Sustainable development

[softwareNerd]

To concretize, if I object to slash-and-burn agriculture of the rainforest am I not saying, at least implicitly, that I have a stake in that resource?

Definitely so, and many people will say so explicitly. Many people entertain the notion that we are not owners of our resources, but "custodians".

[themadkat]

Definitely so, and many people will say so explicitly. Many people entertain the notion that we are not owners of our resources, but "custodians".

Great, so now we're getting somewhere. I know there is a lot of garbage out there about the world's resources being "our common heritage" or something like that, and of course that's nonsense. But what do we do with the tricky situations where either a) something is completely unowned (patches of distant forest, highly mobile wild animals, air, etc.) or "public" property (national parks, other government-owned materials). These are the tough cases, in my mind. Obviously in an Objectivist or rational society there wouldn't BE public property, but as it stands now there is, and lots of it.

[softwareNerd]

... But what do we do with the tricky situations where either a) something is completely unowned (patches of distant forest, highly mobile wild animals, air, etc.) or "public" property (national parks, other government-owned materials). These are the tough cases, in my mind.

In principle, one has to establish formal property rights where there are none. No, I don't think it is simple. However, I think the sticking point is not the detail and the implementation, but the principle itself. Consider cap-and-trade for instance. While I completely disagree with the notion of establishing rights in this area, if one does accept that such rights need to be established, then the approach is pretty decent. As an analogy: the deductive method is the detail but I think it can be done, the problems come with the false premises that get "plugged in".

One could come up with some "meta rules". For instance, there may be situations where one cannot get agreement from all current users of a "commons" about an approach and one needs a way to resolve this. More importantly, one needs to have a way of identifying such current users and respecting their views to the extent that they currently use the common and have a sort of "informal ownership". So, for instance, the fish in some part of the sea are currently a commons being fished by certain people, not a resource of all citizens of the world at large. One may have to lay down rules that limit what new property owners may do for some interim period; but, one has to be careful not to fall into the trap that energy-deregulators fell into where short-term approaches are rewarded. I wouldn't say this is all easy. Yet, I don't think the details are the main sticking point.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

So, in the end, is “sustainable development” an anti/valid/invalid concept? I didn't read the entire topic because I haven’t got much time, but I found this post to pose as a somewhat rational and nice description of sustainable development, yet I think no one gave a proper response to it:

You can cut down an entire rainforest for housing, but then it may take centuries for it to restore itself. "Sustainability" would imply using resources in such a way that you don't completely run out. Spending more money than you earn is not a sustainable way of living. It is an irrational way to live if you don't try to counteract your spending. Cutting down a portion of a forest may be better in the long run than cutting it all down at once. At first it is completely acceptable to spend more than you earn, but at some point (when your resources are low enough) you need to think about either decreasing consumption or altering harvesting methods.

How is this any wrong? I’ve been asked to apply sustainability in my class to some furniture, clothes and domestic use products, in other words, merely to use obsolete products and parts from them and just giving them a new utility and functionality by creating some other thing. Like this, this, this and this. If I try to sell them, I think that would be an easier and cheaper way of acquiring all these sort of things. That can do no harm. Do you all here think sustainability can only be achieved by force? Also, can someone tell me what would be a proper response to the “future generations” argument (meaning even our kids maybe)? I’ve heard it so many times and can’t seem to remember anyone addressing this, just dismissing it.

[DavidOdden]

How is this any wrong?

The real issue is what "sustainability" is. The main reason why it's not rational to support "sustainable development" is because nobody knows that it refers to.

[PatriotResistance]

Like this, this, this and this.

But then what happens when each one of those items wears out and is discarded? All that happened is a delay in the materials getting to the landfill. What is being suggested now (cradle to cradle) is to manufacturer things the first time in ways that an item can be reduced to it's components and re-manufactured over and over and over. A very good example is steel, which is easily remanufactured. It's been suggested that the very same steel in your car today could very well have been steel building girders in the 80's, a refrigerator in the 60's, a tank in the 40's, and a model T automobile before that. Unfortunately, the vast array of manufactured products today do not easily lend themselves to that ideal. Both the initial manufacture and subsequent reduction/re-manufacture is not easier or cheaper.

[SD26]

Like this

I know that would generate mold that I'm allergic to, so I would never choose that.

[Jake_Ellison]

But then what happens when each one of those items wears out and is discarded? All that happened is a delay in the materials getting to the landfill. What is being suggested now (cradle to cradle) is to manufacturer things the first time in ways that an item can be reduced to it's components and re-manufactured over and over and over. A very good example is steel, which is easily remanufactured. It's been suggested that the very same steel in your car today could very well have been steel building girders in the 80's, a refrigerator in the 60's, a tank in the 40's, and a model T automobile before that. Unfortunately, the vast array of manufactured products today do not easily lend themselves to that ideal.

Why is that an ideal? I think it's very fortunate that a lot of manufactured products today are made with usefulness to humans in mind, not some poorly defined impossible "ideal" you can only describe using an extremely poor metaphor.

P.S. The metaphor is poor because there's no such thing as cradle to cradle. The only use for a cradle is to hold tiny humans, who go from cradle to grave, not cradle to cradle. Usually, to describe something, people pick a process or activity that is real and that the listener already understands.

For instance, someone would say let's "build" a relationship. That suggests that you approach creating a relationship kinda like someone would buiding a house. But building a house is a real process: you lay a foundation, support, then the visible and useful walls and roof, supported by the invisible foundation. The metaphor is great because it communicates a buch of stuff, without a long speech.

But "cradle to cradle" isn't even real when taken literally, how is it supposed to explain something "just like it" or similar to it? Just like what?

You'd be better off using the steel manufacturing process for your metaphors. Then, you would understand that when something cannot be made of steel, the metaphor shouldn't be applied, because steal is unique. Other materials are useful where steel isn't, but cannot be recycled. In that case, we forget about recycling, and focus on what really matters: what's useful, for the period of time we need it to be useful.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[DavidOdden]

Unfortunately, the vast array of manufactured products today do not easily lend themselves to that ideal.

Doesn't that tell you that pursuing that goal is pursuing an irrational ideal?

[PatriotResistance]

Doesn't that tell you that pursuing that goal is pursuing an irrational ideal?

Yes. That was my point. That cradle to cradle is an unrealistic goal to attempt to broad-stroke over all of manufacturing. Steel is an example of one of very few materials that CAN be reworked repeatedly and efficiently. But it is the exception.

And no. The ideal of questioning why a chemical or a material or a process is part of a product to the end of reducing costs or ensuring continued access to the necessary raw materials is, I think, a wise strategy for any company. But not for the goal of 'saving the planet'. Another example then of where the process does work is the carpet industry, which has literally been turned on its head in recent years. I don't have any data on hand, but I believe recycled carpet, plastic bottles and such have just about overtaken traditional materials as the primary raw materials for the carpet industry. That wouldn't have happened if it wasn't good for business.

[PatriotResistance]

Why is that an ideal?

Sorry, Jake. Ideal was a bad choice of words there. I agree with you. I didn't mean "ideal" in the sense of a 'standard of perfection', but only in the sense of 'THEIR ideal'.

[Capitalism Forever]

So, in the end, is “sustainable development” an anti/valid/invalid concept?

It is a contradiction in terms. The only thing that can be sustained indefinitely is death.

How is this any wrong?

First, I wouldn't take that as a definitive statement of what sustainable-development advocates are all about; they usually want the government to "help convince" people to behave in their preferred, "sustainable" ways.

Also, it doesn't give a definition of sustainable development, it just names a supposed implication of it. It's a bit like being asked what prostitution is and answering, "Prostitution involves your desires being satisfied." Yeah, maybe it does--but that does not tell you what the essence of prostitution is.

But even if we look past all that and just consider the concrete statement, it seems to be rather "context-challenged," so to speak. Why would one cut down the entire rainforest for housing? Is there such a huge demand for housing right now? Is the rainforest the most economical way to supply the housing? If the answer to either is no, then it does not pay to cut down the rainforest for housing, and everyone will know that without anyone having to mention sustainability. And if we're going to need the continued existence of the rainforest during the next several decades, it will not be cheap to cut it all down, therefore it will not be the most economical way to supply housing--again without anyone bringing up sustainable development. (All this assumes a laissez-faire society, of course. If any of this does not work because the market mechanisms are not allowed the work, the solution is to let the market mechanisms work, and again not to blabber about sustainability!)

Also, can someone tell me what would be a proper response to the “future generations” argument (meaning even our kids maybe)? I’ve heard it so many times and can’t seem to remember anyone addressing this, just dismissing it.

I like to quote Ann Coulter on this one: "Don't worry about the grandkids, they'll have a planet on their own." As far as the very next generation is concerned--could you give an example of a specific resource that is threatening to run out on our kids?

If, at some point in time, a group of people happens to be stuck on a planet that cannot sustain life beyond the current generation, the proper course of action for them is to have no children. Or maybe if they do, to tell them not to expect to outlive their parents by very much. But at any rate, it would not be rational for them to starve and suffer so that there can be 2 or 3 more starving and suffering generations after them instead of just one!

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Back to sustainable development class! I’ve been wondering about this for a while and…I’m starting to think it’s actually not that bad. Take a look at this, and don't just reject it in a gut reaction:

2010 Toyota Prius "Harmony" TV Commercial

Wouldn’t you buy it? This is what I think sustainable development looks like. No “returning to nature”, no “reversion of the Industrial Revolution”, no “living like savages”, no “wiping out technology”, no “condemnation of cities, industry or the intellect." Only private and voluntary cooperative action, technology and innovation all the way down. This is just one example, but I believe “sustainable” products like this can perfectly coexist with a free capitalist system. I really don't think Ayn Rand's condemnation of the trends that sprung up at that time can apply to this. I mean, not even the vast majority of modern environmentalists take the ideas of these radical groups from the New Left seriously. Most of it is all gone.

This fully integrated marketing effort explains how consumers can get virtually everything they want for themselves in a car – advanced technology, extra power, space, safety and 50 miles per gallon – all while providing what nature craves most: fewer smog-forming emissions. The campaign emphasizes that, for the first time, a car company has struck a balance between the needs of man and nature – by building the third-generation Prius.

These are some other examples that have been suggested:

To reach potential Prius buyers, Toyota is incorporating useful tools to improve their everyday lives. Harmony Installations will bring to life the idea of harmony between man, nature and machine in cities across America:

- Oversized solar flower sculptures will be placed in highly interactive areas such as public parks. These sculptures, which include free Wi-Fi access, will serve as seating environments and charging stations for people to recharge their spirits as well as their mobile phones and laptops.

- Solar ventilation bus shelters will demonstrate how solar panels on Prius’ available Solar Roof are designed to help cool the parked vehicle by providing a comfortable space for bus riders.

The flower sculptures and solar ventilation bus shelters will debut in early July and travel to a half-dozen large cities across the country over the summer and early fall. In addition, with Harmony “Floralscapes,” Prius will be “in full bloom” alongside select California highways, with living billboards made of flowers, a first in the U.S.

So, what do you think? I still can’t find any criticisms from the ARI addressing specifically the issue of SD. But... look at it, is there really an issue here?

“With the new Prius, Toyota has improved upon an icon. They’ve added horsepower while increasing fuel economy and lowering emissions,” said McKay.

Thoughts?

Edited January 23, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Jake_Ellison]

Back to sustainable development class!

In my experience classes start with a precise definition of the object of study.

Wouldn’t you buy it?

No. I don't care about the fact that it's hybrid. it's an ugly, uncomfortable car with awful performance. There are plenty of good cars which also don't consume too much gas. (and which, by the way, are far more environmentally friendly, on account of not having half a ton of batteries in them).

This is what I think sustainable development looks like.

If sustainable development is a Prius, then you really don't need another name for it. Let's just call it a Prius, sice the manufacturer saw fit to name it that. If by sustainable development you mean something else, say it.

So, what do you think? I still can’t find any criticisms from the ARI addressing specifically the issue of SD. But... look at it, is there really an issue here?

Perhaps you should read the threads you start. I believe you started one on the same exact topic a few months ago, and it went on for a while, with plenty of answers that gave satisfactory explanation as to why SD is a pointless endeavor. But not to worry, I bet this new thread will just be added to that one by the first mod who spots it.

Until then: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ble+development

Edited January 23, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Chris.S]

Private companies capitalizing on this enviro trend is fine. Except that the enviro trend is based on unearned guilt about destroying nature, harmful CO2 emissions, climate change, etc. The whole idea is that "Man is bad for nature. Man (specifically, Western Man) consumes and destroys nature and in doing so, destroys himself....so we'll just get government to step in a force men to do this, this, this, this, etc". All of "this" being reducing energy usage, reducing carbon output (including breathing), and increasing the cost of living by using alternative energies and "green" solutions.

All of this stuff is never framed by the idea that the new technology makes one's life easier. It's framed with the idea that "it's better for the environment...and oh by the way, that means it's better for you too. And if you don't believe this idea, here's some guilt". Nature first, man second.

My construction program got this shit thrown at us by the bushel last semester, first in a sustainable development class explaining how construction rapes the earth, second in a building science class research project in which we had to propose a "green" renovation for an 1890's brickworks building currently owned by Evergreen. They had no budget, and we were told to go as green and environmentally conscious as possible, even though the bulk of these renovations are to be paid for with taxpayer money because they are having a hard time getting private investors. Sure it was nice to exercise some creativity and get some experience with it, but the whole thing really ticked me off.

I'll add that with the ClimateGate controversy, the entire base science of sustainable development should questioned very critically (if it hasn't already been debunked by someone).

Edited January 24, 2010 by Chris.S

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

In my experience classes start with a precise definition of the object of study.

Let me clear this up: I'm in college, and I have a SD class, which I just started again. See? Sorry if that was ambiguous, but I think I explained that in the thread you just pointed out. I just don't think it's that relevant.

If sustainable development is a Prius, then you really don't need another name for it. Let's just call it a Prius, sice the manufacturer saw fit to name it that. If by sustainable development you mean something else, say it.

OK, I don't know if you just wanted to get all clever, or if you honestly didn't understand what I said, but if this is what you understood from that sentence, ignoring the next one, which explained what I thought SD looks like, you need to work on comprehension skills. Why would I call SD “Prius”?

Perhaps you should read the threads you start. I believe you started one on the same exact topic a few months ago... But not to worry, I bet this new thread will just be added to that one by the first mod who spots it.

Yes, well, I was expecting this. I guess I wasn’t clear enough, but my point here is to discuss products of SD, and this specific example in particular. I think I gave the wrong impression with all the other things I wrote, I was just trying to bring a little context to the topic. So, to all the mods, I really hope that this thread will not be merged with the other, because no one would then give importance or pay the attention I’m looking for to this particular example.

Edited January 24, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Jake_Ellison]

Yes, well, I was expecting this. I guess I wasn’t clear enough, but my point here is to discuss products of SD, and this specific example in particular. So, I think I gave the wrong impression with all the other things I wrote, I was just trying to bring a little context to the topic. I really hope that this thread will not be merged with the other, because no one would then give importance or pay the attention I’m looking for to this particular example.

Sustainable development is an absurd idea, as the previous thread you started explains in great detail. It produces nothing. The Prius is not the product of sustainable development, there is nothing sustainable about it. It works the same way all other products work: it gets built, used, and then thrown away. It also uses gasoline, which is not renewable.

I have no intention of repeating the lengthy arguments I made in favor of my position on SD, and I doubt others do either. If you wish to circumvent the arguments made against your position, by starting a new thread, I'm not gonna interfere beyond pointing to the previous thread. But I don't agree that you should want to or be allowed to do that.

Why would I call SD “Prius”?

For the same reason that caused you to say it looks like one: confusion about what concepts are.

Let me clear this up: I'm in college, and I have a SD class, which I just started again.

Good. Then you can look up the definition of sustainable development, and copy/paste it here. Or you can keep talking about nothing.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

I have no intention of repeating the lengthy arguments I made in favor of my position on SD, and I doubt others do either. If you wish to circumvent the arguments made against your position, by starting a new thread, I'm not gonna interfere beyond pointing to the previous thread. But I don't agree that you should want to or be allowed to do that.

I just pointed out that this is a completely different approach. I'm focusing on this particular example, not on SD as such. Just like there is a thread for rights and there are a thousand others for particular examples of rights implementation, violation, etc. But that's OK, you are welcome to abstain from participating if you like to.

Good. Then you can look up the definition of sustainable development, and copy/paste it here. Or you can keep talking about nothing.

Why? You supposedly already know what it is, and even gave a link where it is extensively defined. You can try here if you like.

Edited January 24, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[softwareNerd]

Wouldn’t you buy it?

No. The Prius has been around for a while, including when I bought my last two vehicles. At neither time did I seriously consider it. Nor did a few million other car buyers. Why? because other cars are available, and one has to compare the Prius against the competition. If you're studying management, you have to be careful not to look at one product in isolation. Instead, try to get into the head of the consumer. For the typical two-car suburban U.S. family the Prius can be one of the cars, but not both. It could be the second car if the family is looking for a small car. Here it would go up against something like the Honda Civic, because of its size. The problem is that it costs $5,000 more than the Civic! So, any reasonable buyer would calculate this and weigh it against the cost of fuel saved. With the previous model, a typical U.S. driver would save about $300 in fuel each year, which is not attractive when one is paying $5,000 more. This model will mean a saving of about $450 a year, which is better, but still about $2000-3000 too expensive.

...but I believe “sustainable” products like this can perfectly coexist with a free capitalist system.

A lot of Prius buyers probably buy it for this reason. A car is not simply a functional object. Every day, millions of people pay a little more for a car that they think is better looking than some other car, or one that they think is more fashionable, or one that they think is a more ethical purchase (e.g. when they're influenced by a "buy American" ethic, or a "green" ethic). So, yes, such products can sell on the free-market, because there are buyers who will be willing to pay the extra money to feel they have done something for the environment. The whole "fair trade" movement is predicated on buyers who are willing to spend a little extra to do what they think is the ethical thing. Of course, that does not make it ethical; but, they should be free to waste their money, and the government should not be subsidizing the waste.

As for me, our second car is a Honda Civic, so I am a clear prospect for Prius marketing. If the fuel-saving/price ratio made sense, I might have bought a Prius. In your post, you do not offer any reason except saying that this is somehow something called "sustainable development". Sounds like a marketing ploy: I cannot relate it to anything real. Do you mean that it uses less fuel? Do you mean that it emits less of certain elements as exhaust? Or something else? What is the real value to me behind that abstract label?

Edited January 24, 2010 by softwareNerd

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Thanks to the rest of you for the helpful replies.

[softwareNerd]

For fun, I just did a comparison of the 2010 Prius and the Honda Civic on Cars.com Turns out that the Prius has a little under 100HP (compared to the Civic's 140HP). Since I already find the Civic on the borderline of being under-powered, this would rule out the Prius for me. I can see that HP working fine in run-about city-driving. However, for a suburbanite, that usage profile would often imply fewer miles per year, and therefore less gas-saving benefit.

I'm not sure if the government offers any incentives to buy the Prius. If they do, that could change the calculations, of course.

0096 2251 2110 8105, I'd be interested if you can sell me the Prius over a Civic, even if you assume some other type of usage pattern, but assume I'm a rational buyer.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

0096 2251 2110 8105, I'd be interested if you can sell me the Prius over a Civic, even if you assume some other type of usage pattern, but assume I'm a rational buyer.

Well, I’m not really a salesman, I’m just a graphic design student, and I don’t know that much about cars. So, I guess the best thing I could do is try to make a great advertisement, like the one it has already, which I think is great, but… since that doesn’t seem to work on you… well, I can’t do anything really . However, the point of this ad is to profit from the popular appeal of these ideas. Most of the potential consumers of this car, sustainable products, architecture, design, green products, etc., which are great in number since this is such a trendy concern today, are mainly focused on their good intentions and their so-called contribution to the planet, rather than the product's actual performance and technical features. They just drift with the current, and my job is to make use of this; tell them what they want to hear, give them what they want, exploit the moral appeal and make a profit from it. Of course, I would not accept this job in particular.

Edited January 24, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Capitalism Forever]

They just drift with the current, and my job is to make use of this; tell them what they want to hear, give them what they want, exploit the moral appeal and make a profit from it.

Do you consider this compatible with Objectivist ethics?

[Robert J. Kolker]

Do you consider this compatible with Objectivist ethics?

Is there anything unethical about selling a person something he wishes to buy, assuming that the person knows the nature of what he is buying and no misrepresentation or fraud is taking place?

Bob Kolker

[Maximus]

I wouldn't drive the POS if it was given to me. I'd sell it to a hippie and buy a truck. People like you are what foisted those damn, dim curly bulbs on us.

Simple solution to available energy: Build nuke plants!

College sure has changed since I was in. Sustainable Development classes indeed! Right up there with pottery and basket weaving.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Maximus