HowardRoarkSpaceDetective Posted April 21 Report Share Posted April 21 [I wasn't sure where this question belongs. It refers to the Anti-Industrial Revolution (essay) so maybe Science and Technology? At the same time, it's about the environmentalist movement, but it's not current. So I flipped a coin.] In the AIR, Rand says: "If you consider, not merely the length, but the kind of life men have to lead in the undeveloped parts of the world—'the quality of life,' to borrow, with full meaning, the ecologists’ meaningless catch phrase—if you consider the squalor, the misery, the helplessness, the fear, the unspeakably hard labor, the festering diseases, the plagues, the starvation, you will begin to appreciate the role of technology in man’s existence." Why does she believe that "quality of life" is meaningless? Does she just mean that the way environmentalists use it is meaningless? If so, why is that? The other day I was debating a friend over "minimum standard of living," trying to convince her that it was an arbitrary designation, like "ecosystem" or "pollution" or "monopoly." Is that what Rand is referring to? Or is she saying that "quality of life" is a useless metric and that we ought to be evaluating societies by their moral standards? On another note, it seems - in the passage about oil spills in Alaska harming the Eskimos - that Rand, while not in favor of oil spills, does not regard them as all that unfortunate. I would think that any kind of oil spill could be seen as a disaster for all species involved. Is she making a utilitarian argument here for industry? I would think not. Does she regard the ocean as a legitimate dumping ground? The libertarian part of me thinks that the only proper way to address the handling of unowned resources is to create an ownership designation for any areas of concern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.