Hacker News Reader

Comment by devxvda | Hacker News Reader

> 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?

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com