Open access commons

Environmentalists Shocked That Local People Protect Forests Better Than Do Governments

|

Deforestation
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

Over at the New Scientist Fred Pearce has a nice article, "Local people preserve the environment better than government," in which he discusses an issue well known to Reason readers—recognzing the property rights of local people protects resources from overexploitation. Pearce is focusing on a new report from the environmentalist think tank, the World Resources Institute. The report, Securing Rights, Combating Climate Change: How Strengthening Community Forest Rights Mitigates Ciimate Change, surveys the literature and finds that private ownership of land by local communities greatly reduces deforestation. For example, the report notes:

When Indigenous Peoples and local communities have no or weak legal rights, their forests tend to be vulnerable to deforestation and thus become the source of carbon dioxide emissions. Deforestation of indigenous community forests in Brazil would likely have been 22 times higher without their legal recognition. In Indonesia, the high levels of carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation are driven in part by no or weak legal rights for forest communities. For example, oil palm concessions cover 59 percent of community forests in part of West Kalimantan.

The conclusion that local people are much better at managing forests than are governments, according to Pearce, supposedly flies…

…in the face of the "tragedy of the commons", the idea that collectively owned resources are doomed because everyone grabs as much as they can until they are used up.

Not at all. It's not the commons that is the problem. Overexploitation arises from open access. Environmentalists have long been misled by Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" fable, in which he argued that only government coercion can forestall environmentally destructive private greed. Libertarians have long known that government "ownership" almost always ends in mismanagement, most especially in poor countries with little or no democratic accountability. In most cases, government "ownership" amounts to creating an open access commons.

As the case of U.S. fisheries has sadly demonstrated, even with democratic accountability, government management of resources often ends up destroying them. On the other hand, private collective ownership that limits access helps protect them. Private ownership, either collective or individual, is the key to the proper management of land, water, and nearly any other resources.

I will repeat my mantra: Wherever you see whatever you want to call an environmental problem, catastrophe, screw-up, it's occurring in an open access commons. That is, since nobody owns the resource, everybody exploits it as much as they can because they know if they leave something behind, the next guy is just going to take it. I live in hope that someday soon environmental activists will heed this lesson.

For more background on how recognizing the property rights of local people help protect the environment, see my article, "The Nature of Poverty: Property Rights Help the Poor Even More Than Rich."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

187 responses to “Environmentalists Shocked That Local People Protect Forests Better Than Do Governments

  1. I will repeat my mantra: Wherever you see whatever you want to call an environmental problem, catastrophe, screw-up, it’s occurring in an open access commons.

    Gosh, if only there were a pithy name for that phenomenon which no one before Ron Bailey ever identified.

    1. B:Hardin did write:

      The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

      My point is that it is not the tragedy of the commons; instead it is the tragedy of open access.

      1. Fair enough. But I think it has more to do with mismanagement by disinterested government stooges with no real stake in the areas under their care than it does open access.

        1. B: Uninterested bureaucrats = open access. Especially if you can skim off the top by selling timber, palm oil, and mining concessions.

          1. Or simply “retire” from government service and take a job requiring no work for big money from one of the companies you “oversaw”.

          2. Yep, if you are a government official that wants to enforce regulations you are fascist anti-business socialist. If you are a government official that is too cozy with industry this makes you a big fat corrupt apparatchik, who probably heads a public employees union. Being a libertarian apparently means you can have it both ways and never say you’re sorry. Awesome.

            1. As long as you have the right intentions, hypocrisy is no limit!

              Being a socialist apparently means only the other guys have to make sacrifices.

            2. “Being a libertarian apparently means you can have it both ways and never say you’re sorry.”

              So last night you were a libertarian; can we simply presume you have zero acquaintance with the concept of honesty?

              1. Yeah, sorry, I think people should be able to do pretty much what they want, but I don’t believe in supporting wars for Exxon or making excuses for corporations that dump their shit all over town and say how glorious it is that someday, somehow we’ll be able to sue their ass in court. I’d rather have some fascist socialist apparatchik enforce RCRA laws. Does this mean I get thrown out of the Murray rothbard club? Boohoohooo, now I’ll never make it on the kewl Reason art car and do coke with nick gillespie at Burning Man. What shall I do with my life now?

                1. Yeah, sorry, I think people should be able to do pretty much what they want,

                  Except when it comes to the disposition of the fruits of their labor.

                  1. I’d be mostly satisfied if rich people paid the same rate of taxes on social security and investment income that the middle class does when it labors. ITS TIME 4 A FLAT TAX!!

                2. You could end it.

      2. tragedy of open access

        But open access is what defines a commons in the “tragedy of the commons”.

        If a place were simply “communally owned” by a certain group of people, that’s not a commons. It is now exclusive property owned by that group of people.

  2. “Environmentalists have long been misled by Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” fable, in which he argued that only government coercion can forestall environmentally destructive private greed.”

    It’s government “ownership” that makes the commons possible.

    This phenomenon spills over into other areas, as well. I spent a lot of time in various national parks over the summer, and it should be said that if you want to protect a natural area from overutilization, probably the last thing you should do with it is make it a national park.

    When you create a national park, suddenly millions of people from all over the world will come there–people who wouldn’t have gone there otherwise. The infrastructure will be developed to support those tourists. All those tourists will impact the fauna and the wildlife.

    If you want to protect some wilderness, sell it to the Nature Conservancy or some other private charity.

    1. All those tourists will impact the fauna and the wildlife

      So the flora and the plantlife will be fine?

      1. You know what I meant.

    2. But we have to have government ownership, to stop evil businesses from destroying their property!

      1. They shut down the road into the interior of Zion National Park.

        You have to take a bus in and out and walk, which is great for hikers.

        You basically eliminate the elderly, people with small children, etc.

        They have a lodge you can stay it, but the prices are exorbitant.

        Even the parks are starting to realize that all the guests they attract are destroying the place. They’ll do the same thing in Yosemite eventually. They’ll have to.

        Or the tourists will destroy the place.

        1. Really? That’s a pretty drive.

          1. Yeah, you can still ride through it, but the part where you head off the main highway? You can forget it.

            So, mostly, all you’re going to see when you take the shuttles in are hikers. Which is great! …if you like excluding people.

            Even still, when I went up to the top of Angel’s Landing, it was crowded. I’d hate to think what it would be like if the highway was jam packed full of people.

            Oh, and you have to get a permit to camp in the back country anymore. I got a permit and spent some time out there, actually. Except for one Ranger, I didn’t see a single other person out there.

            I got some pretty amazing photos, actually.

            1. Angels Landing is a fantastic hike.

              1. While we are on the topics of amazing hikes, we were in Banff this summer. My God. Life changing. And there is a really good brewery in the town.

    3. It’s government “ownership” that makes the commons possible.

      What? Oceans. Air. Government owns neither. It regulates both, because the natural resources don’t obey arbitrary boundaries.

      1. Yeah, the fact that no one owns the oceans or the air is the reason why everyone feels free to pollute them.

        If we could the oceans off, theses tragedy of the commons problems would go away.

        What? You polluted my ocean?! Better lawyer up, mofo. Hope you got a lot of insurance, ’cause I’m comin’ after you.

        If someone owned the fish in the ocean, overfishing wouldn’t be anywhere near as big of a problem as it is now.

      2. In a society where property rights were truly respected, the factory that smogs up my backyard owes for the damage to and/or loss of use of my property and everyone else’s property. If people actually had to compensate for the property damage they do to others, they wouldn’t be doing those harmful things to any great extent or would take extra precautions to mitigate the cost they impose on others because that would translate to cost imposed on themselves.

    4. One possible argument for national parks, though, is that they attract all of the lazy tourists and you get fewer people going to all of the other lovely natural areas that no one knows about. Perhaps not that good of an argument.

      It’s government “ownership” that makes the commons possible.

      That is true for a lot of commons, but it has always seemed to me that there are some natural commons as well, such as air, the open ocean, space. These are areas where it is difficult or impossible to really assert ownership without a government or similar entity effectively taking control. And then you have the same problem of government ownership.

      1. “That is true for a lot of commons, but it has always seemed to me that there are some natural commons as well, such as air, the open ocean, space.”

        I’m not sure these commons are natural inasmuch as it’s been hard, in the past, for people to police these areas–and thus defend their property rights.

        It’s easier now in some ways. With GPS and satellite imagery, I bet it’s more practical for people to defend their property rights in the open ocean, for instance.

        Ever watched Deadliest Catch? If some of those captains could bid on the fishing rights to any area in the Bering Sea (like miners buy mineral rights), I bet a bunch of them could tell you in a few days exactly which areas they wanted to bid on and how much those claims were worth.

        1. If some of those captains could bid on the fishing rights to any area in the Bering Sea

          From whom are they purchasing these licenses?

          1. Just like privatizing anything, you’d have ultimately have to buy it from the government.

            No doubt, a lot of those places they crab in are in international waters. Talk about the commons squared!

            It’s certainly problematic from a privatization standpoint.

            But we’ve been handling mineral rights inside the country like that for hundreds of years. The less murky the ownership is, the better.

        2. If some of those captains could bid on the fishing rights to any area in the Bering Sea (like miners buy mineral rights), I bet a bunch of them could tell you in a few days exactly which areas they wanted to bid on and how much those claims were worth.

          You’re aware that crab biomass moves, right? And that a stretch of ocean that one year proves a honey hole the next year can turn into a junkpile?

          Yeah, I’ve watched the show. Shame you haven’t.

          1. Oh, I’ve watched it.

            They know where they’re looking, and they know which spots have been crabbed out in years past, and they know where they want to go and when they want to be there.

            If they had exclusive rights to those spots, you don’t think they’d know where they wanted to go or how much they’d be willing to pay to crab there–exclusively?

            You don’t think they’d take overfishing into consideration if those spots were their exclusive property?

            Have you ever seen captain Hansen lay his trap line down right up against someone else’s because they were fishing right on top of him? Why would they so often find other crabbers fishing on top of them if it didn’t matter where in the Bering Sea they were?

    5. Why not sell it to Disney or some other private business that will have an actual interest in maintaining the park long term instead of the government stooges who only care about graft and empire building?

      1. I’m sure Disney could do a great job with something like Yosemite.

        Absolutely.

        When I was at Zion, it seemed to me that half the people there were wealthy foreigners, especially Europeans. The other half I would say were wealth North Americans, mostly people who can afford an RV.

        There’s a gigantic tourism industry around these parks, and if anyone could make the most of that, Disney could. But that’s kind of my point, that despite what you may have heard, the National Parks aren’t really about conservation anymore. They’re mostly about providing wealthy people with relatively cheap vacations.

        Yeah, if Disney owned it, they might be more concerned about conservation than the big wigs in DC at the Department of the Interior. But if you really want to conserve the land, get it into the hands of the Nature Conservancy or some private owner like that, whose primary purpose is conservation.

        Environmentalists already get this from various perspectives–it’s just not unified into a whole. For every rancher like Bundy who thinks the BLM is trying to squeeze them out, there are two environmentalists who think that the purpose of the BLM is not to protect the environment from Ranchers but to protect Ranchers from environmentalists.

        Don’t get me started about California’s Sea Otter Exclusion Zone. People thinking that the government protects natural resources by placing them into the commons is a sick joke.

        1. This is the story that kills me:

          http://www.outsideonline.com/o…..20730.html

          In short, trapping California’s sea otters to what was though to be extinction wasn’t just bad because sea otters are cute and cuddly. In very simple terms, Sea Otters love sea urchins, and when the otters were gone, the urchins proliferated.

          Problem is, sea urchins love to eat the roots of giant kelp, and as the urchins proliferated, over the decades, they almost completely wiped out the giant kelp forests that in some places extended miles into the Pacific, and was the habitat for what was once one of the most abundant sources of fish and other sea life in the world.

          They found one family of sea otters that survived on an isolated beach and protected them. They worked on bringing back the giant kelp, and the sea otters started proliferating again, and once they proliferated, they started to spread.

          Meanwhile, sushi continued to increase in popularity, and a market for uni (sea urchin) became established. Some well funded lobbying and pretty soon, there was a Sea Otter Exclusion Zone running from Point Conception to the Mexican border.

          Now the government is protecting the sea urchin industry from sea otters and the reestablishment of the giant kelp forests they would bring…

          And this is in California!

          Protecting the environment is too important of a job to leave for the government to screw up.

        2. I’ve been watching Ken Burns’ documentary, and (as I’m guessing you are probably aware), the problem you are describing (conservation vs access) is almost as old as the NP system itself. That is why there are wilderness areas that have special protection vs the more popular areas of lots of parks.

          Also, Zion is on my bucket list. But it is true they make you pack out your shit?

          1. +1 Bluebag

            1. I don’t mind shitting in holes. I’ve done it plenty of times. But carrying my shit out in bags, that is a step too far.

          2. I went and got a backcountry permit, and they verbally told me it was okay to bury it.

            You’re supposed to do it within 200 feet of the trail.

            1. I should say, that was specific to the East Rim trail.

              I don’t know if it’s the same on the West Rim or…

              Seriously, if you’re hiking the Narrows, which is all under a foot of water anyway, you probably shouldn’t treat it like your personal nature sewer–no matter what they say.

              So, it may differ from trail to trail. And most of those regulations you’re going to hear about are for people who are camping out in the wilderness over night–and there aren’t that many out there. It seems like 99% of everybody sticks to the day trails, which are fantastic, no doubt. But there’s like seven camping spots on the whole North Rim Trail.

              Oh, and make sure you bring your own bottle opener. The few places in Utah that sell beer? Don’t see bottle openers.

              It’s like a Mormon thing.

  3. Wherever you see whatever you want to call an environmental problem, catastrophe, screw-up, it’s occurring in an open access commons.

    No, no, commons are a free market failure.

    Seriously, I’ve seen supposedly intelligent people make that argument.

  4. Well, government is good at two things: (1) Stealing money, and (2) killing people/blowing up stuff.

  5. what was that Friedman quote posted on HandR just a few days ago about how when “everyone” owns something, no one owns it, at least no one takes care of it. But he’s some crazy dead guy who progs tell me would be cheerleading for Somalia.

    1. “No, fuck you, cut spending?”

    2. Nah, Friedman was a Pinochet supporter. Even told him that dropping people out of helicopters was a necessary part of the Shock Doctrine.

      1. Excellent command of prog talking points you have. I salute you, sir!

        1. I’m certainly no prog supporter.

          Friedman did turn a blind eye to Pinochet’s methods of installing corporatism. He turned a blind eye in several countries where the “Chicago Boys” installed corporatism. (it certainly wasn’t pure capitalism like he claimed it was )

          Claiming that he told Pinochet to drop dissenters out of helicopters is a perfect way to get people to think you’re stupid though.

          1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

            Friedman defended his activity in Chile on the grounds that, in his opinion, the adoption of free market policies not only improved the economic situation of Chile but also contributed to the amelioration of Pinochet’s rule and to the eventual transition to a democratic government during 1990. That idea is included in Capitalism and Freedom, in which he declared that economic freedom is not only desirable in itself but is also a necessary condition for political freedom. In his 1980 documentary Free to Choose, he said the following: “Chile is not a politically free system, and I do not condone the system. But the people there are freer than the people in Communist societies because government plays a smaller role. … The conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system.”

  6. In all fairness, it doesn’t take that much to “shock” an environmentalist.

    1. They have responded to as little as nine volts.

  7. I was amazed how fast my old man reacted when the nearby farmer cut his field two feet past our property line. My dad and I loaded up the truck and started pounding posts.

    And the migrant workers who were using our woods as an open-air toilet? Suddenly there were porta-potties – once the matter was brought up with the farmer. And all that without state intervention!

    Of course this is a backward little county with only a sheriff and a few deputies to cover the entire area.

  8. But if we had a one world socialist government we could all SAHRE the Earth’s resources freely and peacefully according to the democratic process!

    Private property is selfish and mean. The commons just need to be REGULATED by the GOVERNMENT so that we can all SHARE it EQUALLY.

    What could go wrong?

    1. Kind of like the Aral Sea?

      1. Their intentions were good.

      2. The PEOPLE CHOSE to drain the Aral Sea!

        Bah! You think stupid fish deserve the water more than THE PEOPLE need corn?

  9. While I welcome all healthy debate in the environmental science community, I cannot help but deplore Fred Pearce’s lack of enthusiasm for Grouse-Hunting

    I strongly recommend his monocle-application be put on hold for further review

    1. I’m not clicking on a NewThink link. What’s the problem with grouse hunting?

      1. He says that rich people’s cultivation of the moors to encourage Grouse breeding releases more carbon into the atmosphere, and is therefore contributing to global warming.

        There is no attempt to compare the amounts released by this activity to say, millions of other processes which also release carbon. This one is easy to point fingers at because ‘rich people do it’ and they do it only to ‘kill birds’, and is therefore Ban-Worthy.

        Forget it if far better results could be produced for ‘the environment’ via some other means. This is an ‘easy win’ for the Greens.

        Typical ‘scratch a green, find a red’ stuff

  10. I live in hope that someday soon environmental activists will heed this lesson.

    I recently met a self-described “environmental stewardship expert” who was convinced that hunters killed every whitetail buck every year. She knew that was true because she never saw a buck at her feeder after hunting season.

    (where “buck” = “deer with antlers”)

    So good luck on that.

    1. Is she also convinced that some species of Elk have no females because they all have antlers?

    2. Please come to my house and take a few home

    3. Where do you suppose she thinks whitetail fawns come from? The stork?

      1. Lesbian adoption.

  11. “Private ownership, either collective or individual, is the key to the proper management of land, water, and nearly any other resources.”

    I don’t think there is any key to proper management of mother nature. And I’d be very wary of anyone who claims to have the key to successfully manage nature, government worker or not. My own theory on this is that any attempt to manage nature will result in less dynamism, less diversity.

    1. Who said “nature”?

      I believe Ron was talking about ‘property’.

      1. I’m talking about nature – land, water, and nearly any other resources.

        Ron is talking about the best way he can manage nature, and I’m saying to manage nature is to despoil it.

        1. He’s saying what the “key” is. Key meaning an essential element, not the whole shebang.

          But you know that. You just want to pontificate.

          1. “But you know that.”

            I know exactly what he’s saying. Pity you can’t say the same about me. Managing nature is chimera, some kind of Utopian dream. Any efforts put into such an enterprise are counterproductive.

            1. And I’m sure the definition of “nature” will change every time someone points out that you’re full of it.

              1. “nature”

                The word is a problem as it has more than one sense or meaning. For clarification, I will give the sense I’m using the word. It’s that part of the universe that lies outside our sphere of existence. The natural world is the world untouched by man. The artificial world is made by man.

                You’ll tell me this is all lies and hypocracy. Save your breath. You never tell me anything I don’t already know.

                1. mtrueman|8.5.14 @ 6:47PM|#
                  …”The word is a problem as it has more than one sense or meaning.”…

                  And dishonest twit that you are, you will use every one and invent new ones to waste the time of those who engage you.

                2. Is man not a part of nature? Did man not come from nature?

                  1. Nature has more than one meaning, as I explained earlier.

                    Popular is another such word. The Popular Front for the Liberation Palestine doesn’t have a lot of fans. That’s not what they mean by popular. They mean ‘of the people.’ One word, two or more meanings. If you take the trouble to study other languages, you’ll discover that a word like nature or popular will be translated into separate words. Don’t let this stuff confuse you.

                3. It’s that part of the universe that lies outside our sphere of existence.

                  Oh, that clears things up. Sounds like nature is everything not on Planet Earth, perhaps? Because this planet is definitely our sphere of existence.

                  1. “Because this planet is definitely our sphere of existence.”

                    No problem there. I note you don’t say “Because this planet and everything on it is definitely our sphere of existence.” You chose your words wisely and we agree on them.

                    Again, nature is outside our control and what we attempt to control.

        2. I’m saying to manage nature is to despoil it.

          Too bad there are far too few people who share the same sentiment when it comes to people.

          1. “Too bad there are far too few people who share the same sentiment when it comes to people.”

            But they do exist, Brian. My Challenge to you is to name a couple. I, for one, would be interested in who you come up with.

        3. to manage nature is to despoil it

          So you hate your own species then?

          Our entire existence is about managing nature and turning it to our own advantage.

          Otherwise, we would have died off to stronger but stupider predators long ago.

          1. when you consider that every aspect of human life is in some way utilizing ‘nature’ to our own ends, that comment is so profoundly stupid that it must take years of tireless effort to destroy any capacity for rational thought in order for one to reach the point they can proudly claim to understand “Nature” as an abstract essence, completely apart from its human utility or environmental benefit.

            By this coin of stupid, ‘environmentalists’ should hate Geothermal, Hydroelectric etc. as much as Fossil Fuels.

            1. Come to Seattle, where we get a huge supply of clean energy from hydro, but the greenies bitch about the salmon runs and want to eliminate the dams.

            2. Gilmore,
              trueman is proud of being a hypocrite; he brags about it.
              Expecting anything other than adolescent twaddle from him is going to mean chasing your tail.

          2. “So you hate your own species then?”

            I’m not a hating kind of guy. You’d know that if you took the trouble to read what I post here. Yours us an emotional response, nothing wrong with that really, emotions have their place. But you misunderstand me. We do manage our own sphere, everything’s cool, no hatred there, but when we try to manage all that’s outside it, the effort is bound to end in no good.

            “Our entire existence is about managing nature and turning it to our own advantage.”

            We never get the end of these denigrations of human adaptability and will to survive. How about an existence that is not about managing nature and turning it to advantage? We may have to consider something so radical if we are to survive. Imagine the first whale, turning to the sea, that decided land life was not for him.

            1. Semantic obfuscation is a pathetic replacement for reason.

              1. Gilmore,
                That is all you’re going to get from that idjit.
                He is proud of being a hypocrite and a liar.

                1. Really?

                  I was waiting for him to explain how ‘evolving to digest plankton’ or somesuch would be something humankind could *choose* to do, and in fact be the ‘preferred choice….
                  …as opposed to say, ‘Agriculture’, which pretty much provided for the entire basis of human civilization.

                  Just in case we needed a reminder that “Hippies are fucking Stupid”. Thanks bud!

                  1. I’m a ‘future is an open book’ kind of guy. I’m surprised that self-styled Libertarians take such offense at the notion. Actually the more I read Reason the less surprised I am.

                    1. mtrueman|8.5.14 @ 11:01PM|#
                      “I’m a ‘future is an open book’ kind of guy”

                      You’re an idiot.

                    2. Says the guy who needed me to explain the meaning of ‘nature.’

                  2. “evolving to digest plankton” as if it was a choice is Lysenkoism, which is not surprising that this nit wit would be attracted to such nonsense.

              2. Enjoy what I write. That’s my main concern. I should edit that last line,

                Imagine, turning to the sea, the first whale deciding that life on land was not for him.

                Has a better ring to it, doesn’t it?

                My method of argumentation is terroristic and bound to frowned on here. Imagine the brave Hamas fighter burrowing deep into enemy territory, popping up out of nowhere, taking a POW and stealing all the good stuff before returning. Not a fair fight, I grant you.

                1. Imagine, turning to the sea, the first whale deciding that life on land was not for him.

                  And, then his descendants almost went extinct, by the hands of the land crawlers.

                  Moral of the story: when you can evolve from “nature” to “artificial”, it’s probably a good idea, as far as your descendants go.

                2. mtrueman|8.5.14 @ 6:55PM|#
                  …”My method of argumentation is terroristic”…

                  No, it’s dishonest and sophomoric. You are seemingly a congenital liar.

                  1. “You are seemingly a congenital liar.”

                    Seemingly is it now? I seem to be winning you over to me evil ways.

                    1. Seemingly is it now? I seem to be winning you over to me evil ways.

                      Interesting, you claimed not to be a pathological liar only a year ago.

                    2. Seemingly, a lot can happen in a year.

                3. By “terrorist”, I can only assume he means, “retarded”.

                  1. Oh, I’m sure he sees himself as ‘brave’!
                    Adolescence is so full of fantasies!

                  2. I can only assume he means…

                    Because nobody’s taken the trouble to point out your trouble in understanding this retard’s point. You’re lost. The insults inevitably take up the rest of the conversation. Insults and bluster are all you can muster.

                    1. mtrueman|8.5.14 @ 7:13PM|#
                      …”The insults inevitably take up the rest of the conversation.”….

                      Pointing out that you are a liar and a hypocrite and proud of may be an insult, but it is also true. So if you don’t like that, don’t do it.
                      As regards the rest of your weaselly attempts at discussion, the less said the better.

                    2. “mtrueman|8.5.14 @ 7:13PM|#

                      “”nobody’s taken the trouble to point out your trouble in understanding this retard’s point. You’re lost.””

                      and you clearly didn’t understand my comment above that ‘inscrutability is not a sign of intelligence’ = quite the opposite. Its the mask an idiot hides behind because he can’t defend his own ideas in any language other than a contrived semantic bullshit mishmash. See: ‘the anthropomorphizing of Hippo-Whales into thinking-beings choosing their own evolutionary direction’

                      You managed to compress so much dumb shit into that one idea that it should serve as your own personal Avatar = “Martin, the Self-Important Hippowhale

                    3. I don’t go out of my way to make myself understood. That’s where inscrutability comes in. Accept it or reject it, all I ask of you is to read it and enjoy it.

                    4. mtrueman|8.5.14 @ 11:10PM|#
                      “I don’t go out of my way to make myself understood. That’s where inscrutability comes in.”

                      No, that’s where stupidity becomes obvious.

                4. mtrueman:

                  My method of argumentation is terroristic and bound to frowned on here. Imagine the brave Hamas fighter burrowing deep into enemy territory, popping up out of nowhere, taking a POW and stealing all the good stuff before returning.

                  A better metaphor would be a silly clown, hopping out of a clown car, waddling around, squeezing honkers and tripping over staged obstacles, and then returning to the clown car.

                  Has a better ring to it, doesn’t it?

                  1. “A better metaphor would be a silly clown, hopping out of a clown car, waddling around, squeezing honkers and tripping over staged obstacles, and then returning to the clown car.”

                    I don’t know about better, mine has the advantage of topicality, and mention of that word raises cries of indignation among the less gifted here. But a clown or fool is fine. It is the fool, after all, in Shakespeare that tells the truth. He also has the best lines. So, good metaphor. If your intent was to insult me, then you could maybe leave that to others here.

                    1. You are a tedious fool.

                    2. “You are a tedious fool.”

                      It seems your intent was to insult after all. Very well. Join the line, they’ll be coming thick and fast now, and nobody has yet to refute me.

                    3. mtrueman|8.5.14 @ 9:56PM|#
                      …”nobody has yet to refute me.”

                      Now, THAT’s funny!
                      Refute what? An ‘argument’ that stuff happens since stuff happens? You are the most innane of the trolls who show up here.
                      For instance, commie-kid is a liar, but makes statements that are falsifiable. Your statements are totally devoid of meaning; there is nothing to refute, since there is no statement made.
                      As Gilmore pointed out, inscrutability is only evidence of a non-functioning mind.
                      I know your Mommy said your were smart. She was lying and drunk at the time. You’re not smart.

                    4. “I don’t think there is any key to proper management of mother nature. And I’d be very wary of anyone who claims to have the key to successfully manage nature, government worker or not. My own theory on this is that any attempt to manage nature will result in less dynamism, less diversity.”

                      That’s what I wrote. Looks pretty good to me. You believe, evidently, that there is a key to the proper management of mother nature. Elaborate. Insult and bluster if you must, but elaborate, please.

                    5. …”Elaborate”…

                      You’re an idiot incapable of posting anything which is falsifiable.

                    6. You’re an idiot incapable of posting anything which is falsifiable.

                      Well, he posts shit and when called upon to actually provide some proof of his claims he gives some vague nonsense (like referring to a guy who has written 10 books, none of which are on the topic he’s claiming the author provides support for) and then childishly chiding the person for not seeking the answer on their own.

                      I think he believes he some kind of educator. He acts like he is and claims to be engaging in debate, but then expects those he argues with to wade through reams of information to fisk his claims.

                      Of course, sometimes he slips up, makes a patently untrue statement that is easily refuted and responds with, “You’ve successfully proved it. What’s your next challenge, the sky is blue?”

                      I know you’ll spend the next 3+ days wading through these comments posting what you believe to be or so clever rebuttals Martin, so again, I ask, why don’t you just fuck off? You made the offer to leave if it could be shown that your presence wasn’t wanted here anymore in February of last year. It’s become obvious that people are tired of your bullshit, so just fuck off.

                    7. “Well, he posts shit and when called upon to actually provide some proof of his claims”

                      Your error lies in thinking my claims can be proved or disproved by people like us arguing on an internet board. You’ve got optimism, I give you that. My rebuttals are not so interesting. They are just dealing with ankle biters who nip at my heels. My advice, read the original comment I wrote here. It will be the earliest one.

                    8. mtrueman|8.6.14 @ 12:35AM|#
                      “Your error lies in thinking my claims can be proved or disproved”

                      No, that is not an error. We can determine the truth of it, and those of us with an IQ higher than whale poop understand that.
                      Idiots don’t.

                    9. Your error lies in thinking my claims can be proved or disproved by people like us arguing on an internet board.

                      I guess it depends on your mood doesn’t it? Sometimes you post inane horseshit, but you frequently make direct claims that are directly controverted by evidence. When caught in whopper lies you offer a rhetorical shrug and a “What’s new, water is wet?” dodge for having been caught in a blatant lie.

                      Why would you brag about making pointless claims that cannot be falsified?

                      My rebuttals are not so interesting. They are just dealing with ankle biters who nip at my heels.

                      Translation: “I hurl childish insults while acting as the adult pedant after people expect me to back up my claims, catch me in a flagrant lie, counter a ridiculous nebulous “argument” with something factual (or at least relevant), etc, etc, etc.”

                      Again, you made the offer to leave over a year ago. Since your presence has so far only involved offering insubstantial inanities or making outrageously false claims, why don’t you just leave?

                      You clearly don’t like any of us. You have learned nothing from any of your interactions on this site. We certainly don’t gain anything from your presence. Consider making the adult decision and going away.

                      You could always start making cogent arguments and offering citations/evidence for your claims and argue in good faith, but we both know you aren’t going to do that, don’t we?

                    10. “You could always start making cogent arguments and offering citations”

                      That’s not the way I roll. You do your own research. Make your own arguments. I’ve seen you do neither. I can see my posts provoke you, but I beg you to try to not personalize things so much. It doesn’t help in your thinking. I’ve already stipulated to being a thoroughly contemptible person, you need to go beyond that. Dwelling on my shortcomings is not going to move us ahead.

                    11. That’s not the way I roll. You do your own research.

                      Oh little Martin, that’s not how it’s done.

                      You make a claim and you do the research. That way, you can actually add something to a discussion rather than derailing it.

                      Make your own arguments. I’ve seen you do neither.

                      No, Martin, I do both. I make an argument and I actually provide evidence for it, which is what an adult in a debate does. That you’ve seen me do neither is just another lie.

                      I can see my posts provoke you, but I beg you to try to not personalize things so much.

                      This isn’t personal for me. I’m merely exposing you. Clearly you take being exposed as a liar quite personally. You can always make it stop, you can go away (as you’ve offered in the past), or you can stop lying.

                      Dwelling on my shortcomings is not going to move us ahead.

                      Providing support for your claims would move us ahead. You have never done this.

                    12. “that’s not how it’s done.”

                      Point is, that’s how I do it. Read me with a little more care, and that should be obvious.

                    13. Point is, that’s how I do it. Read me with a little more care, and that should be obvious.

                      Than what you do is not debate.

                    14. “Than what you do is not debate.”

                      If I don’t debate, then you don’t debate. Takes two to tango. I lecture, pontificate and tergiversate. Given the audience that shows up here, what more do you expect of me.

                    15. I lecture

                      Given that you can never be bothered to support your claims, and frequently post outright lies, you don’t do this either.

                      tergiversate

                      So why don’t you just stick to your blog and argue with yourself and your constantly changing opinions?

                      Given the audience that shows up here, what more do you expect of me.

                      Considering that there are people here who do, in fact, argue in good faith and provide substantiation for their positions and claims, why don’t you try that, instead of waffling between tautological tail chasing, and outright lying?

                    16. “Considering that there are people here who do, in fact, argue in good faith and provide substantiation for their positions and claims”

                      You are confused about my post. It’s only an opinion or theory. I won’t be able to find outside substantiation because it’s my opinion and nobody else’s.

                      You are also confused about my intentions. I’m not interested in convincing you of anything, or ‘debating’ you, or discussing my failings. I’m only interested in seeing the reaction to what I post. The only valuable comment I got was from Brian who said ‘to manage people was to despoil them.’ He was on to something there but chose not to pursue it. Turned instead to your line of argument, bluster and insult.

                    17. “I know you’ll spend the next 3+ days wading through these comments posting what you believe to be or so clever rebuttals”

                      This is the amusing part. The idiot is called on bullshit and then returns, shoves the goal posts down the road and, I’m sure, pats himself on the back!
                      Ignorance can be cured; stupidity is forever.

                    18. “You’re an idiot incapable of posting anything which is falsifiable.”

                      Surely you have no problem with that as long as I don’t stray into science.

                    19. mtrueman|8.6.14 @ 12:28AM|#
                      “Surely you have no problem with that as long as I don’t stray into science.”

                      I’m sure you’re stupid enough to presume that falsifiability has only to do with “science”, and that “science” is some collection of knowledge rather than a way of examining data to determine the truth of it.
                      IOWs, you are an idiot.

                    20. I’m not examining data. I’m really not sure what your objection is. Don’t be afraid to try to explain yourself. Go beyond the sound bites you’ve memorized. For the third time, here’s my original post:

                      “I don’t think there is any key to proper management of mother nature. And I’d be very wary of anyone who claims to have the key to successfully manage nature, government worker or not. My own theory on this is that any attempt to manage nature will result in less dynamism, less diversity.”

                    21. mtrueman|8.6.14 @ 12:47AM|#
                      “I’m not examining data.”

                      Correct. You’re spouting bullshit. Is that explanation enough?
                      Simply because you make stupid statements in no way obliges anyone else to respond to the stupid statements other than to point out they are so.
                      I’m not about to refute ‘little Mary had a lamb’, or ‘Purple Sam’.

                    22. “I’m not about to refute ‘little Mary had a lamb'”

                      Here you go then:

                      Mary had a little lamb,
                      His fleece was white as snow,
                      And everywhere that Mary went,
                      The lamb was sure to go.

                      He followed her to school one day,
                      Which was against the rule,
                      It made the children laugh and play
                      To see a lamb at school.

                      And so the teacher turned it out,
                      But still it lingered near,
                      And waited patiently about,
                      Till Mary did appear.

                      “Why does the lamb love Mary so?”
                      The eager children cry.
                      “Why, Mary loves the lamb, you know.”
                      The teacher did reply.

                      Enjoy your non-refuting.

                    23. Oh, and:
                      “My own theory on this is that any attempt to manage nature will result in less dynamism, less diversity.”

                      Which is so much adolescent drivel. Refute that? Refute what? That your opinion is hopelessly vague and totally unsupported by fact and is therefore worthless?
                      OK, consider it done.

                    24. “That your opinion is hopelessly vague and totally unsupported by fact and is therefore worthless?”

                      You’re a mediocrity. Sorry to be blunt about it, but to reject the vague and unsupported as worthless is the mark of a mind that does not strive. You can always be counted on to cling to convention. A bore, in short.

                    25. Sorry to be blunt about it, but to reject the vague and unsupported as worthless is the mark of a mind that does not strive.

                      Where on Earth do you get this shit?

                      When talking about science or policy-making the vague and unsupported is worthless.

                    26. What about lies? How do lies mark the mind that strives?

                    27. It’s a wash, wouldn’t you say? Again I get the sense that what you really want to discuss is me. Where does this fixation come from? Are there others you respond to with such obsessive droning?

                    28. Again I get the sense that what you really want to discuss is me.

                      That’s interesting, because in most of our interactions I’ve actually discussed what you’ve posted. This is the one thread in which I’ve ignored what you’ve “added” (because it’s completely useless).

                      You just choose to ignore when I fisk your claims and attempt to make the subject about yourself, because that’s all your presence on this board is about for you, you.

                    29. “all your presence on this board is about for you, you”

                      Again you flatter me. If you look hard enough, you will find others who make lesser, but still valuable contributions.

                    30. Again you flatter me. If you look hard enough, you will find others who make lesser, but still valuable contributions.

                      That’s just the point Martin, you don’t make a contribution.

                      Tell me, why is it that you post here?

                    31. “When talking about science or policy-making”

                      Read my original post. It’s not long and it doesn’t mention science or policy making. It’s an opinion, a theory if you will. That’s all. It should stand or fall independent of my own failings.

                    32. It’s an opinion, a theory if you will. That’s all. It should stand or fall independent of my own failings.

                      If it’s vague or unsupported how can it function as a theory? You do know what a theory is, don’t you Martin?

                      It appears to have fallen though, because the critique of it hasn’t just been based on your personal failings.

                    33. “If it’s vague or unsupported how can it function as a theory?”

                      Let’s say it can’t function as a theory. How about opinion? Can you point to your critique of my opinion? I must have missed it. I really don’t understand the nature of your objection.

                    34. Can you point to your critique of my opinion?

                      Why bother? You already invalidated it with this:

                      No problem there. I note you don’t say “Because this planet and everything on it is definitely our sphere of existence.” You chose your words wisely and we agree on them.

                      Again, nature is outside our control and what we attempt to control.

                      With that post you admitted that your opinion has no merit.

                    35. “With that post you admitted that your opinion has no merit”

                      Can you point out where? Or better yet, just give your own critique, warts and all, and I promise not to laugh.

                    36. Actually, I was just quoting Shakespeare. It seemed appropriate. However, it seems that it went over your head. Pity.

                    37. I wouldn’t worry about it. Better luck next time.

            2. Humans are not the strongest animals, nor the quickest, nor the smallest, nor the largest, nor any other superlative except the smartest.

              It is our only advantage, and if we are going to throw it away out of some bizarre sense of guilt, then we deserve the extinction that would follow.

              By all means, please do prove your sincerity by giving up all of your adaptations to survive and placing yourself at the mercy of nature.

              1. “It is our only advantage, and if we are going to throw it away out of some bizarre sense of guilt,”

                You are engagin in caricature here. I am not suggesting we throw away our intelligence here, simply recognize it’s limitations. The whole debate here on the impossibility of predicting the climate some 50 years hence is evidence for the limits of our mental abilities. They do exist. Nobody has stated otherwise.

                1. Well, nobody but the AGW “science is settled crowd”, anyway.

                2. I am not suggesting we throw away our intelligence here, simply recognize it’s limitations

                  No, you said we should do nothing with our intelligence, because to actually put it to practical use would “despoil” nature.

                  Of course our knowledge has limitations, that’s why we expand our knowledge through experimentation.

                  You either don’t understand the implications of your arguments, or you do but now are weaseling out of the very statements you made.

                  1. “now are weaseling out of the very statements you made”

                    I repeat: He is a hypocrite and is not shy in admitting so.
                    Yes, he is weaseling; that’s what he does. Expecting a consistent response from trueman is a waste of time.

                    1. Kizone KaprowAugust 3, 2014 at 6:39 AM

                      You should have a t-shirt printed: I WENT TO HIT & RUN, AND ALL I GOT WAS AN OBSCENITY-LACED TIRADE FROM SEVO, THEIR ANGRIEST TROLL.

                      He also has a fan, well a crazy troll, same diff.

                    2. “You should have a t-shirt printed: I WENT TO HIT & RUN, AND ALL I GOT WAS AN OBSCENITY-LACED TIRADE FROM SEVO, THEIR ANGRIEST TROLL.”

                      Hey, I got a copy-right on those!

                  2. “No, you said we should do nothing with our intelligence,”

                    I didn’t say that. Are you in competition with Sevo for house moran?

                    1. “Are you in competition with Sevo for house moran?”

                      Aw, trueman! What a shame to have your bullshit called every time you spout it!

                    2. I didn’t say that. Are you in competition with Sevo for house moran?

                      I’m sorry, apparently your vagueries were not meant to be thought through. Please excuse me while I leave you to your drug-addled pointless pontification on “managing nature”, which simultaneously means nothing and everything.

                    3. You still don’t get it, do you? It’s the author of the article that claims to have the key to managing nature. I’m saying that the whole enterprise is Utopian and doomed from the start.

                    4. So what do you propose be done instead? All of human activity is about managing nature. Whether you intend to or not, everything you do has some consequence to the natural world. So what should be our goals, and how do we go about achieving them?

                      Not managing nature is not being human. You are the one who does not understand that.

                    5. “So what do you propose be done instead? ”

                      I’m not proposing anything. Read my posts here and you will see that this is so. I’ll make this proposal now since you ask: Know our limitations and steer clear of these visionary Utopian megaprojects like the author is on about.

                      You are still not getting me. Nature is by definition unmanaged. Once something is managed, our gardens for example, it’s no longer part of the wild, no longer part of nature. It becomes domesticated. Once you tame the wild, it is no longer wild, it’s a diminished copy of itself, and necessarily so. That’s it in a nutshell. Surely, it’s not such an inscrutable point to make. I hope you understand this. I really don’t think it’s all that hard. Ignore the naysayers here like Sevo et al. They are not here to help you come to an understanding.

                    6. In other words, you have no idea what I’m saying, and continue to insist on vagueries with no explanatory power.

                    7. “In other words, you have no idea what I’m saying”

                      I think I do have some idea what you are saying. You’re saying I hate mankind. You’re saying that I advocate extinction for mankind, or that I should place myself at the mercy of nature. A lot of silly emotionalism. My question is where does this come from? You seem to be responding to something else rather than my rather simple and undisputed comment.

                      ” and continue to insist on vagueries with no explanatory power”

                      Yes, so? It’s not science, I think it comes down to a question of aesthetic judgment, a matter of taste. Staking out a claim in these territories, as I have, is bound to be a little vague, especially in a forum like this. And it’s explanatory power may be greater than you think, though explaining things is not my first and foremost goal.

                      Speaking of aesthetic judgment, I like your style. Blunt and simple and to the point. Just put aside the straw men and deal with the argument put before you. Not someone else’s parody of someone else again.

                    8. Can you be any more weaselly? Nail down a fucking position and defend it. All you’ve written is pablum, with not an ounce of substance to it. Adhering to concepts that lack explanatory power is foolish and naive. Expect to be called on it, and if you don’t want your arguments misrepresented, then give them concrete meaning.

    2. My own theory on this is that any attempt to manage nature will result in less dynamism, less diversity.

      “Dynamism” in nature is the blight that kills all of your crops in a fortnight and leaves you and your family starving. The survival of the human species depends upon “managing” nature.

      A sufficiently large asteroid striking the Earth would result in the extinction of all life. No more dynamism or diversity, just lifeless rock. If human intervention could stop such a thing from happening, then wouldn’t such “managing” be “best” for nature?

      1. its sorta weird how in the “Unmanaged Nature” of recent Millenia, Nature managed to eliminate *millions and millions of species* and become less and less ‘diverse’ all by itself, without the aid of any meddling humans.

        99.9% of species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct, but at the same time there are likely more species alive during the current era in geological history than at any previous time. Why is this?

        Since the first cellular life appeared about 3.8 billion years ago, new life forms have been constantly evolving and some species have been going extinct. Since life on Earth is so old, most of the species that have ever lived are now gone, even if they persisted for millions of years. There have been periods of biodiversity explosions, as well as periods of mass extinctions, but generally the trend has been toward an increase in the variety of life forms on this planet.

        We should realize that humans are not responsible for most of the extinctions that have happened on Earth.”

        1. “We should realize that humans are not responsible for most of the extinctions that have happened on Earth”

          I’m not arguing this or any other straw man you want to put up here. Think for yourself GILMORE, don’t ape the arguments of others. If you want to get something of value from these exchanges, you really gotta put those straw men aside and think for yourself. I promise you I’m not about to do it for you.

      2. ” If human intervention could stop such a thing from happening, then wouldn’t such “managing” be “best” for nature?”

        Fair point. Best for life on earth, to be sure. But we’d also be looking out for number one, ourselves. That’s always going to be the case. Knowing your limits is a part of survival.

        1. What does “knowing your limits” have to do with stopping or not stopping a world-ending asteroid?

          In a question of the apocalypse, any answer that results in the end of the human race is unacceptable.

          Are you advocating for the extinction of mankind?

          1. “Are you advocating for the extinction of mankind?”

            No, and you are doing well in your moran contest. We are all special in our own way.

            1. “No, and you are doing well in your moran contest.”

              What was that about insults, trueman?

            2. Again you insult me without addressing the substance of the argument. All human activity is management of nature. Period, not debatable. Everything from hunting to agriculture, sailing to horseback riding, construction to manufacturing, all that humans do is about turning nature to our advantage. That is the expression of our intellect, and the reason why we survived instead of dying out to predators or climate changes or natural disasters.

              Apparently you have some definition of “managing” which means “doing things mtrueman doesn’t like” but then you have failed to express what those things are, and how they differ from other forms of manipulating and exploiting the natural world.

              I don’t “understand” you because you are not trying to be understood. You are grandstanding without a purpose, and your words lack any intellectual rigor.

              1. “All human activity is management of nature. ”

                I disagree. Instead I would say a good part of human activity is the domestication of nature. Take it from someone who spend the morning fixing my fencing.

                ‘Managing nature’ is an oxymoron. How many times does this need saying? When we tame something, we diminish it. The King of the Beasts is not a lion threatened with a whip and chair in a circus, it’s a lion in the wild, doing his own thing. Sorry if this comes across as intellectually unrigourous, I just can’t seem to get my point across otherwise.

                1. If you cannot frame your point in an intellectually rigorous fashion it is because the point has no substance, and in fact would be better called a smudge than a point.

                  The lion in the wild manages his habitat: he consumes food, he disposes of waste, he fends off scavengers, he fights with other lions for dominance of the pride, etc.

                  That his ability to manipulate nature is highly constrained by his very limited intelligence does not change the fact that his existence depends upon being able to take advantage of nature for his own benefit.

                  This is the way of life. Humans are just much better at it than other animals.

                  1. We seem to have reached agreement. I agree that we do much the same as lions or any other form of life do, find a niche and exploit it. This necessarily leads to a diminishment in dynamism and diversity in that niche, at least for humans: “When we tame something, we diminish it.” Is what I wrote in the previous post and you don’t dispute it. As I say, we seem to have reached agreement.

                    1. When we tame something, we diminish it

                      You have stated a theorem, now prove it. Define “tame” and “deminish”. Give examples. Address counter-examples.

                2. Domestication is a form of management. And we’re the morons?

      3. Less dynamism and diversity if we try to manage nature, huh?

        I’m sure the reintroduction of elk, wolves, bighorn sheep, wild turkeys, and innumerable varieties of trout is either (a) not managing nature or (b) less diversity and dynamism, right?

        1. You get to the heart of the matter, and you appear to understand me.
          a) I’m not sure managed nature is nature.
          b) Maybe so, are you convinced otherwise?

  12. ” I live in hope that someday soon environmental activists will heed this lesson.”

    C’mon Ron, you know better than this.

  13. “I will repeat my mantra: Wherever you see whatever you want to call an environmental problem, catastrophe, screw-up, it’s occurring in an open access commons.”

    Ridiculous. Flies in the face of the most cursory glance of recent history. Anniston, love canal, Harrisburg, etc.

    Ron, failure to regulate because a government official has an anti-government, pro-business approach isn’t a problem to be posed to those of us that believe in an active government that enforces things like environmental regulations. You realize this, right?

    1. american socialist|8.5.14 @ 6:00PM|#
      “Ridiculous. Flies in the face of the most cursory glance of recent history. Anniston, love canal, Harrisburg, etc.”

      Yes, since all those places were privately owned, right?
      Way to go, commie-kid!

      1. Monsanto was privately owned when they spewed their poly-chlorinated biphenyls all over the Black parts of Anniston? Who knew? I feel a list coming on.

        1. american socialist|8.5.14 @ 9:27PM|#
          “Monsanto was privately owned when they spewed their poly-chlorinated biphenyls all over the Black parts of Anniston?”

          Yes, and if the land was privately-owned, the owners have recourse, so you still can’t read.
          Unlike if the pollution is gov’t ‘provided’.

    2. Love Canal happened because the local government belligerently ignored the warnings of the property owner and forcibly acquired the property anyway, then proceeded to flagrantly ignore those warnings and started digging at the site where the contaminants were safely buried.

      Reason has covered this very incident in some depth.

      It is dishonesty of the highest order to claim Love Canal as an example of the failure of private property ownership.

      1. Don’t get lost in the facts.

        The important thing is that American Socialist is right because libertarians are bad.

        …for the environment or something.

        And we know that’s true because of Love Canal. And because of Ronald Reagan, too.

  14. The new scientist link says that only an eighth of the worlds forests are managed by these local and indigenous communities that seem to have a culture based in that environment. So, say the governments in the rest of the areas decide to sell the land to private interests – my concern would be that it wouldn’t go to people looking to establish communities like these, but large corporations looking to exploit it.

    1. The way GP ‘exploits’ the pine forests in the NW by replanting them?
      Yeah, companies just love to go out of business.

      1. Slash and burn for agriculture i think is also still profitable, and the major cause of deforestation.

        1. starman2112|8.6.14 @ 1:08AM|#
          “Slash and burn for agriculture i think is also still profitable, and the major cause of deforestation.”

          Which is typically not done by large corporations.

          1. Oh yea, but now i’m really confused. If slash and burn is the largest cause of deforestation and it’s mostly for subsistence agriculture, then how can they say local communities are better at managing the forests?

    2. “So, say the governments in the rest of the areas decide to sell the land to private interests”

      That sounds to me like a Chiapas scenario, where the government strips indigenous people of the land they’ve held for centuries and then resells it to someone else.

      No one here is advocating the government taking people’s land away and giving it to someone else. If you look in the Hit & Run archives, you’ll find that we’re universally against the logic in the Kelo decision here in the U.S.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K…..New_London

      And I feel real confident in saying that we’re all against any government doing things like that to indigenous communities throughout the world.

      1. Right, I’m saying the land that there are no communities currently in. The linked article said only an eighth of forests are managed by these communities. I was just wondering if there should be specific way of selling the government owned land back so as to promote these forest communities.

  15. Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. http://www.Fox81.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.