Conquer Club

I live directly next door to a state forest which is about 2000 acres large. The forest is meant to be a place where people who don't own their own land can enjoy nature as well as a place where animals and plants alike can remain unmolested for the most part.
However...
Every spring through fall they put up stakes with fluorescent surveyours tape and little signs that read "CAUTION! SALAMANDER BREEDING POOLS!" around the large puddles that form on the main roadway that runs through the middle of the forest. Now I can see putting these signs up if these little creatures were endangered or something but they aren't. They are the same salamanders that I see by the thousand on my property in any given day during the warmer months. They are literally so abundant in the area that I don't think you could wipe them out if you tried. Now I do not disturb these puddles as I don't have anything against the little guys but it makes me wonder about the person who made the decision to buy all those stakes, laminate all the little signs, etc.. I think that person has gone too far.

So what's your personal experience that has given you an example of "too far" in regard to environmental concern?

Any instance of planning without prices.

I can't comment on your area, but I do know that many salamanders are endangered, so I wonder if your impression of their abundance is skewed by the fact that you just happen to live in the one area where they are still plentiful?

Anyway, many environmentalists do more harm than good, mainly through misunderstanding basic economics and the unforeseen consequences of policies. Not sure that what you see there is a good example of that, however.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Any instance of planning without prices.

Yeah, ok, but for the benefit of the audience could you go into a specific personal experience? I mean, my previous example qualifies for planning without prices right?

Dukasaur wrote:I can't comment on your area, but I do know that many salamanders are endangered, so I wonder if your impression of their abundance is skewed by the fact that you just happen to live in the one area where they are still plentiful?

I suppose this is possible but not probable. I am being very literal when I refer to the "salamander breeding pools" as puddles. They are the exact same chocolate milk colored things that you used to jump in as a child. There are a few of these roughly 5x10 foot puddles cordoned off and this forest is MASSIVE with I'm sure many far far more desirable places for these guys to breed. I suppose you might have to see it to believe it.
As far as the specific examples I guess I'm looking for things you have seen with your own eyes as opposed to stuff you've read about. Actually no, I don't care the circumstances, just specific examples where you just said to yourself: "That's beyond rational".

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Any instance of planning without prices.

Yeah, ok, but for the benefit of the audience could you go into a specific personal experience? I mean, my previous example qualifies for planning without prices right?

The standard economic analysis ought not to apply to conservation issues. If we apply that line of thinking, we will end up with no areas untouched by human industrialization (really that has already happened due to global warming though). We ought to preserve these reservoirs of nature rather than find the most economical way to exploit them, or else our ancestors will not be able to appreciate what it is this planet has given them. That is far more valuable than any short term profit that can be made from the land, even if it's hard to quantify.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Any instance of planning without prices.

Yeah, ok, but for the benefit of the audience could you go into a specific personal experience? I mean, my previous example qualifies for planning without prices right?

The standard economic analysis ought not to apply to conservation issues. If we apply that line of thinking, we will end up with no areas untouched by human industrialization (really that has already happened due to global warming though). We ought to preserve these reservoirs of nature rather than find the most economical way to exploit them, or else our ancestors will not be able to appreciate what it is this planet has given them. That is far more valuable than any short term profit that can be made from the land, even if it's hard to quantify.

This is a great point as you can't put a price on purity.
However, I was meaning the decision to put the signs up on the roadway since I don't believe that those signs saved a significant amount of salamanders if any at all.

Funkyterrance wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Any instance of planning without prices.

Yeah, ok, but for the benefit of the audience could you go into a specific personal experience? I mean, my previous example qualifies for planning without prices right?

The standard economic analysis ought not to apply to conservation issues. If we apply that line of thinking, we will end up with no areas untouched by human industrialization (really that has already happened due to global warming though). We ought to preserve these reservoirs of nature rather than find the most economical way to exploit them, or else our ancestors will not be able to appreciate what it is this planet has given them. That is far more valuable than any short term profit that can be made from the land, even if it's hard to quantify.

This is a great point as you can't put a price on purity.
However, I was meaning the decision to put the signs up on the roadway since I don't believe that those signs saved a significant amount of salamanders if any at all.

My argument ties into that. Even if you don't value the individual lives of the salamanders that are therefore saved, there is some value in leaving undisturbed the ecosystem that these salamanders are part of. It sustains the purity you mention. When humans encroach on an ecosystem with industrialization, even if they don't destroy that ecosystem, they permanently disrupt the natural cycles occurring there. If we destroyed the habitat of those salamanders, that forest will never be the same as it would have been.

So, one way to think about this is that it is not for us to judge how many salamanders there ought to be. It might be more pleasing to us to inflict some sort of balance onto the ecosystem that we think is not unreasonable; but we ought not to be making this choice.

Out here over the summer, during the drought. Thousands upon thousands of acres of dead trees have been left standing (killed off by beetles not native to the area that do only harm) for years because enviromentalists didn't want to chop them down. These trees made the forest fires out here in Wyoming and Colorado (Utah as well) far more destructive than what they should have been. In many areas, it was like 2-3 dead trees for every living tree.

Metsfanmax wrote:My argument ties into that. Even if you don't value the individual lives of the salamanders that are therefore saved, there is some value in leaving undisturbed the ecosystem that these salamanders are part of. It sustains the purity you mention. When humans encroach on an ecosystem with industrialization, even if they don't destroy that ecosystem, they permanently disrupt the natural cycles occurring there. If we destroyed the habitat of those salamanders, that forest will never be the same as it would have been.

So, one way to think about this is that it is not for us to judge how many salamanders there ought to be. It might be more pleasing to us to inflict some sort of balance onto the ecosystem that we think is not unreasonable; but we ought not to be making this choice.

I really do respect this view on the subject, don't get me wrong. It's just that when you look at it in that light you still have to pick a point where you say "enough". Technically speaking, one of those salamanders could crawl out of a puddle beyond the signs and tape and be stepped on by a child walking by. Should we then close off the entire park? Where/when does a sense of proportion kick in?

muy_thaiguy wrote:Out here over the summer, during the drought. Thousands upon thousands of acres of dead trees have been left standing (killed off by beetles not native to the area that do only harm) for years because enviromentalists didn't want to chop them down. These trees made the forest fires out here in Wyoming and Colorado (Utah as well) far more destructive than what they should have been. In many areas, it was like 2-3 dead trees for every living tree.

This is a good example because it emphasizes the point that even if the phenomenon is "natural", there can be extenuating circumstances (invasive beetles) that make the phenomenon, in actuality "unnatural". In my example the salamander "puddles" might not have existed if there were not a road put in through that area. In fact, this road is built into a hill so most likely there would be too steep of an incline to create any pooling of water whatsoever.

Funkyterrance wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:My argument ties into that. Even if you don't value the individual lives of the salamanders that are therefore saved, there is some value in leaving undisturbed the ecosystem that these salamanders are part of. It sustains the purity you mention. When humans encroach on an ecosystem with industrialization, even if they don't destroy that ecosystem, they permanently disrupt the natural cycles occurring there. If we destroyed the habitat of those salamanders, that forest will never be the same as it would have been.

So, one way to think about this is that it is not for us to judge how many salamanders there ought to be. It might be more pleasing to us to inflict some sort of balance onto the ecosystem that we think is not unreasonable; but we ought not to be making this choice.

I really do respect this view on the subject, don't get me wrong. It's just that when you look at it in that light you still have to pick a point where you say "enough". Technically speaking, one of those salamanders could crawl out of a puddle beyond the signs and tape and be stepped on by a child walking by. Should we then close off the entire park? Where/when does a sense of proportion kick in?

Let me ask you this...

Are you truly knowlegable enough to know that removing this salamander won't impact human beings in a negative way.

Or, more broadly, that removing the protections for the habitat that provide fr this salamander won't harm humanity?

Extinction is forever. Our species is directly responsible for a die-off such as has not been seen in millions of years. The last ones are all called cataclysms.. and the result was fundamental change to life on Earth.

I am not saying that I am sure this salamander is necessary to humanity. I am saying we just don't know. I am saying that when "forever" is the time frame, its worth a bit of inconvenience to you to be sure.

Or, to put it another way..... The Yew (to clarify, refering to a conifer found sparsely in the American West) was considered a "trash" species for years.. then suddenly it was found to contain Taxol, a drug important in the fight against cancer.


Why do we have Carp? Because, "of course", trout are just an unworthy eating AND sportsfish --- or so thought the original European settlers!

People are notoriously stupid when it comes to deciding the immediate versus long term. This has been hightened by the modern idea of corporate "value" and "profit" Anything not directly feeding into the profit stream is deemed "worthless".

The Earth could care less about profit. Our great grandkids are going to have to deal with our messes, but won't any longer be getting any benefit from the errors. MY kids, right now, cannot eat the fish in our nearby streams, becuase of decisions made for profits that lasted a couple of decades. Teh fish that live in those streams are further artificially produced in hatcheries and released...almost all natural production in local streams is curtailed now.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Any instance of planning without prices.

Fine, but understand that the real price of the evironment is endless...

And ANY price for human profit is necessarily temporary. Except.. you neatly avoid that very real issue and pretend that Earth consequences can be limited to the visions of corporate balance sheets.

Funkyterrance wrote:They are literally so abundant in the area that I don't think you could wipe them out if you tried.

Your grampa, did he come to the new world for one of those "Buffalo hunting" trips?

I like where this thread is going.

I rather bring it back to where it began. It started out with someone taking the time, and resources to border mark every two bit puddle that borders a park trail. Now of course there is the economic impact of such an action; clearly someone made some money in selling all these stakes and signs. The question was whether it was worth it to do such a thing given that there are many other locations where these pools are (this isn't a pipping plover example where the only locations are generally on populated beaches).



The implication that these are exactly the same as the piping plover. I don't think this is the case. I think this is more of an awareness issue. Park people tend to do things like that; it's a part of their job description to make people aware. It is also something you can give an intern who gets so excited about doing something that it actually gives them pleasure doing it. (It's the whitewashed fence syndrome.)

Funkyterrance wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Any instance of planning without prices.

Yeah, ok, but for the benefit of the audience could you go into a specific personal experience? I mean, my previous example qualifies for planning without prices right?

The standard economic analysis ought not to apply to conservation issues. If we apply that line of thinking, we will end up with no areas untouched by human industrialization (really that has already happened due to global warming though). We ought to preserve these reservoirs of nature rather than find the most economical way to exploit them, or else our ancestors will not be able to appreciate what it is this planet has given them. That is far more valuable than any short term profit that can be made from the land, even if it's hard to quantify.

This is a great point as you can't put a price on purity.

Like the Bible?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:My argument ties into that. Even if you don't value the individual lives of the salamanders that are therefore saved, there is some value in leaving undisturbed the ecosystem that these salamanders are part of. It sustains the purity you mention. When humans encroach on an ecosystem with industrialization, even if they don't destroy that ecosystem, they permanently disrupt the natural cycles occurring there. If we destroyed the habitat of those salamanders, that forest will never be the same as it would have been.

So, one way to think about this is that it is not for us to judge how many salamanders there ought to be. It might be more pleasing to us to inflict some sort of balance onto the ecosystem that we think is not unreasonable; but we ought not to be making this choice.

I really do respect this view on the subject, don't get me wrong. It's just that when you look at it in that light you still have to pick a point where you say "enough". Technically speaking, one of those salamanders could crawl out of a puddle beyond the signs and tape and be stepped on by a child walking by. Should we then close off the entire park? Where/when does a sense of proportion kick in?

Let me ask you this...

Are you truly knowlegable enough to know that removing this salamander won't impact human beings in a negative way.

Or, more broadly, that removing the protections for the habitat that provide fr this salamander won't harm humanity?

Exactly, therefore, prohibit the extermination of pubic lice.

Oh, what a tangled web!

Metsfanmax wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Any instance of planning without prices.

Yeah, ok, but for the benefit of the audience could you go into a specific personal experience? I mean, my previous example qualifies for planning without prices right?

The standard economic analysis ought not to apply to conservation issues. If we apply that line of thinking, we will end up with no areas untouched by human industrialization (really that has already happened due to global warming though). We ought to preserve these reservoirs of nature rather than find the most economical way to exploit them, or else our ancestors will not be able to appreciate what it is this planet has given them. That is far more valuable than any short term profit that can be made from the land, even if it's hard to quantify.

Why are cows not extinct?

How do you know that the enabling of a price system only leads to "short-term profit" planning?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Any instance of planning without prices.

Yeah, ok, but for the benefit of the audience could you go into a specific personal experience? I mean, my previous example qualifies for planning without prices right?

The standard economic analysis ought not to apply to conservation issues. If we apply that line of thinking, we will end up with no areas untouched by human industrialization (really that has already happened due to global warming though). We ought to preserve these reservoirs of nature rather than find the most economical way to exploit them, or else our ancestors will not be able to appreciate what it is this planet has given them. That is far more valuable than any short term profit that can be made from the land, even if it's hard to quantify.

Why are cows not extinct?

How do you know that the enabling of a price system only leads to "short-term profit" planning?

Because economists always heavily discount the future. Unless the standard economic analysis is changed so that future value is considered to a much higher level, we'll never be able to escape the trap of thinking that, for example, it is worth it to level this forest to build a power plant.

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Any instance of planning without prices.

Yeah, ok, but for the benefit of the audience could you go into a specific personal experience? I mean, my previous example qualifies for planning without prices right?

The standard economic analysis ought not to apply to conservation issues. If we apply that line of thinking, we will end up with no areas untouched by human industrialization (really that has already happened due to global warming though). We ought to preserve these reservoirs of nature rather than find the most economical way to exploit them, or else our ancestors will not be able to appreciate what it is this planet has given them. That is far more valuable than any short term profit that can be made from the land, even if it's hard to quantify.

Why are cows not extinct?

How do you know that the enabling of a price system only leads to "short-term profit" planning?

Because economists always heavily discount the future. Unless the standard economic analysis is changed so that future value is considered to a much higher level, we'll never be able to escape the trap of thinking that, for example, it is worth it to level this forest to build a power plant.

1. economists? What about entrepreneurs (they're usually the ones making these decisions)?

2. How do you know that economists and/or entrepreneurs "always heavily discount the future"?

3. How does the "standard economic analysis" fail to 'impose higher interest rates on the present discounted value of longer term investments'? (which economic analysis? What theory? Are you making stuff up?)

4. For example, forests v. power plant. Lemme ask you something. Are such decisions made on the margin, or is it always "1 forest minus 1 power plant, or 1 power plant minus 1 forest"?

5. Finally, why are cows not extinct?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Any instance of planning without prices.

Fine, but understand that the real price of the evironment is endless...

And ANY price for human profit is necessarily temporary. Except.. you neatly avoid that very real issue and pretend that Earth consequences can be limited to the visions of corporate balance sheets.

Ah, because a price system is limited to "corporate balance sheets." Nice straw man!

D+

tzor wrote:I rather bring it back to where it began. It started out with someone taking the time, and resources to border mark every two bit puddle that borders a park trail. Now of course there is the economic impact of such an action; clearly someone made some money in selling all these stakes and signs. The question was whether it was worth it to do such a thing given that there are many other locations where these pools are (this isn't a pipping plover example where the only locations are generally on populated beaches).



The implication that these are exactly the same as the piping plover. I don't think this is the case. I think this is more of an awareness issue. Park people tend to do things like that; it's a part of their job description to make people aware. It is also something you can give an intern who gets so excited about doing something that it actually gives them pleasure doing it. (It's the whitewashed fence syndrome.)

Hmm, in other words, what are the marginal costs and marginal benefits of those salamanders?

What's the optimum quantity of them versus the quantity of other living creatures?
(somehow the park rangers know, thus they take measures to preserve some quantity of them, yet since salamanders eat other creatures, then how do they know that the marginal benefits of preserving salamanders offsets the costs?
(e.g. having less non-salamander creatures, like insects(?)).


The problem is that they don't, yet will continue preserving them at the detriment to other species.

Insert PLAYER's argument about 'fiddling with nature', and we can condemn the park rangers.
Insert Mets' incomplete argument about heavily discounting X over Y. (Park rangers may be overinvesting in the preservation of salamanders--much to the detriment of their prey).
Insert FT's purity argument, and it defends the clueless planning of the park rangers--because prices are icky.

BigBallinStalin wrote:1. economists? What about entrepreneurs (they're usually the ones making these decisions)?

What is different about entrepreneurs? They use the same method of analysis, they just make different decisions. You can make some sort of risk-assessed investment into future profits while still recognizing that money in the short term is more useful than money in the long term (because money in the short term can be invested at ever-higher returns of interest). And this is what people do.

2. How do you know that economists and/or entrepreneurs "always heavily discount the future"?

Because they would be stupid not to, if they intend to make the best self-interested decisions. As long as there are non-zero interest rates on investments, it will always make sense from an individual point of view to discount the future commensurate with interest rates. What is needed in this case is a global analysis of the importance of nature preserves to the human species, which is too large of a project for any one entrepreneuer to tackle even if they were somehow not motivated by a profit margin.

3. How does the "standard economic analysis" fail to 'impose higher interest rates on the present discounted value of longer term investments'? (which economic analysis? What theory? Are you making stuff up?)

Nothing I am saying is necessarily true about the idea of discounting in principle, it only suggests that the typical ways in which economists and businesses engage in discounting make it nigh on impossible for them to recognize the future value of conservation as even worth a second glance (in particular, the discount rate, being typically thought of in terms of standard interest rates, is far too high).

]4. For example, forests v. power plant. Lemme ask you something. Are such decisions made on the margin, or is it always "1 forest minus 1 power plant, or 1 power plant minus 1 forest"?

The essential problem here is precisely that decisions are made on the margin. As a result, the thinking will always be "is it worth it to level this forest," and, in particular, it will never take into account the value of that forest with respect to the global issue of conservation. As long as there are plenty of other forests out there, people will have no motivation to save any given forest, and by the time so many forests have been taken down (as they are missing the forest for the... forest) as to make conservation suddenly important to the majority of people, it will be too late.

5. Finally, why are cows not extinct?

This is an asinine question unless you are expecting me to write an entire essay on the various events in the history of that species. Nevertheless, it is also one I am not particularly concerned about in relation to this thread. My point above was not about protecting species per se; if the salamanders are simply not cut out for survival in that area, they will die off. There is not necessarily any harm in that; extinction is part of life. The problematic thing is when humans start taking it into their own hands to decide which species we should save or destroy. (Obviously things become different if the species in question are becoming extinct precisely because of our industrialization, e.g. dolphins, but that's not what we're talking about here).

I have to agree that economists are not entirely concerned with long term affects of decisions. They tend to have the mentality of "we'll figure that out later" in relation to the long term affects of short term decisions as though technology or superior minds will solve the sticky problems uncovered when nature is exploited/undermined for the sake of economy. I feel a good example is nuclear power being explored as opposed to much safer but potentially less productive methods in the short term.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Any instance of planning without prices.

Yeah, ok, but for the benefit of the audience could you go into a specific personal experience? I mean, my previous example qualifies for planning without prices right?

The standard economic analysis ought not to apply to conservation issues. If we apply that line of thinking, we will end up with no areas untouched by human industrialization (really that has already happened due to global warming though). We ought to preserve these reservoirs of nature rather than find the most economical way to exploit them, or else our ancestors will not be able to appreciate what it is this planet has given them. That is far more valuable than any short term profit that can be made from the land, even if it's hard to quantify.

In truth, standard economic analysis ought to apply, IF they were applied fully. The problem is they are not. What is passed off as economic analysis is really just a short term profit analysis. In part, its because truly quantifying the ecomomic benefit of the environment is difficult. However, a bigger part is that there is very little desire or direct incentive by those doing the analysis.