Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

kottke.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 174 posts

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#121

Post by iainmerrick »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #74
iainmerrick wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tragedy of the Commons" is caused by the very existence of the modern state. No, you have it backwards. The "tragedy" was a fiction invented to justify the Acts of Enclosure in the UK, wherein public land (commons) was fenced off for sole use by the local lords. Here's a good explanation: http://www.monbiot.com/1994/01/01/the-tragedy-of-enclosure/ In a truly private system, one in which all land was owned, every par…

Your article says Hardins theory only works if their is no such thing as ownership. A commons is a piece of land supposedly used commonly and not owned by anyone. So Hardins theory is addressing tthings like the ocean and the air. This article might as well be rebutting the theory of gravity because it only applies to objects with mass.

So Hardins theory is addressing tthings like the ocean and the air.

No, Hardin himself intended his theory to address land usage; it's this article that argues the theory doesn't actually work properly in that context.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#122

Post by noxToken »

kochb wrote: post #108

Hey all, we need to go meta for a sec and talk about why this article doesn't belong here, and how culturally this is a step in the wrong direction for HN. First off, this is blogspam, the original Popular Science article is a bit better. There's a reason blogspam is discouraged by the guidelines. More importantly, this is a particularly pernicious blogspam because the selected photos (atlas, burning boat, water glas…

Glad to know that I'm not the only one that felt this way. 4 copied images and a few lines of text that add nothing to the discussion of the original article. I even refreshed the page, because I thought that I was missing something.

In terms of text, the original article does not have much either, but at least you're treated to about 30 or so images. It actually gives the reader a glimpse of parts of the US pre-EPA.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#123

Post by throwaway2016a »

wallace_f wrote: post #112
throwaway2016a wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is a shame that is considered a "conservative" view. I think a lot of Libertarians are coming around to have a view similar to your's. That the commons belongs to all of us and polluting and destroying it should be punished. Republican's on the other hand seem to thing liberty only applies to corporations. In fact if you delete the part about wanting big government, I could have almost mistaken you for a Li…

The word has been hijacked. Libertarians want to maximize liberty, which since the Age of Reason has been interpreted in government to mean to restrict as few freedoms as necessary to protect the remainder. One example: don't let people commit murder. It is perfectly reasonable this kind of reasoning apply to other types of killing or unjust aggression, such as poisoning the environment. So we have the NAP. But the w…

I'm actually a Libertarian myself. And I agree with all you say. Except of course the anarchist part because it directly contradicts me :)

> But the whole movement is being hijacked by people who either don't care about much else than not wanting to pay taxes

Many of those people have moved to the Republican party. Often the same people who think that liberty only applies to you if you have the right income level, color skin, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. As I said in my first post, an dI'm sure you agree, you can't pick and chose who gets liberties.

Unfortunately the anarchist have chosen to use the Libertarian party to give themselves a voice. And while I agree they are not true Libertarians, they are the extremist in the party and are the party's demons to fight.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#124

Post by notahacker »

swebs wrote: post #93
zhyder wrote: post #68

It's unfortunate that the EPA is under attack by conservatives who want limited government. If you start from first principles about what the min viable government should do, a big part of its charter would be to prevent major tragedies of the commons. And the environment is a textbook example of something that'd suffer the tragedy of the commons without government oversight. I prefer a bigger government with a bigge…

On the other hand, does the EPA really require 8 billion dollars per year when the protection laws have already been passed and improvements have already been made? In a software project, you allocate $x per month during development, and only $(x/10) for maintenance after it has shipped. Is there a point where the EPA can say "mission accomplished" and downsize to maintenance/enforcement mode, or is this just a typic…

Regulations aren't much good if you don't have personnel with the technical expertise to monitor compliance, enforce them and arrange for damage limitation or mitigation. A lot of environmental protection activity has a positive return on investment for tax dollars because cleanup and health hazard mitigation is really, really expensive.

$8bn per annum is a tiny sum of money to spend on environmental protection for a developed country the size of the United States.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#125

Post by clipperton »

fiblye wrote: post #49
stupidcar wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, the conservative attitude is that environmental concerns are either overplayed, or simply a Trojan horse invented to push anti-business/anti-capitalist policies, and a leftist agenda in general. They believe that many of the most fervent environmental campaigners are not really interested in evolutionary improvements to the current system, but instead want revolutionary change, including the compl…

>As I understand it, the conservative attitude is that environmental concerns are either overplayed As someone who left a part of the country that votes Republican to Dem 9:1, this is the mindset of most rural voters (where I'm from at least). They think pollution and grime are "city problems" because city people are just "dirty sons of bitches". These are people who, once their car breaks down, they just put it into…

You seem to be painting a nice over-the-top caricature of all people who live in a rural area much in the same way you're claiming that they're making bad stereotypes about those who live in the city. As someone who still lives in a rural area I can say that I've never participated/been familiar with those that participate in mass garbage burning, dumping cars/tires into the woods, etc.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#126

Post by sutterbomb »

kochb wrote: post #108

Hey all, we need to go meta for a sec and talk about why this article doesn't belong here, and how culturally this is a step in the wrong direction for HN. First off, this is blogspam, the original Popular Science article is a bit better. There's a reason blogspam is discouraged by the guidelines. More importantly, this is a particularly pernicious blogspam because the selected photos (atlas, burning boat, water glas…

I understand and agree with preferring the source article for the main discussion topic instead of the blog pointer. But I also strongly disagree with your categorization of this particular site/article as spam. Kottke.org has been running for over twenty years as an independent blog and a source of joy and happiness for its readers. Jason consistently points to amazing things all over the web and often adds insightful, poignant or funny commentary to boot.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#127

Post by roenxi »

kochb wrote: post #108

Hey all, we need to go meta for a sec and talk about why this article doesn't belong here, and how culturally this is a step in the wrong direction for HN. First off, this is blogspam, the original Popular Science article is a bit better. There's a reason blogspam is discouraged by the guidelines. More importantly, this is a particularly pernicious blogspam because the selected photos (atlas, burning boat, water glas…

Also on the meta front, I don't actually see any discussion of the pictures themselves. For example, I can't figure out what the problem with the Atlas Chemical Company is by inspection - that looks a lot like industrial levels of water vapour.

Only in the mine water example do I see what the issue is clearly. The discussion seems to have gone straight to related political issues and the broader environment. Interesting, but the article isn't being discussed.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#128

Post by kochb »

sutterbomb wrote: post #126
kochb wrote: post #108

Hey all, we need to go meta for a sec and talk about why this article doesn't belong here, and how culturally this is a step in the wrong direction for HN. First off, this is blogspam, the original Popular Science article is a bit better. There's a reason blogspam is discouraged by the guidelines. More importantly, this is a particularly pernicious blogspam because the selected photos (atlas, burning boat, water glas…

I understand and agree with preferring the source article for the main discussion topic instead of the blog pointer. But I also strongly disagree with your categorization of this particular site/article as spam. Kottke.org has been running for over twenty years as an independent blog and a source of joy and happiness for its readers. Jason consistently points to amazing things all over the web and often adds insightf…

I hate to diss kottke also, but this specific article is the textbook definition of blogspam, and we shouldn’t excuse low quality in deference to ethos. I left out some of the other issues this has, like political advocacy over content.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#129

Post by Anon1096 »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #88
zhyder wrote: post #68

It's unfortunate that the EPA is under attack by conservatives who want limited government. If you start from first principles about what the min viable government should do, a big part of its charter would be to prevent major tragedies of the commons. And the environment is a textbook example of something that'd suffer the tragedy of the commons without government oversight. I prefer a bigger government with a bigge…

Being conservative used to have some meaning. The EPA was established by Richard Nixon, of all people. If you care less about other people than Nixon, you should really ask yourself: “?How far have I strayed from the pack?”

Nixon was barely a conservative. He gets a bad rap due to Watergate but really he was one of the most liberal Republicans elected to the presidency.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#130

Post by mcphage »

swebs wrote: post #110
Sangermaine wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This straw-mans common conservative views, though. Not at all, when conservatives who do come to power always immediately move to dismantle the EPA, as with the current administration. Not to mention that conservative politicians endlessly rail against the evils of the EPA in terms not even remotely nuanced. I know, I know, "they're not really conservatives!".

So we have the issue where the majority of conservative voters think the country must do whatever it takes to protect the environment [1], but elected conservative officials think otherwise. How do you think this should be handled? Option 1: Demonize all conservatives, turning the environment into a partisan agenda Option 2: Demonize elected officials that choose to side with lobbyists over their constituents Persona…

> Option 1: Demonize all conservatives, turning the environment into a partisan agenda

> Option 2: Demonize elected officials that choose to side with lobbyists over their constituents

Sorry, could you remind me again who's electing those "elected officials that choose to side with lobbyists over their constituents"?

Post reply on HN