Report Why is O'ism against environmentalism? in Questions about Objectivism Posted July 27, 2007 · Edited July 27, 2007 by themadkat If you haven't already, give a read to the essays in the post above yours. Especially The Return of the Primitive. As to the question of science, the environmentalists are lying about that. Ayn Rand called it 30+ years ago and it remains true today because they are doing it for philosophical reasons (which she also called). And no I don't know what you mean by the "ism" thing. Too used to seeing BS out there that you won't accept truth when you see it? Or so befuddled by BS that you don't believe something can be true? Whatever your reasons, you had better take it to the debate forum if you wish to discuss it, because it's against the rules here. (I mean that; my questions in this paragraph are rhetorical) It's enough to make the statement, which is appreciated for clarity. I actually did take a look at Return of the Primitive, enough at least to know that that's the work in which she makes her main arguments against environmentalism. But I feel like she misunderstands some environmentalist positions and incorrectly posits a dichotomy of "technological society exactly as it is now with all the inherent environmental problems it causes" and "everyone living in a stinking hovel with no modern conveniences". I don't think that questioning the cost-benefit analysis of some of our modern systems is the same as wishing we were forest-dwelling hunter-gatherers. I mean, hey, industrial society is great. I love my internet, my computer, the fact that I don't have to die of a simple infection, the fact that I can talk to people all over the world, the fact that I can travel all over the world without serious bodily peril (most of the time), the fact that generally food is available and cheap, all those things. Best of all I love the feedback loop between advances in science and advances in technology, with one reinforcing and making possible the other (personal note: I am a scientist by trade, or at least I will be). And I'll agree Rand made some great points. A lot of irrationality needs to be discarded. I found the argument against the worship of Nature as an intrinsic value particularly strong. I'm not exactly sure how you can even classify Nature as a giant monolith like that, to be worshipped or not. The truth is that even when you are "despoiling Nature" in the worst possible ways, you're actually helping some organism or other, and those are "nature" too. So the whole unassailable Nature-value has absolutely got to go, since not only is it wrongheaded it really doesn't even make sense. And when people are extremely irrational you tend to get things like PETA killing animals...in the name of saving animals. For anyone who doesn't already know, PETA actually kills far more animals than it saves (I think this is widely known by now, though). Kat Oh, also: editing post to add that I know truth is real, and that the truth is something I deeply love. One could possibly say that the truth is the only thing I really find sacred. One thing I wholeheartedly agree with Objectivists on is that the truth must never be compromised, no matter what the consequences.