3 ms·
These animals/plants do not have a choice in the matter. They have no say whenever we destroy their homes or their food sources. How do people honestly think it
by apacheCamel 7y ago
These animals/plants do not have a choice in the matter. They have no say whenever we destroy their homes or their food sources. How do people honestly think it is their right to destroy and take all for their mighty money? Why do we let corporate greed take over so many things that should be simple?
- qsymmachus 7y agoBecause capitalism is an optimization function for making money. It doesn't care about anything else.
- jMyles 7y agoWill we develop practices that preserve what we like about free markets without capitalism being the economic function?
- Ididntdothis 7y agoThat's where regulation comes in. For example we have outlawed practices like killing others for profit and the markets still work. We can outlaw other things too. Markets will adapt. That's what they do best.
- inscionent 7y agoNo. Humans will be extinct long before we can overcome our greed and fear. We live in a world of abundance and the only thing holding us back is the concentration of power and wealth.
- eanzenberg 7y agoNo we don't live in a world of abundance. This is a common tagline touted by communist and socialist societies, and has been proven false time and time and time again.
- qsymmachus 7y agoMarkets != capitalism, markets predate capitalism, and the end of capitalism does not necessarily mean the end of markets.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- CWuestefeld 7y agoI own a big chunk of land in upstate NY, where we've got a little cabin. As part of our stewardship of the land, we periodically harvest timber, using the advice of a professional forester. This forester was conducting a survey for us one year, and showed us that we have a specimen of a tree species that's expected to go onto the endangered list in the future. With a wink, he warned us that if we've got that tree there when it goes on the list, we'll be forbidden from doing much of anything with our land in the future - the implication being that we should dispose of it while we've still got the chance. The ESA can impose significant costs even on us little folk. And the way the Act is constructed provides perverse incentives, giving us motivation to do the opposite of what's intended. (we left the tree, but others may not have the same flexibility to make that sacrifice)
- apacheCamel 7y agoI am glad that they do not discriminate on how much they charge: significant costs should be imposed on anyone wanting to further remove endangered species. I get what you are saying, you may want the tree removed but if everyone got their "just this one tree" removed, then it would speed up the extinction of that tree. Does that tree seriously need to be removed? Does it have life threatening consequences to you or the surrounding area? I seriously doubt it.
- derivagral 7y agoMy understanding was around the forced loss of freedom without recompense as the contention here. The GP appears to be OK with this, but the nudge from the forester implies that many people wouldn't want the headache and loss of freedom around that kind of thing. I don't know the details of the law, but I would expect that most people might choose "harvest a few trees and skip headaches" over "tolerate headaches for an abstract good feeling."
- perfunctory 7y agoa cabin on a big chunk of land where you can harvest timber using the advice of a professional forester? I must be missing something but I am having hard time fitting this into my definition of the "little folk".