My issue with using government in that capacity is that where do you draw the line? As we don’t understand the consequences of wiping out a single species in the ocean - and the information we do have suggests that countless species have come and gone - what exactly is the basis for using government - using force - to attempt a social behavior modification? If “feelings” become the basis for using force - where do you draw the line?
But why?
We’re talking about education, right? I agreed with your comments about education but then you seemed to semi-retract them. I’m not quite clear on what you’re picturing as coercion and what you’re picturing as advertising/vocalizing.
For one thing, the loss of tuna is something tuna fishermen presumably don’t want. Yet in an unregulated environment no tuna fisherman is going to voluntarily lower their tuna catch while all the other tuna fishermen take advantage of his sacrifice.
No. In the absence of property rights - no fisherman is going to voluntarily reduce their tuna catch, because there is no economic incentive to do so. Regulation - or a lack thereof - has little to do with it. Regulation in this instance would do nothing but lead to bribes, corruption, black markets and a driving up of the price of blue fin tuna - perpetuating ever new entrants into the market and a rinse & repeat of the cycle.
But I do agree with you. Fishermen certainly don’t want blue fin tuna to be wiped out - especially if it represents a significant portion of their livelihood.
we use govt to enforce behavioral norms and curb and modify individual actions all the time - nobody asks about where we draw the line when we legally mandate that a person stop at a red light, for instance - any number of behaviors are illegal and ought to be - “feelings” are neither here nor there, preserving the planet’s ecosystems and biodiversity as an objective is no more based in “feelings” than protecting the supposed right of fishermen to continue to earn their livelihoods by engaging in naturally destructive behaviors
we need police because people can’t be depended upon to willfully police themselves - and it would be foolish to expect them to - we need commercial regulation and govt enforcement for the same reason
because, like i said, we depend on the planet - our welfare is contingent on its welfare - it makes rational sense to try to mitigate the damage we do to it. yes, i am assuming that driving species to extinction is damaging to the planet - i think there is enough scientific consensus in that regard that i can safely make such an assumption - even if we don’t know specifically what the effects of a given species’ extinction might be.
Yes we did - and the answer was that using traffic lights dramatically reduced traffic congestion, minimized traffic related accidents and human deaths. It wasn’t a “gut feeling” of some city planner - it was grounded in sound reasoning and evidence.
Feelings ought not be part of the equation. We “feel” things all the time that conflict with how we “ought” to act - which is precisely why we “ought” to have sound reasons before we do act - especially where coercive use of government intervention is involved. Don’t you think?
That’s your opinion - and you’re entitled to it. But that doesn’t offer any actual “evidence” of what may or may not occur if we wipe a species out. I’m all for preserving clean air, clean water, diverse biosphere - etc etc etc - because there have been countless studies linking human longevity and general well being to such planetary conditions. If those conditions are somehow threatened by wiping out blue fin tuna - then that’s probably the starting point of a sound basis for using force to curb behaviour. Without such a link - we’re left with nothing more than your “feelings” - and as I’ve stated - that’s a terribly destructive slippery slope to use as a justification for force against individuals.
Precisely! Because “feelings” often lead to emotional and irrational outbursts of violence when the passions and individual values are involved. “Neutrality” of arbitration found in both the police and the courts were founded for precisely this reason.
Policing violent behaviour is one thing - there is a very reasonable basis for doing so - among other philosophical reasons. I’m playing devil’s advocate and asking what the objective basis for restricting fishermen’s freedom is? Aside from what “feels” like the obvious choice.
I agree - wholeheartedly - that we depend on a healthy planet from a human being’s perspective. It does make rational sense to try to mitigate the damage if it can be verified that human beings are in fact at risk from the “damage” being done. If wiping out blue fin tuna does nothing but adjust the balance of food available to other top predators in the ocean - what’s rational about significantly affecting both the livelihood of human beings and choice of food available to human beings?
Ok, i’ll accept that, but i still maintain that the preservation of species is as valid an objective as minimizing traffic related accidents - one which warrants govt intervention - and i say that on the basis of the fact that we depend on our planet for survival and should therefore mitigate etc, etc . . . less damage to the environment is an “objective” good in the same way fewer human deaths is an “objective” good
yes i agree - but i also think we have sound reasons for acting to avoid overfishing
sure it’s a gut recognition on some level but it’s also the gut that tells us that human well being is thing worth pursuing. it’s not a slippery slope to use feelings - all notions of what’s worth doing or not doing have their roots in feelings - that said, i think there is enough science showing the detrimental effects of overfishing on the ocean’s ecosystems to provide a sound basis for govt intervention
granted, agreed
well it feels like the obvious choice for a rational reason - namely, that the planet is worth protecting, short term human interests (i.e. monetary profit) notwithstanding.
well, if the bluefin tuna goes extinct it will significantly affect human beings’ choice of food - regulations to prevent overfishing are better than no seafood at all - yes such regulations would affect people’s livelihoods (as they are doing in places like Massachusetts), but every tradesman risks obsolescence and sometimes people need to switch jobs if they want to keep working. that’s just life in the labor market.
I like the idea of hard scientific knowledge and reasoning as the basis for regulation. We need to know before we act in any rational way. At the same time, we should apply reason when we obviously don’t know. Basic rule: If we don’t know the consequences of our actions, STOP. Bumbling around with no understanding of the consequences is what creates these problems in the first place. We can rely on hard science to at least suggest a general direction any particular activity is going to take us, and if it doesn’t look good, we STOP. This doesn’t take rocket science, it’s just common sense. Playing russian roulette with the planet is stupid, both historically and in current practice.
The idea that man-caused extinctions is somehow permissable is insane. Each year, we find all sorts of useful needed compounds derived from nature and the pace of discovery increases each year. Gene research depends on the diversity of nature. GM may not solve all our problems, but to allow any possible DNA material to disappear from the planet is past stupid. I have no idea what blue fins offer besides food stock - and that is the point. I don’t know, and to slam a door in my face without knowing the consequences… how stupid can we be?