Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Definitions Of Environmentalism

Rate this topic


Liriodendron Tulipifera

Recommended Posts

This is clearly not what he's saying, and to even suggest that he does seems very overdramatic.

It is in fact what he SAID. Whether he MEANT it or not is another matter. That's why I said he needed to watch his wording, not that he was a monster.

Read the way it is worded: he values a chunk of forest more than the lives of those who want to cut it down.

Heh, what a shock. This logically means that you'd value a carpark in the middle of some vast stretch of uninhabited land, like say the amazon.

Yes, I'm sure it is shocking. And I just might. <_<

Since I often like escaping the the visible drudgery of the people around me in this city and take a hike with my dogs in some forest, there are plenty of contexts for which I'd value a given stretch of forest over a carpark.

Meh. I hate forests. They're so... alive. I hate it. That's why I moved to the desert. :P

But I was more making the point that raw nature just doesn't appeal to me in the way it seems to for many. I don't derive pleasure from "taking a hike" in nature or viewing nature. I like MAN-MADE things. Pave the earth, I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, it's not what he said. He said he values X over Y. How does the valuing of X over Y mean that the valuer wants Y destroyed?

And if we paved all of the earth today, Inspector, how would we eat? There would be no agriculture, no beef industry. Or did you already invent Star Trek's replicator?

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, it's not what he said. He said he values X over Y. How does the valuing of X over Y mean that the valuer wants Y destroyed?

Because he vales the forest more than the lives of those who want to cut it down. Thus, since they're going to cut it down, then he wants to kill them. He could value the forest more than the OPINIONS of those who want to cut it down... or value it more than the CARPARK... but to value it more than their LIVES? No, that isn't right.

Take the example of "if you could save only one" that was used just now... if he was the firefighter chief, and there were two fires: one in a building where those people were trapped, and the other in his precious forest, he would send the trucks to the forest. That's just sick.

And to answer your other question: Hydroponics. Geez. <_<

But seriously, farmland is man-engineered land. I'm cool with farmland. It's wild, untouched nature that I don't like.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I value my pets more than just some random stranger, does that mean I want to kill any random stranger? Suppose I said I value my pets more than the random strangers, and more than any politician in Capitol Hill. Does that mean I want to kill any politician on Capitol Hill? C'mon, get real.

Dude... pay attention:

If you said that you valued your pets more than the lives of the men who are coming to kill your pets, what does that mean?

Re-read my last post. If he had worded it to say he valued it more than THEIR OPINIONS or THE CARPARK, it would be fine. I'd disagree, but it'd be fine. He said their LIVES and that is the part that makes it freaky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit the wording is strange, and one must inquire further why he chose the word "lives" in there, nevertheless I disagree that saying so necessarily implies a death wish on the carepark makers. If I said I value my pet more than I value the lives of the politicians, who for example, in California are wanting to outlaw dew claw, ear, and tail clipping, which in the case of the dew claw is good for the pet, thus outlawing it is against my pet and me, does that mean I want to kill the politicians? I admit it's a bit odd, but until the guy says so, it's presumptuous to claim that he meant he would kill the people making the carpark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit it's a bit odd, but until the guy says so, it's presumptuous to claim that he meant he would kill the people making the carpark.

Again, pay attention: I never said that he MEANT to claim that. Thus my wording: "watch your wording" instead of "you sir are an abomination."

The "watch your wording" says "I know you couldn't possibly have meant that the way you said it, (right?) so be careful with your words."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is dangerously speaking in terms of non-essentials and using the concept "important" as a floating abstraction. As Hal said, more important to whom? Are you saying X should be more important than Y to all men?

Good question.

Think of a government that did not recognize each individual as an end in himself. Think of a government which placed forests or animals, or the collective above the individual.

It's in our best interest to set up a government which recognizes individual rights, which means that each individual's life is set as the highest value. It's anchored in reality, because each of us values our own life as the highest value. We translate this into a social context via the concept of rights, which are set up to preserve that highest of values: your life.

You could further say that because we live in society, we value other people tremendously. There is an enormous value we get living in a division of labor society, that we wouldn't get on a deserted island (with our animals and trees <_< ) , or in a totalitarian state.

I suppose the real question would be at what point would you value your pet (or whatever) over living in a division of labor society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, pay attention: I never said that he MEANT to claim that. Thus my wording: "watch your wording" instead of "you sir are an abomination."

The "watch your wording" says "I know you couldn't possibly have meant that the way you said it, (right?) so be careful with your words."

I guess I don't think even warning of "be careful" is necessary--to me it doesn't suggest a desire to kill others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question.

I suppose the real question would be at what point would you value your pet (or whatever) over living in a division of labor society?

This is a good point, one I'd like to take off on. And I'd also like to touch on a few statements made in PMs and perhaps in this thread.

First, I take issue with the constant theme of "industry has been more helpful than harmful." First, we all know what is meant by this and we all agree: overall, industry has profited mankind far more than it has hurt. But let's talk about specifics. WHAT industries? Helpful and harmful to WHOM? To humanity in general? These collectivist statements bug me. As Thales said in a previous post somewhere in this thread, values are not removed from individuals.

So, let's consider this question of what a given person might value over living in a "division of labor society." Has any modern human tried abandoning the division of labor in society and succeeding in enjoying him or herself in living alone? There are a few examples, but the best one, as far as I know, is Dick Proenneke, who retired from an engineering career in his 50s to build a log cabin in Alaska in 1968, in which he lived for the next 30 years. The only transportation in and out was a bush plane. He did receive some resources from the "outside world" including clothing, spices, mail and some seeds and industry-made tools, like saws. Everything else came from the land: the food, many of his tools, which were hand-hewn, the logs for his house, etc. He did everything himself, as much as possible, and he actually filmed himself making the cabin. What an amazing person. Now that is an independent life. I wish I was knowledgable enough and physically strong enough to do it myself, because I think for a short time in my life, I would love it. It is quite an amazing story.

His story was documented by a friend in a book entitled One Man's Wilderness, An Alaskan Odyssey, which was later turned into a film with his original footage, Alone in the Wilderness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I take issue with the constant theme of "industry has been more helpful than harmful."

Themes as a rule must be generaliztions, and as far as generaliztions go, you can tattoo that one on my bicep. I take issue with your taking issue with it. <_<

"If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States:

1900 - 47.3 years

1920 - 53 years

1940 - 60 years

1968 - 70.2 years (the latest figures compiled [as of January 1971])

Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent "Thank you" to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find."

-- "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States:

1900 - 47.3 years

1920 - 53 years

1940 - 60 years

1968 - 70.2 years (the latest figures compiled [as of January 1971])

Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent "Thank you" to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find."

-- "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution

Well, I would agree. But now let us think about these figures a little more critically. From 1900 to 1940 I am guessing the increase in life expectancy was due mainly to the adoption of plumbing and sewage treatment systems(thus avoiding some common diseases carried by flies and transmitted by drinking human waste-polluted drinking water). Furthermore, life expectancy has increased, since 1968, an average of about 0.13 years per year, for a total of about 5 years, since we're now at an average life expectancy of around 75, in the US, give or take. Clearly, the effect of industry in adding to quantity of life is now leveling off.

But I think it would be fun to imagine this "paved Earth" and "hydroponics" scenario! I suppose there are folks who care not for pure maple syrup and all manner of cool vegetable and fruit products that grow on trees. I've never heard of trees being grown hydroponically, but perhaps it's possible! But never mind! We can subsist on lettuce and tomatoes produced hydroponically; that would be an interesting enough diet, I think. And I bet all those cattle we eat could thrive on hydroponically grown grass! But wait, I wonder how hydroponics would work without clean water (which is, of course, filtered by the soil)? I guess we would just dig through the pavement to get that. But wait, the water doesn't get through the pavement! Maybe we could use rainwater! Actually, that might work, provided we had huge swaths of land devoteded solely to its collection in large buckets. I suppose we'd also dig through the pavement to get organic fertilizer (dead plant and animal remains degraded to a useable form by fungi and bacteria that live in soil), since pure water won't make plants grow. Oh, but wait, fungi and bacteria need water and oxygen to do their jobs! So there would be no organic fertilizer. Of course, there are compost bins....but even they need soil to start the decomposition process.... But wait, we can just use inorganic fertilizer in the form of minerals in the earth's crust! We'll just dig through the pavement to get THEM! And we can expend tremendous amounts of energy and money by making ammonia fertilizers by combusting nitrogen and hydrogen gases, instead of letting soil-dwelling bacteria do it for us, for free! <_<

Hmmm.... what else would happen if we paved Earth? Of course, this would severely limit the plant species we could grow, but whatever. We can do without oils, drugs, pesticides, and perfumes! We could do without 25% of our prescription drugs, which are derived solely from plant products. And I bet we could do without those drugs vincristine and vinblastine discovered in the 1960s from the rosy periwinkle, native only to Madagascar. We could do without taxol (another cancer drug), Velcro (modeled after seed-dispersal mechanisms in plants like burdock), cotton, flax, wood, hormones from the Mexican yam (the inspiration for the birth control pill), and all manner of other possibilities! Boy, this is starting to sound like one SWEET Earth!

That anyone would choose to "pave the Earth" which would result in the loss of habitat for millions of terrestrial species before we ever even learn of their existence, let alone usefulness, is a rather scary prospect. Thankfully we are far from that ever happening, and I would guess there are some pretty smart rich people (individuals and companies) around who never allow it to happen. :nerd:

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let's consider this question of what a given person might value over living in a "division of labor society." Has any modern human tried abandoning the division of labor in society and succeeding in enjoying him or herself in living alone? There are a few examples, but the best one, as far as I know, is Dick Proenneke, who retired from an engineering career in his 50s to build a log cabin in Alaska in 1968, in which he lived for the next 30 years. The only transportation in and out was a bush plane. He did receive some resources from the "outside world" including clothing, spices, mail and some seeds and industry-made tools, like saws. Everything else came from the land: the food, many of his tools, which were hand-hewn, the logs for his house, etc. He did everything himself, as much as possible, and he actually filmed himself making the cabin. What an amazing person. Now that is an independent life. I wish I was knowledgable enough and physically strong enough to do it myself, because I think for a short time in my life, I would love it. It is quite an amazing story.

Clearly people can survive in the wilderness. But, I would argue that mankind's ability to control nature, and mold it to his wishes is surviving at a higher level. It's a supremely high mastery of nature that man has and it can be much, much better.

Think of the things that are produced that you may take for granted. Toothpaste, anti-biotics, paper, pencils, dishwashing soap, dishes, bug spray, running water, etc.. Think about hospitals that save lives from traumatic injuries or diseases, or think about all of the great recreational media, from movies, to games, to books, to amusement parks. Or, search Google's Froogle, and look at the items that are for sale, and think about the brain power and effort involved in creating each. Think about what was required for "Google" itself.

I can't recall where I read it (perhaps Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson"?), but the brainpower and effort in the manufacture of a simple pencil is astounding. It requires experts from many different fields and goods from around the world. That's a simple pencil. Look at a computer. The time, effort and brain power put in creating a computer is beyond belief. The electronic components are the result of over one hundred years of effort from geniuses and men of various abilities.

Just look around you at any man made item and think of what it took to make it. Think of what it took to create the tools to manufacture the item. I bet you'll be amazed at the brainpower and effort required. Think of the life giving benevolence of those things.

You might also want to look at populations. Without modern methods, far fewer people can survive. This means that the vast majority of the people in the world today would not be living. How is that for a benefit? The population might be what it was 2000 years ago. That's a measure of the value of freedom and capitalism. (Non-capitalists countries are helped greatly by the existence of capitalist countries, since they can just take the technology created here.)

But, in addition to these clear facts, is the fact that a division of labor society is not static. It's dynamic. There is the promise of continual improvement and the freer the system, the faster and more dramatic the improvements will be. We could be much more advanced today if not for the extreme regulations and taxes imposed.

I can appreciate living in nature, but only for a while to try it, or if I really have to do it for some reason. However, if given a choice, I prefer a free society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, the effect of industry in adding to quantity of life is now leveling off.

I'd say that's because it's being CHOKED off by the ever-increasing statism of our era. I don't think that under a free society it would be "leveling off" any time soon. (I include the benefits of industry not just directly, but also indirectly, in that industry makes it economically possible for other fields to exist, such as medecine)

But I think it would be fun to imagine this "paved Earth" and "hydroponics" scenario!
Who popped your souflee? I said I don't derive pleasure from raw, untamed nature like some people do. And I do derive that kind of pleasure from well-engineered pavement. And I said I had nothing against farms, which are quite the opposite of "natural."

Are you going to have a tirade against sherman-williams next?sherman.jpg

However, if given a choice, I prefer a free society.

I agree, Thales. I'll take it one further: I think that cabin guy is an idiot and a hypocrite. He sure liked his "natural life" but he used man-made medecines to stay alive. "Naturalism" is nothing more than a child's fantasy, based on the retardedly false notion that man can survive "in tune with nature."

Frickin' hippies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spot on, Thales, I totally agree with everything you said. My point in many of these "nature" types threads is simply that man, at this stage, cannot separate himself from the biophysical realm. I am just trying to make people a little more aware about the ORIGINAL source of all these great things we value in our life.

I don't take those items for granted at all. I think about stuff like this all the time, in fact this is precisely why I want nature preserved, because it's a tremendous source of products and ideas. All the items you listed have a biophysical basis:

The toothpaste I use contain diatoms (protist-type microorganisms with lots of silica) and carageenan (a polysaccharide gel from algae that holds it all together).

Anti-biotics are harvested from or synthetically modified from secondary metabolites of fungi or filamentous bacteria. While we contantly make new antibiotics and chemical structures not found in nature, those chemicals are based on structures found in nature, and lots of new antibiotics and drugs are actually unmodified and simply harvested from the wild or from cultivated plants or fungi. This is very important. Pharm. companies pay a lot of money for bioprospecting.

Paper is acid-washed cellulose from woody plant cells.

Pencils contain wood and possibly rubber? (from the Hevea brasiliensis rubber tree in the tropics). I doubt you can use just any old wood for a pencil. I bet it's a specific type, probably a pine that's soft enough to sharpen (just a guess).

Dishwashing soap (all soap, really) has a complex chemistry with many different types of oils, but basically what is happening in its production is the formation of a salt from plant or animal oils by mixing with lye. In fact, I'm making batches of soap this week with olive oil, sodium hydroxide, and essential oils, which smell and work great, at about the cost of $1 per bar. They are cheaper and higher quality than I can buy in the grocery store. All of these things came from plants, except possibly NaOH (I don't know how that is produced).

Bug spray may contain insecticides like pyrethrin (from Chrysanthemum plants!), or other chemicals modified from naturally occurring ones. We see the warfare going in nature between plants and animals, and we copy it!

So my basic point is not "Technology is bad!" I love my computer, it helps me analyze all kinds of cool data I gather from nature. :( My point is, rather: "Wow, look at all this cool stuff that man has managed to manipulate and control for our own good. Nature is a constant source of ideas and substances for us to use. Let's keep it around!"

As for living in the wild, no person in their right mind wants to live without shelter or tools. Even the Native Americans had these things. I think the reason that modern people may want to do so is that they like to be alone or with fewer people, they genuinely enjoy nature aesthetically and feel better around it, and they need a big adventurous challenge that the comforts of modern life have removed.

So, Dick Proenneke is the extreme example of someone living as far apart from society as possible. This doesn't make him a hypocrite without examining his motives. Is someone a hypocrite for living in the country rather than the suburbs? The suburbs rather than downtown? Come on, Inspector. Get real. You don't even know the first thing about that guy! How could you possibly evaluate his motives?

Even he got mail and presumably used money he earned all those years to pay for stuff. No one can separate themselves from modern society fully. He would only be a hypocrite if he thought he could separate himself FULLY from society and its benefits. Just the same, no one can separate themselves from "nature" fully, either. If you think you can, you are also a hypocrite and completely ignorant of the physical or biological source of everything you eat, wear, breathe, or use.

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my basic point is not "Technology is bad!" I love my computer, it helps me analyze all kinds of cool data I gather from nature. :( My point is, rather: "Wow, look at all this cool stuff that man has managed to manipulate and control for our own good. Nature is a constant source of ideas and substances for us to use. Let's keep it around!"

Perhaps we're talking past each other here. I'm certainly not saying do away with nature. Nature is a beautiful thing, so long as mankind has control over his life enough to enjoy it.

If by natural is meant, all that which is not man made, then we can't do away with it anyway! As Francis Bacon said "Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed". We master it by coming to understand it. We master it by learning the causal mechanisms that govern the different things we observe.

When you refer to nature, here, I get the sense you're referring to things like life in the wild. That's all neat stuff. In a free society people would be able to buy any such land and keep it as they wish. To get rid of it all seems like a ludicrous implausibility. Men like the values it has to offer far too much for that. Believe me, I see the value in it that you see. Always have. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you refer to nature, here, I get the sense you're referring to things like life in the wild. That's all neat stuff. In a free society people would be able to buy any such land and keep it as they wish. To get rid of it all seems like a ludicrous implausibility. Men like the values it has to offer far too much for that. Believe me, I see the value in it that you see. Always have. :lol:

Right. And I see value in man-made things that have a totally nonbiological basis, like computers and other equipment. I just don't understand, at a fundamental level, how these items work or are even made. Therefore I don't talk about them much. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care for the non-man-made -- doing so is a weakness. The man-made and the non-man-made are mutually exclusive: you either value one or the other; either we pave all of the earth or we plant all its surface with trees and such. Valuing both the man-made and the non-man-made is like valuing socialism and capitalism: they just don't mix. The valuing of the non-man-made is a virus that will infect the good in you associated with valuing the man-made: when it comes to a mixture between life and death, one must kill the other.

</sarcasm off>

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Dick Proenneke is the extreme example of someone living as far apart from society as possible.
...and doesn't that suggest something about how he looks at the following things:

Production

Technology

Industry

Modern Conveniances

Conquering nature/altering nature to serve man

Naturalism/living "in harmony" with nature/adapting the self to "fit" nature

The primitive lifestyle

personal discomfort/hardship

Isn't he rejecting the former in favor of the latter? Isn't he saying, with his actions, things in the first list are bad and things in the first list are good? That you should minimize the former and maximize the latter?

I could call him retarded on that premise alone. I could call him a hypocrite because he doesn't refuse medecine and simply DIE the next time he gets an infection.

Is someone a hypocrite for living in the country rather than the suburbs? The suburbs rather than downtown? Come on, Inspector. Get real.

YOU get real. The man is obviously a frickin luddite and you simply want to whitewash it. Living in the suburbs doesn't mean you hate technology. Living in a cabin in Alaska like a nutcase does. Are you saying he's John Galt and he's shrugging against the welfare state? Please!

No one can separate themselves from modern society fully. He would only be a hypocrite if he thought he could separate himself FULLY from society and its benefits.
Not true. He is operating on the premise that it is good to shun technology and the division-of-labor society. And just like the mystic altruist who says "well, I can be just selfish enough to stay alive," so he too uses just enough technology to stay alive. And they're both hypocrites.

Just the same, no one can separate themselves from "nature" fully, either.

Define "nature." Do you mean "all that which exists?" (as meant by Bacon) Do you mean "plants, animals, and biological life?" Or do you mean "that which is untouched by the hand of man?"

It is the latter that I reject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or do you mean "that which is untouched by the hand of man?"

It is the latter that I reject.

So do you propose to create petroleum out of nothing? Do you wish to create solar radiation out of nothing? Do you think man can live in a vacuum? Hm, "things untouched by the hand of man," this pretty much includes every form of raw material and energy used in the beginning stages of every industrial/agricultural process. Interesting view.

Let's see here, what qualifies as things untouched by the hand of man:

-the photons of energy we receive from the sun which are the beginning stages of all sorts of agricultural and industrial processes

-the chemical bonds broken in fuels to extract energy

-the ore dug out of the ground for metals

-the atomic particles that collide in nuclear reactions

-the oil used to create the plastic that forms the keyboards we all type on

-the oxygen we breathe

-the atmosphere of the earth

-etc. etc. etc.

What does man do? He rearranges nature. What did that guy Bacon say? I'm sure you remember -- something like "to command nature man must obey it?" Can he obey a zero? Can he rearrange a vacuum? Goodness gracious, perhaps you've invented a machine that violates the law of identity? Please share.

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you propose to create petroleum out of nothing? Do you wish to create solar radiation out of nothing? Do you think man can live in a vacuum? Hm, "things untouched by the hand of man," this pretty much includes every form of raw material and energy used in the beginning stages of every industrial/agricultural process. Interesting view.

Knock it off, Felipe. Or don't you get what I'm saying?

I mean "Oil, in the ground, untapped by mankind. Valued as STAYING in the ground, untapped." "Solar radiation NOT utilized by man. Valued BECAUSE it is not helping man." "land untilled by man BECAUSE it is untilled by man"

Nature. RAW nature, worshipped BECAUSE it is not helping man.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I see, but do you see what I'm saying? I'm saying one can value the non-man-made for the same reasons one values the man-made: they can bring great benefit to man. To value the non-man-made doesn't necessarily mean to value it intrinsically or because it brings no value to man.

Let me give you an example. A metal industrialist obviously values ore; he goes to great lengths to extract it from the earth. Does his valuing of ore necessarily imply that he wants it to remain unextracted? Similarly, I value the great medicines we have today. Some of those medicines can only be produced by non-man-made processes. Therefore, any pharmaceutical who wishes to stay in business (through the sale of such medicines to people like me who find them of great use) will logically preserve the conditions for which such plants will continue to grow. That the pharmaceutical values such plants and the conditions for which their growth is promoted doesn't necessarily mean it wishes to leave them "untouched." No, they value them because they wish to use them. This is all I'm saying.

Edited by Felipe
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...