Environmental politics

The conclusion is that, for the most part, politicians prefer that the choice is out of their hands. Hand the tough decisions to economists crunching numbers, or corporations that can tell you what is the right level of environmental protection. It has become a farce.

That is the nature of man. To live for oneself at the expense of others. This is not those that are close to you, but the billions that you will have no connection to in the course of your life. If a problem can be handed off, then hand it of and continue living the way you want to. Confrontation without absolute superiority over the opponent, or mastery of the issue, is the greatest fear of most people. It is also a problem that has plagued me.

This is not that I am afraid of it. I just want to understand every aspect of every system, yet that is well beyond my reach. But broad swathes of knowledge do little to actually solve problems. It is necessary to specialize. Politicians specialize in making people believe they will do things, though are rarely called out on it.

The new status quo is a path to oblivion.

Valuation

My exploration of environmental economics is off to a good start. Today I want to discuss putting a price on things that are priceless.

Yes, I am an economist in my heart. I believe things can be broken down into what efficiencies they provide. This process can easily be misguided. The basis of any model is its assumptions about how things should be, or are. There are things that should be protected beyond the ability to price them into non-existence. I'll use an example that I am taking from someone else.

Say someone asks how much each individual person is willing to pay to protect an aspect of the natural environment, say an endangered species. The price will vary depending on economic status and how much the person simply values the thing in question. Average it out, get a rough total, and then conclude that if more profit can be made than people are willing to protect, that, let's say, endangered species should be sold, and, in theory, the money distributed to the people. It is more efficient to profit from this species than it is to drag our feet protecting. This makes sense. Economic growth is the most important statistic in this world. It lifts people out of poverty and makes nations stronger.

If you ask people how much they would demand for the extinction of an endangered species, the numbers would be astronomically higher, sometimes people would not accept any amount of money. If we want to exploit a resource, we ignore this fact, because people always demand too much. But, they have a right to not lay down for people exploiting public resources.

Most people don't have too terribly much to spare to save the world's endangered resources. But, they value those resources and don't want them sold to a soul-less corporation. Because corporations control the political system, have the money to be involved in the process, they get away with this all the time.

Once something is developed, it can never go back to its natural state. But, if you delay development, then it can become something if it truly is worth it to develop said area. Economists that betray the public trust do not place value on the future. Only the present has value.

Yet, when you/I say something has value and should be protected regardless of the fact that somebody can make a dollar seems to be a case of imposing values on people. There is always the trap of dystopia, premised on good intent. This is not SF. The means aren't there to engineer society. There is only the goal to make people sit back and think about shared resources and humanity.

I need to form an action plan.

Switch successful, more posts

I finally switched to Firefox and am not experiencing the crashing that Netscape was giving me. This should allow me to start posting more frequently. Sorry about the inconsistency.

Steady-state gowth

I finally came across an economist with the same idea that I wanted to develop, though about 6 years too late. The original book is called Steady-state Growth by Herman Daly. It asks the question of whether or not endless growth is the most prudent of plans. I can't wait to get it.

I've actually newly discovered a lot of the economists that have dealt with ecological economics, and those who oppose it. There should be a lot of good reads in the coming months.

First of a new wave

Netscape hates blogger. It again shutdown when I went to the login page and I gave up for a long time. I will now use old ass internet explorer while I debate just getting firefox.

In response to sarath's comment: There is an outlet in America for marginalized kids to find another group to associate with. The mass attacks/killings are still rare/a product of America's gun happy culture. In Japan, it is extremely difficult to immerse oneself in these cultures. Almost all parts of society are pushing you to conform. Without the backing of parents or teachers, you are in trouble. That leads to suicides. It is cultural.

I will try to expand into environmental areas and philosophies. The world needs change. Very few people are willing to take responsibility for their actions. Everything is down in the context of what others are doing. This needs to stop. Anybody who measures themselves against others lacks the self esteem, or something, that is necessary in this world. That is poorly described because I have no word for it. The poor that live on the fringes and in places the 1st world doesn't go, don't have the a value system beyond surviving. That is not wrong. Everybody just wants to live and eat. I take a look at the developed world/people. Education is a blessing. It should also be a curse, not just a way to get money and live a lavish lifestyle. Educated people should be fully aware of the world they live in.

From here, where should I go? Well, basically, I will just talk until I am heard. (action will follow if I have the courage to do what I plan)