4 ms·

Isn't that the actual definition of extortion? That sounds like threatening something of value to the whole world for personal gain. edit: clarity.

john_minsk 6y ago
Nope. This is capitalism. If you want something to happen - pay for it...
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  hell yeah lets destroy natural beauty permanently for the immediate gain of a few people, capitalism rules and there are no other options
- CyberDildonics 6y ago
  I don't know if demanding money to not tear up your own property is really at the heart of capitalism.
- smt1 6y ago
  It might be capitalism, or it might be ignorance. Josesph Fourier discovered the heat transference problem, also known as the green house gas effect in modern times. Also related to the codon problem (the DNA and RNA protein or chicken or egg problem). Energy, power, and information, metabolism all fundamentally "do work" differently depending on context. Man has good enough physics developed to solve for huge classes of solutions of earth models, but all of the shared spaces, including all natural resources, must be viewed intrinsically as a global problem. We've never been good at what we can't physical intuit or sharing resources (or intuiting over non-trivial side efects). Luckily, since it seems to more an asymptotic issue (in control theory parlance) now, so various policy forcings and incentivization changes will be tried till the glitch is fixed.
scythe 6y ago
No, extortion is when you threaten to hurt someone else for money. Threatening to hurt yourself for money is called, I think, livestreaming.
- cheschire 6y ago
  Funny comment, but the first part is what I'm driving at. Does damaging a world heritage site constitute hurting someone else or does it constitute only self harm because it's within sovereign borders?
  - WJW 6y ago
    Elements of both: by their nature world heritage sites are deemed of value to everyone and demolishing it would (mildly) hurt everyone. On the other hand: on the international level there is a treaty that legally protects world heritage sites but it carries no penalties if a state neglects to do so and UNESCO does not have any means to force a sovereign state to perform or cease any action. So unless you can somehow move the worlds' nations to enact sanctions or invade, each state is free to mine what they want.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Well, I don't know. When Europe razes her cities and returns her farms to the Earth, then maybe she may judge. Until then, if Brazil asks, you pay. Or don't. It's just business.
erklik 6y ago
I want to mine something. You don't want to mine it. Therefore, pay me and I won't. Sounds like business deal to me. If I am going to not earn money from a resource that is mine because of you, then you need to pay me back for that amount of money I was going to earn.
kazagistar 6y ago
All the first world countries already despoiled and continue to despoil the resources of the world at an alarming rate. They owe a debt, and this is asking them to pay that debt to those who haven't done so.

john_minsk 6y ago

Nope. This is capitalism. If you want something to happen - pay for it...

toiletfuneral 6y ago
hell yeah lets destroy natural beauty permanently for the immediate gain of a few people, capitalism rules and there are no other options
CyberDildonics 6y ago
I don't know if demanding money to not tear up your own property is really at the heart of capitalism.
smt1 6y ago
It might be capitalism, or it might be ignorance. Josesph Fourier discovered the heat transference problem, also known as the green house gas effect in modern times. Also related to the codon problem (the DNA and RNA protein or chicken or egg problem). Energy, power, and information, metabolism all fundamentally "do work" differently depending on context. Man has good enough physics developed to solve for huge classes of solutions of earth models, but all of the shared spaces, including all natural resources, must be viewed intrinsically as a global problem. We've never been good at what we can't physical intuit or sharing resources (or intuiting over non-trivial side efects). Luckily, since it seems to more an asymptotic issue (in control theory parlance) now, so various policy forcings and incentivization changes will be tried till the glitch is fixed.

scythe 6y ago

No, extortion is when you threaten to hurt someone else for money. Threatening to hurt yourself for money is called, I think, livestreaming.

cheschire 6y ago
Funny comment, but the first part is what I'm driving at. Does damaging a world heritage site constitute hurting someone else or does it constitute only self harm because it's within sovereign borders?
- WJW 6y ago
  Elements of both: by their nature world heritage sites are deemed of value to everyone and demolishing it would (mildly) hurt everyone. On the other hand: on the international level there is a treaty that legally protects world heritage sites but it carries no penalties if a state neglects to do so and UNESCO does not have any means to force a sovereign state to perform or cease any action. So unless you can somehow move the worlds' nations to enact sanctions or invade, each state is free to mine what they want.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Well, I don't know. When Europe razes her cities and returns her farms to the Earth, then maybe she may judge. Until then, if Brazil asks, you pay. Or don't. It's just business.

erklik 6y ago

I want to mine something. You don't want to mine it. Therefore, pay me and I won't. Sounds like business deal to me. If I am going to not earn money from a resource that is mine because of you, then you need to pay me back for that amount of money I was going to earn.

kazagistar 6y ago

All the first world countries already despoiled and continue to despoil the resources of the world at an alarming rate. They owe a debt, and this is asking them to pay that debt to those who haven't done so.