Way off-topic.... deforrestation....

[Bryant]

Deforrestation !! (removing our trees)

This sounds political but..... considering I am a conservative Libertarian, things like this usually aren't an issue. I always thought that was stuff Liberals bitched about. However, I have just seen it up close and personal. A construction company is building a new subdivision right next to me and they absolutely leveled all of the trees that are in the zone. Many were pecan trees and they were old as dirt. These new and modern subdivisions are slowly killing our environment. What can you do ? People need a place to live, but come on !! save some of the freaking trees.


Bryant

 

[Aethyrs]

I do agree with you on that. An here's something from skyclad, taken off the song "The disenchanted forest".

Opposing forces clashed
beneath a red sky cracked by thunder.
Entrenched beneath the hedge-row
I'd observed it quite unseen.
One side stood to save the wood:
T'other planned it's plunder,
I chose to fight for Nature's right;
Grabbed a fallen skean.

All who would one flower destroy,
must first cut down this Didycoy!

 

[Metal Dog]

a couple of quotes that I think are appropriate to this thread

"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise that we cannot eat money" Source: Cree indian, 1909

"There is not one animal or person on Earth - from a polar bear in the Arctic, a tree frog in the tropical rainforest, to a newborn child anywhwew - that has not been exposed to man-made industrial or agriculturalchemicals." Source: WWF

"Some 85 per cent of Africa's tropical rainforest has now been destroyed. The Congo Basin, second in size only to the mighty Amazon, loses close to 1.5 million hectares of forest cover every year. This amounts to about a third of the four million hectaresof forest destruction Africa experiences each year - an area roughly twice the size of Belgium" Source: WWF

"Each person must play their part in mapping the way to a future where global warming does not wreak havoc on nature, but rather is slowed down and contained. Only when that has been secured can we look our children in the eyes and explain that we did everything we could to stop the disaster of global warming" Source: WWF

 

[SoundMaster]

I always thought that was stuff Liberals bitched about. However, I have just seen it up close and personal.

As a Libertarian, you should he happy that development is flourishing, right? What's a few trees? They stand in the way of 'progress'. Why should the developers walk away from millions?

Isnt the ultimate goal of libertarianism a totally unregulated free market?
Lost trees are simply an opportunity cost.

 

[Hawk]

As a Libertarian, you should he happy that development is flourishing, right? What's a few trees? They stand in the way of 'progress'. Why should the developers walk away from millions?

Isnt the ultimate goal of libertarianism a totally unregulated free market?
Lost trees are simply an opportunity cost.

Please soundmaster first inform yourself about libertarianism before judging it.

Libertarians care as much about nature as other people do, they just think that respecting private property is the best way to solve environmental problems. Even if they turn out to be wrong, it does not mean that they are the ruthless monsters you imply them to be.

I take offense of the picture you are drawing.
You are clearly making a caricature of libertarians and baiting Bryant here.

I think that in any debate its always a good idea to presume that your opponent is of good will even though you don't agree with his ideas. After all people make mistakes.

The country with the worst environmental problems was the Soviet Union,
a country when the state was supposed to care of the environment.
Not exactly a shining example is it?

Since forests are a value to people, environmental organizations could buy them up and protect them. They could hire parts of those area's to people who would like to visit those places. Part of the problem is that nobody feels responsible for public property. This is called:

The tragedy of the commons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Thus what libertarians are saying is that they believe that the environment would be much better protected in a free market setting were all property was private property including all natural resources.

They have no innate desire to destroy the natural habitat of man And that is also not the natural or logical outcome of a consistent free market economy.

Just trying to clarify here...

 

[SoundMaster]

Thus what libertarians are saying is that they believe that the environment would be much better protected in a free market setting were all property was private property including all natural resources.

They have no innate desire to destroy the natural habitat of man And that is also not the natural or logical outcome of a consistent free market economy.

Just trying to clarify here...

For one, I apologise if I came off as judgemental or rude. For years, I considered myself a borderline Libertarian....and it's from that past that my sarcastic remarks above sprung. In effect, I'm lashing out at my own past (in the post above). I do not believe that they, nor Bryant, have an intrinsic desire to NOT protect the environment.

But the reason I walked away from libertarianism, ultimately, is because it fails at the mission you pointed out above (which I've bolded). Lack of regulation, total private ownership of eveything, etc., only works in theory - much like communism. But the practice leads to totally undesirable consequences such as those Bryant is now experiencing firsthand.


So again, no harm intended.

Apologies....

 

[Hawk]

For one, I apologise if I came off as judgemental or rude. For years, I considered myself a borderline Libertarian....and it's from that past that my sarcastic remarks above sprung. In effect, I'm lashing out at my own past (in the post above). I do not believe that they, nor Bryant, have an intrinsic desire to NOT protect the environment.

But the reason I walked away from libertarianism, ultimately, is because it fails at the mission you pointed out above (which I've bolded). Lack of regulation, total private ownership of eveything, etc., only works in theory - much like communism. But the practice leads to totally undesirable consequences such as those Bryant is now experiencing firsthand.


So again, no harm intended.

Apologies....

Its all good buddy. No problem.

But I would say that total private property leads to very much regulation. Who would not want to protect their property? Damage private property and you're gonna get sued!

Imagine a local fishing club who own a certain part of the river.
They have an interest in keeping the river clean and the fish population strong. But up river a factory is polluting the water with their waist.

I don't think the people in the fishing club would stand for this. They would sue the plant right away! And any lawyer would accept that case on a no cure, no pay basis.

I am not trying to convince you, I am just saying that there are way of doing things you might have not considered.

I can see why you think that libertarianism leads to less regulation, I believe it would lead to more effective and more important, better enforced regulation. Only there would not be any blanket laws covering everything under the same rules. which I think, is a good thing.

I would like to know who ordered the building and tearing down of those trees.

I don't get enough context from Bryants story.

Who hired the contractor?

Who owns the land that is being build on?

Why were the people who lived there not informed?

Why do they not have a say in all of this?

Bryant are you positively sure that there will not be some trees replanted when they finished building the houses?

Those are just a few of the questions I have.

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

Uh oh, a political discussion! In any other forum, I would say this thread is doomed to deteriorate into barbarianism. But this is UMOS, and we've proved before that religion and politics CAN be discussed rationally among respectful people.

That said, you should see what they are doing to Northwestern Montana. The Californians discovered our little piece of heaven ten years ago and began purchasing all the land (where they could get ten acres for the price of a 2-bedroom house in So. Cal.). Development has now overtaken my beloved Flathead Valley, so that half the valley floor is now housing developments and high-end ($2 million +) luxury homes/ranches. They are knocking down trees by the thousands every day.

Soon, my homeland will no longer be my homeland. And all I'll have is my pictures.

 

[ElectricWiz]

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we have a lot of Redwood trees. Sometimes they have to knock 'em down because they are getting ready to fall, and sometimes for other "environmentally sound" reasons......fine. But when they take one (yeah, even one) down purely for construction purposes, my blood always kind of curdles. They are so awe-inspiring, and most of them date back thousands of years. People are strange.....

 

[Hawk]

Uh oh, a political discussion! In any other forum, I would say this thread is doomed to deteriorate into barbarianism. But this is UMOS, and we've proved before that religion and politics CAN be discussed rationally among respectful people.

That said, you should see what they are doing to Northwestern Montana. The Californians discovered our little piece of heaven ten years ago and began purchasing all the land (where they could get ten acres for the price of a 2-bedroom house in So. Cal.). Development has now overtaken my beloved Flathead Valley, so that half the valley floor is now housing developments and high-end ($2 million +) luxury homes/ranches. They are knocking down trees by the thousands every day.

Soon, my homeland will no longer be my homeland. And all I'll have is my pictures.

Well Ryan

the US at this moment is hardly the private property society that libertarians envision. For the same money that land might have been bought by those that wanted to preserve it. Its a matter of putting your money were your values are. If a group of people band together and join their efforts there is a lot they can do.

I know that there are more forests now in the US than say 30 years ago. Ironic enough most new trees are being planted by the loggers that want to maintain the supply. Trees are a renewable source

But don't take my word for it. Look here:

http://www.basinelectric.com/NewsCenter/News/FeaturedArticles/Greenpeace_founder_d.html

Where the founder of Greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore is debunking some environmental myths.

 

[poundingmetal74]

Bryant, is that not the whole philosphy of the US. - Profits over environment? Surely you can't expect the government, zoning clerics, builders, etc. to care about things such as trees or fishing areas, etc.... Those are all in the way of "development".

 

[TheWhisper]

I have been migrating politically toward the Libertarian Party for the last decade, or so, as my previously chosen political party has drifted futher from me and the principles that originally drew me to them. So much for my political background.

Well, since Hawk has elaborated on these issues better than I ever could, I won't re-hash his comments. Just be careful of extremists anywhere in society, and that includes enviromental extremists. To add to the link that Hawk gave above, here is the homepage of Greenspirit, the organization founded by Dr. Patrick Moore a former founding member of Greenpeace, President of Greenpeace Canada and Director of Greenpeace International.

http://www.greenspirit.com/home.cfm

 

[Hawk]

I have been migrating politically toward the Libertarian Party for the last decade, or so, as my previously chosen political party has drifted futher from me and the principles that originally drew me to them. So much for my political background.

Well, since Hawk has elaborated on these issues better than I ever could, I won't re-hash his comments. Just be careful of extremists anywhere in society, and that includes enviromental extremists. To add to the link that Hawk gave above, here is the homepage of Greenspirit, the organization founded by Dr. Patrick Moore a former founding member of Greenpeace, President of Greenpeace Canada and Director of Greenpeace International.

http://www.greenspirit.com/home.cfm

Thanks Whisper.

 

[Wheezer]

Private ownership versus public:

Ted Turner owns millions of acres of Montana. I'll never get to set foot on that land and enjoy its beauty.

The Federal Government owns Rocky Mountain National Park, which is about an hour drive from my home. I've been there four times this Spring/Summer/Fall. I go several times every year.

Granted, that's only two cases but it does illustrate one drawback to private ownership. A billionaire like Ted Turner can afford to swallow up vast tracts of land and make it off limits to us common folk. Will the land be preserved? Prolly but who will get to see it?

Malcolm Forbes bought a bunch of land near my hometown and turned it into a mountain subdivision, selling off lots here and there. The roads that cut the mountainsides to connect those lots has ruined the view.

I'm more in favor of a mix of private/public ownership. I think that overall it has worked fairly well in the US. There are groups that pool their money to buy land to preserve. there are quite a few that have been successful. I want to say that either Paul Newman or Robert Redford has formed such a group. Can't remember which.

Anyways, my two cents.

 

[Wheezer]

Deforrestation !! (removing our trees)

This sounds political but..... considering I am a conservative Libertarian, things like this usually aren't an issue. I always thought that was stuff Liberals bitched about. However, I have just seen it up close and personal. A construction company is building a new subdivision right next to me and they absolutely leveled all of the trees that are in the zone. Many were pecan trees and they were old as dirt. These new and modern subdivisions are slowly killing our environment. What can you do ? People need a place to live, but come on !! save some of the freaking trees.


Bryant

The youngest Stepson is here visiting from North Carolina. He works in construction and told us about some new developments going in. They cleared whole fields of trees, piled them up, and burned them. Needless to say, I was shocked. To remove the trees and waste them like that was unbelievable.

 

[#1_Droogie]

This reminds me of events happening around here in the past five or so years. Definitely not as large of scale as previously mentioned, but still very disheartening and sentimental for me.

In 1997, there was a huge flood in my city of Grand Forks, which did a LOT of damage. About a year after, they started to build a dyke along the Red River(eastern ND/MN border), anticipating future flooding. Well my old house (just moved for the first time one year ago this month) was on a street next to the river, several hundred yards away. One year ago was the first time in my life that I had moved, so I grew up in that area. It was beautiful. There was a mini forest all along the river, which I would explore and trek through about everyday as a kid. There were tree sizes that rival redwoods. I'd built countless forts in the canopies of fallen trees leaning against each other.

Now it is all gone. They uprooted every single one of the trees. And in their place is a cement wall, portruding out of the landscape like a blister. I guess it's more tragic for me for sentimental reasons, but this is obviously one of many many cases.

In closing, fuck deforrestation.

 

[Wyvern]

"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise that we cannot eat money" Source: Cree indian, 1909

When all the trees are gone we better learn to breathe carbon dioxide, because without photosynthesis we are going to be very, very fucked!

 

[Mxgonzo]

When all the trees are gone we better learn to breathe carbon dioxide, because without photosynthesis we are going to be very, very fucked!

Eh! I've been looking for a way to kick this nasty oxygen habit anyway

 

[Bryant]

Sorry I was so late replying.....

I honestly was not trying to make this a political issue, though I foolishly mentioned my Libertarian leanings in the post, so I suppose it is fair game. I will address the political side first:

Soundmaster, I actually agree with you almost 100% on your first reply. Simply because I support and believe in much of the Libertarian philosophy, doesn't mean that I believe in it in entirity. Also, there certainly are radical Libertarians as well as conservative ones. The US system of government has built in checks and balances to disallow too many radical ideas to get passed through the system.

Who says just because you are a Libertarian, that you can't be in favor of a law that may hinder the personal liberties of developers ? EVERY Libertarian that has any sense about them knows very well that there still has to be laws. Most Libertarians are in favor of a less powerful central (Federal) govt. and want to abolish many laws that hinder personal liberties. I think the right to breathe is an important liberty and as a good Libertarian, developers aren't allowed to clear cut every tree in a new subdivision.

Back to the real situation that really is above any political agenda:

People are living longer and the population is growing. This planet WILL run out of resources if there is no global man-made or natural disaster. I plan on doing something about it.
Because I do live in the US and near a rural area, I am going to buy me a place out in the country with about 5 acres of land, put my house on it and only develop half of it (at the most.) Maybe that isn't much in the whole scheme of things, but it will be a big investment that I will have to pay for many years.

As far as this developer is concerned...... the house and trees he just bulldozed over was the house he was born in. It belonged to his late mother. Does that make this man a bad person ? Absloutely not. I don't know the guy personally (though I know his father) and he has a good sized company with many employees that need to feed their families as well. It is not about any single company...... but more broadly, the common practices of the business in general. I bet if they left just 10 of those huge pecan trees, the houses that had one in the yard would be one of the first to sell.


Bryant

 

[Bryant]

I would like to know who ordered the building and tearing down of those trees.

The land Owner

I don't get enough context from Bryants story.

Sorry I have been at a class reunion and wasn't able to get back online..

Who hired the contractor?

Did all of the work with his own company

Who owns the land that is being build on?

He owned the land. His late Mother was the previous owner.

Why were the people who lived there not informed?

He didn't build on other people's property, just around/between them.

Why do they not have a say in all of this?

You can contest it at City Hall. This was done before the first phase of the subdivision was started. My Mother was involved in it.

Bryant are you positively sure that there will not be some trees replanted when they finished building the houses?

There are very few trees planted in the first and second phase of the subdivision and they are complete.

Those are just a few of the questions I have.

Great questions and great replies, Hawk.


Bryant