Definitions Of Environmentalism

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

...and doesn't that suggest something about how he looks at the following things:

Production

Technology

Industry

Modern Conveniances

Conquering nature/altering nature to serve man

Naturalism/living "in harmony" with nature/adapting the self to "fit" nature

The primitive lifestyle

personal discomfort/hardship

Isn't he rejecting the former in favor of the latter? Isn't he saying, with his actions, things in the first list are bad and things in the first list are good? That you should minimize the former and maximize the latter?

I could call him retarded on that premise alone. I could call him a hypocrite because he doesn't refuse medecine and simply DIE the next time he gets an infection.

YOU get real. The man is obviously a frickin luddite and you simply want to whitewash it. Living in the suburbs doesn't mean you hate technology. Living in a cabin in Alaska like a nutcase does.

No, I don't agree with that premise at all. The fact that he worked for 30 years as an engineer, saved up enough money to retire early and live the lifestyle he wants, the lifestyle that makes him happy, does not makes him evil or retarded. Are you saying he would have NOT been retarded if he'd sat home and watched TV every day or eaten in a local diner every day for the next 30 years? What about Objectivism tells you that you must value other people, a TV, or a microwave? NOTHING.

How about the fact that I go camping and don't live with a coffeemaker, a microwave, or any modern conveniences for the week-end? Does that make me retarded? What if I were to do it for a week? A month? A year? How about if I use a tent? Does that make me accepting enough of technology to be a non-retard? What if I just sleep out in a sleeping bag without a tent? Does that make me reject technology just enough to be a retard? See the slippery slope of your argument? Where in between living in the suburbs and living in a cabin in Alaska does one become a retard? Tell us all, please.

I enjoy the wind in my hair, the sun on my face, and the different smells up in the mountains, with no noise or other people to distract me from my own thoughts. And I'll be damned if I'm going to just sit here and watch you insult people you don't know or tell me or others what we all need to value.

Inspector, exactly how does being smart enough to be that self-sufficient for 30 years make you a retard? As for personal discomfort and hardship, don't we all work to achieve desired ends? Is exercise personal discomfort and hardship? Or is it exhilarating? How about building a house by yourself, and having pride in your abilities to do so? Physically stenuous? Yes. But with a lot of reward in knowing that you did it yourself and you didn't depend on anyone else to do so. This man led an independent and challenging life, just different than the one you would choose for yourself, and that is why you condemn him. If living and thriving for 30 years in a house you made yourself with tools you made yourself eating food you grew or hunted yourself doesn't make you a conquerer of nature, I don't know what does.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[Inspector]

Oh, I see, but do you see what I'm saying? I'm saying one can value the non-man-made for the same reasons one values the man-made: they can bring great benefit to man. To value the non-man-made doesn't necessarily mean to value it intrinsically or because it brings no value to man.

Maybe. Clarify a point: Do you value the non-man-made outside of saying "I value this because I'm going to harness it in some way to be of use to me?" (or because it CAN be harnessed to be of use, etc)

[HaloNoble6]

No, everything I find of value in the non-man-made is rooted in the fact that it is of value to me, whether through some current application or some very realizable future application. (this includes, by the way, the pleasing experience of hiking a trail with my two heathens) I don't desire preservation for preservation's sake, I desire actions geared toward benefit to my life.

Edited November 16, 2005 by Felipe

[Thales]

I agree, Thales. I'll take it one further: I think that cabin guy is an idiot and a hypocrite. He sure liked his "natural life" but he used man-made medecines to stay alive. "Naturalism" is nothing more than a child's fantasy, based on the retardedly false notion that man can survive "in tune with nature."

I just caught this, Inspector. I don't know if he's a hypocrite. If he's a guy who simply likes nature and likes to rough it, I see nothing wrong with that per se. However, if he's some sort of an anti-society person, I'd take issue with him.

I do remember that guy who went into the wild to live with and observe bears in Alaska. He's irrational view of bears cost him, and his girl friend's, life at the paw of a grizzly bear.

[Inspector]

No, I don't agree with that premise at all.

Bottom line: he has chosen a life rejecting technology. The very thing that made him wealthy enough to retire. Do you say that he is NOT rejecting technology by living there and in that way?

The fact that he worked for 30 years as an engineer, saved up enough money to retire early and live the lifestyle he wants, the lifestyle that makes him happy, does not makes him evil or retarded.

What's retarded is "the lifestyle he wants." The fact that it makes him happy is IRRELEVANT. What if I filled in the blank like this:

"The goat fornicator was a man who worked for 30 years as an engineer, saved up enough money to retire early and life the lifestyle he wants, (fornicating with goats all day) the lifestyle that makes him happy, does not make him evil or retarded."

The fact that he worked to achieve his chosen lifestyle or that it makes him happy, has no bearing on the judgement of that lifestyle.

Are you sayinh he would have NOT been retarded if he'd sat home and watched TV every day for the next 30 years or eaten in a local diner every day for the next 30 years?

I have said only that his lifestyle, that of rejecting technology, is bad. I did not say any particular lifestyle that happens to include technology is necessarily good.

What about Objectivism tells you that you must value other people, a TV, or a microwave? NOTHING.

Objectivism does not say anything at all that is divorced from context. But it does say that technology is man's means of survival, and that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death. A rejection of technology is a rejection of life.

How about the fact that I go camping and don't live with a coffeemaker, a microwave, or any modern conveniences for the week-end? Does that make me retarded?

It's not my cup of tea. It's only retarded if you're doing to reject technology and embrace "nature."

See the slippery slope of your argument?

It's only slippery if you look at it a-contextually. Somewhere between living in the city and living as a hermet in Alaska, a person necessarily rejects technology. It is at that point that he becomes a retard.

And I'll be damned if I'm going to just sit here and watch you insult people you don't know or tell me or others what we all need to value.

I don't know Che Guevera, but I guarantee you he's a jerk. And are you saying that you don't need to value technology?

Inspector, exactly how does being smart enough to be that self-sufficient for 30 years make you a retard?

That's cute, how you twist it to make it sound like I'm criticizing his self-sufficiency. What I'm criticizing is that he's a freakin' LUDDITE.

This man led an independent and challenging life, just different than the one you would choose for yourself, and that is why you condemn him. If living and thriving for 30 years in a house you made yourself with tools you made yourself eating food you grew or hunted yourself doesn't make you a conquerer of nature, I don't know what does.

How about starting the engine of my car? I'd say that I conquer nature 1000 times as much in the 1/2 second that I do that than in the 30 years he spent living with "unspoiled" nature in that cabin.

[Thales]

Maybe. Clarify a point: Do you value the non-man-made outside of saying "I value this because I'm going to harness it in some way to be of use to me?" (or because it CAN be harnessed to be of use, etc)

Inspector, you can value something for esthetic beauty, or because it's fascinating and fun to observe. Lots of things in nature are quite fascinating.

I do agree there is probably much more that can be had by trying to harness nature by understanding it, but there is much to be derived from immersing yourself in it from time to time.

Btw, Harry Binswanger has a cottage out on an island in Canada that he visits every so often. The only way out there is by his boat. I'm sure he just enjoys going out there to relax and enjoy nature.

[Inspector]

No, everything I find of value in the non-man-made is rooted in the fact that it is of value to me, whether through some current application or some very realizable future application.

Then we have no quarrel.

Inspector, you can value something for esthetic beauty, or because it's fascinating and fun to observe. Lots of things in nature are quite fascinating.

But something can only have esthetic beauty if there is a reason. Nature qua nature isn't beautiful. Nature qua this-is-useful-to-me-in-some-way can be.

Btw, Harry Binswanger has a cottage out on an island in Canada that he visits every so often. The only way out there is by his boat. I'm sure he just enjoys going out there to relax and enjoy nature.

Are you sure that he enjoys it as "unspoiled by man?" I'm sure he does NOT. There are plenty of things to like about being out alone on your own land, but the embrace of "nature" is not one of them.

Liro,

If cabin man came out and said "I don't hate technology. I don't reject technology. I'm not avoiding technology qua technology... they just don't have DSL out here," then I'd take back every last word I said about him. But I see the chances of that as being about zero.

[Thales]

But something can only have esthetic beauty if there is a reason. Nature qua nature isn't beautiful.

Yes, there is a reason. Fresh air is natural and good for the body. A cool breeze can feel good. Walking across warm rocks can be pleasant. The smell of flowers can be pleasing. A vista can be appealing to the eye.

Furthemore, we have a kinship with other living things, because they have many of the same requirements we have. So, we can enjoy watching them just live, as we enjoy living ourselves.

I'd much rather be in a place with rabbits and trees and grass and a stream, than on a barren desert with nothing around. There is much esthetic value that you can gain from nature, including the inspiration to live by seeing how other things in nature thrive.

And what about camping and canoeing? I've done those things quite a bit and that's great fun.

Are you sure that he enjoys it as "unspoiled by man?" I'm sure he does NOT.

I'm just referring to nature here. The "unspoiled by man" phrase is environmentalist, anti-man propaganda. Nature untouched by man may be interested to observe, but it's not some ideal I'd ever strive for. It's a very backward and evil notion to set that as an ideal. On that you are spot on, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just because some people have screwed up values, doesn't mean we can't enjoy nature for all of the things it has to offer.

To be sure, my general attitude is that I'm more interested in man gaining more control and power over his life, so that he can live better and longer. But, enjoying nature is simply part of that bigger picture.

"The meek shall inherit the earth. The rest of us shall go to the stars!" --perhaps Heinlein? Great quote anyway.

[RationalBiker]

Yes, there is a reason. Fresh air is natural and good for the body. A cool breeze can feel good. Walking across warm rocks can be pleasant. The smell of flowers can be pleasing. A vista can be appealing to the eye.

I'm not sure you guys are really disagreeing on this particular point. I think Inspector is saying that nature does not have agent-less aesthetic value. In other words, nature has no intrinsic aesthetic value. You appear to be saying that an agent can have reason to see beauty in nature.

Unless you are trying to say nature has intrinsic value, I don't see where you guys are in contention.

Objectivism does not say anything at all that is divorced from context. But it does say that technology is man's means of survival, and that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death. A rejection of technology is a rejection of life.

Actually, Objectivism says REASON is man's means of survival.

[HaloNoble6]

I think Inspector is saying that nature does not have agent-less aesthetic value. In other words, nature has no intrinsic aesthetic value. You appear to be saying that an agent can have reason to see beauty in nature.

Could you perhaps elaborate on that? What is "agent-less aesthetic value?" What is "intrinsic aesthetic value?" I find that there are things which I evaluate as beautiful which are "untouched by the hand of man." Do you have an objection to this?

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Technology predates both science and engineering. It is the application of knowledge to meet a specific desire. Technology includes all the objects from pencil and paper to the latest electronic gadget. So, it would include building your own house using whatever tools you have, erecting a chimney, working up your own door hinges from stumps, or making your own backpack to carry a hend-hewn tabletop or a dead caribou that you shot yourself. Not everyone's cup of tea, clearly. But if Proenneke were avoiding technology, he wouldn't have bothered to build a cabin with tools or use a gun to hunt. He would literally have remained unclothed or dug in the soil with bare hands for roots to eat... and starve... and die.

Inspector, the main issue here is that you don't value nature aesthetically, you don't need more of it in your life to increase your happiness, and you've decided that anyone else who does is a retard. Right?

Edited November 16, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[Thales]

I'm not sure you guys are really disagreeing on this particular point. I think Inspector is saying that nature does not have agent-less aesthetic value. In other words, nature has no intrinsic aesthetic value. You appear to be saying that an agent can have reason to see beauty in nature.

Yes, a value requires a valuer, since it is a kind of relationship. However, I think that Inspector may be selling some possible values derivable from nature short.

At the end of the day, the Inspector and I agree on fundamentals. We're only hammering out details on the periphery here.

[RationalBiker]

Could you perhaps elaborate on that? What is "agent-less aesthetic value?" What is "intrinsic aesthetic value?" I find that there are things which I evaluate as beautiful which are "untouched by the hand of man." Do you have an objection to this?

No, I have not objection to this because you are the agent finding the aesthetic value in nature. I assume you don't think that what you find as aesthetic value in nature is something that is aesthetically pleasing to everyone, or even in the absence of someone to value it. Is that correct? Because you value nature, does that mean nature has intrinsic (aesthetic) value?

I'm saying there is no intrinsic aesthetic value to nature, or that there is no value in nature (in and of itself) without someone to value it. By agent-less, I mean without a valuer.

[Inspector]

I'm not sure you guys are really disagreeing on this particular point. I think Inspector is saying that nature does not have agent-less aesthetic value. In other words, nature has no intrinsic aesthetic value. You appear to be saying that an agent can have reason to see beauty in nature.

Right on.

Actually, Objectivism says REASON is man's means of survival.

It does indeed. But it also says "Money is your means of survival." (Francisco's money speech) so it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. And also, "life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death." So I put two and two together.

[Inspector]

Yes, there is a reason. Fresh air is natural and good for the body.

Natural air is no better for the body than "unnatural" 02, so long as both are clean.

A cool breeze can feel good. Walking across warm rocks can be pleasant. The smell of flowers can be pleasing.

All true.

A vista can be appealing to the eye.

Right, but it must be appealing for a reason; a rational reason that you can trace back to your self. It isn't just appealing for no reason in-and-of-itself.

Furthemore, we have a kinship with other living things, because they have many of the same requirements we have. So, we can enjoy watching them just live, as we enjoy living ourselves.

I don't look at things that way. Nature, by itself, by "nature," survives. Its means of survival is inherantly in conflict with humanity's means of survival. (see the animal rights thread) All animals, fundamentally, is metaphysically in conflict with us. Nature must be conquered; subordinated to serve OUR needs. Only after this is done is it something that is of value; and it is only in seeing the potential to do this that untouched nature can be seen to have beauty. (which is what Felipe was saying was the basis of his appreciation of nature)

I'd much rather be in a place with rabbits and trees and grass and a stream, than on a barren desert with nothing around.

*Shrugs* I moved to the desert and I like it much better here.

There is much esthetic value that you can gain from nature, including the inspiration to live by seeing how other things in nature thrive.

Very good, you have a reason. That's all I ask.

Technology includes all the objects from pencil and paper to the latest electronic gadget. So, it would include building your own house using whatever tools you have, erecting a chimney, working up your own door hinges from stumps, or making your own backpack to carry a hend-hewn tabletop or a dead caribou that you shot yourself.

Absolutely. That's why I used the "hypocracy" comment. Because he wasn't rejecting technology consistantly.

But if Proenneke were avoiding technology, he wouldn't have bothered to build a cabin with tools or use a gun to hunt. He would literally have remained unclothed or dug in the soil with bare hands for roots to eat... and starve... and die.

That would have, at least, been consistant. And that's my point. Where is the reason in rejecting some technology? Even luddites and Amish didn't stop using EVERY technology. They just said that a certain level of survival was "pure" and everything beyond that point is evil. That's what I think is retarded.

Stagnation is death. Life is motion; the proper life of man is to always, always, strive for the BETTER. Better, faster, stronger!

[RationalBiker]

It does indeed. But it also says "Money is your means of survival." (Francisco's money speech) so it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. And also, "life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death." So I put two and two together.

Fair enough.

However, having a house in the woods in which to live is employing technology. Wearing clothes to keep you warm is employing technology. One need not employ high technology to be employing technology to assist in one's living.

[softwareNerd]

We've really wandered off topic here, and I doubt we know enough about this particular guy's motives: did he want the challenge (like someone climbing a mountain), did he just hate technology and modern life, did he just want someone to make a movie of him.

Anyhow, back to: what is environmentalism? Let me summarize where we are.

I think both "sides" in the discussion slew some straw men and it happily transpires that we all agree that the only reason to value and preserve the environment is for human beings; things don't have intrinsic value per se.

Lirio drew three categories:

1) Rational [Those who have an 'environment is for man' view]

2) Those who want to save the environment for the environment's sake [An either-or environment vs. man view, where they favor the environment]

3) Those who do not care about the environment at all [An either-or environment vs. man view, where they favor the man]

Are we now discussing whether these three categories are valid? Are we discussing which one of these should be called "environmentalist"?

[Inspector]

If you're going to put it in those terms, it will be necessary to define "environment."

[Free Capitalist]

Inspector, I've read your posts in this thread, and I have to say that I very very strongly disagree not only with the concrete arguments you make here, but with your entire epistemology as such. That's why although you've taken to defend a good principle (environmentalists are bad) you've ended up attacking a woman who has made some amazingly perceptive points, and yourself have made statements that are really almost impossible to believe.

Objectivism does not say anything at all that is divorced from context. But it does say that technology is man's means of survival, and that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death. A rejection of technology is a rejection of life.

Really. And where exactly does it say that "a rejection of technology is a rejection of life"? A full citation, with page numbers, please.

If I want to uproot a plant in my garden, and can use a car to do it very simply, but instead opt to do it with my own bare hands just to feel the strength of my muscles and the virility of my body -- that's a rejection of life? What philosophy exactly are you living by? Because it certainly doesn't appear to be Objectivism.

[Objectivism] also says "Money is your means of survival." (Francisco's money speech)

Oh goodness gracious. Money was invented in Asia Minor, in 700s BC. Does that mean that everyone who lived before that lived on the premise of rejection of life?

I very strongly, in the strongest words possible, object to your misuse of Miss Rand's writing, and mis-excerpting what she wrote out of context.

Yes this post is sudden, and yes it is out of nowhere, but after all a man can only take so much.

Edited November 20, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Free Capitalist]

Let me try to provide my own view in regard to environmentalism. There are two kinds of environmentalists -- the loud and explicit ones -- the intellectuals who make the talks and write the books, and the quiet, regular folks who nevertheless feel distaste about the modern world, and feel that nature without man is more righteous than nature with.

So for those who really appreciate nature in the context of man, who value it not in how much it lacks man's interference, but in how much it can add to their own life and to the life of other human beings, I think those people will have a serious up-hill battle trying to reclaim the term 'environmentalism' from so many people who infuse it with such a bad meaning. Plus, considering the fact that the word was coined by hard-core anti-life people in the first place (Rachel Carson did a good share of the work), I would suggest not trying to reclaim the term in the first place, but going with what's in use already -- words like 'botanist', 'ecologist', etc etc.

Nature is wonderful, please continue keeping it in good condition for the rest of us to enjoy it!

Edited November 20, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Inspector]

Inspector, I've read your posts in this thread, and I have to say that I very very strongly disagree not only with the concrete arguments you make here, but with your entire epistemology as such. That's why although you've taken to defend a good principle (environmentalists are bad) you've ended up attacking a woman who has made some amazingly perceptive points, and yourself have made statements that are really almost impossible to believe.

Okay.......

Really. And where exactly does it say that "a rejection of technology is a rejection of life"? A full citation, with page numbers, please.

If you read what I'm saying closely, that statement is my logical derivation of what I cited in direct quotes. If you choose to interpret my statement as intrinsic and made regardless of context, then of course it's going to look bad. If there's something about how I've said it that implies I meant it in such an intrinsic manner, then I am listening.

If I want to uproot a plant in my garden, and can use a car to do it very simply, but instead opt to do it with my own bare hands just to feel the strength of my muscles and the virility of my body -- that's a rejection of life? What philosophy exactly are you living by? Because it certainly doesn't appear to be Objectivism.

Where did I say that? With page numbers, please. I'm presenting, to my knowledge, the viewpoint that a rejection of technology qua technology is bad. If I'm presenting that improperly, I'm open to suggestions about how I could better present that.

Oh goodness gracious. Money was invented in Asia Minor, in 700s BC. Does that mean that everyone who lived before that lived on the premise of rejection of life?

Calm down and read more closely. I explained immediately afterward and in that same post why I quoted that statement. It was to show that something other than reason itself could be "your means of survival." Ayn Rand didn't mean that statement intrinsically and neither did I.

I very strongly, in the strongest words possible, object to your misuse of Miss Rand's writing, and mis-excerpting what she wrote out of context.

I encourage you to re-examine my use of it.

Yes this post is sudden, and yes it is out of nowhere, but after all a man can only take so much.

You're frustrated. I can understand that, since you haven't been involved in this discussion. I hope you've gotten it off your chest now and can see that I'm listening and open to reason.

So for those who really appreciate nature in the context of man, who value it not in how much it lacks man's interference, but in how much it can add to their own life and to the life of other human beings, I think those people will have a serious up-hill battle trying to reclaim the term 'environmentalism' from so many people who infuse it with such a bad meaning.

I agree! I would only add that in attempting to legitimize the term, there is the side-effect of potentially legitimizing the evil, man-hating people who coined it. There isn't any reason why a different term can't be used, and I think that this consequence is dire enough that the attempt should NOT be made.

[Free Capitalist]

If you choose to interpret my statement as intrinsic and made regardless of context, then of course it's going to look bad. If there's something about how I've said it that implies I meant it in such an intrinsic manner, then I am listening.

Yes, I do regard it being made out of context. Objectivism says that technology is good in principle, not that it is good acontextually and in every possible situation. The two are far from the same. I can still hold technology as good in principle, but reject to use it at this particular moment (i.e. regard it inappropriate at this point in time, when I want to use something else, say my body). T

Where did I say that? With page numbers, please. I'm presenting, to my knowledge, the viewpoint that a rejection of technology qua technology is bad. If I'm presenting that improperly, I'm open to suggestions about how I could better present that.

Yes I believe you are presenting it improperly. And where? In all of your arguments against the man who went out into the wilderness to live a simpler life. His entire course of action can be interpreted in the same way as my choice to use my hands rather than a machine to perform a difficult task. If it's ok in my case, why is it not okay in his? You assume that he rejected technology not only in that instance, but held it as bad in principle, and condemned him on that grounds. And because of this assumption, you have made a severe and hasty derogatory moral judgment upon a person who completely might not deserve it.

I recommend you look at the thread Betsy Speicher started about the epistemology of judging people (here), which she started precisely because someone else had approached the task of judging people with a very similar mindset.

I explained immediately afterward and in that same post why I quoted that statement. It was to show that something other than reason itself could be "your means of survival." Ayn Rand didn't mean that statement intrinsically and neither did I.

The apparent meaning was that, "since Ayn Rand said that technology is good, in the same way as Ayn Rand said that money is good, the mountaneer man is bad." That was your syllogism. If you had meant something else, that's a different story, but I have read your post clearly, and so have some of the others, and the apparent meaning seems to be rather obvious (and quoting AR out of context all the way through, to corroborate this apparent and erroneous meaning).

You're frustrated. I can understand that, since you haven't been involved in this discussion. I hope you've gotten it off your chest now and can see that I'm listening and open to reason.

Then I hope you apologize to Liriodendron Tulipifera for judging her too quickly, and retract your condemnation of the mountaneer man until more information is available to corroborate your conclusion (and frankly, the little evidence that was presented in this thread points to a conclusion that is opposite). Edited November 20, 2005 by Free Capitalist

[Inspector]

Yes, I do regard it being made out of context. Objectivism says that technology is good in principle, not that it is good acontextually and in every possible situation. The two are far from the same. I can still hold technology as good in principle, but reject to use it at this particular moment (i.e. regard it inappropriate at this point in time, when I want to use something else, say my body). T

Okay, so you have interpreted my statement as being "technology is good acontextually and in every possible situation." I'm sorry if I have been less than clear, but that is NOT how I meant it.

I'd like to remind you of how this particular line of discussion got started:

First, I take issue with the constant theme of "industry has been more helpful than harmful."

The position I have been arguing for is that "industry has been more helpful than harmful" is a right and proper theme. Speaking generally, industry HAS been more helpful than harmful. I'm not saying it has NEVER been harmful; I'm saying that Liro's statement there is most certainly NOT a proper one. It isn't one that Ayn Rand would have agreed with, and I provided the quote as proof.

If I thought that technology was good acontextually, I wouldn't have said "Themes as a rule must be generaliztions."

[Inspector]

Yes I believe you are presenting it improperly. And where? In all of your arguments against the man who went out into the wilderness to live a simpler life. His entire course of action can be interpreted in the same way as my choice to use my hands rather than a machine to perform a difficult task. If it's ok in my case, why is it not okay in his? You assume that he rejected technology not only in that instance, but held it as bad in principle, and condemned him on that grounds. And because of this assumption, you have made a severe and hasty derogatory moral judgment upon a person who completely might not deserve it.

That is indeed the assumption that I am operating on. I don't make the same assumption of you with your example of pulling the weed because of the context. It's one thing for a man to perform a single task without the aid of technology. It's another thing for a man to commit to living out the entire remainder of his life with as little technology as possible. I see the man in the cabin as doing what he did specifically to live with as little technology as possible. I have put him into the same category that I would put the Amish or the Luddites.

I did admit, in post #107, the remote possibility that he had some other motive for his actions besides a hatred of technology:

Liro,

If cabin man came out and said "I don't hate technology. I don't reject technology. I'm not avoiding technology qua technology... they just don't have DSL out here," then I'd take back every last word I said about him. But I see the chances of that as being about zero.

I just do not see that as being a particularly likely possibility. If I am wrong, and he was not dedicating the remainder of his life to the avoidence of technology qua technology, then I am prepared to apologize.

The apparent meaning was that, "since Ayn Rand said that technology is good, in the same way as Ayn Rand said that money is good, the mountaneer man is bad." That was your syllogism.

That's not quite right. Yes, I was making the point that Ayn Rand said that technology is good in the same way that she said that money is good. But I didn't think anyone would interpret that to mean, "Ayn Rand said money is good acontextually, therefore she also said that technology is good acontextually." The reason why I didn't think anyone would interpret it that way is because I thought everyone here knew that Ayn Rand did NOT say that money is good acontextually because she NEVER meant ANY statement to be taken as an out-of-context absolute.

I wasn't saying that the mountaneer man was bad because [acontextual statement]. I was saying he was bad because it is my assertion that he was in fact rejecting technology qua technology; not as an isolated incident, but as the ENTIRE goal and purpose of the rest of his life.

Then I hope you apologize to Liriodendron Tulipifera for judging her too quickly, and retract your condemnation of the mountaneer man until more information is available to corroborate your conclusion (and frankly, the little evidence that was presented in this thread points to a conclusion that is opposite).

I have judged Lirodendron of the following:

1) Assuming, improperly, that the motives of various "nature-loving" people are pure.

2) Being against the theme "industry has been more helpful than harmful"

3) Implicitly, of in general giving too much leeway to "pro-nature" people, themes, and issues and giving too little leeway to "pro-industry" people, themes, and issues. I consider this to be the honest mistake of someone who hasn't quite realized the scope of the corruption and evil of the enemy of environmentalism.

If any of these judgments is false, then I would like to see how. Perhaps you meant that I had judged the mountaineer man too harshly?

Edited November 20, 2005 by Inspector

[Free Capitalist]

I wasn't saying that the mountaneer man was bad because [acontextual statement]. I was saying he was bad because it is my assertion that he was in fact rejecting technology qua technology; not as an isolated incident, but as the ENTIRE goal and purpose of the rest of his life.

Goodness, how can you possibly have justification for saying any of that, based solely on this thread?

As in regards to the apology I think you should have made, I won't go into a point-by-point response to your reasons for being rude to her. The main things she's said in this thread has been nothing but appropriate (even if I will not entirely agree with her use of the term 'environmentalism'). Especially considering the fact that when there will always be people to remind of the value of industry for us, it is very good to have people to remind of the value of nature for us. This she has done so extremely well, not to mention doing so from a rational framework of a scientist, i.e. someone who respects reason by definition. And like I said, you've been nothing but rude to her, making assumptions she's in this hostile camp or that. My view is that you should apologize to her, but of course what you choose to do is entirely up to you.

Edited November 20, 2005 by Free Capitalist