[Avodah] The halakhos of ecology

[Zev Sero]

Micha Berger wrote:


> The value is functional, not really economic. Need is only one factor
> that goes into price. I would agree that the halakhah of bal tashchis
> doesn't speak of inherent value.
> 
> But if the enjoyment is short-sighted, and will cost far more in the
> long run than the short-term fun, wouldn't that still be bal tashchis?

Who's in a better position to determine the long- and short-term cost,
and to balance them properly, than the owner?  Time preference is also
subjective, and if the owner has a high one, and therefore heavily
discounts future benefits, who's to say he's wrong?  Whose business
is it?

 
> Think of is misvara: You're defining bal tashchis in a way such that
> by definition no one would want to do it.

Pretty much.  I think it's an issur that exists more in the theoretical
realm than the practical.  That's why, to find a practical application,
the Torah had to give us the case of the soldier.

In fact, since there were many more commons in those days than there
are today, and the Torah in fact explicitly mentions one example of a
commons -- the forest in which one may chop wood, but must take care
to keep ones axe properly maintained so one doesn't kill anyone -- why
does it tell us the din of bal tashchis in such an unusual situation?
I have to think that tells us something about how rare it is to find
a practical application.  Without TBSP telling us it's a general law
of bal tashchis, I'd have a simpler answer: I'd have said it was a part
of hilchos milchama, and had *no* everyday relevance.  But that's
clearly not the case.  It must have *some* relevance to our everyday
conduct, but not one that the Torah could have easily used as an
example.  IMHO that's because in most cases all bal tashchis means is
that before destroying something one should consider it carefully, and
weigh up the costs and benefits, and only go ahead if it makes sense;
and that's hard to state as a concrete din.


> Say someone wants the ease
> of cutting down the nearest tree, despite it having apples, instead of
> going another 30 yards to that oak. How do you avoid saying that that's
> subjective value, and thus not bal tashchis?

You can't avoid it, if it's true.  If the person says that after
careful consideration he considers it worth it, then we have no choice
but to believe him.  But he knows whether it's really true, and it's
up to him to be honest with himself.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas