"It is an artist’s job to have impossible ideas." Yes! A self-governing forest, or a self-governing park adjacent to Wall Street. The artists set the agenda for the Occupy movement, Nathan Schneider argues in Thank You, Anarchy (pages 145-47), and they saved the movement from a debilitating schism between its nonviolent contingency and its "diversity of tactics" contingency by exciting the creative sides of both sides, enticing both sides to work together again.
The self-governing forest aided by human beings reminds me of the indigenous concept of a forest and its occupants as people. Saving the earth while merely reigning in global capitalism, I think, would take everything the likes of artists, anarchists, and indigenous wisdom could summon on the earth's behalf, and then some.
What an incredible concept. I love this idea of fragmented ownership of public resources. I also agree that NFTs are going to have to offer some other kind of inherent value beyond simply status in order for them to become viable investment options.
I fail to see why we couldn't have a fully self-governing forest now, given AI has enabled us to generate intelligent responses to prompts. We would just need a quarterly cadence of decision-making with some specifically crafted prompts. "You are a forest - attached are reports from your sensors on biodiversity, size, and balance sheet and income statement. Your aims are to sustainably grow and consume CO2."
Interesting concept. Some of the nft examples are not well chosen in my opinion. Coming specifically for Tesla, who are doing more for the environment than most large companies by directly reducing tailpipe emissions seems a miss. Likewise, if the world reaches 2C warming, forests wouldn't just die. They eat the CO2 and often thrive. It depends on where they are and a lot of other factors. Reductions in sea ice are better examples I think. Maybe the shifting ocean currents could be another.
Tesla does plenty of good things for the environment, but why shouldn't companies replace trees when they cut them down? Deforestation is a major problem world wide, and as hard as we try to plant new ones, we are constantly undercut by those who cut them down. And in the case of the forest and ice, just because various environmental metrics are reached doesn't mean those environmental resources actually disappear. It just means the financial asset goes to zero. So the concept is an economic incentive to avoid certain metrics, rather than a certain piece of land. (As I understand it?)
I totally agree that they should replace forests that they displace and maybe there are other NFTs that single out other companies too, I don't know. I just think putting Tesla at the forefront contributes to this anti-Tesla movement I see among environmentalists, which I find kind of disturbing. I get what you're saying about the forests and ice and it's great that it gets us talking about it! :)
From near the end of this essay [which I only scanned]: "Maybe not a self-governing forest, but a collectively governed one, with the same rights to exist as you and me, and with an economic incentive to thrive."
Well, privately held property such as lumber/timber lands are often held by corporate entities that have collective ownership via shares, even if they delegate "governance" to management, etc. They are incentivized to maximize the long term investment benefits from this resource/ asset, just as this "forest ownership" concept claims to be.
Note Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs". What does this forest concept trade off vs. existing ownership mechanisms? How does the "forest" pay the taxes that justify it having standing in a court to cause correction to harms perpetrated against it?
How does this forest protect itself against "compromised agents" acting nominally on its behalf, but who none the less betray it? [there is a legal term for that but I don't recall what it is]. [Many brand name foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, MacDonald, et al.) have deviated substantially from the activities and motives intended initially by their founders.]
It should be pretty clear by now that really the only viable ownership scheme is ownership by entities that have an incentive to provide protection of their assets [and avoiding/ side stepping the tragedy of the commons, etc. Plus careful definition of just what and why and how far can eminent domain go?]
Now, this is an intriguing idea in that it forces us to truly ask what are the bases or grounds for rights, specifically human rights. Some say God, some say "nature", some say the Golden Rule.
"It is an artist’s job to have impossible ideas." Yes! A self-governing forest, or a self-governing park adjacent to Wall Street. The artists set the agenda for the Occupy movement, Nathan Schneider argues in Thank You, Anarchy (pages 145-47), and they saved the movement from a debilitating schism between its nonviolent contingency and its "diversity of tactics" contingency by exciting the creative sides of both sides, enticing both sides to work together again.
The self-governing forest aided by human beings reminds me of the indigenous concept of a forest and its occupants as people. Saving the earth while merely reigning in global capitalism, I think, would take everything the likes of artists, anarchists, and indigenous wisdom could summon on the earth's behalf, and then some.
Yep, we need all the kinds of thinkers on the job. It's the only way we've ever gotten anything done. :)
What an incredible concept. I love this idea of fragmented ownership of public resources. I also agree that NFTs are going to have to offer some other kind of inherent value beyond simply status in order for them to become viable investment options.
I fail to see why we couldn't have a fully self-governing forest now, given AI has enabled us to generate intelligent responses to prompts. We would just need a quarterly cadence of decision-making with some specifically crafted prompts. "You are a forest - attached are reports from your sensors on biodiversity, size, and balance sheet and income statement. Your aims are to sustainably grow and consume CO2."
Would be a cool experiment!
Right? Will be interesting to follow along and see what they do!
Interesting concept. Some of the nft examples are not well chosen in my opinion. Coming specifically for Tesla, who are doing more for the environment than most large companies by directly reducing tailpipe emissions seems a miss. Likewise, if the world reaches 2C warming, forests wouldn't just die. They eat the CO2 and often thrive. It depends on where they are and a lot of other factors. Reductions in sea ice are better examples I think. Maybe the shifting ocean currents could be another.
Tesla does plenty of good things for the environment, but why shouldn't companies replace trees when they cut them down? Deforestation is a major problem world wide, and as hard as we try to plant new ones, we are constantly undercut by those who cut them down. And in the case of the forest and ice, just because various environmental metrics are reached doesn't mean those environmental resources actually disappear. It just means the financial asset goes to zero. So the concept is an economic incentive to avoid certain metrics, rather than a certain piece of land. (As I understand it?)
I totally agree that they should replace forests that they displace and maybe there are other NFTs that single out other companies too, I don't know. I just think putting Tesla at the forefront contributes to this anti-Tesla movement I see among environmentalists, which I find kind of disturbing. I get what you're saying about the forests and ice and it's great that it gets us talking about it! :)
Ah yes, I agree with that. There could definitely be other companies more worth singling out.
If a corporation can be a person, I see no reason why a forest can't.
Nature is not a commodity; period.
Physical capital, human capital and financial capital are no commodities.
Remedy to their pervert commodification lies solely in de-commodification, ie in *commons*.
What exactly is the “commons”? It’s collectively owned land!
From near the end of this essay [which I only scanned]: "Maybe not a self-governing forest, but a collectively governed one, with the same rights to exist as you and me, and with an economic incentive to thrive."
Well, privately held property such as lumber/timber lands are often held by corporate entities that have collective ownership via shares, even if they delegate "governance" to management, etc. They are incentivized to maximize the long term investment benefits from this resource/ asset, just as this "forest ownership" concept claims to be.
Note Thomas Sowell: "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs". What does this forest concept trade off vs. existing ownership mechanisms? How does the "forest" pay the taxes that justify it having standing in a court to cause correction to harms perpetrated against it?
How does this forest protect itself against "compromised agents" acting nominally on its behalf, but who none the less betray it? [there is a legal term for that but I don't recall what it is]. [Many brand name foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, MacDonald, et al.) have deviated substantially from the activities and motives intended initially by their founders.]
It should be pretty clear by now that really the only viable ownership scheme is ownership by entities that have an incentive to provide protection of their assets [and avoiding/ side stepping the tragedy of the commons, etc. Plus careful definition of just what and why and how far can eminent domain go?]
Now, this is an intriguing idea in that it forces us to truly ask what are the bases or grounds for rights, specifically human rights. Some say God, some say "nature", some say the Golden Rule.