Welcome to Gaia! ::

Eveille's avatar

Sparkling Reveler

Complex Systems
Eveille

The idea that something is worthless because it has no owner is what bothers me. That if something is not owned and strictly monetarily valued that means anyone should be able to go in and abuse the daylights out of it. Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Where either one owns everything and shoots trespassers or owns nothing and everyone goes into an insane fit of greed.... I am sure we are capable of better than this.

Ownership shouldn't grant or remove value from the biosphere.


What is value, is the question we all must ask. I don't think anything has an objective/ intrinsic value, so a monetary system enables a way of capturing individuals subjective value.


i do think things have intrinsic values, so there ya go. monetizing life and resources like soil and water cheapens it to me.

i understand why it needs to be done, because people would and do abuse the system otherwise, as seen in fisheries. i still don't agree that that is the way we should raise children though, they should know that things just have a value just because they are alive, just because period.
Complex Systems's avatar

6,000 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Eveille


i do think things have intrinsic values, so there ya go..., they should know that things just have a value just because they are alive, just because period.


You say one thing, and then the other. the laws of logic assume we can't have P and not P at the same time. You have to pick which one you stand behind.
Eveille's avatar

Sparkling Reveler

Complex Systems
Eveille


i do think things have intrinsic values, so there ya go..., they should know that things just have a value just because they are alive, just because period.


You say one thing, and then the other. the laws of logic assume we can't have P and not P at the same time. You have to pick which one you stand behind.


explain how I should think again? >_>

how am i saying one and not one? things have value, they just do; there can be any number of reasons for it.

an endangered grass has more value to me than a diamond or a hunk of gold, 'money' says otherwise. i disagree with 'money'.
Eveille
an endangered grass has more value to me than a diamond or a hunk of gold, 'money' says otherwise. i disagree with 'money'.


The bolded is really important.

Lots of people disagree with your valuation of grass vs diamonds etc. Other people say otherwise, and they throw their money around accordingly. Money doesn't say anything.
Complex Systems's avatar

6,000 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Wall Street 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
Eveille
Complex Systems
Eveille


i do think things have intrinsic values, so there ya go..., they should know that things just have a value just because they are alive, just because period.


I'm apparently blind


..things have value, they just do; there can be any number of reasons for it.

an endangered grass has more value to me than a diamond or a hunk of gold, 'money' says otherwise. i disagree with 'money'.


Oop! My bad. I have a cataract, and had a long day, so I read that as "I don't think..." and then "they should know," my bad entirely!

Things only have value through the emergent process of interpersonal exchange. You may value grass more than a diamond or a hunk of gold, but that's not how everyone else does. Market forces try to maximize subjective values and preferences. People with $1600 will put it towards the things they find value in, whether it's saving endangered grass, buying diamonds, or an ounce of gold. These accumulated purchases determine how much of each one can save, buy, or invest in.

Money is nothing but a medium of exchange and a way to approximate individual subjective values for goods and services.
Eveille's avatar

Sparkling Reveler

Complex Systems
Eveille
Complex Systems
Eveille


i do think things have intrinsic values, so there ya go..., they should know that things just have a value just because they are alive, just because period.


I'm apparently blind


..things have value, they just do; there can be any number of reasons for it.

an endangered grass has more value to me than a diamond or a hunk of gold, 'money' says otherwise. i disagree with 'money'.


Oop! My bad. I have a cataract, and had a long day, so I read that as "I don't think..." and then "they should know," my bad entirely!

Things only have value through the emergent process of interpersonal exchange. You may value grass more than a diamond or a hunk of gold, but that's not how everyone else does. Market forces try to maximize subjective values and preferences. People with $1600 will put it towards the things they find value in, whether it's saving endangered grass, buying diamonds, or an ounce of gold. These accumulated purchases determine how much of each one can save, buy, or invest in.

Money is nothing but a medium of exchange and a way to approximate individual subjective values for goods and services.


O ok.

The thing with monetary value is that it often doesn't value things properly. Clean water? Not valued properly. Endangered species? Not valued properly. In fact, that is a huge problem with environmentalism in general: that our economic systems refuse/cannot to value it properly. It's loss is and will continue to be extremely harmful to us and our societies and yet money still goes to other endeavors (war, fossil fuels, ipods and emeralds) because those are the things people think are valuable.

Trusting people to understand how ecosystems work is a shaky proposition. There are no 'every kiss begins with kay *sparkle*' sorts of ads for ecosystem services. There is nothing at the mall to indicate that the furniture you are buying came from the last rosewood forest on earth, or that the super trendy sushi place that charges 50$ for a sashimi is getting its tuna from depleted stocks in the Mediterranean.

Using money to assign value to everything isn't a good idea. It works for some things, but others it just sucks really hard and people should have the authority to save these things even saving them as an operation runs at a loss of money, because it will run at a profit of quality of life and long-term sustainability of our civilizations.
Eveille's avatar

Sparkling Reveler

shoeless joe
Eveille
an endangered grass has more value to me than a diamond or a hunk of gold, 'money' says otherwise. i disagree with 'money'.


The bolded is really important.

Lots of people disagree with your valuation of grass vs diamonds etc. Other people say otherwise, and they throw their money around accordingly. Money doesn't say anything.


If only money said nothing. Money says if there will be enough park rangers to watch over Yellowstone's wildlife, or zoologists to study rare and tiny ecosystems or if someone can afford to set aside a chunk of land in perpetuity. If only money didn't determine these things.

I know my valuations aren't popular ones, I firmly believe that if people knew and understood the interconnectedness of things a substantial number would change their minds as to where they put their money. I am hopeful emo
If hunting is a crime, and people are committing a crime, I think extreme force should be used.
Eveille
If only money said nothing. Money says if there will be enough park rangers to watch over Yellowstone's wildlife, or zoologists to study rare and tiny ecosystems or if someone can afford to set aside a chunk of land in perpetuity. If only money didn't determine these things.


If you had a million moneys would you buy diamonds with it because it told you to?

Quote:
I know my valuations aren't popular ones, I firmly believe that if people knew and understood the interconnectedness of things a substantial number would change their minds as to where they put their money. I am hopeful emo


I'm fully aware of all this interconnected funk, and it is doomed. Whether it is due in part to my decisions or the incidents/circumstances of an impersonal universe does not matter. If you are concerned with existential risks to life on this planet then you should be willing to push it to the brink of total destruction just for an infinitesimal shot at avoiding certain total destruction when the sun does it's big crazy thing.
Eveille's avatar

Sparkling Reveler

shoeless joe
Eveille
If only money said nothing. Money says if there will be enough park rangers to watch over Yellowstone's wildlife, or zoologists to study rare and tiny ecosystems or if someone can afford to set aside a chunk of land in perpetuity. If only money didn't determine these things.


If you had a million moneys would you buy diamonds with it because it told you to?

Quote:
I know my valuations aren't popular ones, I firmly believe that if people knew and understood the interconnectedness of things a substantial number would change their minds as to where they put their money. I am hopeful emo


I'm fully aware of all this interconnected funk, and it is doomed. Whether it is due in part to my decisions or the incidents/circumstances of an impersonal universe does not matter. If you are concerned with existential risks to life on this planet then you should be willing to push it to the brink of total destruction just for an infinitesimal shot at avoiding certain total destruction when the sun does it's big crazy thing.


If the money told me to spend it on diamonds? XD No, I wouldn't; if that is what you were getting at, then nvm. I meant more money as a way to get people to do stuff, not money as a sentient thing.

The sun has at least another 5 billion years left in it. I don't know about you, but I can't even internalize such a large number or such a scale of time. Thus, there is no reason to go blowing stuff up just now. I am more in favor of having a nice life, for everyone, for as long as we can. Not wrecking everything within 15,000 years of starting just because it will all end in 5 billion years, that seems kinda crazy honestly.
marshmallowcreampie's avatar

Sparkly Pirate

16,400 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Citizen 200
black_wing_angel
Why do we cling to these ideas of "we must prevent the extinction of wild animals!", like toddlers to a teddy bear?

Animals go extinct. Have since the dawn of time. Will until the end of time. ******** it.



I think we should help save a species if we're the ones responsible for killing 'em. Even more so when the extinction of a certain species will affect the ecosystem.
Hawanja's avatar

Unholy Abomination

21,900 Points
  • Sunny Side Up 100
  • Abomination 100
  • Conventioneer 300
Poachers should be shot on sight.
Eveille
If the money told me to spend it on diamonds? XD No, I wouldn't; if that is what you were getting at, then nvm. I meant more money as a way to get people to do stuff, not money as a sentient thing.


Sounds like you should stop blaming money and start blaming people. They could just as easily spend it on grass, but they don't.

Quote:
The sun has at least another 5 billion years left in it. I don't know about you, but I can't even internalize such a large number or such a scale of time. Thus, there is no reason to go blowing stuff up just now. I am more in favor of having a nice life, for everyone, for as long as we can. Not wrecking everything within 15,000 years of starting just because it will all end in 5 billion years, that seems kinda crazy honestly.


You're imposing your vision of 'nice life' on people who don't share your aesthetic preferences.

There is no shortage of existential risks facing life as it presently exists on this planet.. sun explosion is but one of many. So is human activity, and so is the activity of every organism on this planet. >99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct and humans have had nothing to do with >99% of it.
Eveille's avatar

Sparkling Reveler

shoeless joe
Eveille
If the money told me to spend it on diamonds? XD No, I wouldn't; if that is what you were getting at, then nvm. I meant more money as a way to get people to do stuff, not money as a sentient thing.


Sounds like you should stop blaming money and start blaming people. They could just as easily spend it on grass, but they don't.

Quote:
The sun has at least another 5 billion years left in it. I don't know about you, but I can't even internalize such a large number or such a scale of time. Thus, there is no reason to go blowing stuff up just now. I am more in favor of having a nice life, for everyone, for as long as we can. Not wrecking everything within 15,000 years of starting just because it will all end in 5 billion years, that seems kinda crazy honestly.


You're imposing your vision of 'nice life' on people who don't share your aesthetic preferences.

There is no shortage of existential risks facing life as it presently exists on this planet.. sun explosion is but one of many. So is human activity, and so is the activity of every organism on this planet. >99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct and humans have had nothing to do with >99% of it.


I blame people too, I am optimistic that if they knew then most of them would do the right thing.

I guess you can claim I am imposing my 'nice life', though I haven't really specified what a nice life entails beyond just being able to be alive. I still see no point in purposefully destroying everything just for the hell of it though.
Avgvsto's avatar

Anxious Knight

I like rhinos, I find this unfortunate.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games