<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wild Oysters Deemed &#8216;Functionally Extinct&#8217;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/02/10/wild-oysters-deemed-functionally-extinct/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/02/10/wild-oysters-deemed-functionally-extinct/</link>
	<description>Tapping experts in climate, geology, oceanography, ecology, sustainable development, global health, energy, food and water, State of the Planet captures stories of how the Earth works and how we can sustainably make our lives better.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:28:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Katie Horner</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/02/10/wild-oysters-deemed-functionally-extinct/comment-page-1/#comment-11096</link>
		<dc:creator>Katie Horner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 22:16:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/?p=11497#comment-11096</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While I hate to say this, we live in a capitalist society. Consquently, I think the answer to your question is no, we won&#039;t ever be able to conceive of the earth and its natural resources as &#039;priceless&#039; - they have a monetary value simply by constituting the world we humans (resource users and inventors of that all-powerful system, capitalism) live in.

In the particular instance discussed in my post, however, I&#039;d argue that it is not the environment or a specific ecosystem that is being assigned a monetary value but rather, the oyster industry. It&#039;s true that oyster harvesters make their money by exploiting marine ecosystems but I think it&#039;s important to acknowledge that all people make their living (both figuratively and literally) by exploiting the environment, be it directly or indirectly. 

To say that the oyster harvesters and fishermen whose livelihoods were destroyed by the BP oil spill should not be compensated is something that many people would find as appalling as you find their compensation to be.  Your line of thinking seems like a slippery slope to me.  You say that placing an economic value on natural resources will “pave the way for continued ecological degradation of the planet.” However, if companies that pollute the environment on the magnitude that BP did and are not held accountable won’t that also pave the way for continued ecological degradation by removing all consequences of doing so? 

I certainly admire your purity of thought regarding the environment. On a personal level, I do think it’s important to have a valuation of the natural world that does not have a monetary basis. On a societal level, however, I think it’s important to acknowledge certain realities regarding how industries, nations, and other individuals view the environment and natural resources, for if we choose to ignore or merely judge as “appalling” these realities, we will never succeed in changing them.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I hate to say this, we live in a capitalist society. Consquently, I think the answer to your question is no, we won&#8217;t ever be able to conceive of the earth and its natural resources as &#8216;priceless&#8217; &#8211; they have a monetary value simply by constituting the world we humans (resource users and inventors of that all-powerful system, capitalism) live in.</p>
<p>In the particular instance discussed in my post, however, I&#8217;d argue that it is not the environment or a specific ecosystem that is being assigned a monetary value but rather, the oyster industry. It&#8217;s true that oyster harvesters make their money by exploiting marine ecosystems but I think it&#8217;s important to acknowledge that all people make their living (both figuratively and literally) by exploiting the environment, be it directly or indirectly. </p>
<p>To say that the oyster harvesters and fishermen whose livelihoods were destroyed by the BP oil spill should not be compensated is something that many people would find as appalling as you find their compensation to be.  Your line of thinking seems like a slippery slope to me.  You say that placing an economic value on natural resources will “pave the way for continued ecological degradation of the planet.” However, if companies that pollute the environment on the magnitude that BP did and are not held accountable won’t that also pave the way for continued ecological degradation by removing all consequences of doing so? </p>
<p>I certainly admire your purity of thought regarding the environment. On a personal level, I do think it’s important to have a valuation of the natural world that does not have a monetary basis. On a societal level, however, I think it’s important to acknowledge certain realities regarding how industries, nations, and other individuals view the environment and natural resources, for if we choose to ignore or merely judge as “appalling” these realities, we will never succeed in changing them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/02/10/wild-oysters-deemed-functionally-extinct/comment-page-1/#comment-11094</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 21:29:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/?p=11497#comment-11094</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;... oyster harvesters are being compensated for their losses through the $20 billion BP compensation fund...&quot;

I find this type of thinking -- that people can somehow be compensated for the devastation of the environment -- appalling. You can&#039;t put a price tag on the health of an ecosystem, and the environment belongs to everyone, not just the people (or companies) who exploit it to make a buck. Thinking of complex ecosystems simply as resources to be economically exploited will only pave the way for the continued ecological degradation of the planet. Will we be able to wake up and realize what is truly priceless before we have a barren planet?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;&#8230; oyster harvesters are being compensated for their losses through the $20 billion BP compensation fund&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>I find this type of thinking &#8212; that people can somehow be compensated for the devastation of the environment &#8212; appalling. You can&#8217;t put a price tag on the health of an ecosystem, and the environment belongs to everyone, not just the people (or companies) who exploit it to make a buck. Thinking of complex ecosystems simply as resources to be economically exploited will only pave the way for the continued ecological degradation of the planet. Will we be able to wake up and realize what is truly priceless before we have a barren planet?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
