want, disincentivizing consumers to save) - a lack of democracy and/or accountability of the people in charge (those wars weren't exactly a consequence of people protesting on the streets) - "public ownership" which basically translates to "no one gives a f* because it's not theirs'" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons I suppose the last point is probably the least orthodox, so here are two sources that discuss the issue: Audio: https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism PDF: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%...
- opportune 9y ago
  You seem to think nobody would ever damage the environment of land they owned. Except that oil companies and other industries do that constantly, across the world, to make money. And in addition to that, throwing things away does have a cost, that’s what we have garbagemen for. It just turns it to be extremely cheap for the most part. Honestly people like you that worship the free market as a panacea confuse me. How does a free market prevent me from dumping toxic waste in the ocean? How does it prevent micro plastics from flowing down rivers into the ocean? How does it prevent me from releasing however much CO2 into the air as I want? I just don’t see it.
  - nailer 9y ago
    > You seem to think nobody would ever damage the environment of land they owned. Not the OP but there's literally nothing in the comment you're replying to that would indicate that. > And in addition to that, throwing things away does have a cost, that’s what we have garbagemen for. We pay garbos to transport garbage to landfill, and perhaps sort it for recycling. The OP was clearly talking about the cost of environmntal degradation caused by landfill, which the person disposing of the garbage doesn't currently pay for. I can throw away a kilo of batteries and a kilo of banana peels (no compost in my apartment) and it would cost the same. > How does a free market prevent me from dumping toxic waste in the ocean? How does it prevent micro plastics from flowing down rivers into the ocean? How does it prevent me from releasing however much CO2 into the air as I want? By charging you. As mentioned in the comment you're replying to but don't seem to have taken the time to read.
  - dmichulke 9y ago
    > You seem to think nobody would ever damage the environment of land they owned. Yes. Of course, you can also hurt yourself if you want and there are no rules that can avoid this BUT most of the time people will like to avoid it. > It just turns it to be extremely cheap for the most part. Well, that's the problem. If you suddenly have to pay for those 5k lung cancers in the area, extremely cheap it will not be. > How does a free market prevent me from dumping toxic waste in the ocean? If you do it cleverly and secretly, nothing in the world will stop you from doing it. No communism, free market, or whatever. But if you're a company and you have at least one disloyal or environmentalist worker willing to blow the whistle, you (as a director of that company) might have to live in what amounts to effective slavery for the rest of your miserable life trying to clean up your mess and pay reparations. Please listen to the audio, there are cases where civil law suits are expensive enough to effectively discourage you (that is, if you're sane and not stupid).

dmichulke 9y ago

> We've collectively chosen short term excess over long term sustainability No. Damage to the environment is done because it's cheap. And why is it cheap? Because the owner of the thing (the state, the town, the "community") doesn't care. Now if there were a real market driven cost (throwing away a plastic bag or a TV would actually cost something), you would reconsider. Next in line is consumption: How about the houses built everywhere on the planet with low interest rates that will never be inhabited because there are not enough people nearby to inhabit it. Next is (as an example) military production in the US (>= 10x the military budget of Germany or Russia), using up money to destroy even more things of value. There are a million reasons and most of them lead down to - low interest rates (incentivizing producers to produce things people wouldn't want, disincentivizing consumers to save) - a lack of democracy and/or accountability of the people in charge (those wars weren't exactly a consequence of people protesting on the streets) - "public ownership" which basically translates to "no one gives a f* because it's not theirs'" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons I suppose the last point is probably the least orthodox, so here are two sources that discuss the issue: Audio: https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism https://mises.org/ko/library/5-environmentalism PDF: https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%20Economic%20Freedom%20The%20Case%20for%20Private%20Property%20Rights_2.pdf?file=1&type=document https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/Environmentalism%20and%...

opportune 9y ago
You seem to think nobody would ever damage the environment of land they owned. Except that oil companies and other industries do that constantly, across the world, to make money. And in addition to that, throwing things away does have a cost, that’s what we have garbagemen for. It just turns it to be extremely cheap for the most part. Honestly people like you that worship the free market as a panacea confuse me. How does a free market prevent me from dumping toxic waste in the ocean? How does it prevent micro plastics from flowing down rivers into the ocean? How does it prevent me from releasing however much CO2 into the air as I want? I just don’t see it.
- nailer 9y ago
  > You seem to think nobody would ever damage the environment of land they owned. Not the OP but there's literally nothing in the comment you're replying to that would indicate that. > And in addition to that, throwing things away does have a cost, that’s what we have garbagemen for. We pay garbos to transport garbage to landfill, and perhaps sort it for recycling. The OP was clearly talking about the cost of environmntal degradation caused by landfill, which the person disposing of the garbage doesn't currently pay for. I can throw away a kilo of batteries and a kilo of banana peels (no compost in my apartment) and it would cost the same. > How does a free market prevent me from dumping toxic waste in the ocean? How does it prevent micro plastics from flowing down rivers into the ocean? How does it prevent me from releasing however much CO2 into the air as I want? By charging you. As mentioned in the comment you're replying to but don't seem to have taken the time to read.
- dmichulke 9y ago
  > You seem to think nobody would ever damage the environment of land they owned. Yes. Of course, you can also hurt yourself if you want and there are no rules that can avoid this BUT most of the time people will like to avoid it. > It just turns it to be extremely cheap for the most part. Well, that's the problem. If you suddenly have to pay for those 5k lung cancers in the area, extremely cheap it will not be. > How does a free market prevent me from dumping toxic waste in the ocean? If you do it cleverly and secretly, nothing in the world will stop you from doing it. No communism, free market, or whatever. But if you're a company and you have at least one disloyal or environmentalist worker willing to blow the whistle, you (as a director of that company) might have to live in what amounts to effective slavery for the rest of your miserable life trying to clean up your mess and pay reparations. Please listen to the audio, there are cases where civil law suits are expensive enough to effectively discourage you (that is, if you're sane and not stupid).