/liberty/ - Liberty

>>61420

Unfortunate, but that's the "downside" to anarcho-capitalism: if there's something that you feel is important, you'll actually have to do something about it, instead of just turning up at the polling booth to try and force other people to fix it for you.

>>61422

Fuck off you moralising piss-head. Do you understand that by voting you subject yourself to exactly the same laws as everyone else? It's not an abrogation of responsibility; it's no more than an attempt to solve the free-rider problem.

As well as that, it's unjust that some people inflict suffering on themselves to secure the common good while others are able to free-ride. Many people can't stand such a system.

>>61427

>>61427

Top kek, you're retarded.

> Do you understand that by voting you subject yourself to exactly the same laws as everyone else?

So a welfare recipient voting for increased welfare spending is somehow subject to the same laws as the people paying for it? Even then, how does this address anything he's saying? He stated that in an anarcho capitalist society, you cannot force others to do what you want them to do. If you want to save the wild life, or help the poor, you cannot force other individuals to do so. A ballot means nothing in an anarcho capitalist society, because you do not have a government to use force on other people.

>As well as that, it's unjust that some people inflict suffering on themselves to secure the common good while others are able to free-ride

> There's such a thing as a "Common Good"

C'mon lad. First of all, if it really was such a "common good", then you wouldn't need to use force to fund this endeavor in much of the same way that people donate to charity without being forced to. Another thing to keep in mind is that no one asked for this "common good" and even for those who do ask for this "common good", then it is up to them to go and fund it themselves, you do not take money from those who don't want anything to do with it. You end up taking money from individuals and now they are no longer free to spend it in ways that they ACTUALLY deem valuable.

>It's not an abrogation of responsibility; it's no more than an attempt to solve the free-rider problem.

So your attempts of solving the fact that not a lot of people want to pay for your retarded shit is to force them to pay for your retarded shit? C'mon lad, you've got to be smarter than that.

normalfags love virtue signalling, what easier way than donating to some wildlife charity

There's no reason to assume that wildlife sanctuaries would suffer from a lack of funding. Especially when it doesn't have to be a money sink, and you can get a return on your money by having a zoo, letting hunters hunt some big-game animals, selling animals for pets, et cetera

see 10:30

>>61427

I don't understand what you're getting at. If some people don't care about frogs and lizards, and then (because they don't care about frogs and lizards) do nothing to protect the frogs and lizards, how is that free-riding? The people that don't care about frogs won't gain any kind of benefit from keeping the frogs around, since they don't care. I do understand that, by voting, a person submits to whichever laws are decided as a result of voting - that's why I don't vote. As for being an abrogation of responsibility, it absolutely is. In fact, by using violent coercion to extract resources from others in order to solve some issue that they - but not those others - care about, they are the the free-rider in this scenario. They're getting the full benefit of having their pet issue solved, and are paying only a fraction of the cost. On the other hand, the rest of the poor sods that they'd roped into paying are not having any issue that they care about solved, but have to pay anyway.

As well as that, it's unjust that some people inflict suffering on others to secure a personal good while accusing others of free-riding. Many people can't stand such a system.

>>61436

>letting hunters hunt some big-game animals

Pretty much everyone wins in this case. The sanctuary gets money to keep going while getting rid of the older animals which otherwise wouldn't let the younger ones mate, some rich guy gets to stroke himself off about his hunt as if he were ever in any danger, and people who don't really care about it get to see some sweet sweet lefty asshurt.

>>61434

>>61437

As always, pathetic lolberts evade the problem. When you get over lolbertism maybe you can actually think about these questions.

As for now, go along with the soulless neoliberals in killing rare animals.

>>61447

>evade the problem

Which problem? I addressed every point that you made. If you feel that I missed one, then please, by all means, say it again and I'll try to cover it as best as I can.

>>61447

>>61448

That said, I have to do stuff today, so it'll be about an hour before I can respond.

>>61447

> Go along with the soulless neoliberals in killing rare animals

>>61455

What part of economics don't you understand? Pretty much everyone is on the same side as far as incentives go for rare animals: Hunters want to hunt them, conservationists want them to not go extinct, weird eastern medicine doctors want their body parts for their concoctions, and the average person might want more of them to exist so they can see them in a local zoo. The only scenario in which a species goes extinct is if it is destroyed by negative externalities and nobody owns property damaged by those externalities or cares enough to save it, but that happens right now all over the world. No system other than immediate, worldwide anarcho-primitivism will save them.

Unless your moral indignation is PETA-tier griping over humans using animals to their own ends, I don't see the issue.

>>61420

Our private nonprofit zoo routinely funds conservation of not cute animals, OP.

It can be done.

>>61448

I'm talking about a case where they would benefit from the problem being solved.

>>61492

Which case? I can't see it posted anywhere in the thread, friend. In fact, I'm struggling to think of any scenario at all where the free-rider problem could exist at all in an anarcho-capitalist society. If this is as big of an issue as you seem to think it is, then surely you'd be able to provide a specific case where this happens.

>>61514

You just gotta love how the same fucking topics still keep getting mentioned after two years and no one even bothers to come up with new, more sophisticated arguments.

>This is because consumer revenue from sources that take from the environment or rely on specific portions will always be more profitable than those that seek to preserve the system unaltered as a whole.

>What is marginal utility

>What is supply and demand

The marginal utility of the last tree on earth is obviously far higher than that of the billionth ton of timber, for pretty much everyone that matters. Your argument only works if we see it less strictly, but then we enter the realm of speculation and intuitions with little or no basis.

>On the other hand, most ecosystems cannot sustain themselves as anything less than a whole, without permanent loss in biodiversity.

If you want to preserve the last remaining ten Blue Texas Salamanders, then we do indeed have a problem. But that's not even how nature operates. If you want the biodiversity to never decrease, then you take more care of nature than nature takes care of itself. And then capitalism indeed cannot help you. Not even primitivism can.

>>61516

>The marginal utility of the last tree on earth is obviously far higher than that of the billionth ton of timber, for pretty much everyone that matters.

Exactly the flawed mentality that lets the same argument hold truth no matter how many times you've heard it. Scarcity cannot be applied to ecosystems in relation to the value of their components. One tree doesn't make a forest. 1000 trees doesn't make a forest. Some forests really cannot feasibly hold all their biodiversity without holding very large areas. And you can bet domesticated tree varieties will outcompete wild timber long before marginal utility comes up.

>If you want to preserve the last remaining ten Blue Texas Salamanders, then we do indeed have a problem. But that's not even how nature operates.

You can't argue on the basis of natural selection if the conditions that led to endangerment were caused by artificial means. That was never how nature intended the ecosystem of the respective organism to perform around and the loss of species inevitably removes buffers and checks that ripple into the rest of the ecosystem, increasing the requirements of conservation for the rest of the system.

I doubt you have an inkling of understanding of biology, as much as any socialist has an inkling of understanding of automation before spouting rubbish.

>>61514

>>61517

Since the destruction of ecosystems is so widely regarded as terrible, it's pretty much guaranteed that any initiative to repair environmental damage, and to prevent future damage from occurring, would receive widespread voluntary support, right? Or maybe most people don't think it's important, in which case no state short of an ecofascist dictatorship would have a solution. After all, if the majority don't want to protect the environment then they're not going to vote for policies that inconvenience them in order to protect the environment.

This is all just another case of you people wanting to use violent coercion to force other people to cater to what you think is important, at the expense of their own priorities. You can moralise about ecosystems all you want, but there's no way that you can hold that view and still paint yourself as the hero. You want to protect the environment? Persuade people to care. Come on, use your words. If it's as serious a problem as you say, it should be pretty trivial to get others on board.

>insects that nobody wants to preserve may go extinct in ancap.

Tragic, parasites of every species will suffer in ancap, not just human parasites!!!

>>61518

>Since the destruction of ecosystems is so widely regarded as terrible, it's pretty much guaranteed that any initiative to repair environmental damage, and to prevent future damage from occurring, would receive widespread voluntary support, right?

Except environmental damage is only rationalized towards components of the whole, and valued relative to inconveniences from other facets of life. This inherent inclination to only provide a semi complete attention to the environment could only get worse in a society that values self interest alone.

>After all, if the majority don't want to protect the environment then they're not going to vote for policies that inconvenience them in order to protect the environment.

Which has a much better outcome for environmentalists as opposed to a system in which capital is the sole measure of power. With environmentalism correlating with unprofitability, and unprofitability taking away power in an ancap society, a democratic system would at least ensure a fair punching weight for those who support environmentalism as compared to those who do not.

>This is all just another case of you people wanting to use violent coercion to force other people to cater to what you think is important, at the expense of their own priorities

Humour me on priorities with more inherent worth than appreciating the environment. I doubt you'll be able to come up with an objective response without putting down human self actualization. The difference between environmentalism and other personal pursuits, is that the damages and effects from ignoring or inconveniencing these other pursuits is usually much less permanent, and much more reperational than the effects of similar ignorance towards the environment. Without a means to facilitate the "opportunity costs" of an inconvenience to the NAP, vulnerable experiences will inevitably lose out.

>>61520

Nope, just the specialists, they always die first. The generalist bugs who can take a lot more of a beating and already do a lot more harm to humans fill their niche and become a bigger problem. The valued species that depend on the bug die out. The valued species already harmed by the pest bug die out faster. The species that depend on those in turn die out. The cost of fixing the problem is now even greater than had you just protected them in the first place.

>>61521

This thought only just came to me, but you wouldn't need to own an entire forest in order to protect the biodiversity of that forest. Like you said, one tree doesn't make a forest, but that one tree is still a part of that forest. Anything severe enough to cause damage to a forest in general would, by necessity, be causing damage to any particular part of that forest, regardless of whether that part was owned by the same person or not. Our current legal systems across the globe don't really care too much about property rights (especially not in cases where it's just some guy vs. big business), but anarcho-capitalism most definitely does. If you own a small patch of a forest (just a handful of trees), and a logging company buys the rest of the forest, they can do whatever they want with their part of the forest, but if their actions have damaged your part of the forest then not only will they have to compensate you for that damage (and from what you've said, restoring a damaged ecosystem is extremely costly), but they'll also need to stop doing things that damage your part of the forest (i.e., things that damage the forest as a whole). It seems reasonable to me that a charity would be able to raise enough money to buy strategically placed plots of land in order to safeguard the areas between those plots. Or maybe I'm wrong; I don't claim to be an expert on how ancapistan would function.

>>61514

Do you just like to repeat the same bullshit? We call that insanity.

>>61420

Mankind isn't a monolith. Lots of people, particularly city folk, won't care much. Probably enough country folk will at least have a creek on their property for them to have a habitat. Remember that a lot of people actually want to live on a largely wild property in the middle of nowhere, and are likely to care for that land.

>>61420

Nobody's going to harm your gay frogs, Alex. Calm down.

>>61504

How about if everybody benefits from preserving nature, but very few people give any money to nature charities? It's not ridiculous whatsoever.

And don't offer the excuse that 'they think the governments are doing it'. People know full well governments aren't doing it, and they still don't give to charity.

>>61527

The logging company would never allow it; they would want the whole forest.

If they got there first, then the charity could do it, but I doubt they would get there first

>>61521

>the really harmful species aren't gonna go extinct

given the history of parasites being pushed to or over the brink of extinction this is wrong empirically as well as nonsensical. Not only on the level of microorganisms (on which the emotional bullshit is less effective) but also in terms of multicellular pests a loss of parasitic biodiversity is very desirable and probable in ancapistan.

>>61642

That was in response to >>61520, a shitpost

trivializing insects to make a smart ass comment on social parasitism. At no point has any of my argument tried to elicit empathy and my response specifically mentioned pest insects, but you would have read that if you weren't just illiterately shitposting as well.

Some parasites actually can go extinct with minimal impact to the environment, but almost always the ones most specialized to a unique host. Insects and microorganisms that directly compete in the ecosystem however, are absolutely crucial in maintaining the higher trophic levels, regardless of how much of an edgy nihilist you want to be. Which puts your point of "I can let them die if I don't see immediate benefits" in the garbage.

normies could barely feed themselves without the state

>>61718

ok but majority of hard working normies does not give a shit about wildlife

>>62059

>Without the science to back it up, […] how are you going to convince the settlement courts that this tree with a slightly different leaf shape was worth thousands to millions of dollars?

So what you're saying is that you don't actually have any way to prove that environmental damage is occurring? In that case, what makes you think that there's a problem at all?

>I also seriously hope you don't think radical activism is a replacement for organized law enforcement and settlement in any shape or form.

We're suggesting the opposite: settlement as a replacement for radical activism. If somebody's actions on their own property are causing damages to your own property, they have a requirement to stop damaging your property, and to compensate you enough to fix damages already caused.

>the people who set up parks for environmental purposes will never earn as much as those that utilize the area purely for materials and real estate

What, are you suggesting that environmentalists are motivated solely by a thirst for profit? Is the notion of actually caring about something and wanting to protect it really so foreign to you?

>They will never be able to fund ecological research to the quality of industry funded product development

What research? I thought that the issue was preventing ecosystems from being destroyed.

>there's a reason funding falters from deextinction programs despite their immense public support.

If they have immense public support, why can't they be funded through donations? Perhaps these programs don't actually have immense support, and most people don't care at all, and are just saying that they care so that they can brag about how much of a god-damn saint they are.

>They won't do that of their own will, they'll be forced to by the market.

No-one can be forced to sell their property. Why would it matter if the charity isn't making money? They're a charity, not a business; it's not like they have to deliver a profit to their shareholders.

>The charity loses it's ability to carry out it's conservation efforts

What efforts? The name of the game is obstructionism, not activism. This charity would only have two tasks: first, to collect enough donations to buy strategically-placed plots of land, and second, to hold on to that land until the end of time. Job done. If they want to bankrupt themselves with activism, then that's their mistake.

>At what cost? The loss of all but the most hardy environments and ecosystems? The permanent handholding of human intervention in reserves far too small for self sustaining populations? Unforeseen effects on agriculture, pests, climate or biome stability, that creep into human infrastructure and livelihood? I've already addressed this, damage to the environment is far more permanent, and the costs and efforts of repairing environmental damage are far worse than recuperating business losses or missing out on opportunity costs.

You seem to be missing the entire point (which is strange, since you're the one who gave me this idea in the first place). If someone's actions on their own property cause damage to your property, then they are liable for those damages. If that damage is severe and long-lasting, and will essentially require your little patch of ecosystem to be put on life-support for the next century or two, then that's going to be extremely expensive. Far more expensive than any profits that they were expecting from their own land. That's a trap that only needs to be sprung once; once it's established that they can't get away with that sort of damage (like they used to be able to, back when big daddy government was holding their hand), they're faced with two options (or some combination of the two):

1) Leave a very wide margin of unused land between land that they want to use, and any neighbouring property boundaries.

2) Adopt a different method for using their land, so that its environmental impact is negligible.

It's funny that you've mentioned the Manhattan project, since that sums this up well. It's the nuclear option: deterrence based on mutually-assured destruction. A logging company could cut down every last tree on their land - right up to the property line - if they so wished, but doing so would ruin the land on your property, which would, in turn, ruin them. Or they could be very careful about how they act, and play nice, since now you have a big stick to hit back with. Scatter enough of these environmental "nukes" around strategic locations across the globe, and your enemy will be unable to attack.

>>62097

>an ancap state

NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER MARIO IS A NIGGER

>>62097

>Sure ecologists know enough to form some kind of framework today, but there's still much more they have yet to understand, a lot of risks yet uncounted for.

There's no need to understand everything. If a patch of previously-healthy wilderness starts dying at around the same time as some destructive activity starts up next door, is everyone going to just stand around scratching their heads, and think "what a weird coincidence"? So long as research has advanced to the point where it can be established that damage is occurring, and that it wouldn't have occurred if not for the actions of your neighbour, then you have your smoking gun right there. Clearly, this can be established, or else you wouldn't be here insisting that there's a problem that needs solving in the first place.

>And to presume that an ancap society could further that research, you must also assume that an ancap society regardless of prior human knowledge would sustain the same result. If not, the ancap system is as attenable as the communist one, dependent on an incompatible precursor to succeed, in this case, requiring a state that has instilled significant environmental research and awareness in the population for any hope of the environment being preserved after a transition.

I don't get what point you're trying to make with this.

>operational costs

There's no reason why those costs have to be particularly high. The conservation strategy that I described could be implemented exclusively by volunteers.

>Research is a large part of conservation.

By convention, yes, but not through any kind of necessity. All that's required for conservation is to conserve things. Making sure that the shit that's here today will still be there tomorrow doesn't require a particularly detailed understanding at all.

>Think about it, would CERN or NASA really have done as much out of charity?

Of course not. Those organisations have no grounding in reality at all; they do research for the sake of doing research. Did putting a man on the moon make life better for anyone on earth? Has the creation of antihydrogen improved the standard of living for anyone you know? In the absence of any kind of coercion, the problems that people choose to put their resources towards solving are the problems that they consider to be the most important and urgent. When coercion is present, you get $208,000,000,000 spent on a dickwaving quest to plant a flag on an inhospitable rock, and you get $90,000,000,000,000 spent on a gramme of atoms with a shelf-life measured in seconds. To be honest, CERN, NASA, and other organisations like them are one of the best arguments against state interference that you could've possibly provided.

>Do you honestly think that amassing donations is simpler than running a for profit business?

Yes, absolutely. A business has to deliver some kind of product or service to the people who give it money, and it has to do this better than any other business can. Their end-goal is profit; their work is never done, and every similar entity is harmful competition to them. A charity has to act on the world in some way, but doesn't need to provide anything tangible to the people who give it money. Their end-goal is to accomplish something specific; it's entirely possible for their particular issue to be solved, and other entities trying to achieve the same thing make it easier for everyone involved.

>This will be footed to the environmentalist's already long bill

I disagree. All they need to do is prove that damage is occurring, and that their opponent is the cause of it. Anything beyond that is either unnecessary, or would be their opponent's responsibility to fund as part of their legal requirement to un-fuck the ecosystem that they'd fucked up.

>>62104

Kek, didn't even notice that.

>>62107

>A charity has to act on the world in some way, but doesn't need to provide anything tangible to the people who give it money. Their end-goal is to accomplish something specific; it's entirely possible for their particular issue to be solved, and other entities trying to achieve the same thing make it easier for everyone involved.

Another naive post. A charity by any measure is a business with the intention of generating the greatest degree of revenue, for their issue can always use more capital for better solutions, and their goals can later branch out to solving related issues. They answer to the ideologies of their management which will constantly find new ways to further their goals. Charities may share goals with others, but in most cases goals simply overlap in some areas and differ in others. Conflict of interests and disagreements in management ensure that charities will compete for donations, else they would have simply merged into single entities. Unlike businesses, charities offer no such capital reward, product or service other than furthering an ideology, and even then at a rate and degree dictated only by their management, typically differing in some aspect from their donors. The incentive for an individual of self interest to donate to a charity is significantly lower than that of a business. It's not that they don't need to provide anything tangible, it's that they can't provide anything tangible. They are inherently less competitive than businesses as they serve less self interest.

>I disagree. All they need to do is prove that damage is occurring, and that their opponent is the cause of it.

You really have too much trust in courts.

>>61639

>Over time, it's more likely the loggers will have gained enough capital to buy out land from the charities,

Highly improbable due to increasing marginal costs. As you buy up more land, you decrease the supply and drive up the prices.

Also, what's with the gondola posts?

>>61639

ecology is an applied science

>>62654

>You can outpace the threshold in which the local environment is permanently irrecoverable long before marginal costs become unprofitable.

Proof?

>Any examples of companies that profit from ecology?

Forestry, agriculture, and fisheries.

>>62692

>Proof?

This isn't really a definitive statement but an allusion to a possibility. It's not a statement that needs to be proven to be possible. Nevertheless, there are quite a few cases, you can refer to the early north american settler's effects in almost hunting bison and alligators to extinction and creating dustbowls. There are many other cases in which state intervention was the only thing stopping profit from irreparable damage like overfishing of bluefin tuna and what happened to the thylacine, that you can look up yourself.

>>Those that use ecologists for consultation about skirting around state environmental regulations don't count.

>Forestry, agriculture, and fisheries.

None of those require ecologists beyond consultation on environmental effects to keep within state regulations.

>>62654

>Any examples of companies that profit from ecology?

farming

>>62765

How so?

>>62727

>hunting bison

Their grassland environment was artificially sustained by scorched earth used by native americans, so if anything bison were artificially kept more numerous than their naturally sustained population. And they did not became extinct, so the environment was not permanently irrecoverable.

>alligators

They are neither extinct nor is their environment permanently irrecoverable.

>dustbowls

This was resolved by private farmers using erosion control.

>overfishing of bluefin tuna

Price mechanism prevents this. We saw the same happen to beaver felt caps during the victorian times.

>thylacine

The Tasmanian government put bounties on this species, so the state contributed to their extinction.

>None of those require ecologists beyond consultation on environmental effects to keep within state regulations.

They do require ecologists for non-regulatory reasons (e.g. erosion control, nitrogen-fixation,prevention of genetic homogeneity, water filtration, flood protection).

>>62774

biological means of counteracting pests for example

>>62836

>erosion control, nitrogen-fixation,prevention of genetic homogeneity

Carried out by horticulturists on domesticated species. Little know how on the local ecology or input on environmental side effects required unless state regulations are involved.

>erosion control, water filtration, flood protection

Mechanical engineering typically offers more competitive solutions, unless state regulations are involved.

>>62860

Chemical and genetic pest control is more economical. There may be a niche for organic sources driven by health conscious demands, but this will be far outscaled by demand for low cost maximal yield agriculture. Even within this niche, foreign or captive developed species will usually do a better job than local wild fauna, and can cause hell on the wild ecosystem if they escape. Once again, there's little motive to fund an ecologist.

>>61420

WATER FILTERS!

>>62967

Horticulturists use ecological techniques. Knowledge of the environment is necessary for the reasons aforementioned.

>Mechanical engineering typically offers more competitive solutions

Not sure what you mean here. Infrastructure design requires ecological input.

>Chemical and genetic pest control is more economical.

Neither of these were effective at controlling the woolly adelgid population and their destruction of hemlock trees.. The only effective solution was the introduction of asian ladybugs.

>>62964

>They were hunted from many millions to a few hundred across an entire continent's land mass.

You didn't even bother to read. Their population could only be sustained by controlled burning practiced by native americans. The removal of these tribes (by the state) from the land altered the prairie environment, which reduced their population. Ranchers were the ones that brought them from near extinction.

>Another continent wide creature hunted to endangered status.

Habitat loss is often the prime contributor to population reduction, so it was a state problem to begin with. Population is not the only determinant of the the IUCN conservation status listing, and the population of the American Alligator was and still is sufficient to support a hunting industry.

>Felt caps went out of fashion with little to do with price increase.

Proof? Can you disprove the law of supply and demand? Why did they abandon this fashion right when silk became a less expensive material?

>Private farmers resolved almost nothing for the next two decade

Large private farmers were actually utilizing erosion techniques prior to the dust bowl by maintaining a certain portion of their land as pasture. The Homestead Act l(yet again state interference) limited parcels to 160-acres, which meant that these farmers had to limit pasture size and required a larger portion for cultivation to become economically viable.

>Bounties were initially placed by large private entities decades before the state to mitigate livestock loss.

Yet these contributed little to population loss. The death nail were the state bounties. State conservation efforts failed. Free-market solutions were hindered by state interference.

>Looks like you're only furthering the case that environmental protections are seldom solved by the free market

On the contrary, private conservation efforts proved successful time and time again. IF the state allowed private game reserves in Tasmania, the free-market could have saved the thylacine.

https://mises.org/library/property-means-preservation

>>63053

>Horticulturists use ecological techniques. Knowledge of the environment is necessary for the reasons aforementioned.

Horticulturists are breeders at their core. They don't take censuses or surveys, and beyond pollinators and pests, they care not for ecology in industry. Pollinators and pests themselves are only relevant to domesticated systems, non of this research could ever have trickled into environmentalism.

>>erosion control, water filtration, flood protection

>Not sure what you mean here. Infrastructure design requires ecological input.

I'm referring to the fact that most of the solutions to these issues are not done by ecologists. Erosion control can be done by landscaping with materials, water processing is primarily done using artificial filters, floods are managed by drainage systems. The only time they ring an ecologist in is when the state doesn't want a nearby environment to be wrecked by externalities.

>Neither of these were effective at controlling the woolly adelgid population and their destruction of hemlock trees.. The only effective solution was the introduction of asian ladybugs.

Exactly as I mentioned, a foreign species was brought in and wrecked havoc on the local ecosystem when it got out. That being said, there are chemical treatments for woolly adelgids and genetically resistant breeds of hemlock are being bred.

>>63088

>does not have a natural unsustained population of a few hundred spread out over an entire continent. It defies common sense.

It doesn't take any mental gymnastics to understand that climate changes over those millennia when the environment was more suitable for grasslands, nor the fact that native americans used control burning to the preserve prairie ecosystem. These are just facts.

>Shifting the goal posts.

How so? Homesteading was not common during the 20th Century, when alligator populations were effected the most from habitat loss.

>Baseless excuses.

Just look at the population numbers if you don't believe me.

>The rest who didn't have the capital weren't limiting pasture size, and cultivated all available land right?

Exactly.

>Private bounties were there more than 70 years before the state,

The population was not yet in a bottleneck phase until the late 19th Century, so the population was not irrecoverable yet.

>the state only handed out around 2000 bounties

That is a lot considering that the population was in a bottleneck phase. by then. Again, private game reserves would have reduced hunting to more manageable levels instead of relying on tragedy of the commons.

>Both these eras feature a far more developed Australia with less wilderness than the 18th century.

And more private reserves. No wonder their population is thriving :^)

>You've hardly refuted any points I've made.

I refuted your point on how price wan't a factor in changing fashion, and your numerous examples of supposed irrecoverable habitat (some weren't) via free-market forces. What other points were there? Just because the example I provided concerns the Big Five, doesn't mean that it is not applicable to other species. If the thylacine is worth saving, people are going to come up with possible solutions to preserve them. If people don't care, what makes you think the state will? Public reserves operate the same way as private reserves except there is a stronger financial incentive in private reserves.

>>63093

>Horticulturists are breeders at their core.

Yet they must understand the role of different pests, pollinators, and nitrogen-fixing bacteria have on crops. This all requires ecology.

>I'm referring to the fact that most of the solutions to these issues are not done by ecologists.

Not solely by ecologists, but they still rely on their input. Externalities do not just affect the state but also private entities. Engineering companies wouldn't want to deal with lawsuits.

> a foreign species was brought in and wrecked havoc on the local ecosystem when it got out.

And solved using ecology. Chemical or genetic methods require ecological input to gauge their effects.

>>63116

>Yet they must understand the role of different pests, pollinators, and nitrogen-fixing bacteria have on crops. This all requires ecology.

And as I said, not the ecology that would be financially incentivised to research non commercial species, unless environmental regulation is involved. These are studies of captive systems that do not require any input of doing surveys into jungles or mangroves or the like.

>Externalities do not just affect the state but also private entities. Engineering companies wouldn't want to deal with lawsuits.

Externalities in a private sense most commonly refers to profit or value destroying effects. This very often does not coincide with natural wildlife as much as agricultural resources or unvirgin private land already affected by human interference.

>And solved using ecology. Chemical or genetic methods require ecological input to gauge their effects.

It was never solved. Native ladybugs disappeared in record numbers and asian ladybugs are still a pest. No ecological input was gauged when they deliberately introduced a foreign species. Chemical or genetic methods are heavily regulated and their effects are gauged due to environmental regulations today, in an ancap society, would they not simply be released at leisure like the asian ladybugs?

>>63131

> No ecological input was gauged when they deliberately introduced a foreign species.

it was gauged but incorrectly

for example Rhinella marina eats bugs ok but these dumbasses did not know that this toad eats bugs at ground level not these being higher

so australia has now problem with this species

>>63157

But would the private entities of an ancap society even bother gauging effects with funded research at all? It took one pet store owner to sic Hydrilla all over the american continent and cause millions of dollars in damage. Also, the cane toads would have got out whether they ate the bugs or not. The fact that they didn't meant that they were both useless as pest control and also now an environmental hazard.

>>63219

cane toads lower price of property (they come into kibbles with water for dogs and poison the water causing death of the dogs that drink the water from this afterwards) just like hydrilla lowers price of property (no more fishing)

Oh hey look it's the water filters guy.

>>61420

>yet i value these superficially irrelevant

>irrelevant

THE MANTRA OF LOLBERTARIANISM, SUMMED UP IN ONE SEMI-THOUGHT

>>61420

>also implying a market for breeding these "irrelevant" animals wouldn't spring up overnight if they were indeed valued

KYS, fuckhead.

>>63414

i want to have them in wild

>>63414

And if they aren't valued, what of it then? What if their value only appears at a latter time or once it's too late? What if those who value them cannot feasibly divert as much capital into conservation as those who only divert capital into self interest alone?

>>63641

>what if something is valueless but could become valuable in the future

then it has a present, reduced value.

>>62967

>Chemical and genetic pest control is more economical

Those cheap solutions and their side effects are really pumping up the "state intervention is necessary" meme here.

>>63128

>The bison population reduced from tens of millions to a few hundred over a period of 200 years, and overhunting is incredibly well documented.

And it is well documented that tribes used brush burning to maintain the grassland biome. It doesn't take millennia for this the environment to change. Hell, look how short of a timespan for the dustbowls to occur. Not to mention all those railroads that your state propped up to section off migratory routes - but no it could only have been hunting. Anyway, why are you talking about climate change when we should be discussing biome change.

>What population numbers are you using to make up these claims?

The onus is on you to provide the numbers that prove overhunting as the primary factor in the decrease in the popuilation. You are the one who made the original claim.

>Great, so you admit that self interest of the majority literally caused and exacerbated the dustbowls.

The majority could not do anything economically feasible with small plots of land. If the state did not limit the plots, the large farmsteads would have provided the solution. Don't blame the private sector when the cause originated in the public sector.

>Garbage pulled out of your ass. I doubt you even know what a bottleneck is. There is no population data on thylacines, let alone the concept of a genetic bottleneck in that time period.

The bottleneck is evident by the rate of sightings and lack of genetic diversity. Since you are too lazy to do your research, might I suggest: http://clas.uconn.edu/2012/03/23/genetic-bottleneck/

>Tasmanians could have privately set up preserves but they didn't

You cannot set up a game reserve on public land.

>I refuted your point on how price mechanisms couldn't save species

But it saved the beaver, which refuted this point. The increase in price for pelts caused a shift towards silk thus limited demand for beaver felts and the need to hunt beavers.

>Every counterpoint you've made has been factually wrong

But you haven't provided any proof while I continue to provide links to sources.

>The fact that they actually did care and the state tried while private industries did nothing?

How can they if the state would not allow private game reserves?

>A financial incentive that is never stronger than competing industries vying for the environments resources and will inevitably be outcompeted.

Can't a private reserve restrict access to the resources its land occupies? If the resource extraction causes environmental damage, the proprietor of the private game reserve could sue for damages.

>Who's going to pay to see limpets underneath a rock? How are you going to cruise an atv safari up a rocky alp as easily and economically as on savannah plain? Why are zoos, the quintessence of canned popular wildlife, raking in more or equal capital than complete wildlife preserves?

You addressed neither of these points in the previous points. Alpine environments are navigable, so the atv strawman is not applicable to the discussion. Whether zoos are more profitable is irrelevant since that does not negate the existence and success of game reserves. Are limpets under threat of extinction?

>>63131

>not the ecology that would be financially incentivised to research non commercial species,

Your original claim was for examples of companies that profit from ecology. We provided them but you keep shifting goalposts.

>This very often does not coincide with natural wildlife

Somehow pollinators are not natural wildlife?

>It was never solved.

The aphid problem was solved, and chemical and genetic solutions can be applied to control the abundant harlequin species. All of this does not require the state. The standards dictated in regulations originate in the private sector, so this can easily be applied to an ancap society.

>>63647

Your entire post is just a series of deflections and twisting claims. Your retorts get worse and worse.

>And it is well documented that tribes used brush burning to maintain the grassland biome.

So? There is neither correlation nor causation with bison population and this native american activity. It wouldn't matter even if it were the most documented activity of the period.

>>It doesn't take any mental gymnastics to understand that climate changes over those millennia when the environment was more suitable for grasslands

> It doesn't take millennia for this the environment to change.

When your claim requires that it take millennia for the change to occur, it does. Don't make shitty claims you can't back up.

>Not to mention all those railroads that your state propped up to section off migratory routes

Are you assuming I believe the state is infallible? My stance is that an ancap society and systems regulated by self interest alone are unable to feasibly carry out conservation.

> but no it could only have been hunting.

You mean the rails that decimated the bison population not primarily by roadkill or habitat loss, but by hunters boarding them and shooting passing herds for fun? You have to be dumb to think the primary cause was anything but hunting.

> Anyway, why are you talking about climate change when we should be discussing biome change.

Because you brought up climate change as a basis for your Indian conspiracy theory.

>The onus is on you to provide the numbers that prove overhunting as the primary factor in the decrease in the popuilation. You are the one who made the original claim.

Fuck off. My claim was that alligators were brought to endangered status by self interest, my proof is the fact that they were classified as so by state fish and game departments based on their research. You didn't believe state findings and asserted that I should look at population statistics. You made the original claim on the population decrease factor. I found no such data to back your claims on population and so you tried to shift the burden of proof to weasel out.

>The majority could not do anything economically feasible with small plots of land.

Then what the fuck were they doing there? Materialising livelihood out of thin air? Have you no concept of supply and demand?

> If the state did not limit the plots, the large farmsteads would have provided the solution

And as I said, the large farmsteads were a minority, if most parcels of land were occupied by smaller farmers, as per standard wealth inequality distribution having less people in higher income brackets, then they would be continuing dustbowl causing practices for self interest and minimising costs. Your minority of farmers converted by the state aren't the big picture.

>The bottleneck is evident by the rate of sightings and lack of genetic diversity. Since you are too lazy to do your research, might I suggest: http://clas.uconn.edu/2012/03/23/genetic-bottleneck/

You're a fucking idiot, you didn't even read your source. Thylacines were decimated on mainland Aus by abos and were only present on Tasmania by the time the settlers came. Your source literally says that the remainder on Tas were near genetically identical, and the bottleneck formed from the mainland Aus extinction. The bottleneck was there the entire existence British settlers had with it and long before state bounties. Looks like you've made another argument with neither cause nor correlation.

>You cannot set up a game reserve on public land.

>How can they if the state would not allow private game reserves?

Apparently they couldn't have done it on their own private land, like your idea of a preserve in an ancap society? Which part of Tasmanian law at the time forbid private land ownership?

>But it saved the beaver, which refuted this point.

Style preference changes stopped the fur hunting. And the beaver was never saved, it was extirpated in many areas and had to be reintroduced from niche or faraway pocket populations centuries later, some efforts only carried out in modern times.

>The increase in price for pelts caused a shift towards silk thus limited demand for beaver felts and the need to hunt beavers.

There is no evidence to suggest that it was caused by anything other than a change in style preference. Like fidget spinners picking up pace for nothing but memes.

>>63647

>But you haven't provided any proof while I continue to provide links to sources.

Please, you've thrown in one link every two posts and everything else has been unsubstantiated claims. Everything I post is on the wiki or certain wildlife data pages and easily Googleble, though if you want to see something specifically, ask for it.

>Can't a private reserve restrict access to the resources its land occupies? If the resource extraction causes environmental damage, the proprietor of the private game reserve could sue for damages.

I've went down this argument chain here >>62059

>You addressed neither of these points in the previous points.

What do I have to address? You brought up a unique environment full of showy animals and lower operating costs, and I pointed out how that only works with showy animals and low operating costs, and that it won't be the same elsewhere.

>Alpine environments are navigable, so the atv strawman is not applicable to the discussion

Fuck off with that strawman bullshit. This is an example of a high operating cost, small customer base environment. A safari is a tour on a jeep that requires little effort from tourists. You want to pull the same scenic joyride on an alp you either splurge on expensive helicopter rides and sherpa piggybacks, or you're limited to the smaller subset of customers who'd hike on foot up dangerous peaks.

>Whether zoos are more profitable is irrelevant since that does not negate the existence and success of game reserves.

It evidences that canned artificial systems are more profitable and competitive than ecosystem maintaining preserves. Over time, ecotourism favours canned systems over maintaining costly preserves, resulting in outcompetition or meddling in natural systems to be more like artificial ones. Self interest does not benefit conservation in this situation.

> Are limpets under threat of extinction?

That's 3 points you deliberately misinterpreted. Yes, some limpets are under threat, but the main point is that you have this boring, unappealing animal that may need high conservation costs, but can never generate the revenue to do so.

>>63649

>Your original claim was for examples of companies that profit from ecology. We provided them but you keep shifting goalposts.

That was never my only criteria. I specifically said those that involve skirting state regulations don't count. Not a single instance of ecological research provided has been more profitable than a captive tech unless there's a state regulation in place to weave around. All your examples are only incentivised because there's a state regulation in place.

>Somehow pollinators are not natural wildlife?

Externalities will make no claim of pollinators without ecological research put in to verify this. Ecology research doesn't get funded until long after all the industry research gets it's turn.

>The aphid problem was solved,

The aphid problem was never solved and they are still on the continent. Asian ladybugs were brought over as pest control meant to increase yield, not to extirpate aphids. At some point the cost of seeding ladybugs to kill aphids will exceed the gain from yield, so they are just left as is. This is the fourth time you've claimed a problem was solved only to be flat out wrong.

>and chemical and genetic solutions can be applied to control the abundant harlequin species.

Exactly my point, you idiot. These are all examples of industry tech devoid of ecological input. That they fare better than conservation procedures only backs my argument.

>All of this does not require the state.

Zero. Absolutely zero build up in logic from the previous statement to this claim.

>The standards dictated in regulations originate in the private sector,

You wouldn't be saying this at all if this was a thread on medical or professional licencing. Regulations comes from public and private pressure, this furthers nothing of your argument.

>>63643

But does it have a permanence and sustainability to realise that value?

>>63646

They are multi use case research fields, far above ecology in reasons to put funding in.

>>63741

>I specifically said those that involve skirting state regulations don't count

The agriculture industry are not forced to use pollinators or crop rotations of nitrogen-fixing crops due to regulations. These practices go back millennia for a reason.

>Ecology research doesn't get funded until long after all the industry research gets it's turn.

How is this relevant? If I notice chemcial traces in pollinators affected by population less, I can trace it back to the manufacturer.

>The aphid problem was never solved and they are still on the continent.

Non-sequitur. The aphid population was reduced which reduced depopulation of hemlock trees. Reduction in in this depopulation is the goal. The goal was achieved.

>Asian ladybugs were brought over as pest control meant to increase yield, not to extirpate aphids.

Those are the same goals - reduction in apohids icnreases crop yield.

>These are all examples of industry tech devoid of ecological input

Proof? Quantifying the inpact a chemical has on pest popuatlions and how these in turn effects host populations is ecological. If it has no effect on host popuatlions, then there is no point in developing the chemical solution to begin with.

>Absolutely zero build up in logic from the previous statement to this claim.

How so? It was developed by the private sector and there is private demand for such.

>You wouldn't be saying this at all if this was a thread on medical or professional licencing.

Why not? What argument are you making?

>>63740

>and everything else has been unsubstantiated claims.

Which are these?

>Everything I post is on the wiki or certain wildlife data pages and easily Googleble,

Then list these sources specifically. The wiki on ecology disproves your notion that ecology is only funded due to state requirements.

>You brought up a unique environment full of showy animals and lower operating costs

All environements are unique, and so can the approaches applied to them. With higher operating costs for commodities comes higher price tags - that doesn't mean that there will be no demand for such commodities. The fact that public conservation exists means that there is demand for conservation.

>you're limited to the smaller subset of customers who'd hike on foot up dangerous peaks.

Keep in mind that these will be high-end customers. Once agian, supply and demand.

>Over time, ecotourism favours canned systems over maintaining costly preserves

If this were true, we should see a reduction in demand for reserves over time.

>the main point is that you have this boring, unappealing animal that may need high conservation costs, but can never generate the revenue to do so

Provide proof that it cannot generate revenue. If they are ecologically important to the environment and other species that do have demand, then there will be demand to conserve them.

>>63739

>Your entire post is just a series of deflections and twisting claims.

Not an argument.

>there is neither correlation nor causation with bison population and this native american activity.

Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_use_of_fire

>When your claim requires that it take millennia for the change to occur, it does

Brush burning doesn't take millenia for ecological impact. That is like saying deforestation has no ecological impact, or the removal of nartve grasses from prairies can create dust bowls.

>My stance is that an ancap society and systems regulated by self interest alone are unable to feasibly carry out conservation.

And yet the public sector can effectively carry out conservation when they tehemselves have shown to be root cuases of the problems?

>by hunters boarding them and shooting passing herds for fun?

How can they shoot millions of them on a train?

>Because you brought up climate change as a basis for your Indian conspiracy theory.

Point to the quotation where I borught it up?

>My claim was that alligators were brought to endangered status by self interest

>You made the original claim on the population decrease factor

You need a popuation decline to be classified as endangered. You claim infers a population decline, and I asked for proof that overhunting was the primary cause.

>Then what the fuck were they doing there?

Trying to make a living. Have you no concept of supply and demand?

>And as I said, the large farmsteads were a minority,

Without the Homestead Act, the majority of that land would be large farmsteads.

>then they would be continuing dustbowl causing practices for self interest and minimising costs.

But those large farmestead proprietors weren't practicing these methods during nor prior to the dustbowl. Why do I have to repeat this to you.

> Thylacines were decimated on mainland Aus by abos and were only present on Tasmania by the time the settlers came.

Yes, the population was in a bottleneck. You argued that there was no concept of a popuiation bottlneck despite reduction in sightings and prior knowledge from aborigines of a mainland popualtion in the past.

>So I completely trash your points by pointing out how Tasmanians could have privately set up preserves but they didn't

Nope. They couldn't in the past becuase of government restrictions, but now they can.

>Style preference changes stopped the fur hunting.

>>There is no evidence to suggest that it was caused by anything other than a change in style preference.

"As the number of beavers caught annually has greatly declines, the price of beaver-fur has of late years increased; and this circumstance has led to the production of a kind of hat which presents some resemblance ot beaver, and yet may be produced at a low rate. This is the silk hat" - The Guide to Knowledge, Or Repertory of Facts, pg. 124

https://books.google.com/books?id=PNJMAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Guide+to+Knowledge,+Or+Repertory+of+Facts:+Forming+a+Complete+Library+o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgz97PqNPVAhVFVyYKHfH1AfwQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Guide%20to%20Knowledge%2C%20Or%20Repertory%20of%20Facts%3A%20Forming%20a%20Complete%20Library%20o&f=false

>And the beaver was never saved

It was saved from extinction.

>>61420

Hunting and fishing is exploitation of wildlife? Sure, who cares about self preservation!

>>64073

>The agriculture industry are not forced to use pollinators or crop rotations of nitrogen-fixing crops due to regulations. These practices go back millennia for a reason.

Then the science involved did not require ecology, because it didn't exist, proving my point.

>How is this relevant? If I notice chemcial traces in pollinators affected by population less, I can trace it back to the manufacturer.

You can't notice these things. There is not a sensory appendage in your body that can ascertain chemical traces or population dynamics. You have to do funded surveys and censuses to find out. The crux is that no one will fund these until long after the damage is done.

>The aphid population was reduced which reduced depopulation of hemlock trees.

Firstly, populations can reduce one year and increase the next. This claim means nothing out of context, and especially not when these aphids are still a documented pest. Secondly, do you have any evidence of this at all?

>Reduction in in this depopulation is the goal. The goal was achieved.

The goal you claimed was that it was solved. Solving an invasive species is it's extirpation. Stop rationalising failed solutions.

>Those are the same goals - reduction in apohids icnreases crop yield.

Now you're just completely shifting the goalposts. Solved in the context has always been solving ecological issues, you're doubling down on bullshit.

>Proof?

The fact that they are devoid of ecological input unless a regulation requires so. Volkswagen doesn't fake emissions because they want to.

> Quantifying the inpact a chemical has on pest popuatlions and how these in turn effects host populations is ecological.

Done only to conform to state regulations.

> If it has no effect on host popuatlions, then there is no point in developing the chemical solution to begin with.

Chemical solutions are to solve a human problem. Bleach is a chemical solution, it would kill off aquatic life if not for regulations. Stupid retort.

>How so? It was developed by the private sector and there is private demand for such.

The numerous cases of the private sector's damaging antics leading to the state enacting these regulations before them destroys your claim.

>Why not? What argument are you making?

So you're a hypocrite who endorses professional licencing, of which regulations were created in private practice and now form barriers to entry today? But not environmental regulations that actually have a net benefit?

>>64074

>Which are these?

All your claims, but the economical concepts. Everything regarding biology and ecology you claim turns to shit.

>Then list these sources specifically.

Not putting that time for a hypocritical deflector like you. You want a specific source, you ask for it.

> The wiki on ecology disproves your notion that ecology is only funded due to state requirements.

Funny, because when you actually get to reading that wiki, you'll find your points are all made up.

>With higher operating costs for commodities comes higher price tags - that doesn't mean that there will be no demand for such commodities.

Assuming there's equal demand. For which the example helicopter rides are to create an equal lazy tourist appeal to an atv cruise. Meaning that for the same demand, certain environments will be less profitable, even unprofitable.

>If this were true, we should see a reduction in demand for reserves over time.

The state is pressured by groups to ensure so. An ancap society doesn't guarantee that.

>Provide proof that it cannot generate revenue.

Russell's teapot. Suggest a way to monetize limpets and gain rhino level revenue, my proof is the fact that limpets don't rake in rhino level revenue in conservation.

>If they are ecologically important to the environment and other species that do have demand, then there will be demand to conserve them.

Except these demands might only be realised once it's too late, and with ecological funding of which private sectors don't incentivise.

>>64084

>Then the science involved did not require ecology

Ecology deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings. How is this not applicable to an idustry where pollinators and pests intereact with crops? Knowledge of this is required to sustain crop yields.

>The crux is that no one will fund these until long after the damage is done.

Industrires fund periodic sampling and testing all the time.

>Secondly, do you have any evidence of this at all?

"From 1995 to 1997, experiments in Connecticut and Virginia found that releasing adult P. tsugae beetles into infested hemlock stands resulted in a 47 to 88% reduction in adelgid densities within 5 months of introduction." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemlock_woolly_adelgid

>The goal you claimed was that it was solved. Solving an invasive species is it's extirpation.

Extirpating beavers when they are vital to the ecosystem iwas not the goal I mentioned.

>Now you're just completely shifting the goalposts.

Nope. I haven't changed the criterion that ladybugs have been introduced for aphid control.

>The fact that they are devoid of ecological input unless a regulation requires so. Volkswagen doesn't fake emissions because they want to.

Blanket statements are not proof. Proof requries evidence, whcih you still haven't provided. VW garnered negative publicity from faking emmision results, so it is in their best interest to ensure that they do not repeat this.

>Bleach is a chemical solution, it would kill off aquatic life if not for regulations.

And to guage the effectiveness of bleach as opposed to other chemicals and methods requires the knowledge of the ecological impact of this chemical. You don't want a lawsuit from industries that benefit from the aquatic life damaged by your checmical application.

>The numerous cases of the private sector's damaging antics leading to the state enacting these regulations before them destroys your claim.

Could you provide an exmple?

>[Autistic Screeching]

Why this strawman? Licensing in itself is not a barrier to entry. Enforcing licensing is. Environmental regulations may not be the the most effective standard, especially when industries adopt new technologies that render certain regulations obsolete.

>>61420

>>61420

Here is another one from /ourguy/ Stossel. Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up!

>>64085

>All your claims, but the economical concepts.

That is not specific at all. List them and show me how these are not substantiated.

>You want a specific source, you ask for it.

I have been asking for sources throughout this discussion, but all you respond with are non-sequiturs.

>Funny, because when you actually get to reading that wiki, you'll find your points are all made up.

The wiki lists are the industries that ecology is involved in and how these industries benefit (see attached video). Don't blame me for your poor reading comprehension.

>certain environments will be less profitable, even unprofitable.

If there is any profitability, there will be a market for it. Any examples of unprofitable environments?

>The state is pressured by groups to ensure so.

Then those groups have demand for them and thus a market exists for them.

> Russell's teapot.

This deals with unfalsifiable claims. You made the assertion that it cannot generate revenue, and I asked for proof to this assertion. Limpets have an ecological impact of the ecosystem that supports more desirable species. Donations and revenue garnered from reserves can be applied to their preservation.

>Except these demands might only be realised once it's too late,

These demands are known, hence the existence of public conservation. If demand is not known, then conservation efforts would not exist.

>>64148

>>64148

>That is not specific at all. List them and show me how these are not substantiated.

Why would I do that for all your nonsense, your deflections and misquotes don't deserve any of that courtesy.

>I have been asking for sources throughout this discussion, but all you respond with are non-sequiturs.

The only time you've asked for a source, is for shifting the burden of proof from one of your own claims on population, and then suddenly asking for sources for everything all at once.

With your record of deflecting arguments, why should I bother if you don't even know what information you want?

>The wiki lists are the industries that ecology is involved in and how these industries benefit (see attached video).

The video starts out entirely political. It's entirely based on conferring to regulations, on claiming subsidies and state support. Who would fund this privately?

>This deals with unfalsifiable claims.

It's in the context of a thought experiment into stateless conservation, so it is unfalsifiable to a degree

>You made the assertion that it cannot generate revenue,

Again with the twisting claims, I said they won't pull rhino level dollars and they don't. You literally evoked Russell's teapot again. There is no evidence that limpets earn more conservation dollars than rhinos and it's up to you to prove it, retard.

> Limpets have an ecological impact of the ecosystem that supports more desirable species. Donations and revenue garnered from reserves can be applied to their preservation.

Which people would not be aware of without incentivised ecological research. Which no one would fund had not for state regulations.

>These demands are known, hence the existence of public conservation. If demand is not known, then conservation efforts would not exist.

They exist because of the state, and the incentives and protections the state confers to conservation efforts.

>>64137

Refer to last paragraph of >>63088

>>64144

The unintended consequence of a regulation written so as to punish private property owners. Doesn't address the fact that these private entities would be still doing so unrestrained had the regulations not been there in the first place.

>>64087

>Ctrl+F

"The burning of large areas was useful to divert big game (deer, elk, bison) into small unburned areas for easier hunting and provide open prairies/meadows (rather than brush and tall trees) where animals (including ducks and geese) like to dine on fresh, new grass sprouts." Guess what bison feed on.

> pointed out that that was anthropologically impossible.

Without maintaining this grassland, bison could not have sustained such a large population. That doesn't mean that they could not have a sustainable albeit less population than without brush burning.

>As opposed to the private sector which has an even worse track record and no system to address conservation?

Private reserves address conservation. How can the private sector have a wrose trac krecord when the public sector is often the root cuase?

>>[autistic screeching]

Trains do not cover the majority of bison territory and thus could not have contributed to the the majority of depopulation. Hunting by river and foot would have been more effective. This does not disprove that trains disrupted bison migration.

>And they were classified as endangered by experts

Then there should be a significant population decline to justify the classification. Yet you won't provide the numbers. No rational person can take the word of an "expert" without evidence.

>No, I asked for proof that the population needed no conservation.

Why conserve a population not in decline? Provide evidence of significant decline due to early settlers. Remember, you are the one the asserted that "early north american settler's effects in almost hunting bison and alligators to extinction".

>The homestead act increased farmstead land you idiot.

Increased small farm plots. In absence of the act, large plots would increase. These large plots have no effect since the large farmstead proprietors were already practicing erosion control.

>A point that is irrelevant because large farmsteads were a minority.

Only with the Homestead Act. Why do I have to repeat myself stating the folly of the state and success of the private large farmestead proprietor?

>[autistic screeching]

I showed evidence of a bottleneck. Stating that government bounties and restrictions on reserves during a bottleneck period has no significant impact on the population is absurd.

>there were far less regulations before and conservation was all the worse because of it.

Less regulations overall but more restrictions on private reserves.

>Prices pushed the item to a premium product, and even then there was still a market.

There was still a market but hunting diminished from their previous levels.

>"Saved" implies any action was taken for it's conservation

Ending unsustainable hunting trends is not a conservatorial effort? Then why do reserves attempt to deter poachers?

>>64150

So if the main issue is regulation vs non-regulation in the protection of species, then we obviously can see throughout history that further regulation is no guarantee of environmental protection. Whether or not the private market will truly protect the environment is redundant. We either have regulations or we don't. We have seen how a heavily regulated society, ie the Soviet Union, destroyed the Aral Sea. Even China massively pollutes and disrupts its own environment. The bottom line is that species have been going extinct since the beginning of life, how many are we supposed to save? Scientists right now are attempting to clone extinct species back to life, is that what we should do as well? If we bring old species back that compete with current species, which one do we determine to go extinct?

>>64149

>>64149

> deflections and misquotes

Damn, I didn't know quoting in context is misquoting and proving evidence was deflecting. I hate ancapism now.

>The only time you've asked for a source, is for shifting the burden of proof from one of your own claims on population,

The burden of proof lies on the originator of the claim of their endangered status. If there is no population decrease, then they cannot justify any meaningful status change to endangered.

>Who would fund this privately?

Those who operate the livestock.

>It's in the context of a thought experiment into stateless conservation,

Stateless conservation is not unfalsifiable as is evident by private conservation.

>I said they won't pull rhino level dollars and they don't.

>There is no evidence that limpets earn more conservation dollars than rhinos and it's up to you to prove it.

All you need to be is profitable (or sustainable if it relies on donations). The private industry is all about efficiency - why concentrate efforts ins maintaining one species when it is far economical to maintain the ecosystem?

>You literally evoked Russell's teapot again.

The profitability of a venture is not unfalsifiable.

>They exist because of the state

And why does the state conserve? Because there is demand for it.

>>64150

Refer to this >>63112

>Doesn't address the fact that these private entities would be still doing so unrestrained had the regulations not been there in the first place.

Baseless assumption.

>>64152

Nothing is a guarantee, and to require such superlative conditions to calculate a benefit is fallacious. The underlying principle is that while regulation does not ensure total environmental protection, it systematically protects what is stipulated, whereas in the total absence of any form of regulation, little if any protections exist. The matter of certain states destroying the environment is a strawman, for it was not environmental regulations that caused such incidents, but the absence of environmental regulations in favour of industry improving policies.

When species naturally go extinct, the transition is usually gradual with a competitor taking up it's niche, otherwise it involves the environment collapsing due to disaster and the few survivors have to rediversify after many eons. The issue with species that go extinct in the modern age is that these species can be key regulators for other components of the ecosystem, and their loss can have adverse effects that may not be immediately realised. With neither competitors ready to fill the extinct niches, nor eons to allow new life to form, allowing species to go extinct can be costly. As for deextinction practices, the costs and science itself usually limits us to creatures that were once extant in existing environments.

>>64136

>Ecology deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.

Were you doing this the whole time? Using the most basic highschool notion of ecology in which all life scientists are trained in to refer to ecology as a profession? An ecologist today specialises in basic research of a specific ecosystem or organism and the biological interactions surrounding his intended research subject. This level of ecological research is seldom if ever funded by private entities, and only to confer to specific regulations.

>Industrires fund periodic sampling and testing all the time.

Name one example not done to adhere to regulations.

>releasing adult P. tsugae beetles into infested hemlock stands resulted in a 47 to 88% reduction in adelgid densities within 5 months of introduction."

And the 53 to 12% who are still an ecological problem mean what exactly? Nothing has been solved.

>Extirpating beavers when they are vital to the ecosystem iwas not the goal I mentioned.

With your lackluster direction of argument, I wonder if you know what any of your points are at all.

>Nope. I haven't changed the criterion that ladybugs have been introduced for aphid control.

You simply stated that they solved the environmental problem of aphids and argued along that line of thought.

>Blanket statements are not proof. Proof requries evidence, whcih you still haven't provided.

You need proof that a fisherman catches fish or a baker bakes bread? Because I've listed more economically competitive professions that do not require ecology for solutions, and the only thing you've done is list ones that do so to skirt regulations.

>VW garnered negative publicity from faking emmision results, so it is in their best interest to ensure that they do not repeat this.

As to adhere to state regulations.

>And to guage the effectiveness of bleach as opposed to other chemicals and methods requires the knowledge of the ecological impact of this chemical. You don't want a lawsuit from industries that benefit from the aquatic life damaged by your checmical application.

Except you can't sue what you don't know. The industries that benefit from harmed aquatic life may never know what caused it, because the cost of funding research would divert funds from competition.

>Could you provide an exmple?

Try the ones I've listed at the beginning of this entire argument chain that you've failed to refute.

>Autistic Screeching

You were out of arguments a long time ago, a little late to start dropping ad homs.

>Why this strawman? Licensing in itself is not a barrier to entry. Enforcing licensing is.

If the rigours of which were developed by private standards and you support so, why does enforcement bother you?

>Environmental regulations may not be the the most effective standard, especially when industries adopt new technologies that render certain regulations obsolete.

Regulations are reevaluated and amended over time. Attacking static regulations is grabbing at low hanging fruit.

>>64151

>"The burning of large areas was useful to divert big game (deer, elk, bison) into small unburned areas for easier hunting and provide open prairies/meadows (rather than brush and tall trees) where animals (including ducks and geese) like to dine on fresh, new grass sprouts." Guess what bison feed on.

>Without maintaining this grassland, bison could not have sustained such a large population. That doesn't mean that they could not have a sustainable albeit less population than without brush burning.

Dodging points again? How about tackling the fact that the rest of these animals were not as affected despite occupying the same niche, so your point is wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.

>Private reserves address conservation. How can the private sector have a wrose trac krecord when the public sector is often the root cuase?

Because you're trying to abuse the semantics of "private" and "public" to imply that self interest is any good for conservation.

>AUTISTIC SCREECHING

Well maybe if you didn't post something stupid, you wouldn't have been called stupid, stupid.

>Trains do not cover the majority of bison territory and thus could not have contributed to the the majority of depopulation. Hunting by river and foot would have been more effective. This does not disprove that trains disrupted bison migration.

You brought up train tracks to blame the state and now you defend them. You then admit hunting was very viable to settlers in a variety of scenarios. You then make an objective unsubstantiated claim against your prior points. Are your brains rotten?

>Then there should be a significant population decline to justify the classification.

And the population decline is noted by state and wildlife sources.

> Yet you won't provide the numbers. No rational person can take the word of an "expert" without evidence.

Because the burden of proof for your claim was always on you to provide the numbers. And a state ecologist with a vested interest in keeping his job, owing to the fact that the state is his only source of income, has a far better word than an idiot with no clue about biology.

>Why conserve a population not in decline?

The real question is, why believe a population isn't in decline when there is evidencea that it did? Pg 555 http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/publication/34474-american-alligator-past-present-and-future/chabreck_1967-_alligator_past_present_future.pdf

>Provide evidence of significant decline due to early settlers. Remember, you are the one the asserted that "early north american settler's effects in almost hunting bison and alligators to extinction".

They were both documented suffering population losses to numbers much lower than wild populations, they were both documented being hunted by settlers, hunting was documented as a cause for their decline. But none of this will matter, because you've already put words in my mouth by specifically phrasing it as "significant decline due to early settlers", such that anything that doesn't fit even one of your criteria, you'll weasel on the semantics of.

>Increased small farm plots. In absence of the act, large plots would increase. These large plots have no effect since the large farmstead proprietors were already practicing erosion control.

But you were arguing that it reduced farm plots for everyone before you wishy washy bullshitter.

>Only with the Homestead Act. Why do I have to repeat myself stating the folly of the state and success of the private large farmestead proprietor?

Because it's rhetoric in your head based not on facts but wishful distortion of events.

>I showed evidence of a bottleneck.

You showed evidence of a bottleneck centuries before you claimed it occurred, invalidating your entire argument. You're an idiot.

>Stating that government bounties and restrictions on reserves during a bottleneck period has no significant impact on the population is absurd.

You don't even know what impact bottlenecks have on population, let alone when it occurred. Don't kid yourself.

>Less regulations overall but more restrictions on private reserves.

You have faltered every time you've made that claim. Unless you can prove private land ownership was illegal, you've got nothing.

>There was still a market but hunting diminished from their previous levels.

Which was my point, that a market would continue to exist as long as the item was not the most costly luxury good.

>Ending unsustainable hunting trends is not a conservatorial effort? Then why do reserves attempt to deter poachers?

No active action was taken to end their hunting. A reserve makes a coordinated attempt. That's like saying a robber "saves" a passerby by not robbing him.

>>64157

>Damn, I didn't know quoting in context is misquoting and proving evidence was deflecting. I hate ancapism now.

You haven't a clue what context any of the arguments come from, yours or mine. Don't pretend otherwise when a good third of your arguments were points you were arguing against.

>The burden of proof lies on the originator of the claim of their endangered status. If there is no population decrease, then they cannot justify any meaningful status change to endangered.

And their proof was enough to mandate diversion of resources during a troubled time period and laws being written into effect. In the context of this argument, the first claim of population numbers going against established fact was your claim that numbers were always plentiful.

>Those who operate the livestock.

Divert resources to something with marginal self benefit and also aids competitors, or put capital into improving competivity for personal gain? Why the hell would self interest favour the former?

>Stateless conservation is not unfalsifiable as is evident by private conservation.

Private conservation is propped up by aid from the state and heavily cooperates with it. It is unfalsifiable in this hypothetical scenario.

>All you need to be is profitable (or sustainable if it relies on donations). The private industry is all about efficiency - why concentrate efforts ins maintaining one species when it is far economical to maintain the ecosystem?

Because this is not necessarily true or possible depending on the species or environment in question.

>The profitability of a venture is not unfalsifiable.

It doesn't exist. It's unfalsifiable.

>And why does the state conserve? Because there is demand for it.

Demand that has little cost on self interest, allowing for support without sacrificing societal power.

>>64158

They can already see your argument fall apart from the reply chain, no need to link twice.

>Baseless assumption.

Except that's exactly what happens. The thylacine example for instance.

>>64166

>whereas in the total absence of any form of regulation, little if any protections exist.

This is an assumption. You are equating protection with regulation when they do not equal each other.

>it systematically protects what is stipulated

If this was indeed the case, we would not have the saying "Shoot, shovel, and shut up." Did you watch the full video?

>>64175

>This is an assumption. You are equating protection with regulation when they do not equal each other.

In the absence of a written rule, nothing is agreed on, nothing is promised. With regulation, at least there is a metric that is agreed upon, in which the better composed the system, the better the viability of the protection measure.

>If this was indeed the case, we would not have the saying "Shoot, shovel, and shut up." Did you watch the full video?

The video was a keen insight on how simple it is to pursue self interest at the expense of natural environments. The fact that the phenomena itself is known well enough to have a phrase for it means that a problem is acknowledged, the system can amend a solution. Were it not for regulations it might just be "Shoot and shovel", or it might not even have a phrase of concern.

The crux of your argument seems to be "If regulations can't keep things 100%, why bother?". But if regulations are an improvement over none, is that not enough?

>>64189

>In the absence of a written rule, nothing is agreed on, nothing is promised.

What are contracts?

>But if regulations are an improvement over none, is that not enough?

Not when there are unintended consequences. A cost-benefit analysis would help with that but regulations often do not take these into consideration.

Reduction of adelgids via ladybug introduction is an improvement on the hemlock population, yet you advocate for far less effective chemical treatments that are more harmful to the environment. Would you rather advocate for none?

>>64324

>What are contracts?

You're attacking semantics. The context of that response was in regards to environmental regulations vs not having them. Contracts serve the interests of their signees, and in the absence of incentive to write environmental protections into wording, they are no different from state policies that shun conservation in lieu of improving industries.

>Not when there are unintended consequences. A cost-benefit analysis would help with that but regulations often do not take these into consideration.

Cost benefit analyses are done in regards to regulations, the state has to weigh them against other policies or it will lose public support. In the private sense, each party only weighs their own personal cost benefit, as looking beyond the scope of what they are responsible for is just an added cost.

>Reduction of adelgids via ladybug introduction is an improvement on the hemlock population,

This is false, the infestation has only spread since the aldegids arrived, and the introduced ladybugs have not impeded this.

> yet you advocate for far less effective chemical treatments that are more harmful to the environment. Would you rather advocate for none?

Horrible misinterpretation of my points and stance. That argument chain started on the basis that private industries would not fund ecological research because funding other fields would be more profitable, and in doing so the science that gives conservation legal standing and public support would falter as a result. The exception would be unless the private industry needed to adhere to an environmental regulation in implementing their solution. All points made towards chemical and genetic treatments were to point out how in the absence of regulation, they would be more economical than ecological solutions. All points made against biological pest control, were to point out that in the few instances in which they are economical, they are still an environmental hazard involving introduction of artificial elements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

>>64335

>The context of that response was in regards to environmental regulations vs not having them

Environmental regulations do not necessarily require a state. Communities can dictate the terms that industries must follow contractually.

>Cost benefit analyses are done in regards to regulations, the state has to weigh them against other policies or it will lose public support.

Now you're being optimistic regarding public opinion, considering the large approval rating-to-reelection ratio for US Congress. Politicians are more interested in catering to lobbyist and campaign financiers' interests over constituents.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/11/facebook-posts/congress-has-11-approval-ratings-96-incumbent-re-e/

>This is false, the infestation has only spread since the aldegids arrived,

False. Ameldgids population has been reduuced. Refer to this: >>64136

>That argument chain started on the basis that private industries would not fund ecological research because funding other fields would be more profitable,

This argument has been proven false since industires have funded ecological research, if you bothered to read the chain of posts. For example agriculture for grater crop yields using mircobes to improve nitrogen-fixation or developing GMOs for presticide resistence

https://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-strikes-deal-to-develop-plant-microbes-1386720383?tesla=y

>>64672

>>64672

>Environmental regulations do not necessarily require a state. Communities can dictate the terms that industries must follow contractually.

What is possible and what is the likely outcome are two separate things. There is little incentive to write meaningful conservatory measures into private contracts, and your circular reasoning doesn't suggest otherwise.

>Now you're being optimistic regarding public opinion, considering the large approval rating-to-reelection ratio for US Congress. Politicians are more interested in catering to lobbyist and campaign financiers' interests over constituents.

The efforts of lobbyists are not absolute. At the end of the day all lobbyists do is sway public opinion for a politician, which is as much as what private marketing and thinktanks would do in an ancap society. The catch is that a society with lobbyists still gives voters a say in effects, while capital is all that matters in an ancap society.

>False. Ameldgids population has been reduuced. Refer to this: >>64136

You literally quoted densities, you retard. That has no say on their population when their invasive range is still increasing, and they aren't even completely eliminated in the introduction sites.

>This argument has been proven false since industires have funded ecological research

Why don't you bother to read the chain of posts, you cowardly asswipe? I've already addressed this here >>64167 back when you pussied out of your last pile of shit. Time and again you weasel and deflect from this point by using some highschool dropout's definition of ecology, then give an example of an industry biotech job, when you know full and well that's not what a modern ecologist does, that that research isn't the kind of research that contributes to conservation, and that this is specifically the kind of environmentally hazardous industry research that supports my points and validates my arguments.

>>64729

>There is little incentive to write meaningful conservatory measures into private contracts,

A pure assumption, and conflicts with what we see in commons management.

>The catch is that a society with lobbyists still gives voters a say in effects, while capital is all that matters in an ancap society.

Voters have very little effect as indivduals in a centralized republic. Consumers and investors, not capital, holds sway in an ancap society.

>you literally quoted densities

From the areas sampled. Population increase could only occur if the host range also increases.

>and they aren't even completely eliminated in the introduction sites.

Irrelevant. One does not need to eradicate a pest to control its population - in fact it is near improbable. Do you need to eradicate all non-probiotic bacteria from your digestive tract to sustain your health?

>Why don't you bother to read the chain of posts

I just gave you an example, dumbass:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-strikes-deal-to-develop-plant-microbes-1386720383?tesla=y

Why would biotech companies not want to improve agricultural yields by researching nitrogen-fixing and pest control?

>>64839

>A pure assumption, and conflicts with what we see in commons management.

You mean the issue that is almost entirely handled via state entities today? It's not an assumption when your entire case for it is your own misplaced optimism.

>Voters have very little effect as indivduals in a centralized republic. Consumers and investors, not capital, holds sway in an ancap society.

Absolutely retarded attack on semantics. What the hell do consumers and investors use to affect change? Capital, dumbass. In which public opinion has to compete with staying capitally viable via self interest, lowering the average individual's ability even further.

>From the areas sampled. Population increase could only occur if the host range also increases.

Are you retarded? You don't have the brain cells to understand population at all now do you?

>Irrelevant. One does not need to eradicate a pest to control its population - in fact it is near improbable. Do you need to eradicate all non-probiotic bacteria from your digestive tract to sustain your health?

Garbage strawman to try and deflect from the fact you were making flat out unsubstantiated claims. If there's a pathogen in your body, and you can't be rid of it, you fall ill and die. That's exactly what the invasive aldegids are on the ecosystem. How about you take a dose of AIDS up your asshole, take a drug that only kills half of it, and then get back to me when you feel better?

>https://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-strikes-deal-to-develop-plant-microbes-1386720383?tesla=y

Fuck off, you deflecting cunt. That's two posts you've pussied out of addressing by doubling down on the layman's definition of ecology. You address the first paragraph of this >>64167 or the last of this >>64729, or you have nothing going for your bullshit. Your example bolsters artificial agriculture with potential harm to natural systems, supporting my stance like a third of the points you've made.

Dont worry, your wildlife will go extinct but their genes will live on in the new genetically modified ubermensches we'll produce.

>>64910

>Capital, dumbass.

Capital does nothing on its own. Consumers and investors are far more efficient at allocating capital than the state is.

>>64911

They'll die off because people don't engineer ubermensches, they engineer one use specialists meant to thrive under human coddling. You can have your rats, cockroaches and kudzus, while most else dies as the biosphere collapses.

>>64917

Maybe for economic growth. Terrible when it comes to conservatory measures among others. Doesn't challenge the original point that a well constructed state allows individuals more bargaining power than a stateless society.

>>64952

>Terrible when it comes to conservatory measures among others.

Show me what you are looking at to base this claim on. Also, I not interested in your original point, I am only interested in your claim that the private sector is terrible in conservatory measures.

>>65005

Well if you're not interested in the original point, then just leave. The basis of this argument chain is that an ancap society does not have a solution for the environmentalism problem. Attacking any supporting claim out of context is just setting yourself up to be another strawmanning idiot.

It's been repeated multiple times to cater to a deflecting retard, but to some it up partially, the last paragraph of >>64335 has some of the rough points.

>>65011

Apparently your claim is lacking, or else you wouldn't mind providing evidence for your claim. If you cannot backup up one claim, how on earth can you backup up the rest of your argument?

>>65013

Look, this is all in the posts above you. I get that it's a wall of text to read, but if you want me to put this all out for you, you have to act like you're not just another shitposter who grasps at straws to justify his dogma.

>>65015

>Terrible when it comes to conservatory measures among others.

This is a claim on your part is it not? Don't make a claim if you are not going to provide something to back it up.

>>65019

And it is backed up by posts above you, some of which I have even linked for your consideration, though I suppose you can just ignore evidence and counterarguments then claim I haven't provided any, because your argument is just another autistic strawman.

>>65021

This post of mine >>64917 which you responded with >>64952 is absolutely no strawman. I am asking you to back your claim. There are no links provided above that address this:

>Terrible when it comes to conservatory measures among others.

You either back that claim or you don't.

>>65029

It's a fucking strawman because you refuse to focus on the crux of the topic and you're just veering off to some side argument like the other retard. I can substantiate that claim, but at the risk of starting another post chain irrelevent to my original reasoning and argument that an ancap society has no solution to the environmentalism problem. You want to go down that path you pair your demand with relation against my original topic or you start another fucking thread.

I will link you one more time to a relevant post chain that already addressed this. If you come back demanding any more evidence then what has already been written, instead of writing up some proper counterarguments, then you have proven that you're just another brainwashed deflecting shitposter.

>>62727

Read up.

>>65044

It is not a strawman when claims you make are challenged. That is part and parcel of having a debate. If you don't like it, don't claim anything. And as for historical claims, such as the buffalo, it is easy to point the finger at lack of government regulation without realizing it wasn't the government that saved the buffalo at all. You also fail to account for the role of NGOs that operate as a representation of the private sector. Who can forget the steadfast determination and vigilance that Greenpeace possesses?

http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/02/sorry-environmentalists-buffalo-were-saved-from-extinction-by-capitalism/

http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/19/how-capitalism-saved-the-bees-new-at-rea

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12313/full

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2011/10/private-conservation-protects-aussie-species/

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba338.pdf

>>65061

That's a lot of talk from someone who tried so hard to argue out of context before conceding that he actually had to read the thread before mouthing off. Of course you merely skimmed the thread and didn't actually read most of the counter points I already made to some of your points.

>And as for historical claims, such as the buffalo, it is easy to point the finger at lack of government regulation without realizing it wasn't the government that saved the buffalo at all.

>http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/02/sorry-environmentalists-buffalo-were-saved-from-extinction-by-capitalism/

Funny how you'd use such a biased source for that, because you failed to mention how most of these ranchers hybridised their bison with cattle, effectively genociding their genetic stock and posing a risk of contamination of true populations, how some of the ranchers got quite a bit of help from the state, and how you completely glossed over state contributions and how most of these "bison" never made it back to the wild. The largest wild population of bison originated from a surviving population on government protected land, while private bison are still in the midst of backbreeding to remove their cattle genes. Self interest motivated actions resulted in a farce of conservation.

>You also fail to account for the role of NGOs that operate as a representation of the private sector. Who can forget the steadfast determination and vigilance that Greenpeace possesses?

NGOs in the modern sense are propped up by states and regulations, their effects cannot be directly ported into an ancap scenario where they have to remain profitable, scientifically knowledgeable and secure while serving their goals. Greenpeace is an antifa tier politically motivated joke that carries out activism fervently without any knowledge of the science and efficacy behind their actions. They are an example of how disorganised beliefs can do more harm than good, or be inefficient in solving anything.

>http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/19/how-capitalism-saved-the-bees-new-at-rea

These are domesticated bees. They are livestock, "saved" as if a rancher would insure his horses.

>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12313/full

>to Remedy Shortfalls in Government Funding for Conservation

Of course, the entire paper still falls back on the state.

>http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/wildlife/2011/10/private-conservation-protects-aussie-species/

>http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba338.pdf

Refer to last paragraph of >>63088 and >>61639 plus related chains

Charities won't have as much change in effect in an ancap society due to having to stay competitively profitable and not all ecotourism can be profitable.

The crux of the claim "Terrible when it comes to conservatory measures" was in relation to the hypothetical ancap society the entire argument centers on, and based on the lackluster performance of the private sector as compared to state regulatory actions in history. To fixate on the quote while refusing to understand the context is to shift the burden of proof of validating an ancap environmental solution, when the lack of any historical equivalent means that the burden of proof is on the one suggesting an ancap society has a viable solution.

>>61420

Replace insects/amphibians/reptiles with the Vienna State Opera, and you're Ludwig von Mises.

>>65066

>The crux of the claim "Terrible when it comes to conservatory measures" was in relation to the hypothetical ancap society the entire argument centers on, and based on the lackluster performance of the private sector as compared to state regulatory actions in history.

Well, you never did show the "lackluster" performance of the private sector in any field. If anything, the only thing that has been exposed is the lackluster performance of government in conservatory measures. The very fact that people band together to form non-governmental organizations goes to show that the government is not doing enough. If people care enough now even with a government aimed at conservation, then we can say that people would most likely care the same or even more when government is gone.

>>65107

So you're just ignoring facts to justify your belief like the other retard, huh? Apparently there can be a whole thread with dozens of examples of lackluster private performance, none of which you can successfully argue against, and you just handwave it all and ignore them.

Refer to >>64166. It doesn't matter if the state isn't doing enough, no entity can omnipotently do everything perfectly. As long as the state does a better job than the non state entities, or the non state entities are only successful because of state actions, which has been shown time and again through all these examples you completely falter at addressing, then the state is necessary for environmentalism. The burden of proof is on you to evidence that it works without the state. You are completely unable to do so.

Your belief isn't logical or grounded in reality. You're a rhetoric parroting sheep who can't deal with the fact that your societal system has flaws.

>>65070

one rich person can fund and preserve vienna opera

but this is impossible in the case of insects/cold blooded vertebrates

>>65133

>but this is impossible in the case of insects/cold blooded vertebrates

Every insect and vertebrate serves a purpose and has untapped potential for profit waiting to be discovered. If we've turned horseshoe crabs that roll around in half-frozen mud into a multi-billion dollar medical industry, I'm sure we can save a few preying mantises or Turtles.

>>65159

Read the fucking thread, some of the points you've made have been debunked or addressed, I'll comment on your new ones.

>Fuck off with this "genetically pure" crap, dude. You sound like a Nazi

This is an incredibly stupid post. Genes make a species and its traits/ecological function. You are not conserving anything if you do not preserve these. The entire breadth of conservationists, private or state, regard hybrids as not only dangers to conservation, but not true specimens to be preserved. Auroch genes don't matter when you're buying beef because we don't breed their descendents for conservation, we breed them as fucking food.

>How it saved the forests through private ownership long before government got their grubby mitts in on it? Common Law (what most AnCaps tend to follow) has seen polluting factories closed down because they violated the rights of farms and fishermen in the surrounding area with their pollution.

Considering your idea of "saved" includes bastardised attempts in which little of the natural systems or genes are actually preserved, I really doubt private ownership actually "saved" forests at all. This mentality that protecting private artificial industries is somehow tantamount to true conservation is completely flawed. No, your farm isn't a preserve, it's a private structure that harms natural systems as much as concrete jungles. Don't pretend otherwise.

>Government regulation has only created the low-bar figures that a polluting company must follow, and doesn't hold them responsible if the accident was caused by years of following these low-bar figures or similar measures

And without government there wouldn't even be low bar figures to follow at all. The very fact that polluting companies do the absolute bare minimum causing these long term unaddressed externalities just goes to show they would do even less without the state.

>Nuclear

Nuclear is mired by fears of nuclear weapon propagation. It is a national security issue and the current case of hysterical concerns with it means that an ancap society would reject it all the same.

> If companies have shown they can handle and care about safety and following important (if not monotonous) procedures time and time again to the point where government regulations are considered a joke, why can't the same be said of the environment?

Because those NGOs have revenue for their services and provide a self interest service? Environmentalism has none of that for many cases. Low revenue, little return of a product or service. Stop taking things out of context, you know damn well that quote referred to conservation NGOs. You're also really overstating those other NGOs, when their main advantage over state regulatory industries is speed, not quality of review.

>>65160

But they never wait long enough for science to catch up enough to realise that profit. They seek out short term gain and wipe these creatures out by externalities. Do you think biotech is a stagnant uncompetitive field? No, thousands of species are constantly being evaluated for applications, the fact that horseshoe crabs are realised while so many others aren't, just goes to show how little profit there is to gain over just letting externalities wipe them out.

>>65154

>No counterargument

It's completely true because you have nothing to back your shit. The entire thread shits all over ancaps who know nothing about ecology, and all they can do is whine, "t-those well documented historical private fuck ups never happened, not muh ancapistan", like the typical tinfoil hat conspiritard.

>>65070

>a few thousand square feet of real estate with revenue from being a national tourist attraction

>salaries of a few dozen performers and menial custodians for which the market is oversaturated in

>renovation rates as per other historical architecture in the event of damage

versus

>up to thousands of acres of habitat

>needing shielding from externalities, many difficult to ascertain the proper relation and origin of

>with little revenue from ecotourism for most species

>material resources contained within that land must be cordoned off from most use

>scientific research needed to ensure proper practice

>highly trained staff needed to fulfil roles

>security to prevent infringement by rival groups

>thousands of other interrelated species also needing protection such that the target species can survive or maintain itself

>weaving around political and national security demand for the resources in that land

>extremely difficult or costly to restore if significant environmental damage occurs

>>65133 is absolutely right.

>>65133

That wasn't my point.

My point was that every libertarian has some sticking point that tempts them to want to flock back to the government for answers and solutions. For Mises it was the Opera. For me it's public transportation. For a friend of mine it's public healthcare. For some it's NASA. For others it's the police/military. For OP, it's bugs.

>>65492

wildlife is for sure more important than opera or nasa or public healthcare

>>65183

>Read the fucking thread,

All your points have been debunked, nigger.

>You are not conserving anything if you do not preserve these.

Evolution is not a static system, nigger.

>>64910

>almost entirely handled via state entities today?

Actually it is mostly handled privately through NGOs.

>What the hell do consumers and investors use to affect change?

Without them, you wopuld not have capital, dumbass.

>You don't have the brain cells to understand population at all now do you?

A population density decrease in a finite area is a population decrease, dumbass.

>Garbage strawman

The analogy fits, so no.

>If there's a pathogen in your body, and you can't be rid of it, you fall ill and die.

Are you retarded? Everyone has pathogens in their bodies.

>How about you take a dose of AIDS up your asshole

Carrying the HIV pathogen does not necessarily mean you contract AIDS. Look up immunity and viral latency.

>That's two posts you've pussied out of addressing by doubling down on the layman's definition of ecology.

The symbiotic relationship of nitrogen-fixing microbes fits in with the definition of ecology:

"the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings."

>>65561

That's right. For you it is more important than all of those things combined. For you the problems are way more complex than all of those things combined. People aren't giving you the answers you want. Now, what are you going to do about it?

>>65500

Look dumbass, anything can be food if you eat the right parts, that's not the point of conservation and it doesn't change the fact that breeding mutts isn't conservation.

>>65661

>implying anything has been debunked

Name one example in this thread debunked, you shitposter. You know you fucking can't.

>Evolution is not a static system

Nothing that involves human interference is concurrent with the natural process of evolution. This is a retard's strawman.

Also,

>Christian anarchist

>Believes in evolution

Fucking hypocrite and a heretic to his god.

>>65662

>Actually it is mostly handled privately through NGOs.

Name them. And prove the "mostly" claim. I know a shitposter like you can't

>Without them, you wopuld not have capital

Just replying for the sake of replying aren't you, you retard? That's got nothing to do with the point you responded to at all.

>A population density decrease in a finite area is a population decrease

Nice backpedaling and denial, faggot. You claimed a population density decrease in an expanding area is a population decrease. Which is exactly what is happening, dumbass.

>I'll plug my ears and keep knowingly spouting factually wrong analogies

Yeah, you're a garbage spewing idiot, this was always apparent.

>Everyone has pathogens in their bodies.

>He doesn't know what a pathogen is

Complete retard.

>Carrying the HIV pathogen does not necessarily mean you contract AIDS.

Taking an incomplete drug cocktail does, my point is correct, now prove your crappy analogy and have someone pump his AIDs ridden semen up your ass.

>The symbiotic relationship of nitrogen-fixing microbes fits in with the definition of ecology: "the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings."

You're doing exactly what I accused you of doing in all 4 posts you refused to address, validating my argument for the umpteenth time. You're a genuine idiot from any point of view.

>>65492

>>65665

Libertarians are not necessarily ancaps. Many support a state, because they know that pure anarchy is impractical and flawed for addressing certain problems, possibly having a net negative on liberty. Also, state involvement in programs does not necessarily imply large inefficient bureaucratic systems, when a system's flaws are consequence of poor design, so I don't get why you're trying to make this an exception kind of thing, when these systems can be properly implemented minus much of the flaws of big gov.

>>65739

> not necessarily ancap

OP has an ancap flag. I kind of thought that that was the context of the discussion.

>>65736

>Name them.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01721.x/full

>>65827

OP left the thread a long time ago.

>>65831

A fucking opinion piece that isn't even about common's management. As usual, shitposters can't post source worth a damn and don't even know what they're replying to.

>>65840

If you read back through the thread you will see that your argument has been crushed. I noticed this early on with each sage you used in an attempt to silently get in the last word. Perhaps come back when you have something more substantial.

>>65840

>OP left the thread a long time ago.

But >>65561 was an ancap flag guy.

>>65856

If my argument was crushed, faggots like you would bring up proper counterpoints or address old ones instead of putting on a /pol/ b8 flag and whining while ignoring or misinterpreting presented facts. And if there was ever an example of a retard trying to get the last word in, it would be this piece of asshurt garbage >>65662 that took the AIDs jab too personally. I started saging when no one brought up any proper arguments anymore, just shitposting, deflections, strawmans and ignoring valid points. The thread is full of retards who know as much about ecology as a communist knows economics. If you don't have the guts to handle the facts I've presented, fuck off and take your bullshit to the dozens of other circlejerk threads, you sore loser.

>>65876

I really am from /pol/ nigger. Stop getting so triggered.

>>65888

Samefagging is fucking pathetic. You expect me to believe some /pol/lack read the whole fucking thread and specifically got offended by the post meant for the butthurt AIDsfag, when all the other anarchists started their own post chains? Get over it, faggot. You lost this argument.

>>65736

Ecology has been addressed to you. Even a link was provided showing Monsanto's employment of ecologists to develop microbres for improved crop yields for farmers. You are just going to declare "muh deflections" again, like a total incompetent.

>You claimed a population density decrease in an expanding area is a population decrease

In a specific area, retard. An expanding pest range requires an expanding host range. Also, you haven't provided any proof that this adelgid species is expanding.

>muh pathogens

Once agian, immunity and viral latency is why preople are not afflicted by diseases. How do you think shingles occur? It is the dormant chicken pox that activates when the immune system is compromised. Why do you get sick when you eat your own feces? Are you telling me your feces does not have pathogens?

>>65735

>Name one example in this thread debunked,

That hunting was the sole cause buffalo depopulation, nigger:

https://mises.org/library/endangered-species-private-property-and-american-bison

>Nothing that involves human interference is concurrent with the natural process of evolution.

Humans are part of the evolutionary process, nigger.

>Christian anarchist

What makes you think I am, you dumb nigger.

>>66230

>Ecology has been addressed to you.

No, ecological funding has been deflected multiple times by a retard with irrelevant sources, to challenge a stray side point that has been miniscule to the central argument. This whole point has had followups in >>64167 >>64729, that you refuse to even acknowledge. Your whole argument is still fallacious garbage if you're too scared to take on points that will wreck your side arguments.

>Also, you haven't provided any proof that this adelgid species is expanding.

Because this is common knowledge and widely verified, you dumbass. But since your nonsense is pulled out of your ass, and you don't know population or range for the shit in your brains, you keep repeating the same debunked point like a broken record while ignoring factual counterpoints.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Neil_Pederson/publication/235004710/figure/fig1/AS:299754635448339@1448478483097/Figure-1-Range-of-eastern-and-Carolina-hemlock-and-range-of-the-hemlock-woolly-adelgid.png

>Once agian, immunity and viral latency is why preople are not afflicted by diseases.

You're dissecting an insult while weaseling out of arguing for the complete lack of evidence of ancap environmental solutions. Always going for the irrelevant side arguments. You just desperately want to be right about at least one thing when all your points have been wrong, huh? I'll spell out what I wanted you to take home from that AIDs insult: Take a big black cock up your ass, contract AIDs, and let the disease put you out of your misery.

>>66240

First the pathetic attempt to play a /pol/lack and now picking up the slack from the christian anarchist. You're beyond pathetic. Splitting your insults into three samefag personas doesn't validate your trash, it just amplifies your apparent asshurt. Every half ass point converted into an insult here has been addressed or debunked, kill yourself if you're too meek to challenge them.

>>66250

>muh ecology

So proof of industry-funded ecology is deflecting even though it addresses and disproves your statement? Here is the source again:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-strikes-deal-to-develop-plant-microbes-1386720383?tesla=y

Spread doesn't mean population increase, especially since proof was provided that the densities in sample sites have been decreasing. Also:

>The current distribution of the adelgid in eastern North America may be approaching the extent of its potential range to the south and west determined by availability of host hemlock and to the north determined by lethal cold winter temperatures.

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/disturbance/invasive_species/hwa/risk_detection_spread/modeling_spread/

>You're dissecting an insult while weaseling out of arguing for the complete lack of evidence of ancap environmental solutions.

These solutions have already been providing. Instead you ignore them, and use special pleading stating "it may fund rhinos but not this [insert species]"

>>66271

>Here is the source again:

And here are the two posts you deflected again, in which I already wrote against this as sub points.

>>64167

>>64729

For which you refuse to follow up against.

>Spread doesn't mean population increase

It certainly doesn't mean population decrease. It takes some serious straw grasping or retardation to interpret an increase in invasive habitat and native tree loss as a pest population decrease, or something that was "solved".

>proof was provided that the densities in sample sites have been decreasing.

Nothing was provided as evidence for this. Just a misinterpreted claim based on an experimental trial of released ladybugs that had promising results, but which has little correlation or effect to overall aldegid spread and population.

>>The current distribution of the adelgid in eastern North America may be approaching the extent of its potential range to the south and west determined by availability of host hemlock and to the north determined by lethal cold winter temperatures.

>https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/disturbance/invasive_species/hwa/risk_detection_spread/modeling_spread/

Which has fuck all to do with your ladybugs. It just shows that ladybugs or not, they've been spreading unimpeded, and they're about to destroy almost all the hemlock they can reach.

>These solutions have already been providing. Instead you ignore them, and use special pleading stating "it may fund rhinos but not this [insert species]"

Flawed excuses have been provided, for which I've pointed out their problems, which you flat out ignore. And you've proven it again by admitting that your flawed system can only protect rhinos, which don't even cover OP's limited criteria, under a system that receives great help from the state. But I guess if you shift the goalposts like a communist enough, you can pretend your system is infallible.

>>66277

>And here are the two posts you deflected again,

No, I didn't respond to these because the first is a non-argument claiming I am using a "high-school notion of definition" but provides no logic to back that claim. And the other point has been disproven by the very existence of private conservatory entities. Basically your argument boils down to a "nuh uh" statement.

>It certainly doesn't mean population decrease

With the reduction in population densities in test sites, it means it does in areas it formerly infested. The graph shows minimal "spread" (more like shifting locations as it dies out in former areas of infestation) and its range shows control, as per my source.

> but which has little correlation or effect to overall aldegid spread and population.

>Which has fuck all to do with your ladybugs.

Adelgids are the food source of these ladybugs, retard. Reduction in adelgids means reduction in ladybugs.

>they've been spreading unimpeded, and they're about to destroy almost all the hemlock they can reach.

Yu didn't even bother to read the source:

>The current distribution of the adelgid in eastern North America may be approaching the extent of its potential range to the south and west determined by availability of host hemlock and to the north determined by lethal cold winter temperatures.

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/disturbance/invasive_species/hwa/risk_detection_spread/modeling_spread/

>Flawed excuses have been provided, for which I've pointed out their problems,

And these "problems" have already been addressed. Once, again, this is special pleading.

>And you've proven it again by admitting that your flawed system can only protect rhinos,

Damn, retard, we already provided examples of other private reserves covering different species.

>>64167

Most of these points have already been addressed, so I will stick to the new ones

>As to adhere to state regulations.

More like to recover loss sales from selling customers faulty products.

>because the cost of funding research would divert funds from competition.

We disproved the Free Rider Problem in an earlier thread regarding smugglers creating and improving supply lines used also by their competition. The first to implement research takes advantage of the market early.

> a little late to start dropping ad homs.

Your autistic screeching is an attempt at argumentation and not your character.

> If the rigours of which were developed by private standards and you support so, why does enforcement bother you?

Because it may not be the optimal standard, involve outdated or flaws methodology, portions of better standards may conflict with the state-mandated standard, and negative externalities.

> Regulations are reevaluated and amended over time.

Regulations have a tendency to increase rather than be repealed. Refer to the Federal Register.

>How about tackling the fact that the rest of these animals were not as affected despite occupying the same niche

Which animals occupy the same niche as the American bison?

> Because you're trying to abuse the semantics of "private" and "public"

What is so hard to understand the difference between private reserves and public reserves?

> You brought up train tracks to blame the state and now you defend them.

Trains are permanent structures and obstructions to bison migration. Hunting is not.

> And the population decline is noted by state and wildlife sources.

Refer to attached video.

> Because the burden of proof for your claim was always on you to provide the numbers

Sorry, but I didn’t make the claim of alligator depopulation.

>why believe a population isn't in decline when there is evidencea that it did?

How is this evidence of unsustainable depopulation? No numbers besides that quantity killed were provided. In fact, numbers were increasing before being listed as endangered (refer to attached video). The population spike mentioned in the video was credited to conservation groups working alongside private hunters.

>"It wasn't until 1855 that any attempt was made to kill alligators in large numbers."

So somehow you blame early settlers for depopulation of alligators when no serious depopulation attempt (key word is “attempt”) was made until the mid-19th Century, a time of increasing regulations, state-subsidized infrastructure projects, and the 1872 Mining Act that granted mineral prospectors (like the ones mentioned in your source as a “key factor in the decline of alligators in the state") claim on hunter and trapper land for exploration in disregard to homestead rights and resulting in a tragedy of the commons scenario?

> they were both documented being hunted by settlers

Hunting != Depopulation

>hunting was documented as a cause for their decline

Mineral prospectors and not by settlers, hunters, and trappers (again read your fucking source). Hell, your own source even provides the prospect of alligator farming by private entities.

>because you've already put words in my mouth by specifically phrasing it as "significant decline due to early settlers"

I was referring to your statement here: >>62727 “you can refer to the early north american settler's effects in almost hunting bison and alligators to extinction and creating dustbowls.”

> You showed evidence of a bottleneck centuries before you claimed it occurred,

Where in the source did it say the genetic bottleneck occurred centuries before the 19th Century? The genetic tests were done on samples 100 years old.

> So I completely trash your points by pointing out how Tasmanians could have privately set up preserves but they didn't,

You didn’t. You could not build any large land development without royal charter in 19th Century Tasmania.

> You have faltered every time you've made that claim. Unless you can prove private land ownership was illegal, you've got nothing.

Just because one owns private land does not mean they can just declare it to be a private reserve. Look up zoning laws.

> Which was my point, that a market would continue to exist as long as the item was not the most costly luxury good.

An existence of a market does not mean unsustainable depletion of its resources.

> No active action was taken to end their hunting.

You can’t end hunting, especially illegal hunting. The point is to reduce hunting to sustainable levels.

> I refuted your point on how price mechanisms couldn't save species

You haven’t since the North American beaver species had been saved thanks to reduction in pelting,

>you made the claim that price did reduce felt cap demand.

And it did from the source I provided.

>>66318

>No, I didn't respond to these

>I will define a nurse as a doctor if it suits my hackneyed argument

So another deflection, huh? I knew you'd pussy out and get wrecked on that point.

>With the reduction in population densities in test sites, it means it does in areas it formerly infested. The graph shows minimal "spread" (more like shifting locations as it dies out in former areas of infestation) and its range shows control, as per my source.

It means nothing. Your claim is unsubstantiated. Your source doesn't even evidence this. This is a fallacious claim.

>Religiously repeating a debunked point

>Posting the same misintepreted point.

https://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/pubs/proceedings/1999_proceedings/p89.pdf

Pg 7, "However, even though P. tsugae has established and increased its numbers in these release areas, trees have generally continued to decline."

Completely wrong.

>[WHINING ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT]

Get fucked, shitter. You've been BTFO again.

>>66323

>Most of these points have already been addressed, so I will stick to the new ones

Literally all of these points are old ones, you just recapped everything in the thread. The ones that you're addressing right now, you already wrote posts about earlier, and I've already counter addressed and debunked along the post chain. Read the fucking thread.

Gosh, you've got to be a heck of an autistic retard to type up the exact same debunked points over again and just pretend their not factually wrong the second time. Pathetic.

Conservation zoo, make dollar

>>66327

What exactly is the point you are trying to make? If a state is needed to provided efficient conservation efforts, then the mere presence of private sector conservation shows that state regulations are not adequate to meet the needs expected by citizens. One cannot draw a conclusion that an Ancap society would have no conservation efforts. The fact that there are NGOs and other private organizations now in the presence of government regulations gives a good a indication that they would continue to exist in a a society that was completely private sector. The fact that 100+ national bodies are unable to come to an effective conservation regulation that works, and is accepted by everyone means that even your stance has no conclusive solution for the wildlife preservation. If state regulations were an effective solution alone, then we would rely on that alone, but we don't.

>>66331

i want to observe them in wild

but your idea is not very bad because captivite breed animals can be reintroduced to wild but ecosystem needs to be ok for it to work

>>66332

>small gov libertarian

>doesn't believe in a state

Why do all of you regurgitate the same fallacious points and reply end to end on posts instead of reading the thread? It almost seems like it's the same autistic fucker putting on a different flag and starting over every time his same points are put down.

You basically wrote the same thing >>64152 did, for which I made this reply >>64166, among others.

Expecting the state to be omnipotently perfect at conservation before you accept it is fallacious, as long as its better than private performance it merits its existence in that aspect. This has been seen historically and explored in a few cases in the thread, self interest motivated actions leads to shitty or no conservation time and again. The current framework of private conservation piggybacks and heavily depends on the state, expecting all this to exist to the same degree of efficacy in an ancap society is a weak assumption. There are few if any examples of proper private conservation methods as good as state counterparts arising on their own historically, none exampled in this thread. All this means is that there is a lack of evidence that private conservation will ever arise and come close to the efficacy of state conservation in the absence of the state.

>>66326

>So another deflection, huh?

Not an argument.

>It means nothing. Your claim is unsubstantiated. Your source doesn't even evidence this.

Reduced density in an area = reduced population in an area. This is basic math. The area is not expanding as shown by this:

>The current distribution of the adelgid in eastern North America may be approaching the extent of its potential range to the south and west determined by availability of host hemlock and to the north determined by lethal cold winter temperatures.

>https://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/hwa/pubs/proceedings/1999_proceedings/p89.pdf

This is a 1999 paper when the harlequin ladybugs have not reached their effective population. You cannot expect instantaneous results. Once again:

>The current distribution of the adelgid in eastern North America may be approaching the extent of its potential range to the south and west determined by availability of host hemlock and to the north determined by lethal cold winter temperatures

>[WHINING ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT]

So, somehow examples of private conservation reserves is not evidence for private conservation.

>>66378

>>66377

Quit double posting, retard.

>>66378

>You basically wrote the same thing >>64152 did, for which I made this reply >>64166,

This has already been debunked by my example of the Homestead Act and its causal role in the dustbowl.

https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/libecap.pdf

Not to mention the role that the EPA, as show in the video I provided, hampering the conservatory efforts that were in place previously to control alligator population. The state has to rely on these private measures because often their own measures are detrimental.

>>66379

>Not an argument.

Pussing out of addressing arguments, is not an argument, shitter.

>Reduced density in an area = reduced population in an area. This is basic math. The area is not expanding as shown by this:

More like retard math by someone trying to distort facts. There is no evidence for this, your source literally shows an expanding range and because you failed kindergarten reading comprehension, you keep fixating on that one sentence of a prediction that means nothing.

>This is a 1999 paper when the harlequin ladybugs have not reached their effective population. You cannot expect instantaneous results.

So you have no evidence whatsoever? You're just a fucking idiot? The source you religiously spam shows a huge 2001 and 2006 spread after 1999, and the fact that it got even worse after 1999, means you're a completely deluded fuckwit who can't read sources for shit.

>So, somehow examples of private conservation reserves is not evidence for private conservation.

Examples of failed shitty private attempts the state is still trying to fix today and techniques that can only save a dozen species out of millions, is evidence that private conservation is shit without state help.

>Quit double posting

I fix typos, because I'm not a fucking asshurt shitposter responding to get the last one in.

>>66378

Your assumption that somehow the private sector would have a poor performance in an Ancap society is a weak assumption. You are assuming that because the private sector has not surpassed the state yet, it will somehow fail in the future without the state. You cannot draw a conclusion on that, especially since private conservation efforts continue to increase as well as the capital allocated to it. The only thing we can say is that private conservation will most likely exist in a private sector state, and will continue to grow because of that, and also because of the greater amount of awareness that people have for their environment.

>>66387

It's not an assumption, there is no evidence for it to arise when historical events suggest no such thing occurred when it should have under self interest based principles that usually lead to private development of infrastructure in other fields. If you have cases that suggest otherwise, mention them. There is also nothing to suggest private conservation efforts will gain more capital, when conservation is not profitable for the majority of species. It is also a misconstrued assumption to believe awareness for the environment will increase, when most awareness built today stems from attempts to skirt regulatory laws to monetize animals, or are the result of efforts supported by state funding.

>>66384

>This has already been debunked

Your one wayward point that was addressed and shot down for being factually wrong, does not debunk all my evidenced points just because you want it too, retard.

>by my example of the Homestead Act and its causal role in the dustbowl.

Your example that was factually wrong and showed the private farmers giving even less of a fuck than the state? Completely deluded.

>https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/libecap.pdf

Pg 12, "with farms under 500 acres accounting for over 70 percent of all farms by that year", "2/3s of the farms in the Great Plains were less than 500 acres".

Another idiot can't read his fucking source. Source literally confirms that more than a third of dustbowl land was privately owned and more than Homestead allocated limits of 320 acres. Proving that the private farmers did fuck all for soil erosion, and the free gibs farmers who claimed the Homestead land for free out of self interest, excaberated the problem.

>hampering the conservatory efforts that were in place previously to control alligator population.

Video literally shows one old guy speaking from anecdote as a source. Whole video conflates modern 21st century numbers with historical ones to distort the point. Video claims the 1970 Endangered species act didn't save the alligator, but an '''earlier 1950 state created law"' did.

Another factually wrong, stupid post.

>>66380

>Quit double posting

I fix typos, because I'm not a fucking asshurt shitposter responding to get the last one in.

Double post to trigger you.

>>66390

Your argument is crap. The bulk of your argument tries to rest on the points that bad stuff happened in the past, and the government provides more conservation. This does not draw any conclusion as to what would happen within an Ancap society. All of this is purely assumption from you.

>not profitable for the majority of species.

No current conservation efforts, either state or private, are adequate to protect the "majority" of species.

>when most awareness built today stems from attempts to skirt regulatory laws to monetize animals

Source.

Private conservation is continuing to grow whether you like it or not.

https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/news/pr/tnc-private-investment-in-conservation-report-findings.htm

>>66553

Are you samefagging right now? You don't sound one bit like a small gov libertarian. In fact you're starting to sound like an assblasted ancap who's been shut down teary eyed numerous times this thread with how much you're plugging a societal system antithetical to your flag.

Your entire argument is "communism has never been tried, not muh communism" tier right now. Lack of evidence for a claim is evidence for the negative. And the fact that there is no evidence that private conservation has ever been conducted successfully without the state, supports my argument entirely. By virtue of Occam's razor, the burden of proof is on you to evidence ancapistan conservation as more than a communists' fantasy, as the most likely effect of taking the state out of something as state orientated as conservation, is that it will fail. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

>No current conservation efforts, either state or private, are adequate to protect the "majority" of species.

You're missing a caveat there, species don't have to be profitable to be protected by the state. Strawman aside, you're also fallaciously attacking the semantic of "majority", when you know by and large the number of species state supported conservation can protect, is far more than conservation without the state.

>Source.

Try CITES Appendix I requirements for trade among other endangered species trade permissions. Every zoo and public aquarium in existence is a profit motivated venture that competes by monetising rare and exotic animals. To ensure a steady stream of endangered creatures, they go out of their way to emphasize conservation and spreading awareness to put their establishment in a permissible light. And you can't argue these aren't amongst the most influential sources of awareness. Take away the state regulations and you get the more circus like ventures, offering little for awareness.

>Private conservation is continuing to grow whether you like it or not.

>https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/news/pr/tnc-private-investment-in-conservation-report-findings.htm

You mean state supported conservation? What do you think puts up the regulations that keep these environmental regulation pandering, subsidy seeking businesses profitable in the first place? It's good that conservation improves, as long as you don't credit an ancap daydream for what the state has a large hand in.

>>66387

do you know anyone who puts his or her money into wildlife conservation?

>>66626

Id put it in her wildlife reserve if you know what I mean.

Does any anarchist ideology have a solution to the conservation issue?

>>61420

we need to specialize in 'free riding'

positive externalities are quite real.

>>66830

>5000 guys for one popular species that isn't even endangered other than in one area

>facing staunch friction and backlash from rival private conservation groups over ethical conflicts that hampers its efforts

>5000 isn't even the number of guys they got, it's their upper bound target of their drive they put in the clickbait title

>he thinks the existence of a state automatically means exorbitant 40% income tax when most states today don't even come close

What a shitshow.

>>66675

anarchoprimitivism

>>66864

Europe is pretty high. The guy does still have a point. More money in pocket, more money to donate. 💰

>>67097

I guess you missed the other 3 points pointing out how unlikely it is to donate and how inefficient that donation could be.

what are the odds that population number would drop in ancap?

>>67723

Human population? Quite high when the state dies and all its leeches are left to fend for themselves. Anf a decrease in humans will probably accompany an increase in widlife.

>>67723

We can't say either way. They might decrease or they might increase. Hopefully, they'll increase once more in the civilized world and the dumb Africans will realize that they shouldn't have more kids than they can feed and educate.

>>67834

>. Hopefully, they'll increase once more in the civilized world

why?

>>62059

>>61718

They're not that hard up. Feeding yourself is mostly just a matter of getting a job. The average person does that fine and isn't a public employee.

>>62059

You're missing psychic profit. The psychic profit of owning and operating an environmental park may drastically exceed the psychic profit of owning and operating yet more Materials and Real Estate. It's very likely that people would be eager to transition into conservation as they solved problems in their own life. They'd take pay cuts for that, quite enthusiastically, and so we'll see conservation spread just as soon as the general wealth level gets high enough that people can survive the pay cut at an acceptable quality of life.

>smear campaigns

Environmentalism is a rich man's toy. Wealthy people won't tolerate that at all. They'll trigger fraud investigations against the smear campaign and begin funding the target. Any publicity is good publicity, as the saying goes, and psychic profit is a powerful draw. Not only the people who work for conservation will gain psychic profit from its successful ongoing operation.

>>66391

>Your one wayward point that was addressed and shot down for being factually wrong

My source concludes that the Homestead Act was responsible and that large private farmsteads were providing the solution. Did you bother reading it?

>does not debunk all my evidenced points

You posted no evidence linking causality by the private sector in regards to the Dust Bowl.

>Source literally confirms that more than a third of dustbowl land was privately owned and more than Homestead allocated limits of 320 acres.

The majority of those under-500 plots were the small-plot farmstead owners set up by the Homestead Act, retard. Agiain, read the fucking source.

>Video literally shows one old guy speaking from anecdote as a source.

Appeal to authority fallacy. This was the overseer of the Florida's alligator management and thevideo cites population surveys. Attack the argument and not the source.

>Video claims the 1970 Endangered species act didn't save the alligator, but an '''earlier 1950 state created law"' did.

No, it mentioned state management in the '60s, an amendment to the Lacey Act of 1900, and the harvesting on private lands.

The problem with environmentalism is that the advocates for environmental protection are invariably not the ones who would be harmed by the measures that they propose. The cost of environmental protection is always passed off on another, presumably on a far away part of the country or from another part of the world. Whether its new regulations that reduce the amount of wood that can be logged which invariably harm the poor working class of the West USA or when someone's land becomes deemed a wildlife sanctuary for that MIGHT contain an endangered animal, which turns someones future sight for a home into a bare field they aren't allowed to bill but also must still pay taxes for. Environmental protection almost always involves a 3rd party imparting a cost on another. I think it is even more despicable when people in the developed world, who live lives of relative material comfort, demand the protection of Sumatra forests, which the which the destitute Indonesian would pay for.

Threat of environmental protection in many parts of the US encourage people to actively destroy endangered animals they see for fear that their homes and property might be forcibly taken into the federal demesne. But it's not to say that the government is altruistic protectors of endangered species. Government dams have done great harm across the world to natural wild life, subsidies encourage industries that would not exist before and harmful to animal populations, and so on and so forth. While the free market has made great leaps to reducing pollution through the advancement of high-tech industry that has had a continually reduced impact on the environment with cleaner manufacturing and with private property laws discouraging activity that would impart a degradation of property through pollution on third parties, like the pollution of rivers, air, and terrain.

>>70893

> I think it is even more despicable when people in the developed world, who live lives of relative material comfort, demand the protection of Sumatra forests, which the which the destitute Indonesian would pay for.

why?

>>70853

I've literally addressed all these points in posts that you then went on to deflect. Two to three replies later, you pretend those counterpoints never existed and go on to declare your original claim again, as if it never was debunked, despite the fact that I've probably debunked and analysed every piece of bullshit and self defeating source you've spouted thrice. I'm not going to go into this shit again for you if you keep pulling this bullshit. Which you fucking did again.

>>70858

Fuck off, I spent three posts >>66277 >>66326 >>66385

tearing apart the fact that the very source you provided contradicts your claim, and now you crawl back deflecting refusing to address those posts with anything but a "no you". Those examples are all throughout the thread, retard. All your garbage has been debunked. Fuck off, you are wrong, you lost the argument multiple times, and the only reason you're still here is to get the last one in by deflection.

>>72631

>I've literally addressed all these points in posts that you then went on to deflect.

You still haven't explained how these are deflections after repeated requests.

> Two to three replies later, you pretend those counterpoints never existed

Which ones have I ignored that were not already rebutted by others?

>despite the fact that I've probably debunked

>probably

Then you are not certain you debunked them.

>Fuck off, I spent three posts >>66277 >>66326 >>66385

And I have already countered all these posts. You are the one who hasn’t even provided a rebuttal to any of the points made in my last post.

>>78052

>zero arguments

>semantics whining

>literally does exactly what I described in the prior post

Give it a break you cunt, you've literally proven my point again that you're a defeated shitposting deflector by the fact that you're autistically sperging about the word "probably", when the full sentence is:

>probably debunked and analysed every piece of bullshit and self defeating source you've spouted thrice

>thrice

Meaning I've definitely demolished you twice over, but I'm not sure if you've been thoroughly crushed thrice for ALL of your points. This is just bait from a sore autist now. If you refuse to acknowledge the mountain of rebuttals in this very thread, your side of the argument is as good as lost. And that's a clear line you've passed twice, maybe thrice.

>>78059

>>78061

You'd expect reddit trash and youtube garbage watchers to actually give a shit about ecology instead of making terrible strawmans against it, being fucking normies and all, but cancer stays cancerous. I rest my case.

>>78059

>Meaning I've definitely demolished you twice over,

Probably thrice does not imply definite twice. Have you bothered taking courses in logic?

>If you refuse to acknowledge the mountain of rebuttals in this very thread

Yes, I've acknowledged the mountain of rebuttals towards OP's lack of ecological knowledge throughout this thread.

>This is just bait from a sore autist now.

So you acknowledge that you are a sore autist, now? Acceptance is one of the 12 steps to recovery.

>>78139

>grasping this hard

You're a rectum ravaged mess, you don't even know who you're replying too, let alone what your own point is anymore. I can almost taste your tears as well as I can tell your hands were shaking while typing that up. Pitiful.

>>78193

>you don't even know who you're replying too

The reply link is right in my post: >>78059

low IQ retard discovers tragedy of the commons problem: the thread

>>78252

>discovers

The retard has refused to acknowledge the tragedy of the commons even exists, making excuses and posting self contradictory sources to pretend environmentalism has ever worked without the state. I doubt calling him an idiot would change that, when so many well written responses have failed.

>>78255

Muh Nigga!