Pollution

[Ifat Glassman]

...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

I agree.

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.

If the drek your car emits, combined with similar amounts of drek that other people produce, produce a level of pollutant which is causing diseases - you are violating people's right to life. Explain to me how you justify this.

Life qua man does not mean life with a car, a barbecue in the yard, and putting together nuclear bombs at one's home as a hobby if one so pleases. Not everything that happens to make someone happy automatically gives them the right to do it. If something makes someone happy but yet it damages another man's health, then it is a violation of right. This is like, the E in ethics.

So why just factories? Why not individuals?

Not just factories: everyone. I chose factories simply because they produce a whole lot more, and are the main cause of health problems.

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.

I'm sorry, but to say that cigarettes do not cause cancer is like totally ignoring reality. I don't even know how to respond to that.

As for pollution: If you want you can look up information in this subject. There many many cases and researches in this subject. What reason do you have to question their validity?

The main point here is that anti-pollution laws cross an evil line, in imposing prior restraint for unproven possible consequences.

Unproven? just as cigarettes being a factor that causes cancer isn't proven? Maybe all the doctors just don't know what they are talking about and people should consult you about their health instead, since you seem to think that all the many researches done on this subjects prove nothing.

Edit: took out a link to an article.

Edited January 2, 2007 by ifatart

[Nate]

I'm sorry, but to say that cigarettes do not cause cancer is like totally ignoring reality. I don't even know how to respond to that. ...

I chose factories simply because they produce a whole lot more, and are the main cause of health problems. ...

As for pollution: If you want you can look up information in this subject. There many many cases and researches in this subject. What reason do you have to question their validity?

As for the first ...

But then there aren't any "absolute killers". It all depends on... dose, proximity, repetition, age, genetics...

ANYTHING can kill you given an adequate dose.

As for the second, that claim is totally baseless. Please provide evidence that factories are the main source of health problems.

As for the third, please provide such a study so its validity can be considered. You didn't answer the questions (what diseases, which "pollutant," how much, etc). What reason does someone have to question their validity? It depends. Who is they? What are they claiming? What is their evidence?

[DavidOdden]

If the drek your car emits, combined with similar amounts of drek that other people produce, produce a level of pollutant which is causing diseases - you are violating people's right to life. Explain to me how you justify this.

In order to make a point, I underlined something that you said there. The reason why I did that is to emphasize the implicit collectivism in that statement. It's interesting how sometimes, various threads here come together. We had the Moron thread about religion and how maybe Objectivism is a pick-and-chose, DYI philosophy (honk! So not!!), and a "why don't we give up the philosophy stuff, let's appeal to the masses" issue. And implicitly, I whacked hunterrose on the snoot for "how he says it" issues. So I've really gotta object to this statement of yours. Nate in his most recent posts here brings the main problem out, namely the notions of "initiation of force" and rights. The fundamental flaws in your argument are these. First, you depend essentially on an unproven right, especially a right interpreted incorrectly -- the "absolute right to exist, no matter what metaphysical conditions prevail", where there is no initiation of force. Second, you make the notion of "violates rights" contingent on what the herd does. So whether or not my actions are a violation of rights depends, it would appear, on whether others in the collective have also acted similarly. I find that incomprehensible. I hope that you do too, at this point.

Life qua man does not mean life with a car, a barbecue in the yard, and putting together nuclear bombs at one's home as a hobby if one so pleases.

I have one of two reactions to this assertion, depending on the literal semantics you had in mind for your sentence. One is, bullcrap, it sure does, except for the nuclear bomb part. You are not required to have either a car or a barbecue, but you can live your live according to whatever meager values you feel constitute advancing your life. Me, I totally understand what those values are, and I know and praise the value of the car and the barbecue, so both (and more) are necessary for my life. Please recall that "life" isn't simply "morgue avoidance". The other reaction is snore, you're getting all logical positivist, and why didn't you get the point that I want you to find a principled differentiation between the two right acts and the one wrong act? If you can't sort that out, how can you make any progress on the question of pollution and rights?

Not everything that happens to make someone happy automatically gives them the right to do it. If something makes someone happy but yet it damages another man's health, then it is a violation of right. This is like, the E in ethics.

Come on, we're way past infantile high school ethics class. Please re-read the last few posts of mine on the topic of "harm to others". This libertarian "anything as long as you don't harm others" position is utterly untenable, if you intend to adhere to a rational philosophy. It is plain old false that I am violating a man's rights if my actions "damage his health". For example: suppose I have penicillin, and a man needs penicillin to keep from getting seriously sick. Then does my action of not giving him the penicillin violate his rights? Of course it doesn't! You need to work on identifying exactly what actions of mine that "damage a person's health" are actually rights-violations that should be prevented under the law.

Not just factories: everyone. I chose factories simply because they produce a whole lot more, and are the main cause of health problems.

Then your entire proposal and post is invalid. Start by saying what you actually mean, rather than posting corrections to say "I really meant". Second, you are now embracing the nonsensical philosophy "life is impossible, we are all evil, rights violations are meaningless since we are all rights violators". Rework your proposal, and explain how life is at all possible, under your vision of what governments should force people to do.

I'm sorry, but to say that cigarettes do not cause cancer is like totally ignoring reality. I don't even know how to respond to that.

Try to respond to it rationally and scientifically, and not emotionally. Stop buying into the rhetoric, and actually use your brain. Think about what "cause" means; think about the actual facts. Explain why I am not dead from cancer by now. I've dealt with you here long enough to know that you are an intelligent person, so the only conclusion that I can come to is that you have, for some reason, decided to go with the slogans rather than the mind. Please stop.

As for pollution: If you want you can look up information in this subject. There many many cases and researches in this subject. What reason do you have to question their validity?

Same as the cigarette case. You're just spouting environmento-wacko snidery. There are no studies that show that any form of "pollution" causes any disease. If you want, you can look that up.

Unproven? just as cigarettes being a factor that causes cancer isn't proven?

I consider this move intellectually dishonest. Can you explain why this shouldn't be considered criminally deceptive? Given the point that I have made repeatedly over the recent pile of posts on this topic, responding to you, you ought to know better. You're not talking about "factors", you're talking about absolute and irrationally asymmetrical laws regarding cause and effect: a person who is at risk for getting cancer has no responsibility to face that fact and act accordingly, but a man who wishes to live a life seeking his own values must nevertheless sacrifice his values, and not just for the sake of an actual person who might not benefit from his actions, but from an imaginary, unknown person.

Tell me why we should not put the cancer-susceptive in prison for violating the rights of those who want to have barbecued ribs to act freely?

[Inspector]

Ifat,

David has an interesting way of showing his points. It requires patience on your part, which I suggest that you exercise. Because if you follow him down his rabbit-hole, you will be rewarded.

[Ifat Glassman]

Ifat,

David has an interesting way of showing his points. It requires patience on your part, which I suggest that you exercise. Because if you follow him down his rabbit-hole, you will be rewarded.

Ok, will do that. But I'll get back to this thread in a cuople of days when I have time to do it thoroughly. (Just FYI that I am not abandoning this thread).

[mweiss]

A short while ago, I was reading an anti-Ayn book ("It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand") mostly for the unintentional humor. Later in the book he starts attacking Ayn Rand on the worshiping smoke stacks thing. He didn't succeed in much except to look stupid, but then I thought, yes, it's producing through non-productive elements, but the smog (insert pollutant here) IS harmful to people. Then again so is a stove. The fact remains it is harmful. If things unsuper-cool based on degree of harm, where do you set the line?

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>[Edited to capitalize everything that should be. Matt]</span>

It looks like you're in luck. I was archiving my open reel tape collection when I happened across a taped radio broadcast from 1974. Dr. Peikoff on WMCA in New York, was asked this very question. And I am attaching the audio of that portion of the broadcast so everyone can hear it from the source..