Should the resources of the planet be "OWNED"

[txlibdem]

And if so, by whom.

OR - should they be the equally shared property of all Humankind, each member entitled to just as much as another.

[HereSince1628]

1. Well, we KNOW what Marx said about collecting wood and berry picking

So if you go there, the folks at Faux will definitely label you a Marxist anarchist.

[secondwind]

2. The planet should be shared, not owned.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Resources should be communal. Period.

[txlibdem]

61. Thank you

nice post.

[sandyshoes17]

4. This planet sustains all of us

The resources of this planet are meant for all humanity. There is enough of everything to keep us all living well, some people just got really greedy and think they can own it. good question.

[The2ndWheel]

6. The resources of this planet are meant for all life

People just got really greedy and think we can own it.

If the resources are just for humanity, then we're thinking like the 1%, not the 99%.

[TreasonousBastard]

8. Actually, we're thinking like the 99.999%...

or haven't you noticed that every life form on the planet does whatever it can to survive and expand its territory. We're just a lot better at it.

[The2ndWheel]

10. Agreed

So why are there protests with this Occupy movement? The 1% is just a lot better at getting all the money. Survival of the fittest. Well, there can be protests, but might will always make right. To the victor will go the spoils. We're not in this together. We really should stop bitching about corporations, and how they write the rules which govern them in their favor. They're doing what they need to do in order to survive and expand.

Honestly, lets just get all these rules out of the way. Kill or be killed is what time it is. If you're protesting the 1%, and you get shot, or locked up, or whatever, oh well. No crying about it, no legal recourse, etc. The protesters are doing what they need to do in order to survive and expand, the corporations are doing what they need to do in order to survive and expand, and whoever wins, however they need to do it, is right.

I'm serious, thank you.

[txlibdem]

12. We don't have the technology yet to live with zero impact on the animals and bugs of the planet

Give us another 50 to 100 years and that may change:

Nanotechnology
Direct manipulation of matter at the atomic or sub-atomic level
Energy to matter transformation

And then we'd have to live in glass domes or somehow keep our activities from in any way interacting with the lower life forms such as a force field or a shield of some sort.

In short, it can't be done... yet.

[The2ndWheel]

20. That's what a zoo is for

Why would we put ourselves in glass domes? Hardly expanding the human project.

Might makes right. Always has, always will. Unfortunately we try to deny it in so many ways.

[txlibdem]

21. You've just contradicted yourself

I thought you were sooo concerned that we never harm a bug or animal while in the course of getting the raw materials we need to live. Now you're saying we shouldn't live in a glass dome? Which is it. You can't have both.

[The2ndWheel]

29. Agreed. Both can't be had

It's also not about not harming a bug or animal. That's impossible, and I wouldn't want to live on a world like that anyway, as that would get to the heart of the whole thing. It's about the desire to control everything. That's what I'm arguing against.

[wtmusic]

22. When "expanding the human project" ultimately renders it extinct

might doesn't make right anymore. It makes dead.

It's going to be interesting to see whether we're up to the challenge of recognizing that, and acting upon it. I'm somewhat less cynical in that regard.

[txlibdem]

37. Our current path will see the planet kill all of us instead

That is why we need change... drastic change.

[MineralMan]

5. An interesting question, and one that's central to a lot of things.

When it's asked, it stimulates other questions, and there's the problem. For example. How are the resources allocated? How are they distributed equitably? Where capital expenditures and labor are needed to acquire, process, or utilize the resources, who provides those? Those are some of the questions that must be answered.

Global resources are not always located where they are needed, and are often not in a usable form. This creates many of the issues that those questions ask.

I have no answers to the questions.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. My main question is "Who decides"? Planned societies can work up to a point, but...

eventually the guns and butter questions come up and the whole thing falls apart if the society is too controlling.

After all these thousands of years of experimenting with allocation of resources, the only one that has survived is that dreaded market everyone talks about. Even successful uses of "commons" have eventually fallen when it's discovered that an 18th century common organized for an agrarian society can't build cars or televisions.

It seems civilization has decided, rightly or wrongly, that we would rather live in Western mixed economies where everyone has a chance to do well rather than a Cuba where everyone is equally miserable.

[madokie]

13. Do you even know that Cubans are all miserable?

or are you just pulling that out of one of your orifices

[dipsydoodle]

18. Could only be pulling that out of one of your orifice.

Go there and find out. I never met a happier bunch and also never felt so secure in my life. I'll be back there for yet another 3 weeks next April.

[madokie]

23. Thats what I thought too

from everything I've read that didn't originate here in the American press has indicated what you say. :hi:

[TreasonousBastard]

62. That's actually an old Russian joke.

[txlibdem]

14. Your ideas about Capitalism and Cuba are ludicrous

If everyone hated living in Cuba there would be a revolution (there would have been one by now). I guess they hate receiving free health care, free education based on ability not on who your mommy or daddy is, etc.

Learn a little bit about the true history of Capitalism and you might just be on your way to achieving understanding.

PS, 18th century common organized for an agrarian society can't build cars or televisions? Why don't you look at the Amish. They manufacture some of the finest furniture available and also heaters, and yet they have zero desire to join this wonderful throwaway society of ours... I wonder why.

[TreasonousBastard]

63. Cuba had one already-- remember? But, it was not "the people"...

rising up. It was a little more complicated than that.

The Amish making furniture and riding around in buggies has nothing to do with making cars, televisions, iPods, or airplanes.

[MineralMan]

27. Yes. A lot of this is just "Pie in the Sky" stuff.

Yes, philosophically, the planets resources belong to us all. The problem is getting at them and distributing them. That part's more difficult. I'm not sure how everyone gets a computer, for example, without a system that converts all those "resources" into all the stuff that goes into the computer, then builds the finished product.

The problem is in the details, and those don't seem to be part of the discussion...ever.

I have little patience for naive, general thinking on global issues. It's not productive.

[txlibdem]

32. naive, general thinking on global issues

How do they get there now??? South Korea has a 50 MBPS internet, we have anywhere from .4 to 15 MBPS. How do all those much faster and superior network equipment boxes get all the way to South Korea???

Your post displays your myopia about the world and how things really work. The problem with your post: the details.

[MineralMan]

34. So? Is South Korea a capitalistic economy?

That's how they have broadband, I'm quite sure. Why don't we? Good question. Is broadband a natural resource that everyone owns?

Right now, access and distribution to resources is done primarily through capitalism. It seems to be working pretty well to get resources to people with money, as witness your post. How's the broadband access in, say, Somalia or Nigeria, where a lot of the raw materials for all that technology are located?

How would a system you think would be more equitable give them access to that broadband from South Korea? Or, to focus on your point, how do you get South Korea's broadband access here? Broadband access is not a resource. It is a business thing created by an industry. Are you envious of South Koreans? Do they have it better than you do? Really?

Here's another South Korean viewpoint:

[txlibdem]

41. Is broadband a natural resource that everyone owns? YES!

Yes it is, especially if the public airwaves are used in any part of the system. But, in a broader sense, communication is a right that should be shared equally by all no matter where they were born or where they are standing right now.

Resources isn't just rocks and metal, nor trees and plastics. Everything we need in order to enjoy at minimum a European lifestyle I consider a resource. It will all be shared equally and equitably.

[MineralMan]

42. There is nothing natural about broadband. Nothing.

It exists only because of technology. It both enables technology and is enabled by technology. Nothing at all natural about it.

[txlibdem]

44. Reread the title of this OP -- the word "Natural" isn't there

The OP is worded precisely for a reason.

My post referred to broadband as a "natural resource" because I was quoting the above post... and many types of broadband use the airwaves, which are allocated and can become in limited supply just like stones or metals can.

[TreasonousBastard]

64. Broadband is primarily delivered by some sort of cable, and even when...

it does go over the air it's generated by expensive machinery to create that cellphone or wifi energy. So it's not a natural resource-- it's created by large companies.

How are the Cubans and the Amish doing on universal high speed broadband?

[Nederland]

50. You are the one who is ignorant

You bring up the example of South Korea's internet capability. Do you know why South Korea's internet is so good? Classic capitalist competition.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-31/tech/broadband.south.korea_1_broadband-plan-south-korea-broadband-internet?_s=PM:TECH

[txlibdem]

55. Pro-Crapitalists can always be counted on to claim all good comes from Crapitalism

and everything bad comes from "the evil GubMint" getting in the way. That opinion is the most ignorant I've ever come across, especially when you see all around you (and on that TV machine) that Crapitalism is reliant upon that self-same GubMint to bail them out when they crash the economy, as they have done dozens of times in the past 150 years.

It's closed minded thinking like that that is impossible to break through. I am sorry that so many are so fully indoctrinated into the lies and fraud of Crapitalism. I just don't have the patience, nor the time to deprogram any of them.

[Nederland]

57. Very cute

I'm always persuaded by an argument that consists of misspelling words in a clever way.

[txlibdem]

60. Not a word of rebuttal... wonder why...

[Nederland]

68. There was nothing to reply to

Your own words:

I am sorry that so many are so fully indoctrinated into the lies and fraud of Crapitalism. I just don't have the patience, nor the time to deprogram any of them.

[TreasonousBastard]

65. Nobody's claiming that-- that's teabagger bullshit and has nothing to do with...

rational discussion.

[Sal Minella]

31. "Everyone" does NOT have "a chance to do well" in our Western

mixed economy. That's the whole point. When a few grab all the resources leaving so little for the many, the non-grabbers get left out in the cold.

And you might want to google up the Cuban neonatal death rate versus the U.S. neonatal death rate before pronouncing on the misery of "everyone" in Cuba.

[txlibdem]

43. +1000 - Great post!

[TreasonousBastard]

66. Proven by the masses storming the gates for entry to Cuba..

[The2ndWheel]

7. 1% thinking

[madokie]

11. Only by the people who live where the resources are found.

None of our resources should be owned by anyone, Their mining or processing by the Government for the benefit of all people of said country. Not even sure about whether where I say people of said country shouldn't be all people instead, irregardless of where they live. The resources should be used for all of us.

rec

[txlibdem]

15. Some kind of government would be needed to ensure fair dissimenation of resources

That I agree with but I don't think it's any more difficult than what CSX or Union Pacific railroads do today.

You need X but don't have it, I need Y but don't have it, the next state over needs Z and has a whole lot of X and Y. With satellite mapping, more surveying of the ocean floor and better mining technology it wouldn't be simple but it would be doable to supply every region with everything they need.

Ideally, each area would make what they need locally. This saves on transportation costs and therefore energy usage. Our current methods are entirely unsustainable (cutting down trees in Washington, sending to China to be turned into boards, sending boards to Atlanta to be sanded and cut, sending cut pieces back to China to be assembled into a chair, send chair back to Washington...).

[madokie]

24. 100 % agree

[GliderGuider]

16. It's a bit of a moot point, isn't it?

The notion of a "sovereign nation" includes the inherent right of ownership of everything within its claimed borders, including air, water and migratory fauna. It seems to me that we would need, at the very least, to dissolve the concept the nation-state in order to even think of making global resources into a true commons.

And I do have a bit of a problem with the word "resources". Is that forest or river our "resource" or their "home"?

[wtmusic]

19. It is giving homo sapiens a lot of (undeserved) credit

Anything of value to us is already owned.

[txlibdem]

30. Is that river our "resource" or their "home"?

You are referring to fishes (from eggs to hatchlings all the way up to mature mating pairs) I assume?

I guess you hate modern farming practices then because it takes 70% of the fresh water in America, uses or wastes half of it, and returns the other half to the river so polluted that it cannot be used for any other purpose... not by the fishes nor us.

[GliderGuider]

38. Of course I hate modern farming practices.

Not just because of what it does to the rivers, but what it does to habitat, to the oceans, the soil and the air as well.

And to go out on my usual provocative limb here, I also personally hate it because it feeds too many of "us" at the expense of other life on the planet.

[Sal Minella]

46. I think of this while watching mile after mile of the sterile GM

cornfields glide by -- it's a biological desert, which would be much better for humans if we shared it with the earthworms, frogs, owls, foxes, buffalo etc who should by rights be here.

It's a damn desert out there. Not even earthworms can live in those fields.

[dipsydoodle]

17. Good idea

and say goodbye to your oil supply most of which is owned by other inhabitants of this world. The USA aggregate share per capita is 312549000 / 7 billion. Over usage to date dictates no oil whatsoever for the foreseeable future.

[kristopher]

25. Ownership

Should the resources of the planet be "OWNED" and if so, by whom.
OR
Should they be the equally shared property of all Humankind, each member entitled to just as much as another.

Ownership
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate or intellectual property. Ownership involves multiple rights, collectively referred to as title, which may be separated and held by different parties. The concept of ownership has existed for thousands of years and in all cultures. Over the millennia, however, and across cultures what is considered eligible to be property and how that property is regarded culturally is very different. Ownership is the basis for many other concepts that form the foundations of ancient and modern societies such as money, trade, debt, bankruptcy, the criminality of theft and private vs. public property. Ownership is the key building block in the development of the capitalist socio-economic system.

The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex since one can gain, transfer and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. To acquire property one can purchase it with money, trade it for other property, receive it as a gift, steal it, find it, make it or homestead it. One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, being robbed of it, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure, seizure or taking. Ownership is self-propagating in that the owner of any property will also own the economic benefits of that property.

When you ask "should" you are asking a question about values. It is therefore prudent to realized what, precisely, is being valued. Since "ownership" is a fundamental and inevitable aspect of all living creatures interacting with its environment - nothing can live without appropriating for its own use resources from the environment - perhaps you could be more specific about what you mean when you say "own"?

In any case, the use of "or" is inaccurate, since the second question doesn't contrast with the first, it follows from the first. The thought could be discussed with more clarity if the questions were reworded, perhaps like this:
1) Who should own the resources of the planet?
2) Should they be equally shared property with each entitled to just as much as another or ??? (insert your implied alternative)

The response of virtually all humans - when they have a full appreciation of those questions - is going to be the same; and when you dig deep very, very few will reject the idea that all people deserve rights to the resources required for a dignified existence. Part of that digging deep is defining more precisely the "who" in your question refers to. Most people will acknowledge that it DOES include future generations. That idea that we must behave in a way that ensures the same rights to property for future generations is what forms the basis for most environmental action.

To quote the famous txlibdem, "Learn a little bit about the true history of Capitalism and you might just be on your way to achieving understanding." (Coming from you I found that hilarious.)
The following information would flow from such learning and understanding:

"WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT?

Sustainable development is a new term that grew out of the conservation/environmental movement of the 1970's. While the conservation/environmental movement asked questions about preserving the Earth's resources, sustainable development includes questions about how human decisions affect the Earth's environment.

At this moment, sustainable development means different things to different people/groups. The most widely held definition is that of the Brundtland Commission Report of 1987 which stated we must " meet the needs fo the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". In other words, when people make decisions about how to use the Earth's resources such as forests , water, minerals, gems, wildlife, etc., they must take into account not only how much of these resources they are using, what processess they used to get these resources., and who has access to these resources. Are enough resources going to be left for your grandchildren to use and will the environment be left as you know it today?

http://www.lbl.gov/Education/ELSI/sustain-main.html

With that we establish the "who" and the "what" behind what I believe you are asking. The question then becomes "how?" Yet, even though having a clearer picture of what and who makes that easier to answer, it is good to bring in the other parts of any good inquiry - the "where" and the "when":

What is Sustainable Development?

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
- the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
- the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs."

All definitions of sustainable development require that we see the world as a system a system that connects space; and a system that connects time.

When you think of the world as a system over space, you grow to understand that air pollution from North America affects air quality in Asia, and that pesticides sprayed in Argentina could harm fish stocks off the coast of Australia.

And when you think of the world as a system over time, you start to realize that the decisions our grandparents made about how to farm the land continue to affect agricultural practice today; and the economic policies we endorse today will have an impact on urban poverty when our children are adults.

We also understand that quality of life is a system, too...

http://www.iisd.org/sd/

See also:
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/index.shtml

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/sd.html

http://www.globalissues.org/issue/367/sustainable-development

This is where the real discussion starts.

[Nederland]

28. Nice post (nt)

[GliderGuider]

33. A bit anthropocentric perhaps, but overall a very good post.

Most discussions of "sustainability" give insufficient weight to the rights of other life to meet their own needs in the future. As a result most such discussions are inherently anthropocentric: they treat humanity as the sole value-holder in the equation, with the rest of the planet's life reduced to the status of a bag of resources. That is a perspective with which I am heartily at odds.

Aside from that caveat, this was a very thoughtful and useful post.

[bananas]

53. That's what I like about you - you always stand up for the underdog, undercat, underflea, ...

... underbacteria, underfungus, undervirus, underphage, underprion, ...

:hi:

[GliderGuider]

54. Hey, phages have to eat too!

:+

[txlibdem]

36. Semantic gobbldegook masquerading as thoughtful analysis - worthless post

Please use your abilities more constructively. We both know you are very intelligent, yet here you are arguing over "or" which reminds me of someone who argued that it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

The rest of your post could easily have been deleted due to its lack of intellectual content and applicability to the subject matter.

[TreasonousBastard]

67. Yeah, but not too many around here are interested. I went to school for...

this stuff, and rarely, if ever, did anyone talk down "highest and best use" or even propose a commons.

What was, and is now, mentioned, was that if anyone seriously wanted to change system it had to be with changes that gave some advantage to everyone and that usually meant seriously limited, but necessary, resources.

Situations that rarely exist outside of primitive societies.

[Nederland]

26. Do you like the Pacific Trash Vortex? Do you like over-fishing?

That's what happens when you have a resource that nobody owns.

Because nobody owns international waters, nations argue endlessly over whose duty it is to pay to prevent things like trash dumping, cleaning up spills, and how many fish can be caught in a particular area. If you enjoy these types of things, but all means, convert all resources into global public property and watch tragedy of commons unfold on a massive scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[txlibdem]

35. Poor analysis

The pollution of the oceans isn't caused because "nobody owns it." It's caused by a collective and incorrect assumption that dumping my trash into the ocean automatically makes it "somebody else's problem." Irresponsible people who constantly attempt to shove the consequences of their actions onto others in the name of increased profits for themselves caused the gyre, not "nobody owns it."
:dunce:

If fact, once we realize that we all own the oceans we would be policing these polluters and bringing them to justice.

When you dump in the communal drinking well it affects us all!

[GliderGuider]

39. Who is the "we" that would be doing this policing? /nt

[txlibdem]

45. Is that like the old "Lone Ranger and Tonto" joke???

The "we" is all of humankind, sharing the responsibility and sharing resources and intelligence to make sure that unscrupulous people do not destroy what does not belong to them.

PS, I'm part Native American so I get to write that subject title.

[GliderGuider]

47. So in your version of Utopia, how are the interests of both the USA and Burkina Faso represented?

It's easy to say "We the human race, all together in a spirit of far-sighted cooperation and harmony". But given that it's not in ANY nation's perceived short or medium term interest to manage the commons, how do we get them ALL to the Table of Reason so that they may sip the milk of human kindness?

[txlibdem]

48. it's not in ANY nation's interest to manage the commons

"it's not in ANY nation's perceived short or medium term interest to manage the commons"

That post is the least informed I've ever read.

1. There is no "commons" - because everything within our reach is owned equally between all humankind

2. It's in everyone's interest to make sure that his neighbor doesn't get sick... your kids might catch it next. In other words, we are all connected whether we know it or not.

3. We are moving toward what I describe in the OP, not in any other direction. Wait and see.

[Nederland]

49. Just because it is in your interest...

...does not mean you will pay for it.

That is why things that are "equally owned" as you put it tend to get abused. Everyone has an incentive to put off paying for what need to be done, because when someone finally does pony up and pay for it, everyone benefits equally.

[txlibdem]

51. Pay for it... with what???

There will be no need for money.

That is why things that are "equally owned" as you put it tend to get abused. Like the family dog? Or the family cat? Your logic doesn't hold water.

[GliderGuider]

52. Have you read Garrett Hardin yet?

Here is the full "Tragedy of the Commons" article from 1968:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

[txlibdem]

56. My reply got zapped into the ether somehow... ;-)

The most recent thing that disproves that failed "theory" is the NYC Occupy Wall Street movement encamped in Zucchoti park. They communally keep those "commons" clean, help each other, communally provide medical treatment, feed each other, etc. And this is right in the middle of the heart of darkness that such a bright "COMMUNAL" light shines.

Viva la commons. (sorry for the poor Spanish... I took German).

[Nederland]

58. No need for money?

What are we to do, turn the clock back 6000 years and start bartering again...because that was SO efficient.

[txlibdem]

59. Didn't I already post that I have neither time nor patience to educate you

Please look it up with the google. It's on the interwebs, which is like a series of pipes. Don't worry, it'll come to you eventually.

[kristopher]

40. Common ownership isn't the same as "nobody owns"

One lesson from The Tragedy of the Commons is that private ownership prevents over-exploitation.

Another lesson is that collective management of common resources prevents over-exploitation.

Both have strengths and weaknesses.