3 ms·

>the species was “abundant and widespread,” with between 4.3 million to 9.8 million of the trees in California. That is neither an endangered nor a threatened

>the species was “abundant and widespread,” with between 4.3 million to 9.8 million of the trees in California. That is neither an endangered nor a threatened species. Tough shit. >according to environmentalists, because around 40% of the plants grow on private land. The Joshua trees could be razed to make way for homes and infrastructure. The environmentalists can propose to buy the private land, if they can't (or won't) then tough shit: They aren't the landowners and thus should have no say.

CJefferson 3y ago
I don't like the idea that landowners should have complete control of the land they own. Owning land, more than anything else, should be considered a responsibility -- we have a finite amount of it and (mostly) can't make more. I personally feel many societial problems arise from poor use of land (in the UK, the lack of house building has both pushed up both rents and house prices to extremely unreasonable levels).
- sclarisse 3y ago
  If your problem is with land use, especially UK land use in cities, it’s much more the zoning and planning permission that’s to blame: if anything there’s too little landowner control and too much social control (at least, social control of the wrong sort.) Building new housing supply into an overpriced market is generally quite profitable, and will be pursued by private landowners when not illegal.
- steve1977 3y ago
  This. I would even do away with the concept of individuals owning land and just give people some restricted usage rights.
  - logifail 3y ago
    > I would even do away with the concept of individuals owning land and just give people some restricted usage rights Q: How would this affect those who purchase land to build a home?
    - groby_b 3y ago
      A time-limited right of use. If you're a good steward of the land, it gets renewed. Leaseholds are (or at least have been) a fairly common and workable thing.
      - RecycledEle 3y ago
        Not owning the land would that lead to a tragedy of the commons with people building houses not building to last.
        steve1977 3y ago
        Several options… have the state build houses… or fine people if they build houses with too bad quality… I don’t see an unsolvable issue here.
    - steve1977 3y ago
      You could not purchase land to build a home anymore. You could maybe get land lent to you and pay a rent on it (to the community). But it wouldn’t be „your“ land.
dan-robertson 3y ago
IUCN have it as ‘Least Concern’ but NatureServe have it as ‘vulnerable’ which is one of their ‘threatened’ statuses. I don’t really know about NatureServe though. I think their methodology is different in how it treats cultivated/non-native populations.
fluxinflex 3y ago
Ownership is not always complete. Nature and natural resources are in fact a societal good and shouldn't be dominated by a small class of people within society. Sure someone "owns" that land (whatever that means since it was "owned" by others before the Europeans came) and they have certain rights but they should not have all rights. Imagine a powerful landowner owning _all_ plots of land on which Joshua Tree existed, imagine that landowner unilaterally deciding to destroy all the trees. They have made a decision for future societies that is not theirs to make. The property own profits, society pays.
noselasd 3y ago
>>the species was “abundant and widespread,” with between 4.3 million to 9.8 >>million of the trees in California. > That is neither an endangered nor a threatened species. Tough shit. I think that's what people said about the passenger pigeon also. Anyway, I don't think everyone shares your view that land owners can do whatever they so please. I certainly hope there's some protection against the my neighbouring landowners starting up a toxic vaste dump on their land next to mine.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  Nobody is going to manage to buy every piece of land that Joshua Trees grow on. If someone tried that, the last few trees they did not own would get more valuable, and there would be massive efforts to save them to make money. The invisible hand fixes things. Laissez Faire.
ah1508 3y ago
Owing something usually give you the exclusive use of it but does not allow you to do what you want with it. You cannot walk in the street with a running chain saw even if you own it. Same thing with your car, you must respect a lot of rules. If you own a Picasso you cannot burn it. It is a political choice to let someone destroy a forest but not a Picasso.
- ah1508 3y ago
  * OwNing something
- deafpolygon 3y ago
  why is a picasso more important than an ecological system?
  - ah1508 3y ago
    It is question asked by the soup thrown at paintings in museums recently. Like saying "Why do you consider that paintings must be protected and not the possibility to keep living on this planet ?" At least it is how I interpret it. It is about rules elaborated by an educated society. Not perfect rules, but at least rules that preserve what this society consider "important". Many example show that humans that live in a given place are very well aware of how important is a "healthy" ecosystem and give rights to "a good life" to this ecosystem: Wanganui river in New-Zeland, lac Erie in US (this attempt failed), constitution of Ecuador, etc... Elinor Ostrom wrote interesting about this rules (governing the commons), she had the nobel prize for that.
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    Is not more important, but we can preserve both at the same time. And those gluing this hands to valuable old master paintings are still imbecile puppets, no matter the alleged reason to do it in their minds.
    - deafpolygon 3y ago
      > but we can preserve both at the same time Sure, spending million on 'priceless' art... while spending as little as possible on preserving our ecosystems?

CJefferson 3y ago

I don't like the idea that landowners should have complete control of the land they own. Owning land, more than anything else, should be considered a responsibility -- we have a finite amount of it and (mostly) can't make more. I personally feel many societial problems arise from poor use of land (in the UK, the lack of house building has both pushed up both rents and house prices to extremely unreasonable levels).

sclarisse 3y ago
If your problem is with land use, especially UK land use in cities, it’s much more the zoning and planning permission that’s to blame: if anything there’s too little landowner control and too much social control (at least, social control of the wrong sort.) Building new housing supply into an overpriced market is generally quite profitable, and will be pursued by private landowners when not illegal.
steve1977 3y ago
This. I would even do away with the concept of individuals owning land and just give people some restricted usage rights.
- logifail 3y ago
  > I would even do away with the concept of individuals owning land and just give people some restricted usage rights Q: How would this affect those who purchase land to build a home?
  - groby_b 3y ago
    A time-limited right of use. If you're a good steward of the land, it gets renewed. Leaseholds are (or at least have been) a fairly common and workable thing.
    - RecycledEle 3y ago
      Not owning the land would that lead to a tragedy of the commons with people building houses not building to last.
      - steve1977 3y ago
        Several options… have the state build houses… or fine people if they build houses with too bad quality… I don’t see an unsolvable issue here.
  - steve1977 3y ago
    You could not purchase land to build a home anymore. You could maybe get land lent to you and pay a rent on it (to the community). But it wouldn’t be „your“ land.

dan-robertson 3y ago

IUCN have it as ‘Least Concern’ but NatureServe have it as ‘vulnerable’ which is one of their ‘threatened’ statuses. I don’t really know about NatureServe though. I think their methodology is different in how it treats cultivated/non-native populations.

fluxinflex 3y ago

Ownership is not always complete. Nature and natural resources are in fact a societal good and shouldn't be dominated by a small class of people within society. Sure someone "owns" that land (whatever that means since it was "owned" by others before the Europeans came) and they have certain rights but they should not have all rights. Imagine a powerful landowner owning _all_ plots of land on which Joshua Tree existed, imagine that landowner unilaterally deciding to destroy all the trees. They have made a decision for future societies that is not theirs to make. The property own profits, society pays.

noselasd 3y ago

>>the species was “abundant and widespread,” with between 4.3 million to 9.8 >>million of the trees in California. > That is neither an endangered nor a threatened species. Tough shit. I think that's what people said about the passenger pigeon also. Anyway, I don't think everyone shares your view that land owners can do whatever they so please. I certainly hope there's some protection against the my neighbouring landowners starting up a toxic vaste dump on their land next to mine.

RecycledEle 3y ago
Nobody is going to manage to buy every piece of land that Joshua Trees grow on. If someone tried that, the last few trees they did not own would get more valuable, and there would be massive efforts to save them to make money. The invisible hand fixes things. Laissez Faire.

ah1508 3y ago

Owing something usually give you the exclusive use of it but does not allow you to do what you want with it. You cannot walk in the street with a running chain saw even if you own it. Same thing with your car, you must respect a lot of rules. If you own a Picasso you cannot burn it. It is a political choice to let someone destroy a forest but not a Picasso.

ah1508 3y ago
* OwNing something
deafpolygon 3y ago
why is a picasso more important than an ecological system?
- ah1508 3y ago
  It is question asked by the soup thrown at paintings in museums recently. Like saying "Why do you consider that paintings must be protected and not the possibility to keep living on this planet ?" At least it is how I interpret it. It is about rules elaborated by an educated society. Not perfect rules, but at least rules that preserve what this society consider "important". Many example show that humans that live in a given place are very well aware of how important is a "healthy" ecosystem and give rights to "a good life" to this ecosystem: Wanganui river in New-Zeland, lac Erie in US (this attempt failed), constitution of Ecuador, etc... Elinor Ostrom wrote interesting about this rules (governing the commons), she had the nobel prize for that.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  Is not more important, but we can preserve both at the same time. And those gluing this hands to valuable old master paintings are still imbecile puppets, no matter the alleged reason to do it in their minds.
  - deafpolygon 3y ago
    > but we can preserve both at the same time Sure, spending million on 'priceless' art... while spending as little as possible on preserving our ecosystems?