Zedic

That right there is the big distinction. Objectivism says it's not in favor of destroying the environment, but in words only. If there's ever a situation that pits human civilization against the continued health of the environent, Objectivism is always on the side of denying that we're having any appreciable affect on this planet. There is decades of scientific research by thousands upon thousands of highly trained scientists about our impact on the environment and subsequently on ourselves. Yet Objectivism is miraculously still in denial. I don't claim to be any sort of expert in philosophy. I'm a physicist, philosophy is only a hobby so there's always the possibility for misunderstanding on my part. But anyone can create 1 dimensional characters to make any kind point. It's still not demonstrative of reality. I think it's only fair I'm given the opportunity to over come my disabilities to become a fully functioning adult. That can include accommodations provided by Institutions and protection against discrimination by laws such as the ADA. Those accommodations have served me well in life and I'm very close to being a 100% autonomous and contributing member of society. But early on there was no evidence that I could ever become a contributing member of society. In an Objectivist society that would of regarded the early me as a mental deficient, where would I of fit in? Would I of had a chance? The part I disagree with is the emphasis. That's where I depart from Objectivism. I believe all people deserve compassion. I believe in finding the "divine" (I use that word symbolically) in all individual. It's not always easy but it's a personal conviction I can't sever. Yes, I was factually mistaken here. Correction: Objectivists do not find animal torture moral. But my contention is with anti-Animal Welfare. The fact that Objectivism can't find a justification for animal welfare is proof (to me at least) of its moral failure. If it can't find a reason to protect an innocent dog who can't help himself, but must rely on human kindness for his very life, when he's being brutally beat or mutilated then it fails to meet even a basic moral requirement. Peer pressure can work on someone who has a conscience. But for anyone who has ever worked with animals or done animal rescue (such as myself) knows for a fact that it's largely useless in fighting abuse.

I understand that principles come first. I've read Atlas Shrugged (and I'm familiar with the general plot outline of The Fountain Head). But perhaps I was mistaken. Objectivism is more concerned about how we impact the environment or about homeless people falling through the cracks than it is the dollar, no? I can agree with those basic values. On a day to day basis I probably share a lot in common with other Objectivists than not. But when those values are applied to something bigger than myself, such as society or animal welfare, it simply doesn't work for me.

It's not about being right or viewing Objectivism from an angel that sits well with your sensibilities. It's a demonstration of a false assumption Objectivism makes. It's simply not for everyone. She didn't solve Hume's is-ought problem. No one "ought" to be an Objectivist in life. It's a matter of what appeals to you as an individual.

I tried living according to Objectivist principles and it doesn't float my boat. Why? Because it requires me to take certain ideals which I think are important to one degree or another, but jack them up higher on my priority than I'm comfortable with. It went against my every fiber of my being to live according to Rand's philosophy. It made me feel unhappy and miserable trying to suppress values which came naturally to me. The only way I could sustain it was to fuel how right I was by demonstrating how wrong and immoral altruism was. What values did it conflict with? I think it's important to preserve the biosphere on this planet as much as possible, but Objectivism promotes not just a big foot print, but getting away with as much as possible by rationalizing and down playing the extent our foot prints have on this planet. Economics, equality and ecology are in equal footing with me. The assertion that doing anything except making dollars the #1 priority in economics inexorably leads to disaster is laughable to me. The only way Rand could demonstrate how her axioms demand that one must make money a top priority in Atlas Shrugged is if she made all the altruists in her story extreme caricatures that sure don't reflect me at all. Why aren't they moderates? A moderate wouldn't make the crazy decisions that James Taggart (et el) needed to make in order for her point to get across, thus undermining her entire premise. An indirect consequence of Objectivism would be how education would be approached. The way education is taught in society reflects the end goals of the education. In the case of a staunch capitalist society, the goal would be to produce people with agentic qualities and who excel in very narrow academic measures. Why would such a society care about someone like me, autistic and diagnosed learning disabled early on? The only reason I hadn't fallen through the cracks is because of government programs which seek fairness in society by helping people like me. "Charity" is often thrown in as a quick addendum to fill in a crack without much after thought given to it. Who would fund a charity? Well, only those who have a vested interest in the problem. That would be the parents. But how would such individuals fit in a society? A leaning bus exposes children to "broken humans"; Clearly, a person like me has no place in an Objectivist society. Inflicting pain on animals for sadistic reasons, while frowned on due to sociopathic tendencies, is in itself considered moral in Objectivist ethics. Abhorrent, and I can make that moral judgment free of Rand's axioms. (A lot like how atheists condemn the Bible's morality despite rejecting the Bible's moral authority.) A great Mark Twain quote that I like goes something like this: "I will live my life in a way that will kill anyone else." By that he meant every person has their own way. There is no way in hell all 6 billion people would happily accept Objectivism "if only they understood it." There's no way everyone on this planet will be a Christian, muslim, atheist, etc. Plauralism is endemic to human nature and there's no way around that.

I prefer to talk to him individually so we can actually discuss it without other comments getting in the way. We can even do it on the debate forum if everyone else would like to watch it.

I'm not an Objectivist so feel free to try and sell me "selfishness" in a PM or something. It can help you refine your rhetorical skills.

I know, Tensorman already pointed out my oversight.

I forgot, I'm dealing with folks who are known for being the epitome of humbleness.

Yes, you're right. It depends, sometimes setting c = 1 is done to simplify the equations. I'm used to using c = speed of light and I over looked that he said c = 1.

My very humble opinion is this: If you don't know physics then you should shut the hell up.

That is incorrect. The proper equations are E^2=m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2; for a particle without mass E=pc and the rest mass of a matter particle is E=mc^2.

I read Dawkin's The God Delusion and found it quite informative. The part which has affected me the 2nd most profoundly (the one on evolutionary altruism is #1) is the last chapter. In it he discusses how our consciousness has evolved within a very narrow band of existence. He used the electromagnetic spectrum as a good example. What we can see is only a tiny fraction of the spectrum. The same goes for reality in general. We need to use tools to examine the very large and very small. This lead me to ask, what's the origin of our reasoning capacities? It's based on our evolutionary experience within that narrow band of reality. So while it feels very normal and natural to assume that existence can't have a beginning, that's under the assumption made by a nervous system which has evolved on a little planet in a small corner of the universe. Under what authority can anyone say that such a nervous system can decree absolutely that existence cannot have an origin?

Do you honestly not understand what that usage of the word means? What religion? Believe: 2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something Webster online dictionary. How was I vague? How so? So, instead of attacking the argument you must attack the person? So its mere existence is enough to deter us from inadvertently doing ourselves harm? I'll like to see you prove that. So no species has ever failed due to a strained environment which wasn't able to sustain them? That's how extinctions happen.

Where have I said I have authority over anyone's life? If you mean that the sustainable development movement might fundamentally change people's attitudes and thus turn the whole system in a direction you don't like, then tough. Those of us who believe in sustainable development have the right to freely make the decisions which leads to its fruition. Splitting hairs doesn't contribute to the discussion. What ideology? I believe it is you who is forcing words into my mouth here.

I've made myself quite clear. But other people coming in and putting words in my mouth and splitting hairs doesn't help get my message across. I've yet to see you justify your position that sustainable development is irrational. You've made a lot of accusations, but so far when I asked you to justify them your response has been silence. Now there's a good idea. I suppose it's all a matter of how one measures efficiency and what one values in life. You may think it's more efficient and long term to use a material once, leaving it non-recoverable for future use. Where I think it's more rational to use it and keep using it again and again. Hell, it'd be cheaper than having to dig more out of the Earth and process it every time we need more. But hey, that's just me and the numerous entrepreneurs in the burgeoning recycling/sustainable manufacturing industry. Ever hear the phrase "stop to smell the roses"? Would the world end if we chose to use more time to think and plan ahead? A little more time to think about where we're heading? Doesn't mean anything needs to stop, just means being a bit more thoughtful. If such a consequence is the result of the sustainable development then all the better. It's better to think rationally and plan ahead than barrel on forward in a single minded pursuit that doesn't stop to ask question.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

Because, any species in a closed environment (ie, the Earth) will eventually drive itself to extinction by consuming all its resources.

Fair enough. I think I have enough to chew on for a while. It's been a very interesting discussion everyone, thanks.

Okay, fair enough. It was a bit of a faux pas for me to use "infinite" in such a way. But based upon my past posts, I think it's safe to assume that any intelligent individual without an agenda can infer what my meaning is and that I don't literally think the sun will last for an eternity (literally). But what I'm not interested in doing is spoon feeding every excruciating logical step for the logically infantile. You'll need to use some of those neurons of yours and figure some of this out yourself. I have some issues with that. For the sake of argument, let's say phosphorus will only last us until 2050. By then, all natural sources of phosphorus has been extracted from the Earth and used up. As the supply dwindles it will become more expensive, thus raising the price of phosphorus. As a consequence, agriculture will become that much more expensive (not to mention the rising price of oil that may accompany it). So what do we do? We find an alternative I assume. That is my understanding. If that is indeed correct, my question is why wait until prices sky rocket? Why not start finding alternatives now? For those of us who prescribe to the principles of sustainable development see no reason to wait. We're instead finding alternatives now. In the case of the agribusiness's use of phosphorus, we choose to patron organic farming because we think it's more sustainable in the long run. It's the same general idea with all the other aspects of sustainable development. Instead of waiting until the last minute when prices of raw materials sky rocket and a scramble for a viable alternative begins, we decide to get a head start on the process. But this is where I have a problem. If only X billion tons of phosphorus exists on the planet, how can it never run out if the way it's used depletes the world's reserves? Prices may soar to ridiculously high amounts with the last scraps of it, making it unviable to extract. But that's as good as gone. It's not going back into the Earth for millions of years. Now we're minus a very versatile and useful material which is used for thousands of applications. If we only use phosphorus in a non-recoverable way, then when it's gone it's gone. I agree, it is situational. There is no one particular solution to any sustainability problem. Fair enough, you make a good point about shale oil and this above. In the end, it's all about personal choice and market demand. If people don't want pesticides, GM foods, or petroleum fertilizer food then they can choose organic. I personally don't like the way the large agribusiness is run and choose organic for that reason. I do think agribusiness is unsustainable, but I'm not an expert on the topic so I can't prove it right now. If indeed I'm right and it is unsustainable, reality will step in and give everyone a reality check anyway. Unless there's a massive technological break through, I don't see solar as a powerful enough alternative to oil and coal either. I'm placing my bets of nuclear power (both fusion and fission) for large scale operations. Wind, solar, and others will still play a role. But I agree with you there, they're better tailored for private homes.

"The Universe" used to be the Earth. Then it used to be solar system. And then it was the galaxy. We then found that there are more galaxies than just our own. Yet we can arbitrarily state that "everything that exists" can not include anything like a multiverse because....? Sure, I can understand a reasoned argument against a multiverse. But if it needs to be explained then it's not self evident. So in that case, how can it be an axiom?

There is no consequence in anything I have said which demands the impossible. If you're so adamant that there is, you'll have to prove (rationally) how. The delusion that sustainable development demands man to cease existing is baseless. Of course there's no magical ability. There's this thing called the sun and such a thing as "solar energy" which powers and will continue to power the perpetual loop for the next ~3 billion years. We also have other technologies at our disposal such as nuclear, wind, hydrogen, geothermal, and wave energy. If you honestly don't believe that nature cycles resources in an "infinite" (if you took my use of language so literally to justify this rant then I call red herring) loop, then I'm curious to know how you think it's supposed to work. Thank you for such a decent, rational reply. I'm glad to hear you're honest with yourself about the reality of oil. Yes, there is shale oil and more expensive forms of oil. So more expensive forms of oil means more expensive groceries, since petroleum is absolutely necessary for the operation of the agribusiness. Unless they were to go organic. I'd be interested to see if shale oil can indeed be turned into fertilizer and pesticides, and if so how expensive would it be vs. organic farming which uses neither. So you're saying solar isn't sustainable? Is oil sustainable? If anything which uses energy or resources isn't sustainable, then you freely admit, by consequence, that nothing today is sustainable. Look, just because something requires energy and materials doesn't mean it's not possible to make it sustainable. Unsustainable means the resources are depleted or permanently damaged. Just because we don't exactly have all the answers now doesn't mean man isn't smart enough to know how to adapt and figure out how to be sustainable. If members here insist that man doesn't have the capacity to not deplete or permanently damage his resources, then I'll have to respectfully disagree. I have much more faith in man's ingenuity than this sort of unimaginative nihilism.

In other words: Oil will never run out? I hardly think oil has the thousands of years of reserves the uranium has. If it lasts by mid-century without peaking I'd be surprised. Don't take my word for it either. Saudi Arabia knows their time is limited. They're on the sustainable bandwagon as well and are currently researching solar technology. Agriculture is sustainable, if done in a sustainable way.

I never said that. Read my first post in its entirety. Well, for one, fishing in the oceans is pulling fish out faster than the fish can repopulate themselves. Phosphorus and oil are projected to have only a matter of decades left in reserves. The agribusiness is not sustainable. Monocultures are more susceptible to disease, the soil is depleted of minerals, and it vitally depends on another limited resource, oil. Nutrients such as phosphorous from large agribusiness establishments runs off and creates dead zones in bays, rivers, etc.; The Chesapeake bay is a shadow of its former self as a result of over fishing and said nutrient runoff. Not to mention the fact that agribusiness is propped up by massive government subsidies. Since oil is in limited supply, and so much depends on it, it doesn't take much imagination to see how unsustainable society is without looking towards alternatives. I'd put the decimation of biodiversity on the list as well. There's more I'm sure, but there's a start. By answering questions such as: Does it consume more resources than it produces? How does it affect the surrounding ecosystem? Is it sustainable? (Sustainable: 1 : capable of being sustained 2 a : of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged. Webster online). Incorrect. Re-read my original post. I never said anything about the cessation of any means of production, only a modification of our extraction and a more efficient way to re-use the materials we've already extracted. For that matter, show me where anyone says anything about sustainable development means production must stop. That's a completely irrational conclusion. The ethos of sustainable development is to mirror nature in its ability to infinitely cycle resources in a continuous loop. To do that requires energy, sure. But since oil is limited anyway, we have no choice but to find a renewable energy source no matter if one believes in sustainable development or not. I was speaking colloquially (informally). I was referring to the resources of the planet and the way humans use them, irrespective of who legally owns what.

No, that isn't what I am doing. I said that's what it looks like phibetakappa is doing. DavidOdden seems to be saying the same thing: (Emphasis added) Such a something cannot exist? By whose authority? The axiom's?

The problem I'm having is, an axiom is something that exists in our minds, it's a human concept. It doesn't make much sense to me to impose that on the external world. To say that the universe couldn't of had a beginning because of the axiom is essentially saying, the universe has this property because my mind accepts a particular idea as axiomatic. The premise that since we exist, a god must of started it all.