Hacker News Reader

Comment by bharam | Hacker News Reader

> A global body needs to be created to handle environmental policy

I think some people have too much faith in the ability of politicians and bureaucrats to protect the environment.

A better solution would be decentralized decision making. Place ownership of the rain forest in private hands and let the market determine the most valuable use of the land. If a sufficient number of people believe the rain forest should be set aside for environmental preservation they will have the ability to act on that belief.

Letting politicians and bureaucrats decide will do nothing to preserve the rain forest or environment short- or long term.

View on HN

> Place ownership of the rain forest in private hands and let the market determine the most valuable use of the land.

I find it much easier to believe that this satire, because were it up to the “Market”, the rainforest would be gone, and every river polluted. Short-term profits are incompatible with environmental protection. Just because a few men get rich doesn’t mean the result is what’s overall best for society. The “market” (quotes necessary because it’s so much more complicated than that) has decided that continuing to burn fossil fuels is what’s best, and look how that’s working out.

The incentives have to change. Making money hand over fist typically only benefits a select few, to the detriment of the many. How many more examples do we need?

Exactly, only if the environment is given financial value will things change. I can see that being the only solution to the current situation. It enables financial optimisation, but results in protection. There will be much resistance though.

> only if the environment is given financial value will things change.

Or maybe we should try to help people understand that it's futile to see in terms of human concepts (like profit) the entity which literally created our species. Perhaps financialization of literally everything we should hold dear is the problem? The value of human life itself has at times been boiled down to a dollar amount, but that doesn't mean you can go around killing as many people as you want as long as your bank account is big enough (oh, unless you're a corporation of course).

> it's futile to see in terms of human concepts (like profit) the entity which literally created our species.

Why is it futile to understand our planet in terms of human concepts? What alternative means of understanding do you have in mind? Direct perception or revelation? Feelings?

Maybe I should clarify: I didn't mean that it's always futile to build mental models to understand the world. More that in this instance, our attempts to rationalize our behavior and use that understanding to guide future behavior (via economics, esp.) have clearly been at least partially a failure. If we continue to see profit as the ultimate goal of human endeavor, we do so at our peril. I think it's clear that economics is lagging behind the physical sciences in it's ability to successfully guide our behavior. It needs modifications to be able to properly deal with externalities; otherwise we're on a collision course with a future that I think most people would consider highly dystopian.

I disagree with your overall point of view. Profits (i.e. savings) is exactly what will save the environment by enabling the preservation of the rain forest and other desirable environments.

I do agree with you that incentives have to change. Humanity absolutely depends on industry to survive and leaving precious resources like the rain forests in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats will ensure their destruction through corruption.

What if we took the “sufficient number of people” and unified them into some sort of power?

If you mean form a government then I can't blame you. It seems so logical and yet the last 50 years have demonstrated the futility of this approach (as demonstrated by the article).

Power corrupts - politicians and bureaucrats act on whims and pressure from special interest groups. It doesn't matter if the entity is a county, a state, a nation or the world.

Privatization is the solution.

First, will contend that, say, the atmosphere cannot be effectively privatized.

Nor can courts. Who will uphold the correct fundamental rules of privatization? Who sets them?

Finally, it is the case currently that we have democracy, wherein the individual has power and domain via a vote and participation in discussions. Then we also have effective privatization, where pure financial acumen can make things happen, or stop them. That is the case currently. We do not need to increase the power of money such that more things can happen for us to be able to pay for the salvation of the environment. We can do that now. The suggestion to switch to privatization is to ask people to relinquish the former power and leave everything to those with the latter power. I don’t see the benefit. Especially as when I have done business, it has clearly been private money that has done stupid and greedy and inefficient things, and governmental structures prevented it for the benefit of all.

Government attempts to be a non-monetary contractual union that represents the mutual benefit of game-theoretical cooperation, in e.g. information sharing and consistency. It does work to do that.

> atmosphere cannot be effectively privatized. It could be done. After all the ground below us is privatized (i.e. your property extends from the surface borders to a point at the center of the planet). Similarly it could be extended outward. > Nor can courts. Agreed. Courts are a necessary part of government by definition. I'm only arguing for the privatization of government controlled land - not anarchy.

I'm having difficulty unpacking the last part of your comment but I think the essence is that private individuals will act in ways you find disagreeable and that government can prevent that for the benefit of all. I would counter that a government is just as capable of acting in the same ways. Unfortunately in the case where an individual acts this way the consequences are limited to what that individual can do (and can usually be corrected by the courts) whereas when the government is the actor no competition is allowed and the only recourse is to challenge the power in periodic elections.

I stand by my words, fully, and challenge you to approach them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com