Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Pollution

Rate this topic


orangesiscool

Recommended Posts

What other life forms? Do these other life forms posess rights? Are they the property of someone, whose property rights would be violated if those other life forms should come to harm?

Yes, I would assume property rights of whoever owned the life forms would be violated if that life was harmed by others. But how would you prove that a certain pollution caused harm to you?

My main point however doesnt necessarily have to deal with rights. What about pollution that is destroying the atmosphere that which makes it possible for human life to exist, and yet that pollution isnt violating anybodys rights? Nobody owns the ozone layer, right? What would prevent them from severely impacting the atmosphere negatively to a point where it puts a huge burden on humans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My main point however doesnt necessarily have to deal with rights.

Yes, it does, and that's why I've been making you stick to talking about humans.

It has everything to do with the rights of humans. Your concern is how to prevent humans from coming to harm.

To show concern with harm done to "The Earth" is invalid; "The Earth" has no rights, and furthermore is it impossible to harm a non-living thing. It is, however, valid to be concerned with property damage because that violates the rights of humans.

To show concern with harm done to animals is invalid; animals have no rights. It is, however, valid to be concerned with damage done to animals that are the property of humans because it is a violation of the property rights of the humans.

I won't surrender one iota to the irrationalism of the environmental doctrine and by even using their terms you have accepted a vicious package-deal that would trample the rights of humans.

Here is your question, put as it should have been:

So what prevents individuals or companies from making a severely negative impact on humans with pollution?

Do you see why it is very important to ask it this way?

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what rights are being violated when pollution is destroying the ozone layer? What can the polluter be charged for in a court of law(objective law)?

It depends. Does that destruction actually harm anyone?

Is there a clear answer to this?

Do you see why it is very important to ask it this way?

Is that a "yes," then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All problems caused by not enough capacity to handle the given population. This is casued by not enough Capitalism. Capitalism sees a long line and knows there is money to be made. Only an indifferent government looks at congestion and does nothing. You need to seriously check your premises.

Russia had a lower population than us, but had bread lines. Was that caused by "too much population?"

You are completely and utterly wrong. Capitalism has everything to do with it. Under Capitalism, numbers are not a problem but a boon.

The entire population of the earth could fit inside the state of Texas at suburban population density. We are not even remotely close to being crowded. The problem is statism. I suggest reading The Capitalist Manifesto.

While I agree that Capitalism can optimize the situation, there are limits. I think that your statement about fitting the world's population inside of the state of Texas is specious and rather bold. Have you reseached the feasibility of such a situation? Unless you turn Texas into a 3D grid of continuous apartment construction running a mile high and the entire surface of Texas, I don't see how this could be practically done. And who would want to live with that many neighbors that close together?

The problem with traffic is as much a fault of the drivers as the road design. Have you read the engineering reports on the Boston highway system? Traffic studies in Boston have discovered that it takes only one car to apply brakes to cause a 20 mile backup that will congest traffic for hours. Now when you have thousands of drivers cutting in and out of lanes and forcing other drivers to apply brakes, it becomes apparent where traffic congestion starts. When there are few cars on the road, the spacing between autos is sufficient to avoid this phenomena. But in dense areas, congestion gets worse exponentially. There are scientific and social engineering problems behind traffic congestion that I don't really see being solved by Capitalism, unless you have a system where a central computer drives all the automobiles and people are not allowed to drive their own cars anymore.

I'll take a country setting where my nearest neighbor is a mile away over that nightmare any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that your statement about fitting the world's population inside of the state of Texas is specious and rather bold....And who would want to live with that many neighbors that close together?

I said, at SUBURBAN population density. That means single family homes, yards, driveways, etc. No highrises. Your idea that there are "too many people" is complete and utter nonsense. You can look this up if you like, environmentalists have argued against it but their criticisms have always amounted to: "well, it's actually more like the size of Alaska, not Texas."

The problem with traffic is as much a fault of the drivers as the road design.

Horsefeathers. The problem with traffic is that Socialists and Environmentalists in charge of the government refuse to build roads. They call themselves New Urbanists and I have written on and researched them extensively. They hate low-density "sprawl" and so do their best to sabotage it. When it becomes congested as a result of their sabotage, they blame "sprawl." You are, even though you sound like you oppose them, buying into their lies.

A Capitalist system would see congestion as demand. What happens when the market sees demand? It meets the demand. The breadline is a product of socialism, and the traffic jams of today are, in essence, breadlines.

Here are some of my writings to help you understand the root causes of congestion:

I love the sprawl!

HOV lanes don't work

My Enemy has a name: New Urbanism

The death of the suburbs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that your statement about fitting the world's population inside of the state of Texas is specious and rather bold.
If the world's population were put into the State of Texas, even without building any two-story buildings, everybody would have a 26 ft by 26 ft space of their own. No mile-high buildings required. Okay, this is a bit more crowded than the current 116 square mile per person allotment that you get, again without even having two-story buildings, if you distribute people over the entire world.
And who would want to live with that many neighbors that close together?
De gustibus. A Norwegian farmer was hiking through the valley where he lived, and didn't see a soul for 3 days, then one day he say a person on a hill miles away. He went back home and told his wife "The valley is all full of people, we have to move somewhere less crowded". If you don't like the "crowding", you should reconsider where you're living. That's why we have Wyoming and Idaho, and for people who are creeped out by empty spaces, New York City and Hong Kong. The number of people in the world is of no relevance at all, given how huge the Earth is. What I find shocking is how few multi-story highways there are in the US. Shocking but predictable, given who's in charge of the roads.

BTW part of the solution is more suburban malls. Generally, people are on the road in order to get from one place to another, so how come they're all going to that one place? Because it's got the only Wal-Mart or Lowe's in town. If you build more shopping facilities in the 'burbs, you decrease the concentrated demand on the roads leading to the one store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you build more shopping facilities in the 'burbs, you decrease the concentrated demand on the roads leading to the one store.

Oh, but that would be more building. More sprawl. :P

Just like when asked to build more roads, they say "but that would just encourage people to drive and would make more traffic."

Idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall hearing that someone (wasn't it Harry Binswanger), mentioned that with a higher population you're more likely to be able to do what you want. If the total population is 15 people, then those 15 people have to make everything they need. That means, pretty much, that everyone's going to be a farmer, maybe one person will be able to specialize by being a blacksmith or a carpenter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, destroying the ozone layer would probably harm everybody. Other pollution that gets exposed into the air would also harm people.

Yes, I understand why its important not to use the word "earth" and animals in such a statement, it only involves humans.

P.S. I created a thread on overpopulation a little while ago, so I think you should direct your conversation that way instead of in the pollution thread. Thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...ic=7433&hl=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What prevents businesses/individuals from polluting into the air, such as pollution that destroys the ozone layer? What rights are being violated?
Economics and improbability (respectively) for the first question, and none for the second. The molecules in question rise up in the atmosphere to something on the order of 10 miles up, and there are no property questions up there, so no rights are violated. If you arbitrarily assume, for the sake of discussion, that chloroflurocarbons cause destruction of ozone and that destruction of ozone eventually leads to the destruction of life on earth, then you probably should find a substitute for freon to run your air conditioners on. Then if you find a refrigerator makers who uses these deadly poisons, you have the right to not buy his refrigerators, and if all of these assumptions about evil refrigerators are correct, the guy will either see the light, or go out of business because he's the last unenlightened person on the planet who doesn't realise that freon is instant death. It's improbable that your next door neighbor is going to release a million tons of freon into the air on a lark, just to see what happens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall hearing that someone (wasn't it Harry Binswanger), mentioned that with a higher population you're more likely to be able to do what you want. If the total population is 15 people, then those 15 people have to make everything they need. That means, pretty much, that everyone's going to be a farmer, maybe one person will be able to specialize by being a blacksmith or a carpenter.

Late reply (the board wasn't allowing me to stay logged in earlier in the week)...

There are two distinct levels to this reality:

1. division of labor improves quality of life. To have division of labor work effectively, there needs to be enough people.

2. overcrowding leads to an overal decrease in the quality of life because of noise, pollution and the fact that your freedoms become more restricted as the density of population increases.

So I both agree, but also disagree to the extent that to be who I am, I need about a square mile of land all to myself.

Plus there's the fact that other people, being who THEY are, their way of life may be objectionable to me. I may not want to breath their cigarette smoke as it drifts onto my 26' plot of land in that hypothetical 'world population fit into Texas' scenario. I may not want to hear the sound of Mariah Carey drifting into my yard. Or their kids having a wild party all hours of the night.

I'm a country bumpkin. I'm used to miles and miles of forests, open fields without the disruption of hedonistic people cutting down the trees and ruining my view so they can build their dwellings and bring with them their Socialist laws and higher property taxes.

There is a point at which we have enough population to create the products and services we all need and want. But I think we've gone way past that now. It's to the point where people cluster together in cities and suburbs and are so great in numbers that if there were a disaster, they could not evacuate in time. It would be a panic.

With peak oil and the likelihood that the end of cheap oil has occured, and the fact that no alternative energy sources are financially viable today or for the foreseeable future, there will come a day very soon where too many people will be chasing after a diminishing supply of oil, people not served by mass transit will not be able to get to their jobs, other people will not be able to afford to heat their homes, and civil unrest will result as people panic. When you have too many people chasing after limited resources, things can get nasty very quickly.

I think the world would be better off if population was scaled back to 1 billion people from the present 6 billion + we now have. A lot of the problems in the world are coming from the Third and Forth world nations, which are, interestingly, the most overpopulated.

In a world of pure Objectivists, we could tolerate more density of people, but in this world of irrational jerks, I want to put as much space between me and the next neighbor as possible!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. overcrowding leads to an overal decrease in the quality of life because of noise, pollution and the fact that your freedoms become more restricted as the density of population increases.

"Overcrowding" is caused by not enough capitalism. People crowd together to engage in economic activity, not because there isn't enough space. The Texas example proves that the world population could be ten or more times its current size and you would still have your square mile.

The problem of people being socialist is again the problem of not enough capitalism, and has absolutely ZERO to do with the number of people alive.

There is a point at which we have enough population
There can never be "enough" production. That's like saying you've had "enough" happiness or "enough" life.

With peak oil

Peak Oil is a MYTH that has been disproven many times over. There is a thread on it on this board. The degree to which you have swallowed environmentalist nihilist myths is alarming.

and the likelihood that the end of cheap oil has occured
The end of cheap oil, if we are indeed there, is caused by not enough capitalism. Oil is expensive only because the environmentalists (you know, the ones who think there are "too many people") have banned all domestic drilling of oil and foreign sources are savages and socialists who like to jack up the price. There is no shortage of actual oil in the world and there isn't one coming for at least 250+ years.

I think the world would be better off if population was scaled back to 1 billion people from the present 6 billion + we now have. A lot of the problems in the world are coming from the Third and Forth world nations, which are, interestingly, the most overpopulated.

I think this is nihilism, and certainly not Objectivism. I take it you are new to the philosophy and haven't yet read about what environmentalism really is or how they lie. I suggest you do so, as soon as you can. It will change your outlook on the world.

In a world of pure Objectivists, we could tolerate more density of people, but in this world of irrational jerks, I want to put as much space between me and the next neighbor as possible!

No matter how irrational the jerks of the world are, you are very mistaken about the nature of economics, "the environment," and population. There is more than enough "room" to go around and there will be for as long as anyone is capable of speculating. The Texas example proves this. With capitalism, there always would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may not want to breath their cigarette smoke as it drifts onto my 26' plot of land in that hypothetical 'world population fit into Texas' scenario.
Okay, but remember that if the whole world's population is in Texas, the rest of the world is unoccupied, and you could have the whole state of Montana if you'd like. It's true that somebody else might feel the same way and want to be in a completely unoccupied area, so they could have the state of California or France or whatever they wanted. And in the bizarre scenario where everybody on the planet wants to be maximally distant from all other human beings, you still get over 100 sq. miles to yourself.

I think the only problem would be if everybody felt that they absolutely had to put, say, a minimum of 5 miles between themselves and every other human on the planet, and the world population were to increase 5-fold. But nature has a may of solving that problem -- it is inconcievable (pun intended) that there would be such an increase of population were people to be spaced so far apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
So then who here is saying we all are morally guilty for the initiation of force (if we know driving our cars initiations force against others)?

I'm also interested in this question. Do you think it is rational to, say for example, drive an internal combustion engine vehicle given the possibility of initiating force?

Further, since it is utterly impossible to live in a way that you will certainly not ever initiate force, at what point does the possibility make the action irrational?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also interested in this question. Do you think it is rational to, say for example, drive an internal combustion engine vehicle given the possibility of initiating force?

Further, since it is utterly impossible to live in a way that you will certainly not ever initiate force, at what point does the possibility make the action irrational?

This points to a good correction method on ethical reasoning; if you have a concept of "initiation of force" that means that a moral, rational life is impossible, there's something wrong with your concept of initiation of force. Although "force" is an important concept for Objectivism, I have seen it being used as though it is "perceptually self-evident", which it is not at least in the way it is sometimes used. Briefly reviewing Rand's use of the word "force", I find that she uses it in the ordinary way, meaning "violence, including the threat of violence", i.e. shooting, whipping. beating. I cannot find a case where she talks about littering as "initiation of force".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to my question one more time. What prevents businesses/individuals from polluting into the air, such as pollution that destroys the ozone layer? What rights are being violated?

If a connection between certain materials and damage to health can be established - a violation of the right to life of whatever human whose health will be damaged occurs when someone releases those materials to the air.

In my opinion, there should be laws limiting pollution (which is known and proven to be damaging to health). Not economics or probability.

I also think that it is a very obvious derivative of ethics that pollution should be limited. By definition, it's pollution, which means damaging to human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By definition, it's pollution, which means damaging to human life.
Do you mean that in the absolute sense or the contextual sense. For example, arsenic is pretty poisonous, so does that mean that use of any amount of arsenic which can come in contact with humans is pollution in this sense and should be prevented by law? Or do you mean "only when used in provably toxic quantities"? Methane and CO2 can lead to asphyxia, so do you mean "when released in quantities sufficient to actually asphyxiate", or "in any quantity". What about benzene, which can lead to blood damage or cancer with chronic lower level exposure but death with high level exposure.

We already have a legal remedy for "actual damage", namely tort law. (I assume there is such a thing in Israel). Laws about pollution go beyond the concept of actual damage, and into the realm of "imaginable damage", or "imaginary damage".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean that in the absolute sense or the contextual sense.

Context should be considered of course.

But every amount of polution (which is known to be polution, both in amount and identity of the substance), wheather it causes death or a more minor disease, which is more pollution than what is required for survival* of the one making it is violation of the right to life of those people who will get sick.

*required for survival - This concept is problematic. In modern life the amount of polution that is required for our survival, or life,(in the sense that it is a byproduct of the positive things that our life require), is a lot more than what is required for the caveman.

I think that since polution is, for now, inseparable part of modern life, if one chooses to live a modern life (instead of living in some primitive place), then polution is an inevitable necessity that one has to accept as a payment for this lifestyle. If, however, there are ways of reducing polution, then one does not choose to have polution as a price for modern life, but instead, he gets this in addition, not as a choice, and therefor factories should be compelled, as I see it, to use these means.

Laws about pollution go beyond the concept of actual damage, and into the realm of "imaginable damage", or "imaginary damage".

There is nothing imaginary about diseases that are caused by polution. It is no more imaginary, or "potential" than if I drop a spinning knife over your body (or in a room full of people) and tell you that if you die this is only a function of the probability of the knife to hit you with the sharp edge. Once I threw that knife into the air I initiated force - whether it kills you, or hit no one and fall on the floor.

The problem with air polution, as far as I know, is that it has a linear relation to amount of reported diseases: more accurately the amount of particles (of certain substances) per volume of air has been shown to be proportional to amount of reported deaths per year (looking for graph to support this... will present it later). This raises another problem, since no amount is "low enough".

I don't have a formed opinion on this topic yet, and I was never presented with the arguments that justify why polution, which causes damage to people, should be tolerated and not regulated by law. I don't see how such justification is possible, too, but I'm interested in it nonetheless, if anyone is willing to provide...

Edited by ifatart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But every amount of polution (which is known to be polution, both in amount and identity of the substance), wheather it causes death or a more minor disease, which is more pollution than what is required for survival* of the one making it is violation of the right to life of those people who will get sick.
No offense intended, but I cannot untangle that sentence. Everything in the universe is a “pollutant”, if you define pollutant as “can possibly cause damage to a human, given some amount and method of application”. If you don’t mean that, then the very definition of “pollutant” has to include dose and application specifications, so benzene is not a “universal” pollutant, it’s only a pollutant if it exceeds some concentration X in a location at any time, or some lower concentration Y over a period of time Z. That just covers the part bearing on “harm to others”. Then we have the other problematic concept:
*required for survival - This concept is problematic.
It is indeed. Because, survival is not just “keeping the body running thus staving off decomposition”, it means “living qua man”. So of course that includes whatever drek is pooted out my car’s tailpipe, since my car is essential to my happy existence. And that also includes fireplace effluvia, ‘cuz I like a nice fire in the winter, and byproduct of running my lawnmower and barbecuing in the summer. It would also include spewing a million pounds of CO2 into the air from my brewery, which would be my means of economic survival, or the release of a bit of arsenic or lead into the soil as a result of my mining business, which might be my means of surviving.
I think that since polution is, for now, inseparable part of modern life, if one chooses to live a modern life (instead of living in some primitive place), then polution is an inevitable necessity that one has to accept as a payment for this lifestyle.
No, I think that pollution is an inevitable necessity that one has to accept as a fact of existence. Pollution is clearly an anti-concept, if you think that there’s a connection between pollution and modern lifestyles. Trust me, primitive people are up to their red eyeballs in pollutants (any primitive old ladies reading this will know exactly what I mean).
If, however, there are ways of reducing polution, then one does not choose to have polution as a price for modern life, but instead, he gets this in addition, not as a choice, and therefor factories should be compelled, as I see it, to use these means.
Huh?? I can’t parse that. So-called pollutants exist to the extent that they do regardless of whether you’ve decided “I want to live a modern life” or “I want to live a primitive life”. Now how in the world did you come to the “and therefore factories should be compelled” part? Let me see, are you saying “because I did not agree to receive ‘pollutants’, factories, and only factories, should be compelled to prevent the transmission of any amount of any so-called ‘pollutant’, regardless of the consequences of that compulsion”? For example, if a factory burps out a pound of CO2 in a year but it would be possible to block that CO2 from being released, at the cost of $100 million, then the factory should be compelled to spend that money to absolutely stop pollutants?

So why just factories? Why not individuals? This is reminiscent of socialist thinking: pick on factories because they are run by evil capitalists who make a profit. Why should be not have the same draconian rules for ordinary citizens? Why should I as a private beer-maker be allowed to pollute the atmosphere with my CO2 output, but Anheuser Busch up the road can’t do the same thing because they are a profit-making organization? If you are going to be at all consistent in stomping on polluters, you cannot just pick on evil factories. (For one thing, the arsenic and lead problem in Butte is not a consequence of a factory, it’s a consequence of a hole in the ground).

There is nothing imaginary about diseases that are caused by polution.
Okay, name the diseases caused by pollution. To rephrase and recontextualize, remember that smoking does not cause cancer. I smoked once, 35 years ago, and I don’t have cancer, which proves that cigarette smoke is not a pollutant. It would be helpful if you would name the things that you think are actually “pollutants”.

The main point here is that anti-pollution laws cross an evil line, in imposing prior restraint for unproven possible consequences. You can argue that such restraint is actually justified, but only in rare cases -- for example, prohibiting people from owning their own H-bombs. Pollution laws just so do not pass the justification test for prior restraint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also interested in this question. Do you think it is rational to, say for example, drive an internal combustion engine vehicle given the possibility ofinitiating force?

Further, since it is utterly impossible to live in a way that you will certainly not ever initiate force, at what point does the possibility make the action irrational?

This points to a good correction method on ethical reasoning; if you have a concept of "initiation of force" that means that a moral, rational life is impossible, there's something wrong with your concept of initiation of force. Although "force" is an important concept for Objectivism, I have seen it being used as though it is "perceptually self-evident", which it is not at least in the way it is sometimes used. Briefly reviewing Rand's use of the word "force", I find that she uses it in the ordinary way, meaning "violence, including the threat of violence", i.e. shooting, whipping. beating. I cannot find a case where she talks about littering as "initiation of force".

I'll reword my thoughts. It is impossible to live in a manner which eliminates the possibility of causing another harm for which one is at fault. For example, if I go to the mall, it is possible that I will bump in to someone and send them hurtling down a flight of stairs.

Okay, name the diseases caused by pollution. To rephrase and recontextualize, remember that smoking does not cause cancer. I smoked once, 35 years ago, and I don’t have cancer, which proves that cigarette smoke is not a pollutant. It would be helpful if you would name the things that you think are actually “pollutants”.

I don't know about entire diseases, but I can give examples of specific harm. One such example would be damage to people with preexisting respiratory conditions. The "pollutant" in this case would beground-level ozone. I'm going to have to look more critically at the available evidence for this case, but unfortunately I have plans right now. I'm not certain to what extent existing "evidence" is beyond correlative. As an example with greater specificity, how about the great smog of 1952 in london.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is impossible to live in a manner which eliminates the possibility of causing another harm for which one is at fault. For example, if I go to the mall, it is possible that I will bump in to someone and send them hurtling down a flight of stairs.
Right, and that's why I think this is an important observation that you're bringing up. Whenever we have one of these threads where the "initiation of force" argument comes up, one has to keep in mind the actual referents of the concept. Otherwise it leads to absurdities like the idea that driving a car is an initiation of force.
I don't know about entire diseases, but I can give examples of specific harm. One such example would be damage to people with preexisting respiratory conditions. The "pollutant" in this case would beground-level ozone. I'm going to have to look more critically at the available evidence for this case, but unfortunately I have plans right now.
Well, I'll take that to be a promissory note, and not press the point too much right now. I'd like to see the evidence that if a person has a particular condition, then inhaling ozone will cause them to suffer damage. Ozone is present everywhere, so I think that any person that hyper-sensitive to ozone would have to have died shortly after birth.
As an example with greater specificity, how about the great smog of 1952 in london.
Well, the underlying science is a bit dicey, since it depends on a lot of fabrication to say that anybody was definitively harmed by the incident (i.e. no concrete autopsy reports), but since the death rate jumped undeniably at the time of the incident, it's fair to say that the smog was correlated with some deaths and may have played some contributory role, like the sun probably killed a bunch of people in Chicago in 1995 during the summer. Notice though that well over 8 million people in London were not killed by the smog, so the causal claim is way too strong. We know that cyanide is a vastly more reliable killer than coal smoke. So when people make declarations like "Pollution kills", as though they were articulating a natural law analogous to the law of gravity, we need to question these radical claims. Get a definition of this anti-concept "pollutant". If you mean "that which kills", then of course, that which kills, kills. But then there aren't any "absolute killers". It all depends on... dose, proximity, repetition, age, genetics...
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...