Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (14601)	6/10/2002 2:29:53 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Over time, the effect of overgrazing is not fractional, because eventually there will be no pasture left. Thus, there is, in fact, an incentive for regulation and some degree of compliance. The problem is that there is an incentive to cheat, and to rationalize it on the assumption that all are not cheating, and thus the negative consequences are not so grave. Thus, there has to be enforcement. Since one might very well keep the commons from extinction under an imperfect regimen, a reasonable commitment to enforcement might suffice. Other expedients would be to grow the commons, for example by cultivating seed on a new patch of land, or searching for a new clearing. In the case of fisheries, taking some fish to raise on farms in order to replenish the stock periodically might work. A further expedient might be to parcel out land, so that each has a stake in its maintenance, with a clear responsibility, thus eliminating the commons. This is difficult in the situation of the sea, but since fishing tends to be territorial, rather than in the middle of the ocean, assigning specific responsibility to different nations for the regulation of their fishing banks might help. Then, they can be held responsible for enforcement of international agreements.......

To: The Philosopher who wrote (14601)	6/10/2002 5:11:23 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 21057

That's better than I could have explained it to him.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (14601)	6/10/2002 6:29:40 PM
From: average joe	Respond to of 21057

"2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1." The effects of overgrazing should lead back into the first paragraph of your relevant passage where "disease" would infect and wipe the weaker animals off. It is worse because man has the ability to produce factory animals and can raise more and more weaker animals that we feed upon. The only flesh products that could be called edible is beef and some fish and the reason why is they have been exposed to a natural environment at some point in their existence. All poultry, dairy and pork products have been raised in boxes and not fit for carrion. The opposite side of the coin in the U.S.is millions of acres of BLM land that were banned from open grazing during the Clinton administration. This was a pet project of Al Gore to get the evil methane belching cows off public land. Gore forgot to take into consideration evil methane belching buffalo had consumed those same prairie grasses for the past 10,000 years and come one hot dry summer the whole prairie went up in flames. I don't think these summer fires helped the endangered species the grazing ban was supposed to protect. Obviously to have a true consensus you need to bring the great herds of buffalo back. Cities and towns will have to be moved and bridges and underground passages built along all road allowances. The feedlot cowboy who refuses to go anywhere near a buffalo because they are dangerous can be replaced by a Washington trained righthinknik.