To Save The World (Should we?)

[Xaviered]

I read on the news that the world's environmental scientists claim the world is reaching the ''point of no return''. As objectivists, are we morally obligated to play an active part in preventing such an outcome by taking part in environmental causes? Would it be altruism if we devote, consciously, a large amount of our personal will and effort towards ''saving the environment?''. If half of what the scientists say is true, shouldn't anyone with an interest in the continued survival of mankind pursue such a course of action? There have been so many reports on how the world's resources are getting depleted rapidly and how we're going to fly past the point of no return that it's hard to understand why, if it's true, no one is panicking.

Well, should we?

[DavidV]

If humanity were in fact facing imminent environmental doom, it would be wise to prepare for it. However, far worse than mere inaction would be to cripple industry and technological progress, which is our only means of dealing with a constantly changing environment. This is precisely what the environmentalist movement demands - and the destruction of industrial civilization means certain doom regardless of whether or not the environment is in peril.

Read this for more: http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/environmentalism/

Edited October 28, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist

[Xaviered]

If humanity were in fact facing imminent environmental doom, it would be wise to prepare for it. However, far worse than mere inaction would be to cripple industry and technological progress, which is our only means of dealing with a constantly changing environment. This is precisely what the environmentalist movement demands - and the destruction of industrial civilization means certain doom regardless of whether or not the environment is in peril.

Read this for more: <a href="http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/environmentalism/" target="_blank">http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/environmentalism/</a>

So we're in a bind here. We can't stop technological progress or industry, because it would mean destroying man's means of survival, but if we were to continue as we are now, we'll be finished in a few generations? Here's hoping that there would indeed be a new form of technology to deal with this crisis.

[RationalBiker]

Here's hoping that there would indeed be a new form of technology to deal with this crisis.

Is there really a crisis?

Edited October 28, 2007 by RationalBiker

[DavidOdden]

We can't stop technological progress or industry, because it would mean destroying man's means of survival, but if we were to continue as we are now, we'll be finished in a few generations?

You're assuming the validity of the prophecy of doom, but I don't see why you would do that. Is there a specific established scientific fact that you think proves that we're in deep muck?

[softwareNerd]

Xavier, The argument regarding the depletion of the world's resources goes something like this.

1. The Earth is finite
   
2. Therefore the earth's resources (oil, copper, iron, etc.) are finite
   
3. We are using the Earth's oil, iron, copper, etc.
   
4. So, we are using a finite resource
   
5. Therefore, one day, this finite resource will run out
   

This argument comes up against an odd fact: almost every decade, the total known reserves of oil, copper, and all other minerals continues to grow, despite the fact that some has been consumed, and despite the fact that the most readily-accessible deposits have been exploited first. The argument is basically rationalistic. Firstly, it does not take into account the size and potential of the earth, nor look at real history. Most importantly, it does not take into account the most vital resource: man's mind.

Malthus made a similarly dire argument about population. He said that populations increase geometrically, since each couple have more than 2 children (at least in his day), while food supplies (by his calculation) could only increase as an arithmetical progression. Therefore, he predicted, mankind would soon run out of food. His theory is the one of the pillars that supports India's efforts at population control, and China's one-child policy. Yet, his theory is false.

An excellent writer in this area was the late Julian Simon. His books are all freely available on the web. I recommend "The Ultimate Resource-II", if you want to read about this in depth.

[-archimedes-]

I read on the news that the world's environmental scientists claim the world is reaching the ''point of no return''. As objectivists, are we morally obligated to play an active part in preventing such an outcome by taking part in environmental causes? Would it be altruism if we devote, consciously, a large amount of our personal will and effort towards ''saving the environment?''. If half of what the scientists say is true, shouldn't anyone with an interest in the continued survival of mankind pursue such a course of action? There have been so many reports on how the world's resources are getting depleted rapidly and how we're going to fly past the point of no return that it's hard to understand why, if it's true, no one is panicking.

Well, should we?

Personally, I feel that it is the responsibility of every man and woman on this planet, Objectionist or otherwise, to be obligated to play an active part in the continuation of our society, our environment, our species...particularly since all are unavoidably intertwined and interdependent.

Speaking purely from an Objectionist point of view, I find mankind's proliferation conducive to the continuation of amassing wealth, be it from a personal or societal point of view.

In short, that would be a resounding "YES".

[intellectualammo]

Personally, I feel that it is the responsibility of every man and woman on this planet, Objectionist or otherwise, to be obligated to play an active part in the continuation of our society, our environment, our species...particularly since all are unavoidably intertwined and interdependent.

Speaking purely from an Objectionist point of view, I find mankind's proliferation conducive to the continuation of amassing wealth, be it from a personal or societal point of view.

In short, that would be a resounding "YES".

Objectionist?

[-archimedes-]

If humanity were in fact facing imminent environmental doom, it would be wise to prepare for it. However, far worse than mere inaction would be to cripple industry and technological progress, which is our only means of dealing with a constantly changing environment. This is precisely what the environmentalist movement demands - and the destruction of industrial civilization means certain doom regardless of whether or not the environment is in peril.

Read this for more: <a href="http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/environmentalism/" target="_blank">http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/environmentalism/</a>

If I may interject, I find your comments somewhat overly dramatized and wholly untrue (or at least out of context) as the object goal has not now, nor ever been, to "...cripple industry [or] technological progress...", in part from the realization that it actually is "...our only means of dealing with a constantly changing environment."

Nor is it what the environmental movement "demands", rather, they are only demanding that our industrial enterprises invest in the necessary technological safeguards to prevent/eliminate the pollutant contaminants that are a byproduct of said industry, a request/requisite that has long fallen on deaf ears though the technology has long existed.

It is out of this corporate America level disregard for taking the necessary precautions by utilizing the existing technology to insure that our environment isn't needlessly atrophied through misuse, despite the numerous pleas, cries and cultural movements, that has likely lead to what you've termed as the "environmentalist demand" for an end to industry, i.e., the cart before the horse analogy/in legalese, "but for" corporate America's failure to install and utilize the necessary/mandated equipment to prevent an environmental crisis...there would be no crisis.

From either side of the coin that this ever unfolding and evolving scenario is viewed, be it the Capitalist's or the Environmentalist's, the one inescapable, unavoidable conclusion is that man is required for man to to survive and capitalize on said survival, and he'll need a sustainable and supportable environment in which to do so.

Objectionist?

Ah...I see, typo on my part and now too late to fix it...any suggestions?

Edited October 29, 2007 by -archimedes-

[-archimedes-]

Xavier, The argument regarding the depletion of the world's resources goes something like this.

1. The Earth is finite
   
2. Therefore the earth's resources (oil, copper, iron, etc.) are finite
   
3. We are using the Earth's oil, iron, copper, etc.
   
4. So, we are using a finite resource
   
5. Therefore, one day, this finite resource will run out
   

The most telling point is that we knew this going into it, yet have squandered and pilfered our way along through it's endless procurement irregardless of the ecological/environmental repercussions for having done so.

[intellectualammo]

If such is not the case, then please enlighten me.

No, please enlighten me...Objectionist? What or who is that? Never heard of it before... Do you mean Objectivist? Or is that some sort of pun?

[-archimedes-]

No, please enlighten me...Objectionist? What or who is that? Never heard of it before... Do you mean Objectivist? Or is that some sort of pun?

A "typo" on my part with too much time elapsed to allow me the opportunity to "fix" it...apologies.

No, please enlighten me...Objectionist? What or who is that? Never heard of it before... Do you mean Objectivist? Or is that some sort of pun?

A "typo" on my part with too much time elapsed to allow me the opportunity to "fix" it...apologies...embarrassment mine.

[RationalBiker]

Personally, I feel that it is the responsibility of every man and woman on this planet, Objectionist or otherwise, to be obligated to play an active part in the continuation of our society, our environment, our species...particularly since all are unavoidably intertwined and interdependent.

Objectivism is not a duty-oriented philosophy and in fact quite the opposite.

-archimedes- posts may be delayed a bit should he continue responding.

Edited October 29, 2007 by RationalBiker

[Clawg]

Life on earth was able to sustain ~50 billion tons of biomass for a period of 5 billion years and the resources never 'ran out'.

The only question is how much it costs to recycle certain materials or how much it costs to dig deeper. And that depends only on the ability of able minds in science and business and that is an (basically infinite) resource they are destroying. Luckily man is born with an empty mind and is able to perceive reality as it is, so there is always hope that we can recover. Looking at history that hasn't happened very often.

So we can't just halt our industrial progress and say "Ok, we have progressed far enough, let's halt this thing, install a statist world government and see if we can live in harmony with nature at a global scale." because we will continue to need resources and (among other things) without progress and adaption to the changing environment we won't be able to survive and sustain the same quality of life.

The socialists / environmentalists have different premises, they assume that progress is automatic (or worse, that industry actually hinders progress) and that we can sustain our way of life by putting restraints on industry.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The fact that the earth is infinite does mean that at some point either we will have mined out all of the (for instance) iron, or what is left will be prohibitively expensive to get to. This is NOT a real problem however. Long before we get to that point, it will become economical to recycle scrap metal (already is to an extent), or mine asteroids, or we will have found better ways to do things without iron. All of which would also be products of the ultimate resource, the mind.

[intellectualammo]

The fact that the earth is infinite[...]

The earth is finite, including it's resources.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The earth is finite, including it's resources.

D'oh! I meant "finite" and everything else I said should be read that way.

My apologies for making absolutely no sense at all.

[intellectualammo]

D'oh! I meant "finite" and everything else I said should be read that way.

My apologies for making absolutely no sense at all.

In that case I would agree with you, because the market's determined by Say's Law among on other things, and so when there is a real shortage, or a seemingly apparent one, other avenues are explored. I actually see this in a way with enviros or in general with companies going a bit out of their way to find such avenues now...since there is a sector in the market for such materials now for whatever reason... but nonetheless, I would agree with you Steve.

[Thales]

If I may interject, I find your comments somewhat overly dramatized and wholly untrue (or at least out of context) as the object goal has not now, nor ever been, to "...cripple industry [or] technological progress...", in part from the realization that it actually is "...our only means of dealing with a constantly changing environment."

The goal of the environmental movement is to harm and even destroy mankind. There are environmentalists, the intellectuals among them, who claim man is a cancer on the earth. Environmentalism is a nihilistic, destructive philosophy aimed at man. It is not science based.

Nor is it what the environmental movement "demands", rather, they are only demanding that our industrial enterprises invest in the necessary technological safeguards to prevent/eliminate the pollutant contaminants that are a byproduct of said industry, a request/requisite that has long fallen on deaf ears though the technology has long existed.

Environmentalists have lots of people believing the world is coming to an end, that some how there is some sort of terrible destruction going on in the world. Hell, they have created a movement so vast that almost every industry is on board promoting their pernicious ideology in one way or another. It's become a veritable religion. Their big cause celeb is global warming, which amounts to nothing more than dishonest hype.

It is out of this corporate America level disregard for taking the necessary precautions by utilizing the existing technology to insure that our environment isn't needlessly atrophied through misuse, despite the numerous pleas, cries and cultural movements, that has likely lead to what you've termed as the "environmentalist demand" for an end to industry, i.e., the cart before the horse analogy/in legalese, "but for" corporate America's failure to install and utilize the necessary/mandated equipment to prevent an environmental crisis...there would be no crisis.

What crisis? Do you have a definition for the word "crisis"? Words mean things.

From either side of the coin that this ever unfolding and evolving scenario is viewed, be it the Capitalist's or the Environmentalist's, the one inescapable, unavoidable conclusion is that man is required for man to to survive and capitalize on said survival, and he'll need a sustainable and supportable environment in which to do so.

The environment is fine. It's robust. What man must do is improve the environment for man. He has to be able to rearrange it to sustain and improve his life, and better ensure his survival, and environmentalists are getting in the way of that. For instance, people in California can't even create fire breaks (because of environmentalists), which allows fires to more easily spread and kill people and destroy property. Another example, environmentalists have so vilified nuclear power that a plant hasn't been built in the U.S. since the 1970s. Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient power source we have, and would be far and away the cheapest, if it were unregulated. In fact, if environmentalists were worried about pollution and energy they'd support nuclear power, but they haven't been.

[-archimedes-]

Objectivism is not a duty-oriented philosophy and in fact quite the opposite.

-archimedes- posts may be delayed a bit should he continue responding.

Granted, it is more so a philosophy depicting "duty" unto one's self...is it not?

But tell me, is it your opinion that the Objectivists of this planet really could/should care less whether or not the people of this planet continue to survive? Or is it that you feel that Objectivists, alone, should maintain a "laissez faire" attitude in the face of the current environmental situation and just let whatever may come...come, even if it is the demise of the human race? Or, in keeping with the latter, is it that you feel that Objectivists should sit by and let whatever happen happen and take it as it comes even though they may have the opportunity/resources/ability to remedy the outcome? Is there an Objectivist without a people? Does not an Objectionist have a "duty" unto him/herself?

Please indulge me as I'm working to get a handle on your perspective of Objectivism as it relates to the Global environment/survival of humanity.

[-archimedes-]

Life on earth was able to sustain ~50 billion tons of biomass for a period of 5 billion years and the resources never 'ran out'.

Perhaps, but the one point that you're overlooking is that man, and his exploitive excesses on those resources, hasn't been around for the majority of those "5 billion years", none but barely a fraction of that time actually, and yet his exploitation of those very same resources has pushed the resultant environmental ramifications of his actions to levels previously achieved only through world-wide cosmic/environmental cataclysmic events...which says quite a lot in and of itself.

The only question is how much it costs to recycle certain materials or how much it costs to dig deeper. And that depends only on the ability of able minds in science and business and that is an (basically infinite) resource they are destroying. Luckily man is born with an empty mind and is able to perceive reality as it is, so there is always hope that we can recover. Looking at history that hasn't happened very often.

So we can't just halt our industrial progress and say "Ok, we have progressed far enough, let's halt this thing, install a statist world government and see if we can live in harmony with nature at a global scale." because we will continue to need resources and (among other things) without progress and adaption to the changing environment we won't be able to survive and sustain the same quality of life.

As such, in the terms of cost analysis, it's not a "...question [of] how much it costs to recycle certain materials or...to dig deeper", it's a matter of requiring that the "cost" required to install and maintain the technology required to eliminate the environmental impacts of industry so that industrial production can continue.

We shouldn't have to resort to "statist world government" to accomplish this, merely require industry to invest in the required technology first before they invest in recycling or digging deeper, otherwise, you're advocating that industry forsake the needs of the many (themselves included) in favor of the temporary and fleeting gratification of the one as they, too, will become victimized by their own excesses...a dead Objectivist isn't an Objectivist at all, just another corpse.

The socialists / environmentalists have different premises, they assume that progress is automatic (or worse, that industry actually hinders progress) and that we can sustain our way of life by putting restraints on industry.

Environmentalists do not "assume that progress is automatic...", rather, they're working to institute policy that will insure that progress is not halted due to industry depleting/destroying the environment required for said progress and, again, environmentalists are not seeking to halt or constrain industry...only to force them to employ the long existing necessary technology designed to limit/eliminate their impact on the environment from their harmful production byproducts so that they can continue to produce what we all need to progress.

[-archimedes-]

The goal of the environmental movement is to harm and even destroy mankind. There are environmentalists, the intellectuals among them, who claim man is a cancer on the earth. Environmentalism is a nihilistic, destructive philosophy aimed at man. It is not science based.

The very definition of environmentalism alone, i.e., the advocation or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects (a definition obtained by a perusal of any dictionary), wholly defies and contradicts your definition (which it likewise does by it's very contextual construct), which I find as extremely contrived as it is erroneous, prompting me to question your reasoning and rationale for having made such a statement.

Environmentalists have lots of people believing the world is coming to an end, that some how there is some sort of terrible destruction going on in the world.

Do you require me to provide you with a listing of the species of plant, animal, or even mineral, that no longer exist as a direct result of mankind's manipulation of the environment?

Hell, they have created a movement so vast that almost every industry is on board promoting their pernicious ideology in one way or another. It's become a veritable religion.

You mean "veritable religion" as in, say, "Objectivism"?

If "...almost every industry is on board...", wouldn't that alone entail, inherently imply an industry-wide acknowledgement and acceptance of the environmentalists (incorrectly defined) "pernicious ideology"?

Their big cause celeb is global warming, which amounts to nothing more than dishonest hype.

I would be really interested in your providing me with information that stipulates that "Global Warming" is little more than "dishonest hype"...really, as I'm increasingly finding your claims to border on the absurd the more I read.

What crisis? Do you have a definition for the word "crisis"? Words mean things.

Yes, the definition of which I'm referencing is:

cri·sis

1. A stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point.

2.A condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change.

3. A dramatic emotional or circumstantial upheaval in a person's life.

[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME < L < Gk krísis decision, equiv. to kri- var. s. of krnein to decide, separate, judge + -sis -sis]

—Synonyms 1. See emergency.

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

The environment is fine. It's robust. What man must do is improve the environment for man. He has to be able to rearrange it to sustain and improve his life, and better ensure his survival, and environmentalists are getting in the way of that.

I'd like to agree with your contention that it is for man to manipulate his environment in order to better suit his needs, but I find it contradictory to the fact that there would be no "man" to manipulate anything but for the environment out of which he was birthed.

To this end, this un-escapble fact of existence, I feel that it is for man to devise ways, methods & or means to co-exist within his environment instead of expecting the environment to merely step aside and do so for him. We need it, it doesn't need us...remember?

For instance, people in California can't even create fire breaks (because of environmentalists), which allows fires to more easily spread and kill people and destroy property. Another example, environmentalists have so vilified nuclear power that a plant hasn't been built in the U.S. since the 1970s. Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient power source we have, and would be far and away the cheapest, if it were unregulated. In fact, if environmentalists were worried about pollution and energy they'd support nuclear power, but they haven't been.

Oh, and the U.S. government, itself, halted the construction of nuclear power plants because they were determined to be more so harmful than they were beneficial, both to the environment as well as mankind as a whole. Nuclear energy production was demonstrated as being the greater evil as compared to natural gas, oil, or even coal.

The REALITY of all things must play a part in one's consideration of what is or is not in order to maintain any degree of rationality.

[Steven_M]

Would it be altruism if we devote, consciously, a large amount of our personal will and effort towards ''saving the environment?''.

I don't believe so. It would be alturism if your standard of value was something other that your life, the supernatural, or 'god'. It also depends on your purpose, whether you do it for your own benefit, or the "good of society".

.

[Benpercent]

<I know he's banned, but I've got to say something.>

The very definition of environmentalism alone, i.e., the advocation or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects (a definition obtained by a perusal of any dictionary), wholly defies and contradicts your definition (which it likewise does by it's very contextual construct), which I find as extremely contrived as it is erroneous, prompting me to question your reasoning and rationale for having made such a statement.

Nobody is saying the environmentalists are going up to podiums and announcing that we ought to support the "movement towards the extinction of mankind." Of course they say they're trying to improve everything, but they're doing the opposite. In the name of the greater good they're damaging industries and working against man, but not against "nature".

Take for example low flow shower heads and toilets. Because of their inefficiency, one has to take longer showers and flush more before leaving, which makes it so that the opposite effect is achieved instead of the product's purpose.

Do you require me to provide you with a listing of the species of plant, animal, or even mineral, that no longer exist as a direct result of mankind's manipulation of the environment?

Why should we care? Innate values? Moral issues?

You mean "veritable religion" as in, say, "Objectivism"?

By that I take it you mean Objectivism is a cult. Any evidence?

To this end, this un-escapble fact of existence, I feel that it is for man to devise ways, methods & or means to co-exist within his environment instead of expecting the environment to merely step aside and do so for him. We need it, it doesn't need us...remember?

I agree, but I don't see how anyone has contested this particular viewpoint. We cannot escape the environment, so we must manipulate it in order to be able to coexist in it. The environment cannot step aside the same way we cannot step aside and let it run wild.

Oh, and the U.S. government, itself, halted the construction of nuclear power plants because they were determined to be more so harmful than they were beneficial, both to the environment as well as mankind as a whole. Nuclear energy production was demonstrated as being the greater evil as compared to natural gas, oil, or even coal.

Who demonstrated what?

[RationalBiker]

Nobody is saying the environmentalists are going up to podiums and announcing that we ought to support the "movement towards the extinction of mankind."

Actually, yes, some environmentalists are saying just that.