Subject:
|
The value of environmental assets (was Re: not sure what to call this)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:14:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1415 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Hmm... not sure if you are referring to whence resource property rights, or
> is it the luck factor that you are wondering about.
I think it's both actually:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
>
> > That is the issue of how wealth is created
> > from the environment, be it the favourable climatic conditions or the
> > presence of natural resources, which are not available to all equally.
>
> Chris has alluded to this problem in the past. Asserting labor mixin as a
> mechanism to getting title to previously unowned land isn't the cleanest
> way. The question boils down to is it first come first served. Think forward
> a bit. Who or what will "hand out" titles to various pieces of Lunar or
> Martian real estate? Is it who gets there first? How much land would the
> first mars mission get to claim? All of mars? so many feet from where they
> explored?
Yes, this is exactly the problem. It was solved in Antarctica by dividing
up among nations that were close or had 'discovered' it and this has worked
mainly because they also all agreed to leave the natural resources alone. I
imagine if any holder of Antarctic territory began to drill for oil then the
issue of how fair the division was would be raised by other nations. My
opinions on this are not fully formed, which is why I wanted to raise it,
but to start with I suggest that no-one deserves title to Mars or any other
unclaimed real estate whether they made the effort to go there or not until
we have established that there is absolutely no life there. Any unclaimed
part of the Earth and the resources therein (a moot point I know) should
belong equally proportionally to all life that has ever or will ever arise
on the planet. This is plainly totally impractical and I'll get to the
question it suggests below...
>
> Or are you asking about the luck of the draw, the fact that some people own
> land that has oil on it and some don't, through no particular fault or skill
> of their own?
That's part of it too.
>
> Well I tend to hold (and acknowledge this isn't too satisfactory an answer
> up front) that these are both kinds of luck. In free market systems, luck
> doesn't matter for long, because luck without skill dissipates and luck with
> skill just turbo boosts what outcome would have happened anyway.
I don't agree. I have just read an excellent book by Jared Diamond called
'Guns, Germs and Steel' which explains how the initial climatic conditions
plus the 'food package' of domesticable crops and animals meant that
civilization (by which I mean humans producing a surplus which is used to
feed an elite of politicians, inventors and scribes which begins a virtuous
circle of efficiency gains) began in the Fertile Crescent. However look at
that area today, it is mostly desert, as it has been over utilised and the
peoples whose 'skill' made use of it 10,000 odd years ago are now holding
the short straw. Diamond argues that average intelligence (skill) does not
vary between human cultures. If you had placed Aboriginal Australians in
the Fertile Crescent then they would have kicked off civilization.
Unfortunately they got Australia which did not have the right resources,
only when technology developed elsewhere was introduced was it possible to
'civilize' it. However, rather than give the Aborigines the technology the
advanced society stole the resources from them.
>
> > There is no market mechanism by which these 'goods' are paid for and I do
> > not believe there can be (How can you value the use of a resource now when
> > you do not know what uses we may find for it in future or how long human
> > civilization will last). This is where the 'total free market' falls down
> > in my opinion and it is necessary to realise that any solution is
> > sub-optimal,
>
> The free market system may not be perfect in every way but there is no
> utopia possible and there is no better system possible. No other system can
> maximise happiness and freedom.
>
> > from that realization should come a policy of maximising human
> > happiness for all humans including those who are yet to be born and from
> > this cascades all the non-free market thinking that Larry opposes. Do you
> > agree?
>
> No. Except for the part about my opposing it.
Aha, it was a badly worded question, bad day at work after the events of
Railtrack's collapse (a discussion I would like to return to when
appropriate as I doubt the news has reached the U.S.).
Another try (the question I mentioned earlier) I'll frame it as a statement:
The free market system is fundamentally flawed as the appropriator of an
environmental resource does not recompense the owner (the human race) for it.
>
> > I couldn't think of a good re-name for this, if it takes off I think it
> > needs one though.
>
> Me either
Got it now I think.
Psi
(May I just say that I'm really enjoying .debate, it's blowing out a lot of
cobwebs in this bonce of mine and I hope you'll forgive my laspes in form
until I'm fully up to speed)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | not sure what to call this
|
| Hmm... not sure if you are referring to whence resource property rights, or is it the luck factor that you are wondering about. (...) Chris has alluded to this problem in the past. Asserting labor mixin as a mechanism to getting title to previously (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
