Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Dustin86

The Problem with Objectivism in a Finite World of Limited Resources

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Repairman said:

While that may explain your evasion of military training or other physical activities

JFTR, I was a distance runner (marathon, half-marathon, 10K, 5K, 2 mile, and many other "physical activities") for many, many years before I began having medical problems. As I am recovering I am restarting my shorter events. Please don't make judgments about my personal life without knowing me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Repairman said:

This assertion, that the world's scarce resources will result in some Mauthusian disaster has been addressed quite nicely in earlier posts, if you cared to read them. But in any event, you are giving Objectivism way too much credit for the state of global affairs.

So, in part, your personal attitude explains your reasoning. At that I should remind you that wishing it doesn't make it so. You are entitled to your attitude, but it will not change reality. 

What about the world's greenhouse gas capacity? 2015 was a record-breaker in world temperatures. There is a 99% chance that 2016 will be another record-breaker. I hate to quote Al Gore, but the science is settled, and there is no skirting around the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Repairman said:

What would you prefer to call it?

I think I would call it a mistruth and a personal attack, because from before high school up until I started having medical problems I was more physically active than 99% of the population with marathons, half-marathons, etc. Even now, I am building myself back up starting with my shorter runs (2 mile, 4 mile, up to 6 or 7 mile on some days). I am more physically active even now than 50% of the US population at least, even with medical problems that have never entirely gone away.

Edited by Dustin86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" The truth is that for every person that 'makes it', there are at least one or more other people who are equally talented who get stuck in long term unemployment or in dead end McJobs that do not pay enough to live on. I've seen it time and time again. And yet I see Objectivism teaching its followers to scoff at these people when the reality is that there is simply not enough in the world in terms of natural resources and global atmospheric carbon capacity for everybody, no matter how talented, to live the lifestyle of a Hank Rearden or even a contemporary middle class American."

Crucial distinction to be made - you cite things you've witnessed "time and time again" as evidence that Objectivist capitalistic economic systems result in equally capable people having vastly different outcomes, some thriving, some struggling to barely get by. However, what you've witnessed has taken place in an economic system FAR from the capitalism espoused by Objectivism. This is a mixed economy with heavy government meddling. I agree that lots of very capable people have gotten rather unjustly screwed and I feel badly for those many individuals, but I strongly disagree with you about the source of this injustice. The problem is government meddling in the economy. Problems in the economy leading good people to bad living conditions are pretty well proportional to just how much the government meddles in the economy. Being so far from capitalism, I think it's hard to say we've shown in a capitalistic system we just still wouldn't have enough resources for everybody to live comfortably. You may argue eventually some things will have to run out, but left free, people come up with new sources and better replacements anyway. Seriously, if government doesn't get in the way, mining asteroids and such for more resources is already looking feasible in the foreseeable future, crops are being engineered to produce more, I'd bet an eyeball we mass produce synthetic oil and natural gas or find a superior replacement long before those run out.

(Have you read Atlas Shrugged? Far from encouraging just blindly hating on the poor, Rand has a main, rich protagonist at one point give a random homeless stranger some food and warm safe passage with her in her personal car on the train and she talks with him. Not to mention Cheryl and many other protagonists living in pretty poor conditions for a long time.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Repairman said:

So, we went from scarcity of global resources to climate change. We're getting a bit scatological.

Atmospheric greenhouse gas capacity is a resource and a rapidly dwindling one.

Really this isn't just an Objectivist problem. There is no country on Earth (not counting non-developed, largely non-industrialized countries such as those in the middle of Africa) that is doing enough to deal with the threat of depletion of this resource. The Kyoto targets, even if countries were serious about keeping is (which they were not), are not nearly enough. Again, what is needed is togetherness and interconnectedness, not selfishness.

I'm afraid that some form of military government in many developed countries may be necessary to ensure compliance with strict greenhouse gas reduction targets, much stricter than the Kyoto targets, until the threat of runaway global warming has subsided. The alternative may be the extinction of the human species along with many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dustin86 said:

I think I would call it a mistruth and a personal attack, because from before high school up until I started having medical problems I was more physically active than 99% of the population with marathons, half-marathons, etc. Even now, I am building myself back up starting with my shorter runs (2 mile, 4 mile, up to 6 or 7 mile on some days). I am more physically active even now than 50% of the US population at least, even with medical problems that have never entirely gone away.

I am honestly glad to know that you're recovering. If I had a medical problem such as yours, I'd do everything possible to recover; it was not a personal attack.

41 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

Atmospheric greenhouse gas capacity is a resource and a rapidly dwindling one.

Really this isn't just an Objectivist problem. There is no country on Earth (not counting non-developed, largely non-industrialized countries such as those in the middle of Africa) that is doing enough to deal with the threat of depletion of this resource. The Kyoto targets, even if countries were serious about keeping is (which they were not), are not nearly enough. Again, what is needed is togetherness and interconnectedness, not selfishness.

I'm afraid that some form of military government in many developed countries may be necessary to ensure compliance with strict greenhouse gas reduction targets, much stricter than the Kyoto targets, until the threat of runaway global warming has subsided. The alternative may be the extinction of the human species along with many others.

If you are an expert on climate science, I might look at your evidence. If not, I'll regard the notion of "climate change" and the popular beliefs associated with it as inconclusive.

3 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

Anyway, Repairman, I can see I'm clearly not wanted here, and I think I've said just about all I have to say, so I'm going to take a hint and leave the forum.

That, of course, would be your choice. If you have a reasonable argument for blaming the world's problems on Objectivism, come on back any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×