Conservation versus Greens/Environmentalists

The conservationist case against greenism

Greens/Environmentalists treat environmental protection as a bureaucratic matter. Instead, it should be a part of everything we do, and rely on the methods of nature itself.

 

Yeah - nobody should be allowed to own land except nature itself. I'm totally with you!

Private property and the robbing of the commons from nature is a crime!

 

I would at least like to leave 50-75% of the land for nature alone. We don't need that much.

 

If owning land was made illegal by law, people would still try to own and control land using whatever means necessary. This would lead to war between people over land.

....this fighting already happened. That is why things are the way they are. What you propose is too idealistic and will never happen.

 

I would say about 90% of land as it is still is nature.

 

that sounds a bit hopeful, but I definitely hope thats true. I love hiking in the forest, mountains, etc. and getting away for a bit, it would be sad to lose places of pure nature.

 

It's easy to focus on Urban sprawl, but really even in America most of our land is vast plains, mountains, hills, ect.

 

agreed. Even though the population is growing, we still don't need to bother the forests. Leave them be so we can all enjoy their beauty for generations to come.

 

“Like conservative politics itself, conservationism is just common sense”

The problem is that conservative politics is usually dominated by wealth, and therefore it’s usually run in the interests of wealth.

Oh politicians of all shades claim that their ideas are ‘just common sense’ but all common sense means is – what is commonly thought of a making sense – and at differing times it was thought that it was just ‘common sense’ that witches existed and had to be burnt at the stake or that black people were inferior to whites.

Basically the level and veracity of the ‘common sense’ you get depends on the enlightenment and education of the common people being asked.

But is there any ‘common sense’ in this essay?

*

The environment does need protection but usually what it needs protection from is the very people that are usually represented by conservative politicians.

So its not surprising that this piece really doesn’t want the interests of the rich attacked

Oh yeah you greens and environmentalists leave the rich people alone…

*

The essay lists problems but doesn’t seem to have many solutions; basically Brett’s big idea to save the planet is to stop “human greed, stupidity, overgrowth and selfishness”

Well maybe the author thinks everyone other than conservatives are in favour of such things as human greed and selfishness but my view is that Brett should get out and meet people a bit more

And how is the eradication of human greed, stupidity and selfishness to come about?

Well Brett doesn’t say, it would just happens somehow, someplace, sometime…like, well you know… it could couldn’t it.

*

Also there seems to be this big contradiction - one moment he’s all against redistribution and the next he’s saying that huge chunks of land should be confiscated from their owners and become what would be in effect state property.

Here is a list of the largest landowners in the US lets start with them

1. Ted Turner 2,000,000 acres
2. Archie Aldis “Red” Emmerson 1,722,000 acres
3. Irving Family 1,200,000 acres
4. Singleton Family 1 million-plus acres
5. King Ranch Heirs 851,642 acres
6. Pingree Heirs 850,000 acres
7. Brad Kelley 789,851 acres
8. Reed Family 770,000 acres
9. Ford Family 740,000 acres
10. Huber Family 600,000 acres

http://www.therealestatebloggers.com/2009/01/06/top-10-largest-landowners-in-united-states/

 

To those who suggest that we leave large portions of the planet as natural... what method do you propose to do this?

Is it going to be mass sterilization or mass murder?

Or, do you have a space ship to start shipping people to another planet?

 

90% of American soil is privately owned.

 

Dare I ask: what is wrong with owning private property?

 

Yes so?

 

Unrelenting accumulation of wealth has proven to be quite problematic for the majority of people in this world that survive by eating beans and rice.

Owning private property should be highly restricted, and regulated so that people can't exploit something that was taken from the earth; example metals, diamonds, water, land.

Private ownership is a Westernized neo-capitalist ideology that is highly valued, put on a pedestal and glamourized as a basic function of societal norms that bring about the maximized possible happiness for the most people. It's a utilitarian assumption that the most happiness is best as long as some people suffer and accepts the injust distribution of things, because it allows for people to attain a higher happiness level.

Private ownership is out of hand and triumphs public ownership almost 4 fold in today's world, and in many contexts and industries, it dominates any kind of hopeful shared communal ownership practices out there.

A balance is acheivable, and conserving public spaces in which human beings share with the environment and natural world are of outmost priority over any type of private personal interest sentiments or silly dogma of personal entitlement that Generation Me is buying into.

 

So the alternative is to just have the government exploit said land?

Also, for capitalism and private property being the devil, ask the near one billion people all around Asia who don't eat beans and rice anymore because of it.

 

There's definitely a happy medium. I don't believe in regulation of property by the government, but I can sympathize with your concerns. I generally tend to agree with Locke's ideas on the subject: if you put your labour into a piece of land then you own it. I could go into more detail, but I imagine you're familiar with Locke. I definitely think land ownership is a natural right.

I'm also not sure how you would propose that commons be used. If it's free land then anyone can use it for whatever they want (provided, I assume, that they don't ruin it for others). The problem is, if no one owns it, I don't see how anything productive can come of it. If someone plants crops there, do they own them, or is anyone free to take them? If the former, then they effectively own the patch of land they've developed; if the latter, there's no motivation to develop the land because all your work will likely be taken away from you.

 

I have more of an issue with the government controlling the land then I do individuals.

Of course part of this is biased seems I own property, but I don't think my opinion would be any different if I didn't. That's likely because I believe almost anyone can buy property if they want to.

Saying private ownership of land is bad is a slap in the face to every land owner who has dedicated their land to being natural, or leaving portions of it as such. I know someone who has 100's of acres, most of which since he bought it has been left to nature and protected against commercial harvesters and 'sportsmen'.

Instead of trying to eliminate private ownership, we should be educating all people to respect the land and be stewards to the earth as opposed to abusers.

 

Land ownership may be, like all things, something with limits.

If we leave none of the land owned by nature, we'll take up all of it and kill all the plants and animals.

We don't want that, do we, pongos?

 

~

 

What really amazes me about some people is that when they hear something such as "anyone can buy land", that clashes with the 'typical' view', instead of asking why someone would say it and learning something, they become confrontational over it.

And yes, zombiewolf, this is directed at you even though you went back and edited your

out afterwards.

The first house I bought was when I was working for minimum wage in a coffeeshop. By that time in life my credit rating was already shoot due to school loans and I didn't have a single person backing me.

Not only did I buy that first house with no money and fix it up using recycled stuff that was free, I then sold it for DOUBLE what I paid for it.

But you are right, I do live in la la land for saying that anyone can do it... because only those who actually have enough sense to ask questions when they hear something they don't understand, can do it.

Those who just automatically reject new ideas (to them) without trying to learn, never will.