Thats not true. Once most of the trees have been destroyed we could privatize the remaining ones and charge people money to come look at them. All under the guise of “we’ve done everything we can to protect the trees”.
Parks with entrance fees exist
Took all the trees, put them in a tree museum. Then they charge all the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em.
Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends
We’re so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside
There behind a glass stands a real blade of grass
Be careful as you pass, move along, move along
yes i can see some smartass defender using this arg or something like “nuh uh what about tooouriiism…?”
Unless it bears fruit
Or saps, rubber trees and maple trees
Or useful barks. White birch, cinnamon.
Cork too
Or just offers shade, or looks nice.
Those less tangible things also have value both under law and under capitalism. OP has a 4th grade understanding of economics.
Those are things of value but not commodities and are outside what I was using for examples of capitalism. Though fuckers would absolutely charge you to enjoy those things if they can figure out how to make us ;(
National parks and protected lands exist too. Conservation is a vital tree-reliant field.
You say that like national parks and protected lands aren’t strictly anti-capitalist concepts. Ones that capitalists aren’t trying to destroy constantly and currently.
No, a tree has value if it bears fruit or other produce (syrup).
That’s what I was thinking. I’m curious what the intended meaning is because I’m super hung up on “people sell apples/other fruit/produce”.
I would say trees growing in neat rows in an industrial monoculture orchard, or squeezed into a 3-ft strip of otherwise barren land next to a sidewalk slowly choking to death on concrete and pollution, have been destroyed in almost every way that matters. They physically still exist, yes, but trees are part of an ecosystem; capitalism kills the ecosystem and raises the tree as a zombie servant. It forces the tree to perform its profitable function, and nothing else, and destroys everything about it and everything around it that doesn’t serve that function.
Zombie trees may be alive, but they aren’t really living.
Or maybe we’re overthinking and the poster is talking about logging and not about absolutely everything in the world that people might use a tree for.
This isn’t true. You can extract bark from trees while leaving them still intact. One can gather and sell pinecones. You can also tap maple trees for sap.
I like the sentiment, but the analogy doesn’t work if you think about it a bit.
Also, if placed in a public garden or park, one can demand fees, leaving the tree completely in tact.
A mature oak tree is worth over a hundred grand. Alive. This is engagement bait for being wrong.
Horseshit. One can, in any number of ways, buy whole trees with roots and all. They clearly have value. Trees are recognized under law to have utility and therefore value as a living thing. Some trees lose value on being killed, others gain. Either way, OP is bogus.
That’s not really true, but I get the intent of the claim.
Well then, KEEP IT IN THE FOOKIN’ GROUND!!
In capitalism, things only have monetary value.
deleted by creator
Conflicting because i really love things made of wood. Wood paneling (cedar t&g), my wood siding, nice wood furniture etc…
One good thing is it really lasts. My siding is 50 years old and only has a couple bad spots I need to replace. And I imagine vinyl siding manufacturing is horrid for the environment.
Capitalism just hasn’t gone far enough.
Soon parks will have locked gates and an entry fee so they can monetize trees while they are still alive.
