Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism Vs. Environmentalism?

Rate this topic


NewYorkRoark

Recommended Posts

To begin, let's keep in mind that any kind of loyalty is a virtue of the enslaved (loyalty to your parents, loyalty to your favorite author, loyalty to Ayn Rand, loyalty to your philosophy yesterday). That being said, there have been enormous sceintific progress in recent years - providing information that perhaps Ayn Rand might never have anticipated.

Because global climate change is such a debatable issue (but I think it's impossible to assert that humans have had absolutely zero effect on the climate), how about we concentrate on acid rain in the Adirondacks. Here are the facts:

1. Adirondack water has become highly acidic in the last century, killing fish and wiping out local ecosystems.

2. The acidity results from two things: a. granitic bedrock inhibiting the natural filtering process and b. acid rain. Without the acid rain, the environments remain healthy. I'm sure the opposite is true for the bedrock (although obviously, that's impossible to test).

3. The acid rain is directly related to the production of chemical pollutants in midwest plants (Chicago, Detroit, etc.)

I think that objectivism works only when the world is held constant (when resources are equally available). For instance, every peice of rock that Howard Roark takes out of the ground and uses to build is a peice of rock that I won't be able to use .

With that in mind, Overpopulation will drastically reduce the quality of life in the next century. Should we have the right to overpopulate? Should we have the right to waste? And if we can't help it in our present society, when the ability to waste is as almost as accessible as the ability to breathe, might it be the governments responsibility to represent the capitalist interests of those that cannot represent themselves (the environment, for example).

In this way, might it be the responsibility of the government to manage the pollutants of midwest plants (surely, we cannot expect that their individualistic principles to solve the problem)? Might it not also be the responsibility of the government to clean up the problem that resulted from the abuse of environmental power?

Two relative Ayn Rand quotes:

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." (The individualistic principles that are absent in our culture)

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." (The lesson we should be taking more notice of)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your intention is not clear.

I think that objectivism works only when the world is held constant
Think what you may, however Objectivism is a Philosophy not an environmental standard and has little to do with the 'functioning' of the planet.

[...]With that in mind, Overpopulation will drastically reduce the quality of life in the next century. Should we have the right to overpopulate? Should we have the right to waste? And if we can't help it in our present society, when the ability to waste is as almost as accessible as the ability to breathe, might it be the governments responsibility to represent the capitalist interests of those that cannot represent themselves (the environment, for example).

In a free society overpopulation is not an issue. It is one more thing on the list of things that Capitalism accounts for by default. Because as soon as resources begin to dwindle, people (in a capitalist society) either find other ways to accommodate a growing population or the population growth begins to wane, and not because of any government law against children but because in a time with limited resources people would simply not be able to afford the responsibility children. Of course this is fairly generalized but this is the essential principle that accounts for the "problem" of over population that the radical environmentalists throw at everyone. The freer the society the freer people are able to provide for their own lives.

1. Adirondack water has become highly acidic in the last century, killing fish and wiping out local ecosystems.

2. The acidity results from two things: a. granitic bedrock inhibiting the natural filtering process and b. acid rain. Without the acid rain, the environments remain healthy. I'm sure the opposite is true for the bedrock (although obviously, that's impossible to test).

3. The acid rain is directly related to the production of chemical pollutants in midwest plants (Chicago, Detroit, etc.)

I am not familiar with the environmental conditions near the Adirondacks however if this is your land and you had direct evidence of significant detrimental effects of 'Midwest plant's' byproduct, I would agree with civil action against them and only them not legal action against all plants.

[...] those that cannot represent themselves (the environment, for example).

Have you thought about why 'the environment' cannot represent 'itself?' "The environment" is not a person, it is a resource that is owned by many people and used by even more. No one can be held responsible for 'the environment' except by those who's portion of may be an issue. This includes the air above my head. If you "Chicago Plant" are creating a recognizable threat to my health in or on my home or my land I will bring action against you. I have no responsibility or reason to be concerned with an acre of rain forest in south America, a river in the Adirondacks, or a beaver in nearby mountains they are not mine.

This is not to say that I would go dump nuclear waste in places I would never go, because the global environment is an integrated whole, I am simply saying that unless you have proof that I am significantly (as in violating the right to life of those around me) affecting your immediate environment you have no right to seek controls on my life in any form.

People usually talk about my car at this juncture. "You can't possibly think that your car does not adversely affect the environment." Well yes I do think that my car has an effect on the environment and I do support car companies that seek to create cleaner cars, but what I support even more is the movement to a society that would not force the economy to stay with primitive energy sources such as fossil fuels.

Statists are the enemy of 'the environment' not the lonely "Chicago Plants" or "big industry."

Edited by Proverb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." (The lesson we should be taking more notice of)

This is not a 'lesson', a 'commandment', or a doctrine. It is a statement of fact and 'nature' in this statement is not limited to that of the enviornment.

"Your nature as a human being is to be commanded, but must be obeyed"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On scientific issues, I'd recommend Jay H. Lehr's "Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns".

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047128485...=books&v=glance

Interestingly, the book tackles the acid-rain-in-the-Adirondaks issue, reporting that Adirondak lakes tended to be naturally acidic, and without fish. Starting in the late 19th/early 20th century, logging practices (including burning) neutralized lakes' PH, allowing fish to thrive for the first time. As the forests grew back after logging ceased, the lakes returned to their natural acidity.

It was my understanding that the largest acid rain study ever commisioned was actually abandoned (i.e., de-funded, by the National Geogrpahic Society among others) after it became clear that its results were not going to implicate acid rain as much as the environmentalists had hoped. Maybe somebody with more knowledge on this subject could comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: First Response

Forgive me, but I think the error in your response lies in the fact that you're thinking within the context of a generational response - that our effect on the environment occurs within a lifetime, and that capitalism will be able to account for tgat effect. I would argue that we effect the environment in the short term, but also, and more importantly, in the long term and that pure capitalism will do a poor job accounting for those long term effects. For instance, if it turns out that our chemical emmisions are weakening the ozone (imagine that they are, i'm not asserting that they are - just that it's a possibility), what happens then? What if the effects are delayed? Then two generations from now will be doomed by radiation. But your argument will be that capitalism will account for that. How? So some kind of skin-protection industry will boom. When? Two generations from now? But you're assuming that we'll be able to fix the problem then. Might it be that nobody has a solution for THAT much radiation? Then what? WE're screwed.

Your nature as a human being is to be commanded, but must be obeyed.
I think you're taking this out of context from what Ayn Rand intended it to be. She uses this to argue for objective reality (that facts are facts and that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge we have of the world - that scientific facts are facts and science is the only knowledge we have of the world).

On scientific issues, I'd recommend Jay H. Lehr's "Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns".

Interestingly, the book tackles the acid-rain-in-the-Adirondaks issue, reporting that Adirondak lakes tended to be naturally acidic, and without fish. Starting in the late 19th/early 20th century, logging practices (including burning) neutralized lakes' PH, allowing fish to thrive for the first time. As the forests grew back after logging ceased, the lakes returned to their natural acidity.

It was my understanding that the largest acid rain study ever commisioned was actually abandoned (i.e., de-funded, by the National Geogrpahic Society among others) after it became clear that its results were not going to implicate acid rain as much as the environmentalists had hoped. Maybe somebody with more knowledge on this subject could comment.

That's very interesting. I had not heard of that explanation, but it sounds very plausible. But that was just an example. I'm sure you could find an example of human progress producing harmful biproducts.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's assume the arbitrary and contextless assertion for a moment: that humans are having an effect on warming. There is zero evidence, but let's just say that this is somehow magically true. Your selfishness is killing mother earth. So, for the moment, we are conceding that you are correct.

So the combustion of fossil fuels in the United States has saturated the atmosphere and we now need to take some sort of action.

We must ask ourselves: what is the cause of air pollution in the United States? If you divide it into 4 categories, as the U.S. government has, residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation, the number one cause of air pollution is transportation at almost a third of all fossil fuel combustion. The number one cause of transportation air pollution is trucks, suvs, and cars on the highway.

If you check out Veksler's ("Greedy Capitalist" on OO.net) Objectivist Constitution you will notice that the words "public good" are stricken from his version. Enlightened civil government is about individual rights and taxation as a neccessary evil, possibly not even neccessary. This means that there will be no public utilities. Now, Objectivists do *prioritize* wealth production ahead of environmental concerns, but this is in fact, contrary to the views of many objectivists even, benenficial for the environment as well.

The number one cause of air pollution in this country is the government coercive monopoly on ground transportation. Period. End of discussion. Freight and people should move by train behind one engine rather than spending millions on having their own engines. Or, they can pay for their own damn roads.

In addition, it is a myth that the vomiting of urban centers over the countryside, caused in large part by government highways, represents the American dream. The truth is that high taxes in cities drives these *commuters* away from the more natural and prosperous transportation nodes/ urban centers. SO, if you were to come back at me with the fact that the burning of coal, abstracted from the statistics I just referenced, has a slightly higher output of CO2 than transportation in 2003, you would still only be scare-mongering. There are two reasons :

1. because of everything I have just mentioned, it has become horrendously inefficient to get electricity to and to heat and condition and electrify all sectors: residential, commercial, and industrial, primarily BECAUSE of their flight and expansion to the countryside. Think about the difference between electrifying a city and electrifying the same amount of productivity spread out over hundreds of square miles.

2. an Objectivist government would literally spackle the country with nuclear power plants, which have no effect on the environment as long as there is a capitalist around to watch over the spent rods.

Environmentalism is a joke. The "solution" posited at Kyoto, the "greater good" of all, is actually the cause, not only of taxation and oil dependence, but also of pollution. Astoundingly, as objectivists, we are the only true environmentalists, every one else is actually working for the destruction of the environment. If you don't buy it, I suggest you read, and reread, and reread again what I have just written because it is the elephant in the room. It could not be more straightforward, and you don't have to have a degree to see it. Just stick you head out the window.

Here are the stats:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

Lastly, the globe is quite possibly not warming, and the influence of humans is highly dubious even if it is. And if humans are influencing the environment, who cares? Mother Earth is tough. And if she isn't, we should all clamor for Objectivism. SOCIALISTS HAVE NOT A LEG TO STAND ON. The socialist is the most ignorant and ill-informed species of pond scum on our planet. From now on question everything he says.

And another thing: there has been no significant increase in the landfall of hurricanes in the United States in over a hundred years. Nor has there been an increase in their average winds. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml. And another thing: one small contributor to transportation combustion: Jet Fuel, at 12%, leads us to ask the question: why do we still make planes out of metal? The short answer is : public good. Type in "composite" and "aircraft" and "regulations" on yahoo and feel Burt Rutan's pain.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you unskinned for that reply.

I think you're taking this out of context from what Ayn Rand intended it to be. She uses this to argue for objective reality (that facts are facts and that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge we have of the world - that scientific facts are facts and science is the only knowledge we have of the world).

First, whether or not someone uses a statement akin to something Ayn Rand said in a different context has no weight on the actual validity of said statement. Ayn Rand is not our oracle or prophet and her words are not necessarily the final point.

Secondly, I did not use that statement out of context. Ayn Rand used it to specifically refer to the nature of reality (which includes your nature as a human being, the nature of a plant, and the nature of chemicals). 'Nature' has a much wider context than that of simply referring to the environment.

Thirdly, The statement isn't originally Ayn Rand's. It is a statement that she picked up from Francis Bacon that is widely relevant to a description of her philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be another incarnation of the same argument that has Objectivists against everyone else.

Here's how I see it. I interpret Objectivism to state that one is free to pursue their own ends so long as they don't negatively impact anyone else's ability to pursue their own ends. However, Objectivism seems to contradict itself by implying that the right of someone to pursue the end of a healthy environment will have to sue everyone who damages it.

Objectivism argues that someone should be able to pollute their own property as much as they want, but this is naive. If someone could pollute their own property with no negative effects on anything else, this would be a viable argument, but anyone with a common sense knowledge of pollution knows that this is not the case.

If I create a factory that pumps dangerous chemicals into a stream on my property, and the stream flows through town negatively impacting the stream on the property of others, then they can sue me. However, what happens if they don't notice the change until Timmy comes inside one day with chemical burns from swimming? At this point, I might be responsible for putting the stream back to where it was and paying for the child's treatment. However, what if Timmy gets cancer and dies? How do I pay for that? What if some of the chemicals seeped into the ground and after my efforts to clean them up, some were left behind? What if a bird had eaten a fish from the stream, flown across town, and died in Mary's garden? Now the chemicals in the bird's stomach end up killing all of the worms that come to break down its body, thus hindering Mary's ability to plant a healthy garden. Am I responsible for replacing the worms in Mary's garden? How would she go about proving that I was responsible? How would she even know?

The point is, this philosophy requires perfect access to information and instantaneous reaction to any wrong. This isn't the way the world works.

Oh and I wasn't able to find anything on Yahoo about the composite aircrafts, could you please post a link? I'm interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, whether or not someone uses a statement akin to something Ayn Rand said in a different context has no weight on the actual validity of said statement. Ayn Rand is not our oracle or prophet and her words are not necessarily the final point.
Objectivism philosophy was defined by Ayn Rand. She may not be your oracle or your prophet, but unless you've altered her definition of objectivism, what she defined it as, is relevant.

Secondly, I did not use that statement out of context. Ayn Rand used it to specifically refer to the nature of reality (which includes your nature as a human being, the nature of a plant, and the nature of chemicals). 'Nature' has a much wider context than that of simply referring to the environment.

I really don't mean offense, but you will probably take it as that, but (and because) I think you are emotionally bound to your arguments. If you reread what I said, you'll see that I said - in different words - exactly what you just said. In fact, I never mentioned the word "environment." I said, "She uses this to argue for objective reality (that facts are facts and that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge we have of the world - that scientific facts are facts and science is the only knowledge we have of the world)." That includes everything you claimed I omited, unless you think that humans, plants and chemicals are not part of the world.

Thirdly, The statement isn't originally Ayn Rand's. It is a statement that she picked up from Francis Bacon that is widely relevant to a description of her philosophy.
I know that it was a Francis Bacon quote, but it's her own integration of that quote into Objectivisim that I was refering to. If you are talking about Objectivism, you should be refering to how the one who defined it interpreted as. If we were talking about Francis Bacon, we'd be talking about the scientific revolution.

As for unskinner's response, I think most of it was pretty accurate, but I still think it's naive to think that we have had no negative impact on the earth (or in the future). I proposed that if we are harming it (in any way, or in the future) and the effect was delayed, that capitalism would have a hard time solving a problem that had already been created. Overall, I think it was well thought out.

But I would like to point out one very problematic misinterpretation of my motive (and another problematic assertion within that passage).

Lastly, the globe is quite possibly not warming, and the influence of humans is highly dubious even if it is. And if humans are influencing the environment, who cares? Mother Earth is tough. And if she isn't, we should all clamor for Objectivism. SOCIALISTS HAVE NOT A LEG TO STAND ON. The socialist is the most ignorant and ill-informed species of pond scum on our planet. From now on question everything he says.

My motive is not to protect the Earth. I think the Earth is extremely tough. My motive is to protect humans! To protect our progress! To protect everything we've acheived. Have you ever seen a dead person? Isn't it surprising how fragile we are physically? THAT is why we need to protect the earth - to protect ourselves and to preserve the balance (and it's ONLY because of a variety of balancing acts that we are able to prosper).

The other point that I would make is this: "SOCIALISTS HAVE NOT A LEG TO STAND ON. The socialist is the most ignorant and ill-informed species of pond scum on our planet. From now on question everything he says."

I would avoid using those kinds of statements to stay out of the lob-and-volley style of debate you find on terrible programs on major news programs. Trying to be offensive is no better than being offended. It's imperative to emotionally detach yourself from your philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lastly, the globe is quite possibly not warming, and the influence of humans is highly dubious even if it is. And if humans are influencing the environment, who cares? Mother Earth is tough. And if she isn't, we should all clamor for Objectivism. SOCIALISTS HAVE NOT A LEG TO STAND ON. The socialist is the most ignorant and ill-informed species of pond scum on our planet. From now on question everything he says."

My motive is not to protect the Earth. I think the Earth is extremely tough. My motive is to protect humans! To protect our progress! To protect everything we've acheived. Have you ever seen a dead person? Isn't it surprising how fragile we are physically? THAT is why we need to protect the earth - to protect ourselves and to preserve the balance (and it's ONLY because of a variety of balancing acts that we are able to prosper).

The other point that I would make is this: "SOCIALISTS HAVE NOT A LEG TO STAND ON. The socialist is the most ignorant and ill-informed species of pond scum on our planet. From now on question everything he says."

I would avoid using those kinds of statements to stay out of the lob-and-volley style of debate you find on terrible programs on major news programs. Trying to be offensive is no better than being offended. It's imperative to emotionally detach yourself from your philosophy.

The socialists, too, think they are ultimately fighting for mankind. But I appreciate your drawing that distinction.

Also you're absolutely right about my tone. I should have left it at "Socialists do not have a lot to stand on." And, to have me preach to you like that must have been nauseating. I do not agree that "It's imperative to emotionally detach yourself from your philosophy" but I think that the spirit of what you are saying is true. Rule number one in philosophy, and it's not easy, is don't make it personal (personally insulting).

Let me be clearer, too, about what I mean when I say socialist. One type is like Mike Meyers, Charlie Chaplin, or my mom and sister, or the hypersensitive people in my philosophy classes in college who, despite being non-serious socialists are otherwise the SALT OF THE EARTH.

Then there is the other type who empties his life into the cause of socialism or who furthers it's cause in significant ways. The Paul Krugman, the environmental scientist, Michael Moore, Bill Mahr, etc. Make no mistake that I think these people are SCUM and I hope they loose their jobs.

The point that ARI people have made recently is also the politics is NOT PETTY but is smaller than a sense of life and a willingness to think. We should be extremely careful in calling anyone SCUM. Though I am not prepared to say we should never pronounce moral judgements. Anyway, the end is of rational and courteous discussion. You're right. You can actually do damage to Objectivism by being uncivil. I'm especially sorry for being unclear.

Edited by unskinned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should be extremely careful in calling anyone SCUM. Though I am not prepared to say we should never pronounce moral judgements.

I think one can avoid using the word scum, and still simply describe why a person is scum without calling them scum. Generally speaking, one is going to end up explaining why they are calling someone scum anyway. However, should one have the basis for calling someone that, why shouldn't they? When you say "I am not prepared to say we should never pronounce moral judgements", it sounds as if you are close to that point. It's not an issue of always or never, it's an issue of "what is the context", and "what selfish interest does it serve".

I agree it is important to ensure the facts we are using to make a moral judgement are accurate and correct, but it is passing moral judgement that allows us to stay alive, and not just stay alive, but live fruitful, happy lives qua man. If we are sure of our facts, and we are going use those facts to further our lives, the only measure one should use in deciding whether or not to "pronounce" moral judgements is, "What selfish interest does such pronouncement serve?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My motive is not to protect the Earth. I think the Earth is extremely tough. My motive is to protect humans! To protect our progress! To protect everything we've acheived. Have you ever seen a dead person? Isn't it surprising how fragile we are physically? THAT is why we need to protect the earth - to protect ourselves and to preserve the balance (and it's ONLY because of a variety of balancing acts that we are able to prosper).

I've seen plenty of dead people. It didn't make me an environmentalist though. It really didn't even make me question how fragile we are. It usually made me consider "someone here did something really stupid". Our "fragility" is not simply based on that which the body can physically withstand. Depending on the context, humans are quite resilient, not simply "surprisingly fragile". It isn't because our bodies can only survive unassisted on a very small portion of the world.

Peter Stark wrote a book call "Last Breath". Now, I don't know what Mr. Stark's stand is on environmental issues, but he does relay some scientifically relevant information on the durability of the human body. The book portrays fictional accounts of the deaths of people engaging in outdoor sporting events, but with a strong emphasis on the science of physiology. In it he describes the very strict conditions under which we have to live, physiologically speaking, due to the tolerances of the human body, without the assistance of technology (including very simple technology such as clothing). Given all the conditions that must be met, only a very small percentage of the earth could sufficiently support human life without technology. (Incidentally to any person who engages in "extreme" sporting activities, I recommend this book. It has valuable information that one could use to help save one's life.

Why then have we flourished? How have men adapted to living in some of the most inhospitable places? Not because of some "balancing act", but because of "reason" and because the human body's tolerances can adapt to some changing conditions OVER TIME. One of the important things that can be gleaned from this book is that in most (if not all, it's been awhile since I read the book) of the stories, the people who suffer death or serious injury, did so because they ignored some principle, forgot some principle, or didn't plan properly for the event in which they were engaging. Sure, the environment is what "killed" them if one only looks at it from a superficial point of view.

It's not just the planet that's tough, humans are tough too.

Now I have to ask, what is your selfish interest in "protecting humans"? Does that mean ALL humans? Do you make any attempt to distinguish which humans deserve your protection? Want your protection?

[Edit - Spelling/Grammar - RC]

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said, "She uses this to argue for objective reality (that facts are facts and that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge we have of the world - that scientific facts are facts and science is the only knowledge we have of the world)." That includes everything you claimed I omited, unless you think that humans, plants and chemicals are not part of the world.
Okay. I was unclear as to your motives and your meaning. Yes, I tend to be a little 'pushy.'

It's imperative to emotionally detach yourself from your philosophy.

This is questionable depending on exactly what you mean.

...capitalism would have a hard time solving a problem that had already been created. [...]

The personification here makes things unclear. What is it about a capitalist society that would cause people to ignore the condition of the environment?

As a general question, why is it mostly from the environmentalist stand that people try to dismantle Objectivism as it relates to social principles.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's very interesting. I had not heard of that explanation, but it sounds very plausible. But that was just an example. I'm sure you could find an example of human progress producing harmful biproducts.

Could you point me to one example that wasn't originated by people who started with poor philosophical premises, and can thus be ignored unless they produce some sort of overwhelming evidence? So far, environmental "scientists" have provided as much evidence supporting their absurd claims as Christians have provided "proving" the resurrection of Christ.

Also could you point out how a relatively small group of creature's (say six billion) could influence the climate of a whole planet without trying when natural event's such as volcanic eruptions, comet impacts, etc. whose impact on the planet is much larger, barely effects the planet's climate for any significant time period?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh* apparantly no one heard me...I'll repost:

This seems to be another incarnation of the same argument that has Objectivists against everyone else.

Here's how I see it. I interpret Objectivism to state that one is free to pursue their own ends so long as they don't negatively impact anyone else's ability to pursue their own ends. However, Objectivism seems to contradict itself by implying that the right of someone to pursue the end of a healthy environment will have to sue everyone who damages it.

Objectivism argues that someone should be able to pollute their own property as much as they want, but this is naive. If someone could pollute their own property with no negative effects on anything else, this would be a viable argument, but anyone with a common sense knowledge of pollution knows that this is not the case.

If I create a factory that pumps dangerous chemicals into a stream on my property, and the stream flows through town negatively impacting the stream on the property of others, then they can sue me. However, what happens if they don't notice the change until Timmy comes inside one day with chemical burns from swimming? At this point, I might be responsible for putting the stream back to where it was and paying for the child's treatment. However, what if Timmy gets cancer and dies? How do I pay for that? What if some of the chemicals seeped into the ground and after my efforts to clean them up, some were left behind? What if a bird had eaten a fish from the stream, flown across town, and died in Mary's garden? Now the chemicals in the bird's stomach end up killing all of the worms that come to break down its body, thus hindering Mary's ability to plant a healthy garden. Am I responsible for replacing the worms in Mary's garden? How would she go about proving that I was responsible? How would she even know?

The point is, this philosophy requires perfect access to information and instantaneous reaction to any wrong. This isn't the way the world works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, this philosophy requires perfect access to information and instantaneous reaction to any wrong. This isn't the way the world works.

So, is your solution to hold people accountable for things that they may not actually be responsible for? In others, even if you can't prove, hold them accountable anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you point me to one example that wasn't originated by people who started with poor philosophical premises, and can thus be ignored unless they produce some sort of overwhelming evidence? So far, environmental "scientists" have provided as much evidence supporting their absurd claims as Christians have provided "proving" the resurrection of Christ.
The pollution of U.S. rivers and streams during the industrial boom of the 19th and 20th centuries. It's still unhealthy to eat the fish in many places (southern Androscoggin River, Maine, for example). How about the environmental disaster that is (was) New Orleans. Scientists (not environmental scientists, but scientists) had been predicting that for years.

Also could you point out how a relatively small group of creature's (say six billion) could influence the climate of a whole planet without trying when natural event's such as volcanic eruptions, comet impacts, etc. whose impact on the planet is much larger, barely effects the planet's climate for any significant time period?

Overpopulation. You may not think of it as pollution, but I believe it is. I would make a bet that in a hundred years, quality of life will plummet world-wide, due to the abuse of resources, overcrowding, superviruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, etc.

I simply disagree with you (Rational Cop) regarding how tough humans are. Maybe compared to other animals. But can't you imagine a supervirus, like a bird-flu or ebola? Isn't it better safe than sorry anyways? I would rather not be that confident in our ability to survive, and be pleasantly surprised, than be overconfident and be destroyed.

For clarification, I'm not exactly an objectivist. I am, in an ideal world, but I think we've been going down the wrong path for far too long. And I don't think an immediate switch to objectivism/capitalism would work. We live in a society that's far too morally corrupt for objectivism to succeed. Capitalism won't be able to solve problems when there's individuals who are abusing moral principles to take advantage of others for money. And there are far too many in our world. Just the other day I walked into a bar and two kids in suits slapped each other high five and said "I made so much money off of people today." Reasonable moral principles (live for no other man, ask no man to live for you) are the backbone to the success of capitalism. Ultimately, I'd like to think we can live in a world where principles are primary and there is no need for government, but I think we're a long way off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, is your solution to hold people accountable for things that they may not actually be responsible for? In others, even if you can't prove, hold them accountable anyway?

Not exactly. I'm stressing the importance of regulation and responsibility (hehe now I'm in trouble). If you pollute, you're initiating a force on the lives of countless individuals around you ("Live with my negative byproducts, as I refuse to clean up after myself!"). Because of the sheer number of people you could affect indirectly by pollution, there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that someone simply does not pollute in the first place, or if they do, that they take all possible precautions to limit the negative effects.

If a factory is releasing toxic gas into the air, are you proposing that each person affected should come collect their damages, while those not feeling significant enough effects should simply deal with it? We aren't anarchists here, why can't we say that within the role of protecting individual freedoms, government should prevent individuals from polluting in any way that they can not completely contain?

If someone does pollute, which obviously they will, they should have to pay a set fine for what they're putting into the world. This money could then be used to subsidize some sort of pollution control industry. I hate subsidies, and you all do too, but if we're collecting this money for the reason of stopping pollution, then it should go towards that purpose. Perhaps the companies responsible for the pollution control would be subject to evaluation, and subsidized accordingly? Or contracts could be bid on? I can't see why anyone wouldn't agree that preventing pollution is a desireable end that can be met through rational means (fining those who do it).

The problem comes from, "What qualifies as pollution? My car? My cigarette? My breath?" Well your car does, yes, and so a tax might be imposed on emissions and mileage. This would encourage car makers to make more fuel efficient, cleaner cars too, which is good. Your cigarette does too, Mr. Chimney Breath, and you should have to pay a tax when you buy a pack. Don't smoke the whole thing? Give them out to others? Too bad. Your breath? Maybe kinda. If everyone had to pay a small flat tax every year just to bolster the program, I doubt it would be that big of a deal except to those who would say, "We won't pay you this dollar out of PRINCIPAL!" and I don't care about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly. I'm stressing the importance of regulation and responsibility (hehe now I'm in trouble). If you pollute, you're initiating a force on the lives of countless individuals around you ("Live with my negative byproducts, as I refuse to clean up after myself!"). Because of the sheer number of people you could affect indirectly by pollution, there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that someone simply does not pollute in the first place, or if they do, that they take all possible precautions to limit the negative effects.

If you polute, you MAY be initiating force to some people around you, or you may not. The government's involvement should be limited to those instances where someone has initiated force against someone else, and a case can be made to demonstrate it.

The mechanism that needs to be in place is that if you can prove someone has initiated force against someone else, you address it with a civil suit or a criminal charge. Otherwise, you are holding people accountable (regulations) for things that they may not have done, nor would do. Regulations don't just affect the bad guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a general question, why is it mostly from the environmentalist stand that people try to dismantle Objectivism as it relates to social principles?

I don't have much time, but I'd like to address this quickly.

As the title of this post would indicate, I do not think that the environmentalist stand should dismantle Objectivism. For instance:

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." I take this to be the moral foundation of Objectivism.

Therefore, as an individual, I would never pollute and I would never abuse a resource so that another individual would be disadvantaged by my abuse. I would attempt to hold resources constant, by not wasting what I use, using what can be used again, and recycling what cannot be used anymore. I would maximize efficiency.

The problem with capitalism right now, is that this moral situation is not the norm. We spend rediculous amounts of money on products that serve nearly no purpose. Think about fashion and think about movies. Our consumer choices represent our values, and our values are rotten. We live in a society where people are so socially aware, that they'll starve themselves to death (Terry Schaivo)! Is that not rediculous? Capitalism will work, but only when are values aren't corrupted.

The major point is capitalism will work, but our consumer choices and business will represent our values, and only when are values are righted will unrestricted capitalism be successful.

I don't hate many things, because hate implies passion, which implies emotion, which tends to lack reason. But I hate fashion. People spend tons of money so that other people will think they look good, and what looks good is what everyone else agrees on. People who are socially aware, people who care what everyone else thinks, people who are dependent on others. It's a waste and it's pathetic. I do think beauty serves a function, but only on a functional level and I believe that there is a science to beauty. Geometry, frequency relationships on the visual spectrum, frequency relationships in music, etc. However, the amount we value beauty in our society is inflated and rediculous. I apologize, that was a rant with no real place in this post, but I get very frustrated when I walk down the streets of New York City.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you polute, you MAY be initiating force to some people around you, or you may not. The government's involvement should be limited to those instances where someone has initiated force against someone else, and a case can be made to demonstrate it.

And let me just re-emphasize here that the burden of proof is NOT on the "polluter."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that not rediculous? Capitalism will work, but only when are values aren't corrupted.

This is false. You have an incorrect definition of "work" in this context. Capitalism can be said to be "working" if nobody initiates force against anyone else. They could all be wasting their money on total garbage or never showering or listening to crummy music or wearing tar and feathers. None of that could be said to be making capitalism qua capitalism "fail."

You could make the argument that corrupt valued would LEAD to the initiation of force, but so long as nobody is initiating force, then CAPITALISM IS WORKING, no matter how corrupt the values of a society.

This is a technicality, but an important one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand. Than what is the point of capitalism? To fulfill it's own definition? What progress is being made if there is no progress (except that the rules of capitalism are being followed)? Or is progress being made only when capitalism is being followed? Is the product of capitalism, following capitalism?

In your definition, everybody in the world could be doing absolutely nothing purposeful except not initiating force, and that would make them purposeful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand. Than what is the point of capitalism? To fulfill it's own definition? What progress is being made if there is no progress (except that the rules of capitalism are being followed)? Or is progress being made only when capitalism is being followed? Is the product of capitalism, following capitalism?

In your definition, everybody in the world could be doing absolutely nothing purposeful except not initiating force, and that would make them purposeful?

What do you mean by "progress?" You can't FORCE people to be good people. You can only legislate that they not hurt each other. (initiate force) What would be achieved would be JUSTICE, the subordination of might to right, a society which obeys moral law.

The actual achievement of values is up to the individual people. A society cannot and should not force this. If this is not achieved, it is not the fault or even the concern of "capitalism" per se. It is the fault and the concern of the individuals involved.

Thus, even if it is a society of deadbeats... so long as they do not initiate force, capitalism has NOT failed.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NewYorkRoark,

Therefore, as an individual, I would never pollute and I would never abuse a resource so that another individual would be disadvantaged by my abuse. I would attempt to hold resources constant, by not wasting what I use, using what can be used again, and recycling what cannot be used anymore. I would maximize efficiency.

The problem with capitalism right now, is that this moral situation is not the norm. We spend rediculous amounts of money on products that serve nearly no purpose. Think about fashion and think about movies. Our consumer choices represent our values, and our values are rotten. We live in a society where people are so socially aware, that they'll starve themselves to death (Terry Schaivo)! Is that not rediculous? Capitalism will work, but only when are values aren't corrupted.

The major point is capitalism will work, but our consumer choices and business will represent our values, and only when are values are righted will unrestricted capitalism be successful.

With this, you've gone beyond the problem of how to deal with pollution as an initiation of force in a laissez-faire system and have claimed that the majority of people are ruled by irrational desires, and hence that laissez-faire capitalism will fail, since it depends on rational producers.

If what you say is true, and people are not competent to pursue their own values, how do you plan to correct their "corrupted" values? Who would dictate, amongst the myriad of choices of the innumerable values in each of the innumerable lives you plan to interfere with, what is to be valued, and what is to be considered "wasteful?" And by what standards would these things be valued-- your judgement of their best interests, perhaps? If so, how would you plan to gather the information needed to make such determinations, and then enforce them?

And what of those who disagree?

You can't enforce morality at the point of a gun; moral actions must be chosen. I sympathize with your judgement of the baffling actions of irrational people, but we must not forget that there are rational people, too-- it would be quite presumptuous to dictate to them how they should live their lives, and quite immoral to attempt to enforce it with force. How would you judge the person who declares that your favorite dessert, your favorite movie, your hobby, your chosen career, or any other value which brings your life joy, is "wasteful" because they do not think you should be valuing it, and then fined you for pursuing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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