Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Viros Debate Here

Rate this topic


Juxtys

Recommended Posts

Is it in the interest of large companies to preserve the environment?

My answer: Yes, it is from Objectivist side of view, but from others:

1.Rainforests are cut down in a steady speeds with no interest of enviromental care by the cutters. Cut down forest are used as grasslands for cattle and later become into deserts, like Sahara did due to Carthagian shepherds about 2000 years ago.

2. Communists who were in charge for several years in my country(Lithuania), did nothing good to the enviroment by huge and idiotic use of local enviroment and resources. The greatest example of socialistic idiocy was air and water pollution in Jonava's Nytrogen nutrients factory: Pollution by ammonia, nytrogen acid and other chemicals was 6 times bigger than the healthy norm, althought it was the state who did it, not people.

All in all, as long as companies work by moral and ethics, they are interested in the enviroment and the interest itself is good for them, because many people value products which were made with no harm to the enviroment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[...] because many people value products which were made with no harm to the enviroment.

That depends on what you mean by "harm to the environment".

What do you think of coal driven power plants that exhaust tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on what you mean by "harm to the environment".

I mean that for some(or even most) people the greener the product, the better. I would better buy Calcium/Alkaloid car battery than Lead/Acid one because thrown away acid battery will do much more harm to enviroment than alcaloid. I use strong pesticides who can harm bees and birds and takes hundreds of years to disolve in the atmosphere in my garden.

What do you think of coal driven power plants that exhaust tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

I find coal power as a technology that is too old to use today, mainly for huge damage to the enviroment. Coal is a huge lot of carbon nature sealed below the ground for good, we shouldn't bring it back from there at all.

In Lithuania, main source of energy is gained by Ignalina's Nuclear Power plant(about 1500MW, 75 percent of all power produced in Lithuania, other energy is produced by burning oil and by Hydro power plants).

European Union wants us to shut down it by year 2009, leaving us with no power and a pile of nuclear waste big enough to make 112 Nuclear bombs for our stupid government to handle who wants to build a new Nuclear Power Plant while we could produce the same power by cleaner energy sources. The main problem is a huge influence to government by huge companies in order to secure their condition in the country and making people have no over way but to use their not-so-clean energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juxtys:

I think you need to check some of your premises.

I find coal power as a technology that is too old to use today, mainly for huge damage to the enviroment. Coal is a huge lot of carbon nature sealed below the ground for good, we shouldn't bring it back from there at all.

This idea that power plants that deliver electricity for your usage are somehow damaging the environment is false. Here in the US we get a significant portion of our energy from coal (40% - 50%?) and I am certainly glad we do. I thank the goodness of the inventors and builders of power plants every time I turn on a light or play the stereo. My environment has been vastly improved by the existence of coal burning power plants.

European Union wants us to shut down it by year 2009, leaving us with no power

Doesn't this tell you something about the nature of the environmentalist movement?

[...] who wants to build a new Nuclear Power Plant while we could produce the same power by cleaner energy sources.

I don't think so.

The main problem is a huge influence to government by huge companies in order to secure their condition in the country and making people have no over way but to use their not-so-clean energy.

No one is forcing you to "use their not-so-clean energy". You could shun industrialized civilization, renounce material values, live in a lean-to and become a savage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is forcing you to "use their not-so-clean energy". You could shun industrialized civilization, renounce material values, live in a lean-to and become a savage.

Becoming a savage? And who do you think I am right now? You don't grow your own vegetables, do you? And I do :P

This idea that power plants that deliver electricity for your usage are somehow damaging the environment is false. Here in the US we get a significant portion of our energy from coal (40% - 50%?) and I am certainly glad we do. I thank the goodness of the inventors and builders of power plants every time I turn on a light or play the stereo. My environment has been vastly improved by the existence of coal burning power plants.

Your enviroment - maybe, but do you know what the term 'Moon's Surface' means? It is coal mining, not coal burning, that highly damages the enviroment.

And in Lithuania, we could make our own methane gas from organic waste, power from wood cutting waste, straws and fast regrowing bushes, therefore, potentially producing at least 40 percent of our power, but we don't, because the government is more or less purchased by Russian oil and gas companies, so there are no laws to encourage us using our own resources.

Doesn't this tell you something about the nature of the environmentalist movement?

It's nothing about enviromentalism at all - European countries want a market to sell their expensive electricity to. They also encourage us to reduce using plastic, therefore, European laws often prohibit not using it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bushes potentially producing at least 40 percent of our power, but we don't, because the government is more or less purchased by Russian oil and gas companies, so there are no laws to encourage us using our own resources.

You propose replacing one government manipulation of the economy with another. The government should not be involved in the economy at all. If your proposed solutions have value, they can succeed on their own. Or you should donate your time and money to help promote them.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You propose replacing one government manipulation of the economy with another. The government should not be involved in the economy at all. If your proposed solutions have value, they can succeed on their own. Or you should donate your time and money to help promote them.

Not involving the government in economy in Lithuania is like not involving the builder in the building of a house. That is sad, but true - we spent too much time in planned economy. My proposed solutions have no value since there are only two electricity companies(VST and RST) and only single oil refinery(Mazeikiu Nafta). They all belong to the country, so they are ruled by government. If private person could produce his electricity and sell it to VST or RST with no bureaucratic traps, he would. But those traps will exist as for as long as government does so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juxtys:

I think you need to check some of your premises.

This idea that power plants that deliver electricity for your usage are somehow damaging the environment is false. Here in the US we get a significant portion of our energy from coal (40% - 50%?) and I am certainly glad we do. I thank the goodness of the inventors and builders of power plants every time I turn on a light or play the stereo. My environment has been vastly improved by the existence of coal burning power plants.

Doesn't this tell you something about the nature of the environmentalist movement?

I don't think so.

No one is forcing you to "use their not-so-clean energy". You could shun industrialized civilization, renounce material values, live in a lean-to and become a savage.

I can forgive Rand for her essays in The New Left because of the historical context of her writing. The evidence wasn't as clear, the implications not as obvious as today. But to be perfectly honest, she sounded like a fool. Taking her "argument" to a completely absurd extreme, she ignored the fact that if the world becomes uninhabitable, there will be no one here to produce ANYTHING, let alone suffocating toxic chemicals and gasses that kill plants, people, and the earth's regenerative capabilities. Isn't it Rand herself who agreed that "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed"?? What don't you people understand about the fact that we, as a species, are KILLING the earth. And no, environmentalists are not demanding that we put the welfare of plants and sea otters before the needs of an ever-progressing society, They are demanding that we fucking THINK, give a little scope to our actions.

In Rand's essay on egalitarianism and inflation in Philosophy: Who Needs It?, she spoke of the virtues of three very important concepts: time-savings-production. In order to be successful, humans need to understand the concept of time. If you use all of your investment seed, you will have nothing to use come next fall. Yet she doesnt seem to understand that if you burn up your planet, pollute your air and refuse to invest in regenerative resources, you will have nothing to work with in the future.

:dough::dough::dough::dough::dough::dough::dough:

Some objectivists are still trying to defend Rand's stance, yet without her excuse. They should know better. Industrialists are perfectly capable of coming up with new technologies which serve the purpose of protecting the planet, and most already have.

Polluting the environment is initiating force against the entire human race. No one is asking people to revert back to the dark ages. I'm sure as hell not complaining about industrial progress. But the fact of the matter is, we need to be responsible. A shoe maker knows how to conserve his raw materials to maximize production. A truckdriver knows how to drive at the best speed in order to make his gas supply last as long as possible. Yet no one can apply this principle to the environment....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can forgive Rand for her essays in The New Left because of the historical context of her writing. The evidence wasn't as clear, the implications not as obvious as today. But to be perfectly honest, she sounded like a fool.
Well, obviously, having all the benefits of the 'historical context' the 'evidence' and the supposed 'implications' has not helped you identify the real fool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you own air?

If the air has the potential to leave your property and go onto a neighbor's property, then no. As such you have no right to contaminate air that will probably leave your property. As to what constitutes contamination - everything depends on the dose of the contaminant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...we, as a species, are KILLING the earth.

This is false and ridiculous hyperbole. The earth is doing just fine. We, as a species, are pulling ourselves out of poverty and the resulting pollution in some locales is an acceptable tradeoff the people who live there are willing to make. If you want to see a cleaner planet then address people rationally about efficiency, health, quality of life, and property issues that can be addressed by reducing pollution. Scaremongering is demeaning to those who do it, and insults those to whom it is addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can forgive Rand for her essays in The New Left because of the historical context of her writing.

Ayn Rand most certainly does not need your forgiveness. If you disagree with her, I ask you to do so politely, showing the respect which is due to a thinker of her stature. In particular, I ask you not to refer to her condescendingly, or to insinuate that she was a "fool".

Taking her "argument" to a completely absurd extreme, she ignored the fact that if the world becomes uninhabitable, there will be no one here to produce ANYTHING, let alone suffocating toxic chemicals and gasses that kill plants, people, and the earth's regenerative capabilities. Isn't it Rand herself who agreed that "nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed"?? What don't you people understand about the fact that we, as a species, are KILLING the earth.

First, since the Earth is not alive, it cannot be "killed". Second, what are the Earth's "regenerative capabilities"? Third, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Earth is becoming uninhabitable. Finally, even if the Earth does become uninhabitable for most life (for man-made reasons or otherwise), I have no doubt that humans will easily adapt through better technology and/or expansion into space. At that point, if we want plants and animals, we will simply genetically engineer them keep them indoors. If you think that undisturbed nature is a value, by all means head for the forest, but keep your hands off of my technology, my property, and my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand most certainly does not need your forgiveness. If you disagree with her, I ask you to do so politely, showing the respect which is due to a thinker of her stature. In particular, I ask you not to refer to her condescendingly, or to insinuate that she was a "fool".

First, since the Earth is not alive, it cannot be "killed". Second, what are the Earth's "regenerative capabilities"? Third, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Earth is becoming uninhabitable. Finally, even if the Earth does become uninhabitable for most life (for man-made reasons or otherwise), I have no doubt that humans will easily adapt through better technology and/or expansion into space. At that point, if we want plants and animals, we will simply genetically engineer them keep them indoors. If you think that undisturbed nature is a value, by all means head for the forest, but keep your hands off of my technology, my property, and my life.

1. Earth is not alive itself, but life on earth is. If we disrupt the natural flow of earth and unbalance the systems, our existence will have a huge impact on the earth as to a living body.

2. Earth's regenerative capabilities are ability's to clean atmosphere, enviroment itself, restoring biosphere balance and regrowing cut down forests - by the nature itself.

3. Better technology will make people adapt to live in almost all conditions possible, but not every human individual on Earth will be able to afford it.

4. Genetical engineering might have an impact for our own health.

5. Undisturbed nature is a value since we often harm the nature but do nothing in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Earth is not alive itself, but life on earth is. If we disrupt the natural flow of earth and unbalance the systems, our existence will have a huge impact on the earth as to a living body.

What is the "natural flow of Earth"? If you mean the laws of physics, then humans are subject to them too.

2. Earth's regenerative capabilities are ability's to clean atmosphere, enviroment itself, restoring biosphere balance and regrowing cut down forests - by the nature itself.

The Earth does not have an ability to "clean" the atmosphere. Remember that the Earth does not have a mind; it simply obeys the laws of physics, which make no distinction between "clean" things and "dirty" things. In fact, the Earth itself has no regenerative capabilities. Only living organisms have regenerative capabilities. A planet is not a living organism, and therefore cannot do anything (in the sense of goal-directed action).

3. Better technology will make people adapt to live in almost all conditions possible, but not every human individual on Earth will be able to afford it.

How do you know that? One way to make absolutely certain that people won't be able to afford it would be to destroy the world economy with crippling environmental regulations.

4. Genetical engineering might have an impact for our own health.

I wasn't speaking of genetic engineering of humans. Also, any technology, if improperly designed, may have a negative impact on our health; example: a faulty bridge. This fact does not invalidate the technology as such.

5. Undisturbed nature is a value since we often harm the nature but do nothing in return.

What is the definition of "value"?

As I see it, the essential problem here is your use of terms such as "natural flow", "biosphere balance", "regenerative capabilities", and "value". I know what "value" means, but I don't think we mean the same thing by it. As for the rest of these terms, you are going to have to define them very precisely before we can continue the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the definition of "value"?

As I see it, the essential problem here is your use of terms such as "natural flow", "biosphere balance", "regenerative capabilities", and "value". I know what "value" means, but I don't think we mean the same thing by it. As for the rest of these terms, you are going to have to define them very precisely before we can continue the discussion.

val·ue (vly)

n.

An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.

If we cut a tree, but don't seed another in it's place, that's not giving anything of the same value, although young trees produce more oxygen.

'natural flow' - the great wheel of life. Plants create nutrients for herbivores to eat, herbivores are eaten by predators, and their droppings and bodies, as well as paarts of plants are then turned into non-organic materials what are used later by plants to spin the wheel once again.

'biosphere balance' - biosphere is the area where all terrestrial life exists. Where were this experiment called 'Biosphere 2', a building in a middle of a desert where many kinds of landscapes and different biospheres' places where created - farmlands, forests, etc. Unfortunately, the 'Biosphere 2' survived only for two years and four months due to unbalance between O2 and CO2. Balance between these two gasses is the main part of 'biosphere balance', as well as water and heat circulation.

'regenerative capabilities' - a burnt down forest will eventually regrow by itself, river will get cleaned of it's pollution by microorganisms unless the pollution is too big, so it will regenerate. Regeneration is not Earth's ability, but of it's inhabitants.

The difference between 'clean' and 'dirty' does exist. Not to Earth, but to it's inhabbitants.

And about genetical engineering might make some unsuspected results, like it is said that eating genetically modified corn might result in cancer. But I must admit, that in Soviet Union, grain seeds used to be put inside a nuclear reactor before seeding and my parents and grandfathers, who used to eat 'nuclear bread', are quite healthy. My grandfather died then he was 83, thought he had to drink milk with lead dissolved inside it for about twenty years and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the environmentalists in this thread that the Earth has a natural balance. That's precisely why I'm not worried about anything humans are doing. If even the most dire predictions by environmentalists about the effects of unregulated production are correct, what will that mean for humanity? Well, frankly, mass death. First the sky will fall and the seas will boil. Then the plants and animals will die out. Then people will die from new diseases and starvation. When that happens, there will be fewer people producing as much as they possibly can; but not threatening the environment any more. How is this any different than more people right now - because of environmental regulations - not producing as much as they possibly can? Furthermore, if the reason why there are so many people today is because in the past people, free of regulation, were able to produce as much as they possibly could, what makes environmentalists think that once the regulations take effect, eventually that technology, because it will not longer be profitable, will be abandoned and forgotten; thus making civilization once again less able to support as many people as it does now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the environmentalists in this thread that the Earth has a natural balance. That's precisely why I'm not worried about anything humans are doing. If even the most dire predictions by environmentalists about the effects of unregulated production are correct, what will that mean for humanity? Well, frankly, mass death. First the sky will fall and the seas will boil. Then the plants and animals will die out. Then people will die from new diseases and starvation. When that happens, there will be fewer people producing as much as they possibly can; but not threatening the environment any more. How is this any different than more people right now - because of environmental regulations - not producing as much as they possibly can? Furthermore, if the reason why there are so many people today is because in the past people, free of regulation, were able to produce as much as they possibly could, what makes environmentalists think that once the regulations take effect, eventually that technology, because it will not longer be profitable, will be abandoned and forgotten; thus making civilization once again less able to support as many people as it does now?

Earth has a natural balance and we can't live like we don't do anything to it. We must act as we are a part of it, not the other way around. If birth regulations would exist in whole world, the problem wouldn't be so big. If in the future people woun't turn into greedy bastards who think about only their welfare and screw how their children and grandchildren will live, then there clearly isn't any good future for humankind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

val·ue (vly)

n.

An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.

What you are speaking of is the concept of trade. Trade implies mutual benefit. In the case of inanimate matter, the concept of "benefit" is not even applicable. A rock faces no alternatives, so nothing can "benefit" it in any way. It simply is. In the case of plants or wild beasts, it is true that their are certain actions which will benefit their lives. However, non-rational creatures do not have concepts such as "money" or "fairness" or "price". Accordingly, such creatures cannot be dealt with by trade, but only by force.

An objective value is a goal whose attainment serves to further man's life. Therefore, sustaining the lives of certain creatures may be a value, but only insofar as those creatures are a benefit to man's life by providing food, transportation, companionship, or some other function. Again, since beasts are not rational, no "payment" must be given in "return" for these functions. The only requirement is to take whatever actions are necessary to preserve the beast's ability to perform its function.

If we cut a tree, but don't seed another in it's place, that's not giving anything of the same value, although young trees produce more oxygen.

You are anthropomorphizing nature again. There is no basis for that.

'natural flow' - the great wheel of life. Plants create nutrients for herbivores to eat, herbivores are eaten by predators, and their droppings and bodies, as well as paarts of plants are then turned into non-organic materials what are used later by plants to spin the wheel once again.

This behavior has no moral significance; it just happens. As humans, we must seek to understand it, so that we may exploit nature to our benefit. The same is true for "biosphere balance" and "regenerative capabilities". Just as a nuclear reaction requires certain conditions to sustain it, so it is with things like trees or insects. We should not conclude that the reaction must be treated "fairly" in order to survive, nor should we conclude the same for living creatures.

I understand the temptation to anthropomorphize the highest animals (such as cats). Nonetheless, I feed my cats instead of handing them pay-checks.

The difference between 'clean' and 'dirty' does exist. Not to Earth, but to it's inhabbitants.

It exists to humans. Animals do not have these concepts.

But I must admit, that in Soviet Union, grain seeds used to be put inside a nuclear reactor before seeding and my parents and grandfathers, who used to eat 'nuclear bread', are quite healthy.

This is a perfect example of the danger of theorizing about the dangers of technology without understanding how it works. Do you know any physics? Things that have been exposed to radiation do not become sources of radiation. To say that "something might" go wrong with a given technology, without any evidence, is arbitrary and unscientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If in the future people woun't turn into greedy bastards who think about only their welfare and screw how their children and grandchildren will live, then there clearly isn't any good future for humankind.

Please answer this first: What exactly is a good future for humankind, in your opinion?

You would like for there to be fewer people. You believe that birth regulations would make that happen, but you have shown no evidence that that would be true.

You say that greedy people are unwilling to help their children and grandchildren, but have shown no evidence that this is true. Would your ideal society require that the rich give their excess to the poor? Wouldn't this produce a society of unproductive parasites, unable to support themselves, expecting government handouts (taken by force from the rich) to keep them alive? Is this your idea of an ideal society? If not, please clarify your positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earth has a natural balance and we can't live like we don't do anything to it.
You are absolutely correct. We need to understand that everything we do on Earth is an essential part of this natural balance. Indeed, the idea that man even could do something to Earth that is somehow not part of the natural balance of Earth is complete nonsense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely correct. We need to understand that everything we do on Earth is an essential part of this natural balance. Indeed, the idea that man even could do something to Earth that is somehow not part of the natural balance of Earth is complete nonsense.

I am curious about the rational meaning of "natural balance". I would say that it refers to the negative feedback loops which occur commonly in nature, causing, for exampe, the stability of most natural populations. Would you agree with this?

I am mainly curious about this because I think that many people, especially environmentalists, use this term and others like it as floating abstractions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious about the rational meaning of "natural balance". I would say that it refers to the negative feedback loops which occur commonly in nature, causing, for exampe, the stability of most natural populations. Would you agree with this?

I am mainly curious about this because I think that many people, especially environmentalists, use this term and others like it as floating abstractions.

'natural balance' indeed is a floating abstraction, but for enviromentalist, it means the balance of ecosystems, by limiting or enlargening populations of animals, amounts of O2 and CO2 in the atmosphere and so on.

You might call me an enviromentalist, thought I think technology will sooner or later fix everything it broken if people won't get too lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious about the rational meaning of "natural balance". I would say that it refers to the negative feedback loops which occur commonly in nature, causing, for exampe, the stability of most natural populations.
I think that is a bit too model-specific. I see it as implying an abstract and very complicated equation (hence the "balance") which could include the fact that an increase in the number of wolves can deplete the moose supply, which causes wolf starvation and an increase in moose population. But it could just include non-cyclic changes, so for example over the course of Earth's history, the mean temperature has plummeted so that rock no longer melts. "Natural balance" thus refers to the net state of the system, i.e. the planet, as a consequence of laws of nature. Whatever the "natural balance" of Earth-as-it-exists is, it would be slightly different if there were no horses on the planet.

Of course the viros implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, have in mind a computation that assumes that man does not exist, the implication being that man is somehow outside of nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is a bit too model-specific. I see it as implying an abstract and very complicated equation (hence the "balance") which could include the fact that an increase in the number of wolves can deplete the moose supply, which causes wolf starvation and an increase in moose population. But it could just include non-cyclic changes, so for example over the course of Earth's history, the mean temperature has plummeted so that rock no longer melts. "Natural balance" thus refers to the net state of the system, i.e. the planet, as a consequence of laws of nature. Whatever the "natural balance" of Earth-as-it-exists is, it would be slightly different if there were no horses on the planet.

So, the concept would also refer to inanimate matter? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that an environment would be said to possess a natural balance if it is characterized mostly by long-term processes. In other words, would you say that natural balance refers to all those things in nature which prevent the state of the environment from changing rapidly with time?

I think my confusion stems from not understanding what things would not fall under this concept. Does the sun, for example, have a natural balance? I would say that it does, since its state can be characterized by parameters which change very slowly. Then, is the purpose of the concept to differentiate such systems from those that change very rapidly with time, such as an exploding star?

Juxtys:

In case you don't know what a floating abstraction is, it is a concept which is not grounded in reality. In other words, if you took a floating abstraction and examined the more basic concepts on which it depends, you would never reach the level of direct observations of reality. Also, any concept, even a valid one, will be a floating abstraction in the mind of a person who does not grasp its connection to reality. Common examples of this would include: "energy" (as used by those involved in New Age religions), "freedom" (as used by most politicians today), and "sustainability" (as used by environmentalists). If you are confused about what I mean, you may wish to read the following entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conceptformation.html.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...