Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Climate Change

Rate this topic


AmoProbos

Recommended Posts

I was watching the History Channel recently, and a show aired entitled Last Days or something similar. In this show, there is a countdown of the most catastrophic threats the world faces, from black holes and gamma ray bursts to nuclear war and mega earthquakes. Each threat is summarized and discussed by a panel of well-known experts, including Stephen Hawking and my personal favorite, Michio Kaku. The show was interesting. The number one threat was even more interesting: climate change.

At this point, I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not know whether climate change is man-made or not. The History Channel almost pompously claims that "all of the scientific community" is in agreement that climate change IS caused by man, but I've seen very convincing posts on this forum that say otherwise. Regardless, the question(s) I have is/are rooted in ethics, and ethics can be discussed hypothetically, rendering the validity of the claim pointless, at least as it relates to this discussion.

SO, let's assume that climate change is caused primarily by man's actions on Earth. Due predominantly to Carbon Dioxide emissions, the Earth's atmosphere is holding more heat. Okay, with this assumption in place, I have arrived at a very difficult ethical question, or at least difficult enough for me to ask the community for assistance.

If man's methods of production are directly harming the environment in which we all live, then what must be done? Obviously, controlling emission levels is an act of force, and that is frowned upon in Objectivist philosophy. On the other hand, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere causes damage (assumption!) to the environment in which we all live, which could be considered an act of assault on the rest of mankind, or some sort of forceful tarnishing of everyone else' property. So what is the answer? Is force ethical in this case? I'd like a concise Objectivist's response to this. Maybe someone knows of Dr. Peikoff discussing this. I would look myself but his radio clips are not organized and finding the answer to this would be like Googling "puppies" and finding an article on interplanetary mineral processing techniques.

Again, maybe I have put too much faith in the History Channel's claim that there is even any substance to the above hypothetical, but even if this claim is false, humor me. If indeed we did affect climate change negatively with our actions, what's the proper course of action?

Edited by AmoProbos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, maybe I have put too much faith in the History Channel's claim that there is even any substance to the above hypothetical, but even if this claim is false, humor me. If indeed we did affect climate change negatively with our actions, what's the proper course of action?

First off, the government should not do anything about it. On the personal level, you should not feel a need to do anything. You don't need to preserve the Earth for future generations. You also should not make any sacrifices for the sake of the Earth. Basically, the proper course of action is to do nothing. If emissions from one source can be proven to cause damage to property, then you could take that company/person/whatever to court.

I'm not sure what to say about a large population causing property damage when the individuals taken separately are not damaging a piece of property. Say you dispose of some trash from your meals from a week into a lake (which we can assume is privately owned). Taken on an individual level, the lake probably would dispose of it no problem with no damage to the water quality or wildlife. But say 300 people do it. At that scale, it could harm the lake. This question could also apply to carbon emissions, when you drive a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, controlling emission levels is an act of force, and that is frowned upon in Objectivist philosophy.

An act of force is NOT frowned upon in Objectivism. We are not pacifists. It's the initiation of force that we oppose.

Maybe someone knows of Dr. Peikoff discussing this. I would look myself but his radio clips are not organized and finding the answer to this would be like Googling "puppies" and finding an article on interplanetary mineral processing techniques.

In fact, his podcasts are now organized here on the forums. Try Podcast 21 for starters (Though he's discussed it in many others as well). Just go here:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...=17019&st=0

If man's methods of production are directly harming the environment in which we all live, then what must be done?

...

On the other hand, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere causes damage (assumption!) to the environment in which we all live, which could be considered an act of assault on the rest of mankind, or some sort of forceful tarnishing of everyone else' property.

The problem here is that you have to weigh technological benifits with enviromental damage. If a man was pouring toxic waste on your property, he could be tried for violating your property rights. But if we start assuming that one is "assaulting" all mankind by putting chemicals into the air, where do we stop? Do we ban fire because it puts smoke in the air? Do we ban cars because they pollute the air?

My view is somewhat summed up by Leonard's Peikoff quote in (I believe) Episode 25: 'I'd rather live 70 years with watery eyes than 20 years without them."

By the way, if anyone disagrees with my view, please tell me. I'm still learning myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies guys. I myself am currently practicing the "do-nothing" technique.

I've always said to people that we should be focusing on space colonization and extraterrestrial raw materials. Unfortunately, the world seems to have lost interest in the dazzle of space, and is instead focused on the impossible task of providing infinite energy to an exponentially expanding populace from a limited rock in space. Last Days didn't so much as mention overpopulation as a catastrophic threat to Earth's survival, but it seems as if it's the most obvious threat to me.

So, practically, carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant. Because practically, we should be fearlessly voyaging into space to make more room for ourselves.

This discussion has led me to a new question (my apologies, I'm very very new to Objectivism. I'm a high school student who was given a copy of AS and here I am =D). How can Objectivism sustain itself in an overpopulated world? Where every action taken by man infringes upon his fellow man, is there room for ethics at all?

Edited by AmoProbos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion has led me to a new question (my apologies, I'm very very new to Objectivism. I'm a high school student who was given a copy of AS and here I am =D). How can Objectivism sustain itself in an overpopulated world? Where every action taken by man infringes upon his fellow man, is there room for ethics at all?

Ever heard of The Population Bomb? :)

Overpopulation would never be a problem in a free society. When you say "every action taken by man infringes upon his fellow man," the only thing I can see you meaning is that when one man gets health care, another doesn't get it, or when one man gets food, another does not get it. This is only a problem in a socialist society or one with a mixed economy. In a capitalist society, all men would only be responsible for themselves, so one man paying for health care or food would hardly infringe another person's rights.

By the way, we're kind of in the same boat. I'm a high school student myself, though I've read all Ayn Rand's fiction books, VOS, C:TUI, The Romantic Manifesto, Philosohy: Who Needs It? and a bunch of others (I'm reading OPAR right now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever heard of The Population Bomb? :)

Overpopulation would never be a problem in a free society. When you say "every action taken by man infringes upon his fellow man," the only thing I can see you meaning is that when one man gets health care, another doesn't get it, or when one man gets food, another does not get it. This is only a problem in a socialist society or one with a mixed economy. In a capitalist society, all men would only be responsible for themselves, so one man paying for health care or food would hardly infringe another person's rights.

By the way, we're kind of in the same boat. I'm a high school student myself, though I've read all Ayn Rand's fiction books, VOS, C:TUI, The Romantic Manifesto, Philosohy: Who Needs It? and a bunch of others (I'm reading OPAR right now).

Sorry, I didn't clearly state what I meant exactly. I am discussing a massive extreme, where the extent of overpopulation is such that all humanity is figuratively sardine-packed together. In hindsight, it is a ridiculous question. Ethical discussion is the last thing to think about in that scenario. How would life even sustain itself in that environment? Law and order? Property rights? All of that would dissipate should that scenario exist. And surely human beings would be reasonable enough to move planets in the event of overpopulation of that level. This also ignores nature's necessity of inducing plagues and illness to reduce population.

I think I asked a question before even attempting to really answer it rationally myself. So disregard the last one =D

I have not read The Population Bomb, but I'll give it a look. I have a lot of Rand and Peikoff to read, I know!

Simply put, population can only be managed by reduction or increased space. Increased space = space colonization (or a more short-term fix would be the creation of artificial land in the ocean) and reduction obviously meaning death. The death can be induced by man, but if left alone, WILL be induced by nature.

But I ramble! Not the point. My original question has been resolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn't clearly state what I meant exactly. I am discussing a massive extreme, where the extent of overpopulation is such that all humanity is figuratively sardine-packed together. In hindsight, it is a ridiculous question. Ethical discussion is the last thing to think about in that scenario. How would life even sustain itself in that environment? Law and order? Property rights? All of that would dissipate should that scenario exist. And surely human beings would be reasonable enough to move planets in the event of overpopulation of that level. This also ignores nature's necessity of inducing plagues and illness to reduce population.

You kind of answer your own question here.

Mankind's population would never get this great due to sickness (And the fact that people are almost assuredly going to stop having kids when they realize their house can only be 50 sq.ft. before it touches their neighbor's wall). :)

I have not read The Population Bomb, but I'll give it a look. I have a lot of Rand and Peikoff to read, I know!

Please don't! It was a BS book written in 1968 that predicted millions would die from overpopulation in the 1970's and '80's. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

Edited by The Lonely Rationalist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't! It was a BS book written in 1968 that predicted millions would die from overpopulation in the 1970's and '80's. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

Merci Beaucoup for the tip. I don't think I would be impulsive enough to purchase it without doing a bit of research, but you never know :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, global warming caused by CO2.

Well lets have a look. CO2 is an absolutely vital part of the environment. without it we would all be dead. with more of it we would what???

Ocean levels rise as the ice caps melt resulting in the loss of land- well some tests so far have shown that as the ice comes off the ground the ground is actually rising (like a pillow does once you lift the weight of your head off of it). But lets say that some land is lost in low lying areas like Bangladesh (cue hysterical cries for the poor)

But what else does that mean... oh yeah, ice melting means warmer temperatures... You know the horrible results of that eh? Longer growing seasons, more crops, growing grapes in England, settlements in Greenland and if we really fuck it up badly we will have boreal forest way up past the current treeline. We're talking the kind of warming that allowed Dinosaurs to exist well into what is now tundra.

Oh, the horror... Habitable and temperate land all the way up to the Arctic ocean in some spots.

Imagine the dark blue part of this map being a much more hospitable place than it currently is.

I really don't see people missing Bangladesh all that much. Oh, and another thing. the Greenistas talk about the rise in sea levels like it's going to happen right fucking now like a tsunami or something and "displace hundreds of millions of people worldwide" but the only way we could possibly be surprised by this "flood" would be if we went to sleep for a hundred years at a time.

It's all so divorced from context, so focused on some few negative losses. For every yin there is a yang (to borrow the greenies language) and it is not going to be all doom and gloom.

All of this presupposes that this warming is being driven by man which I don't believe. I mean hell people we can't even predict the weather for next week and these Greenistas want you to believe that a couple of warmer than average years mean that we are all of a sudden in the drivers seat of the global climate? <Cue Pen & Teller>

As a Canadian who is sick and tired of freezing his brass monkey for 6 - 8 months of the year I welcome the normal and natural climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to assume that there is catastrophic global warming, and somehow we'll be in grave danger because of it, then it would be reasonable to act. However, remember we are talking about "catastrophic" global warming, not just global warming, and "catastrophic" global warming is purely fictional. There is no science backing up the claim. The South Park episode "Two Days Before The Day After Tomorrow", season 9, pretty much describes what is going on today. You can watch it on the South Park website.

There is no doubt there has been global warming over the last 100 years, but it's been trivial and likely mostly due to Sun activity. It also happens to be the case that the 1800s was going through a cooling trend.

I did post a talk by Richard Lindzen, perhaps the foremost atmospheric scientist, who says there really is no problem. The real world data just doesn't back up the claims. So, for me the science is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean hell people we can't even predict the weather for next week and these Greenistas want you to believe ...

Caution: This argument is fallacious. Greenists may turn it against you.

Weather forecast has nothing to do with climate forecast. They are problems of two different scales. As an analogy, I can confidently forecast that six from now Boston is going to get colder (due to seasonal change), but I can't be so sure about 10 days from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caution: This argument is fallacious. Greenists may turn it against you.

Weather forecast has nothing to do with climate forecast. They are problems of two different scales. As an analogy, I can confidently forecast that six from now Boston is going to get colder (due to seasonal change), but I can't be so sure about 10 days from now.

I disagree. We are not talking about predicting the onset of winter we are talking about predicting annual temperature rise and modeling our societies on exactly what it will be and what should be done about it.

I think my analogy is apt. The Greenistas want you to decide today what you are going to wear, do, and how you will act a week from now given the assumption that there is going to be a huge thunderstorm next monday.

That idea is ridiculous, just as ridiculous as basing a climate model and charting the course of human societies and productive existence on a mere sliver of time (in comparison to the age and climate cycles of the earth).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yes, it's true that environmentalists are wrong, but your analogy is not a sound argument. The fact that they're wrong isn't logically connected to weather forecasts in any way, any more than it is to any other human activity that isn't yet working perfectly. (like robotics or something) The only thing in common there is that they're both about the weather: linking them in an argument amounts to thinking by association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO, let's assume that climate change is caused primarily by man's actions on Earth. Due predominantly to Carbon Dioxide emissions, the Earth's atmosphere is holding more heat. Okay, with this assumption in place, I have arrived at a very difficult ethical question, or at least difficult enough for me to ask the community for assistance.

If man's methods of production are directly harming the environment in which we all live, then what must be done? Obviously, controlling emission levels is an act of force, and that is frowned upon in Objectivist philosophy. On the other hand, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere causes damage (assumption!) to the environment in which we all live, which could be considered an act of assault on the rest of mankind, or some sort of forceful tarnishing of everyone else' property. So what is the answer? Is force ethical in this case? I'd like a concise Objectivist's response to this.

Concise answer: No, assuming you're speaking of more initiation of force by government. There is no justification for any initiation of force by anyone against others.

In this particular case (in respect of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide), follow your suggestion through to the logical conclusion. Would you kill yourself to save the planet? That is what is being asked of people now.

Now, let's step back and agree that you have accepted that you may not initiate force or incite the government to initiate force on your behalf in order to "change the climate." What can you do, indeed what can anyone do? Having decided that you take issue with a particular company's methods of production, you can boycott the products that company makes. You can put efforts into telling others why they should do the same. Voting with your wallet is the proper way to send your message that you dislike the company's methods of production. If you are correct in your assessment, others will join you and the message will get through. Heh, even if you are wrong others may well join you. The company can decide whether it values your business or not, whether it thinks you raise a valid issue or not.

Trying to go back in time to more primitive methods of production, when done at the point of a gun by government, is in my view worse than whatever pollutants may be being produced. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; ask yourself why so much effort is being poured into convincing people to agree to control and/or reduce the amount of it we expel. For all their noise about making it a "greener world," the eco-tards seem contradictory in this arena. Did I miss something?

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. We are not talking about predicting the onset of winter we are talking about predicting annual temperature rise and modeling our societies on exactly what it will be and what should be done about it.

Zip, you are missing the point. My response was directed towards your argument that since Greenists "can't even predict the weather for next week", there is no way they can forecast the long-term climate change. I didn't say anything about "modeling our societies".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zip, you are missing the point. My response was directed towards your argument that since Greenists "can't even predict the weather for next week", there is no way they can forecast the long-term climate change. I didn't say anything about "modeling our societies".

Then you've missed my point, or at least part of it. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

...because no one has mentioned it yet.

Google...

"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

1) There is no "concensus of the scientific community"

2) Introduces Global Warming as "big business"

3) Introduces Global Warming as "a vehicle for Governmental Power Grabs"

4) Exposes viewer to alternative theories about how the Sun drives climate change.

5) Puts Co2 in perspective both, as a small portion of the atmosphere, and puts our contribution in perspective against things like livestock, volcanoes, decomposing plant matter, etc...

6) Criticizes the "Hockey Stick" graph used by Al Gore, and exposes his dishonesty.

...and more!

It doesn't cover any of the moral or philosophical aspects of the debate.

It's a good general intro video, if you were looking for directions to move in order to investigate/learn more about the debate.

My opinion is that while Co2 probably does contribute to climate change but it is ultimately an after-effect, and not the root cause.

The culture surrounding the debate is tunnel visioned and unwilling to accept that other factors are present. No willingness exists to acknowledge other factors like the Sun, or Oceans, and no effort has been made to attempt to measure the relative amounts each factor contributes to the overall change. The circumstances of the present are such that increasing Solar activity is driving the temperatures of the oceans up slowly, and as oceans get warmer they release more Co2 than they absorb.

Also, I want to add that the Global Warming debate will not be won through a moral defense of the proper role of government. It will be won by uncovering the facts of how our environment works and leading an information campaign against the misinformation of political figures like Al Gore.

Edited by Alone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

getting back to the OP if it was proved that CO2 from man's production was causing global warming and it was a threat to mans very existence then rational individual men would choose to come up with different ways of producing so as to not kill themselves.

Government still doesn't have a role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone shed some light on the topic of ocean acidity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

A lot of people say that it's going to kill all the coral or something like that. I'm unsure of what to think about it. I don't think that it's caused by us as so many people say or we're not the primary cause. Is it really as bad as their predictions? I can imagine environmentalists skewing their predictions for the future in order to cause more alarm and get people on their side.

If anyone could help explain this situation I would appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

This is my first post to the forums, I've been reading for a while and only just decided to post.

I'll start with the affirmation that "climate change" is not grounded in any conclusive science, but I'll accept the initial premises for arguments' sake. The issue is essentially:

pumping CO2 into the atmosphere causes damage (assumption!) to the environment in which we all live, which could be considered an act of assault on the rest of mankind, or some sort of forceful tarnishing of everyone else' property

First, it is possible to mitigate such a problem by the operation of the market. If I believe the mere existence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is destructive to my life, I can buy products that produce less or none of it (electric cars, solar panels, etc...which are probably actually terrible examples because their production is energy-intensive anyway). If no such product exists, I can make it, commission it, or start collecting capital to form a joint venture that will try to produce it. I can also refuse to purchase certain products.

Again, for arguments' sake, assume I cannot do such a thing, and government action is the only thing possible to mitigate carbon dioxide. Government does quite a lot that does not really demand either the initiation or even the use of force. As an example, defining property rights, particularly with something like airspace. Do I own all the air above my house? Some of it? None of it? Who's to say? Government creates objective laws so that people can coexist without stepping on each others' toes by claiming mutually exclusive rights. In the airspace example, mutually exclusive rights would be (simultaneously) "I can fly wherever I want with no restrictions as part of my owning a plane" and "You can prevent me from flying over your work or house as part of your owning your workplace or home". Government CAN come in and assert where one person's property ends and begins, so long as there is an objective need to do so and the actual law has a rational, objective basis (ie, is not arbitrary, overreaching, etc). From the Lexicon:

The word "pollution" implies health hazards, such as smog or dirty waters.
(Incidentally, this is where the carbon dioxide argument dies - it has not been demonstrated conclusively to be a pollutant).

As far as the issue of actual pollution is concerned, it is primarily a scientific, not a political, problem (essentially what I said by the operation of the market, but she goes on to talk about tort law)...If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved...But such laws cannot demand the impossible, must not be aimed at a single scapegoat, i.e., the industrialists, and must take into consideration the whole context of the problem, i.e., the absolute necessity of the continued existence of industry - if the preservation of human life is the standard.

I interpret this issue and the above quote to mean that, in this case, everyone makes carbon dioxide as a part of life, and everyone is causing harm to themselves and others in so doing. So government can do something to mitigate the problem (and mitigate it only to the point where the maximum combined value of environmental and industrial concern is reached; one cannot favor industry if it causes excessive sickness, nor environment if it causes poverty). It is preferable to do something as benign as possible, such as modify definitions of property rights (pollution markets are one example).

I am not clear on whether imposing an aggregate pollution cap is an initiation of force given the context of the problem. I'm inclined to think that a cap on aggregate emissions, or a pollution tax, or whatever might be deemed most effective in mitigating the problem is not an initiation of force since it is agreed that the problem exists and that it should be fixed by some particular means. But whatever government does, the extent of such actions must be reasonable, and cars should not be singled out over oil lamps over electric lightbulbs over factories - carbon is carbon, regardless of the source, and it should all be treated as equally as possible.

Again, this whole post rests on the rather tenuous arguments that climate change is necessarily bad, and that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the problem, so don't take any of it as an endorsement of policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If indeed we did affect climate change negatively with our actions, what's the proper course of action?

I believe the following is consistent with Objectivism, but I'm new at this and would appreciate comments.

I also don't believe in AGW but that was not your question. Others are mentioning government but IMO this is not an issue for government. Their only duty is to protect my rights and the country from invaders.

Assuming humans are negatively effecting the environment, I would expect men of reason to invent and produce products and systems that will have appeal in the market place. After all, whoever invents a viable clean power source could be the next Bill Gates time TEN. (Think Galt's engine) And if you think about it, isn't that exactly what is happening? The only problem is that none of the new technologies is exceptionally viable yet.

Your question aside, the problem with reality today is that these technologies are being subsidized by government, which actually hurts them in the long run - they need to be financially viable on their own. And that they are being promoted as a moral requirement, which they are not. I like "green" technologies. I think they are a requirement for humans to survive on earth, but we probably have quite a bit of time yet to develop them. But if something truly viable comes along tomorrow, it will replace oil, etc. quickly - through the nature course of the free market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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