5 ms·

As a former citizen of the USSR, I have to object to linking environmental issues to private property. The Soviets did all kinds of tremendously bad things rank

As a former citizen of the USSR, I have to object to linking environmental issues to private property. The Soviets did all kinds of tremendously bad things ranking, from geo-transformation to placing the heavy industry in the middle of cities. From what I read about North Korea, the entire country is ruined by various extraction and industrial projects.

armenarmen 3y ago
Tragedy of the commons at scale.
AmpsterMan 3y ago
The important part is the "complete ownership of those rights". In the Soviet Union, a community had no rights and little power by ways of representative government to defend themselves. It's little different in the case of Chile. Do the nuances of state/corporate ownership of resources mean anything when they are both large, far off organizations exploiting my land with little of my own say?
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  The problem is when you can externalize problems with impunity. Doesn't really matter what the basic system is. Generally you find that systems that strip individuals or disfavored groups from having any power at all do that a lot. Especially those where pushing back is dangerous.
13of40 3y ago
Not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to share my own take, which is that one of the clearest, bluest skies I've ever seen was over North Korea. Because they sucked at doing "industry" compared to the South Koreans. In the 90s in South Korea, the rivers ran black and every corner you turned had its own putrid chemical smell from whatever fly-by-night entrepraneur had found a way to make a buck there. But that's an anecdote and I haven't been back to see what it's like now.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Right, but in NK you starved to death at the governments whim as they had little to no ability to feed themselves. These conversations are barely worth having unless you're willing to go into long chains of explaining the complexity behind the situations.
  - 13of40 3y ago
    Sure, but if you stay on topic I'm just saying there isn't a clean 1:1 correlation between political ideology and environmental harm.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - jojobas 3y ago
    Yeah, but ain't it worth it that the last thing you see before dying of hunger is the clear blue sky?
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Do blue skies matter when you are blind from malnutrition?
  - underbluewaters 3y ago
    Yes. For many folks there is an intrinsic value to protecting the environment. I find more and more that even within the NGO and environmentalist community people only care about how natural resources impact people in a utilitarian sense. I can respect that philosophical position, but it makes me equal parts angry and sad that it's taken as a given. I don't believe life on earth exists just to serve human needs.
    - sacrosancty 3y ago
      I think there are two kinds of environmentalist - the purist kind you prefer and the practical kind. The practical kind has the arguments that appeal to most people with things like "let's not run out of oil because it's useful" and "lets not cause climate change because it'll lead to problems for people". But the purist kind is really more of a religious belief that you can't persuade people of in practical terms. That doesn't mean it's wrong - it's just that even adherents don't know why it's right, if it is. Just like religion. You see the purist kind extending to things like "lets not colonize the moon or Mars because we'll damage their natural state." Maybe in a million years, they'll turn out to have been right, but nobody knows that today.
SamPatt 3y ago
Don't forget Chernobyl too.
specialist 3y ago
Yes and: One view is private vs public capitalism. USSR vs USA, respectively. Extreme wealth concentration at the expense of everyone else. Both are anti-democratic.
- Natsu 3y ago
  I think the USSR would object to being called capitalist, since they were one of the major Communist revolutions until their economic collapse. And in this vein, we shouldn't forget Mao's "four pests campaign" in China under Mao which caused mass starvation by killing sparrows which had been eating insects, leaving them with a literal plague of locusts. Mao would probably have murdered anyone who called him a capitalist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_roader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_roader
  - mejutoco 3y ago
    It is irrelevant if the object of the calling agrees or not on the name. Otherwise nobody would ever be called anything bad.
    - Natsu 3y ago
      That only works if you have some way to justify it to begin with and is rather transphobic to make other people the sole arbiters of one's identity.
      - mejutoco 3y ago
        Extreme wealth concentration (the original claim) seems pretty easy to prove in the cases originally mentioned by another poster.
        Natsu 3y ago
        I mean, sure, that's what happens literally any time you set up a super-powerful government, necessarily including any government powerful enough to redistribute all of a society's resources. See also: company towns, Pol Pot, the Kims, Mao, or what was happening in that rebellious colony called the USA before the citizens stopped it. But claiming it fits a bespoke definition of "capitalism" seemingly invented for this particular discussion, despite that being against literally everything they professed, seems a bit much. They didn't end up with extreme wealth concentration by letting people freely exchange goods and services. That usually happens when people take control of who is able to exchange goods, whether via monopolies or government control.
wkat4242 3y ago
That's true. The aral sea was even infamous here in Europe. Of course it's now completely gone leaving silted wasteland in its place :'(

armenarmen 3y ago

Tragedy of the commons at scale.

AmpsterMan 3y ago

The important part is the "complete ownership of those rights". In the Soviet Union, a community had no rights and little power by ways of representative government to defend themselves. It's little different in the case of Chile. Do the nuances of state/corporate ownership of resources mean anything when they are both large, far off organizations exploiting my land with little of my own say?

Gibbon1 3y ago
The problem is when you can externalize problems with impunity. Doesn't really matter what the basic system is. Generally you find that systems that strip individuals or disfavored groups from having any power at all do that a lot. Especially those where pushing back is dangerous.

13of40 3y ago

Not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to share my own take, which is that one of the clearest, bluest skies I've ever seen was over North Korea. Because they sucked at doing "industry" compared to the South Koreans. In the 90s in South Korea, the rivers ran black and every corner you turned had its own putrid chemical smell from whatever fly-by-night entrepraneur had found a way to make a buck there. But that's an anecdote and I haven't been back to see what it's like now.

pixl97 3y ago
Right, but in NK you starved to death at the governments whim as they had little to no ability to feed themselves. These conversations are barely worth having unless you're willing to go into long chains of explaining the complexity behind the situations.
- 13of40 3y ago
  Sure, but if you stay on topic I'm just saying there isn't a clean 1:1 correlation between political ideology and environmental harm.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- jojobas 3y ago
  Yeah, but ain't it worth it that the last thing you see before dying of hunger is the clear blue sky?
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Do blue skies matter when you are blind from malnutrition?
- underbluewaters 3y ago
  Yes. For many folks there is an intrinsic value to protecting the environment. I find more and more that even within the NGO and environmentalist community people only care about how natural resources impact people in a utilitarian sense. I can respect that philosophical position, but it makes me equal parts angry and sad that it's taken as a given. I don't believe life on earth exists just to serve human needs.
  - sacrosancty 3y ago
    I think there are two kinds of environmentalist - the purist kind you prefer and the practical kind. The practical kind has the arguments that appeal to most people with things like "let's not run out of oil because it's useful" and "lets not cause climate change because it'll lead to problems for people". But the purist kind is really more of a religious belief that you can't persuade people of in practical terms. That doesn't mean it's wrong - it's just that even adherents don't know why it's right, if it is. Just like religion. You see the purist kind extending to things like "lets not colonize the moon or Mars because we'll damage their natural state." Maybe in a million years, they'll turn out to have been right, but nobody knows that today.

SamPatt 3y ago

Don't forget Chernobyl too.

specialist 3y ago

Yes and: One view is private vs public capitalism. USSR vs USA, respectively. Extreme wealth concentration at the expense of everyone else. Both are anti-democratic.

Natsu 3y ago
I think the USSR would object to being called capitalist, since they were one of the major Communist revolutions until their economic collapse. And in this vein, we shouldn't forget Mao's "four pests campaign" in China under Mao which caused mass starvation by killing sparrows which had been eating insects, leaving them with a literal plague of locusts. Mao would probably have murdered anyone who called him a capitalist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_roader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_roader
- mejutoco 3y ago
  It is irrelevant if the object of the calling agrees or not on the name. Otherwise nobody would ever be called anything bad.
  - Natsu 3y ago
    That only works if you have some way to justify it to begin with and is rather transphobic to make other people the sole arbiters of one's identity.
    - mejutoco 3y ago
      Extreme wealth concentration (the original claim) seems pretty easy to prove in the cases originally mentioned by another poster.
      - Natsu 3y ago
        I mean, sure, that's what happens literally any time you set up a super-powerful government, necessarily including any government powerful enough to redistribute all of a society's resources. See also: company towns, Pol Pot, the Kims, Mao, or what was happening in that rebellious colony called the USA before the citizens stopped it. But claiming it fits a bespoke definition of "capitalism" seemingly invented for this particular discussion, despite that being against literally everything they professed, seems a bit much. They didn't end up with extreme wealth concentration by letting people freely exchange goods and services. That usually happens when people take control of who is able to exchange goods, whether via monopolies or government control.

wkat4242 3y ago

That's true. The aral sea was even infamous here in Europe. Of course it's now completely gone leaving silted wasteland in its place :'(