Urbanvictim Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Free market capitalism and the tragedy of the commons theory makes perfect sense it most situations. Where I have struggled is when it comes to the see. It is already horribly overfished and polluted but how could this be managed in a free society where there is zero control and difficulty allocating ownership plots as you can with land Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 How is it managed currently and how is that working out? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Why is that a problem to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruben Zandstra Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 If I'm not completely wrong informed I think things went to hell quite quickly once governments started selling licences and protecting the license-holders with laws and a monopoly on force. This has been quite clearly the case along the west coast of Canada and in Iceland I think. The licensing industry has eliminated the social forces that restrained everyone in the past from harvesting at other peoples expense, and of spoiling common interests. Anyone even considering cleaning the whole area of fish in one go in -lets say- nineteen century New Foundland would quickly find himself ostracized (at best). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Nobody knows how it would work. The market is miraculous that way. But a free society has the best chance of fixing the problem. In a free society, people could maybe: 1) Own vast swaths of private ocean where no fishing is allowed. 2) Develop consumer groups giving stamps of approval to certain business who fish reasonably. 3) Develop artificial lab grown fish meat. Cheaper. Cruelty free. And remember: Free societies would be vastly wealthier. Environmentalism increases proportionally with wealth. This would skyrocket our ability to work out environmental problems instead of slaving away to paying for wars, prisons, police, schools, etc Imagine only need 20 hours a week to have the same living standard - you'd have so much more time for environmental pursuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 Develop artificial lab grown fish meat. Cheaper. Cruelty free. In your opinion, how is fishing cruel? Also, I serious doubt lab grown fish could be cheaper than the real deal. How would this be the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 In your opinion, how is fishing cruel? Also, I serious doubt lab grown fish could be cheaper than the real deal. How would this be the case? I assume there is some suffering involved. Although I haven't looked into it. Lab grown mean could, possibly, become cheaper. Technological advancements could make this a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted November 22, 2014 Share Posted November 22, 2014 I assume there is some suffering involved. Although I haven't looked into it. Lab grown mean could, possibly, become cheaper. Technological advancements could make this a possibility. How would it be cheaper when there are naturally born fish already out there waiting to be fished? Also, how is growing fish in a laboratory any less cruel than fishing them? Why would you assume there is any suffering in fishing and why does it matter? Do fish follow the non-aggression principle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfingthoughts Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 I'm quite into the idea of artificially grown meat and fish and could see it being cheaper eventually once the whole process is automated it would be like growing a crop. If we can grow individual organs (which I think we have done) we could potentially only grow certain favourable cuts of meat rather than the whole thing. Regarding the morals of it even if it was a whole fish not a problem for me. With animals I would always seek to take a more moral high ground and reduce suffering if possible within reason but that is my choice I guess, for example I try to buy free range but I don't sweat if I don't from time to time. Ethics are universal I can't do that with animals they can't with me, morals are my choice and I won't force them on anyone else but if I saw someone beating a dog I would try and stop it without the initiation of force. I know some people are really against gm food aswell (there is allot of misinformation out there) but I'm not and I think it could make it super tasty. I'm not sure on how to allocate ownership but I think ownership is important in terms of overfishing. If there is a solution the free market is the quickest and maybe even the only path to it. For me the problem isn't so much how to controls our resources such as the sea and the fish in it but when we stop increasing population exponentially I think that's the elephant in the room that is getting ignored. It is something I might make a topic about as it's interesting to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 How would it be cheaper when there are naturally born fish already out there waiting to be fished? Also, how is growing fish in a laboratory any less cruel than fishing them? Why would you assume there is any suffering in fishing and why does it matter? Do fish follow the non-aggression principle? Cruelty: Did you look at that link to the lab grown meat? No animal was killed. Suffering: I find it disturbing that your default position is: sea life feels no pain. And if it did, it wouldn't matter at all. UBP: Correct. Animals don't abide by our moral laws. It's outside of UBP. This discussion is not a UPB argument. Price: Lab meat may or may not be cheaper in the future. It's a possibility. Computers used to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and fill whole rooms. Now, computers with vastly more power are sitting the pocket of every middle schooler for just a few hundred bucks. Technology improves: 1) Home 3D food printing is on the horizon. 2) Fishing could be considered relatively inefficient compared to a future process, especially considering that fishing is the 'most dangerous job in the world'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Cruelty: Did you look at that link to the lab grown meat? No animal was killed. Suffering: I find it disturbing that your default position is: sea life feels no pain. And if it did, it wouldn't matter at all. UBP: Correct. Animals don't abide by our moral laws. It's outside of UBP. This discussion is not a UPB argument. Price: Lab meat may or may not be cheaper in the future. It's a possibility. Computers used to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and fill whole rooms. Now, computers with vastly more power are sitting the pocket of every middle schooler for just a few hundred bucks. Technology improves: 1) Home 3D food printing is on the horizon. 2) Fishing could be considered relatively inefficient compared to a future process, especially considering that fishing is the 'most dangerous job in the world'. Frankenburger: the world’s first lab-grown beef burger, a five-ounce patty grown from cow stem cells that took a Dutch scientist four years of research and $332,000 to create. Post warns that these first cultured beef patties (appearing in 2021, if his estimate is right) won’t be feed-the-world burgers, let alone cost-competitive with conventional meat. Post envisions cultured meat will begin as a high-end product for people who care deeply about the environment and how their meat is produced (think Prius drivers). If there’s consumer demand, production will increase and prices will fall quickly. A lot of people are going to have to eat very expensive hamburgers so that they get a return on their investment. You couldn't pay me to eat one of those. If we didn't have restrictive agricultural controls, meat products would a lot cheaper than they are now. Therefore, growing meat in a lab is simply a waste of time fueled by the inefficiencies of government. The only reason there would even be a market for this overpriced and unnecessary product is because the federal government successfully propagandized people into thinking that raising cattle is bad for the environment. I also want to point out that Google is very anti-Second Amendment, so everything else they do is tainted by this violation of gun rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts