Planning For The Future?

[thejohngaltline]

I'm currently enrolled in a summer school class that focuses a great deal on Environmentalism. There have been several issues presented thus far in the class that I disagree with, but there is one question that the class has provoked that I would like to raise here. The Environmentalists heavily emphasize preserving land, water, and other resources for future generations. Their reasoning is that this should be done out of some sort of moral obligation to the Earth, but I'm wondering if there might be an Objectivist motivation for doing the same. Do we stand to gain anything from watching water consumption or planning development in a way that preserves space? And, more specifically, should we take these measures even if any possible benefits will not occur until after our lifetime?

Thanks!

[JMeganSnow]

The Environmentalists heavily emphasize preserving land, water, and other resources for future generations. . . .Do we stand to gain anything from watching water consumption or planning development in a way that preserves space?

The Environmentalists are operating from an invalid premise: that there's a limited amount of "resources" to go around. The only fundamental "resource" is human ingenuity, and it is inexhaustible. Are we correct in assuming that our many-generations-separated offspring will be incapable of exercising their ingenuity and thus we have to provide for their failures by sacrificing our interests? Personally, I find it insulting when anyone expects me to provide for congential incompetants that ALREADY live, much less ones that may never exist!

[Spano]

Their reasoning is that this should be done out of some sort of moral obligation to the Earth, but I'm wondering if there might be an Objectivist motivation for doing the same. Do we stand to gain anything from watching water consumption or planning development in a way that preserves space?

There is a rational motivation for preservation which comes from the short-term scarcity and the need to choose between alternatives. This is the subject of economics. To put it in concrete terms, a person has a strong incentive to preserve those resources on which his life depends. If I own a plot of land on which I need to graze my cattle, I should refrain from burning it to the ground or allowing the cattle to totally wipe it out. If I live in an area where water is scarce, I ought to preserve it such that it lasts throughout the farming season etc. In any case where humans stand to benefit from preserving rather than consuming a resource, they will do it if they are rational.

Because preservation will occur when such a course of action is a value to individual men, a system of private property rights is all that is necessary. Whatever people find valuable, they will seek to own. Whatever is a disvalue will be eliminated. For example, in areas like Colorado where water is scarce, property rights have been implemented for water. You can buy or sell "shares" of the river for irrigation, and you will necessarily preserve water because to waste it is damned expensive. Wolves, on the other hand, will be shot by sheep farmers. If somebody really likes wolves, they ought to buy some land for a wolf sanctuary.

The environmentalists try to set up a false alternative: either you are for untamed wilderness, or you want to pave over the entire earth. In reality, there will always be some wilderness because people like to hunt, camp, and hike. There are others who like to own a huge ranch for seclusion. What the enviros want is not wilderness for the sake of man's enjoyment, but wilderness devoid of man, for its own sake.

[Bold Standard]

Do we stand to gain anything from watching water consumption or planning development in a way that preserves space? And, more specifically, should we take these measures even if any possible benefits will not occur until after our lifetime?

I think the central issue here (completely evaded by most environmentalists) is one of property rights. An individual or corporation has a right to do whatever they want with their own property. If they own the land, they have every right to cut down the trees, etc., and nobody has any right to stop them, no matter who's grandchildren stand to benefit.

But at the same time-- if someone or some organization engages in activities that can be proven to cause harm to other people's property; for example, if a company is dumping pure toxic waste into a river that drains straight into your crawfish farm, and (you are able to prove conclusively that) your crawfish are growing wings and fangs as a result and attacking you whenever you try to harvest them, or whatever, then you have a legal claim against that person or organization. If you can prove that they're damaging your property directly through their actions, then that's illegal (and rightly so).

But the ecologists tend to totally ignore cases like that. They go after policies and new regulations, instead of investigating and helping to enforce the legitimate environmental laws that already exist (and by now, there are of course many, many laws which are not legitimate at all, yet they're still not satisfied).

At this point (and long ago), there is no way their alleged utopic-fantasyland that future generations will supposedly grow into could ever be wonderful enough to justify the misery they are putting us through now.

And there's never a time when the good of "the future," or any other "greater good" can legitimately supersede individual rights (property rights).

As individual consumers, should we, now, conserve our water and preserve our space? I've never seen any legitimate evidence that water or space are scarce. If that ever becomes a problem, then we might want to conserve (if there is a drought in your area, it might be in your interest to conserve, but you shouldn't be forced to do so, by anyone except the one who owns/pumps the water, who would probably do it simply by raising the price, or limiting the amount per-customer over a set time). As to space-- we're not going to run out any time soon. Especially here in the drastically underpopulated US.

[tobyk100]

(I)f someone or some organization engages in activities that can be proven to cause harm to other people's property; ....then you have a legal claim against that person or organization. If you can prove that they're damaging your property directly through their actions, then that's illegal (and rightly so).

I have a question to tack onto this thread.

Who owns the O-Zone layer? If some big company pumps out CO2 and is destroying the O-Zone layer, and thusly the temperature of my fish farm rises and I all my fish die then isn't the company cuasing harm to my property. Let alone if I can prove that the increase in solar radiation is giving me cancer.

I guess basically the question boils down to "What if someone is cuasing indirect harm to my property, or my person?"

Edited June 18, 2006 by tobyk100

[Maarten]

Well, you have to be able to prove that they are. If you can, then it's no different from someone using other means of indirect force against you, like fraud...

[Bold Standard]

Ecologists have never even come close, by the way, to proving a causal connection between the CO2 released into the atmosphere by one company, or all of the world's industry combined, and significant fluctuations in temperature (as far as I'm aware).

Even if all the fish in the world were dying from heat stroke (which they're not) you would have to prove that CO2 is to blame, and that some specific business or businesses are responsible for putting it there. Personally, I think it's exceptionally unlikely (if not impossible) that this will ever happen, based on all the evidence that I've seen. But I'm not a scientist.

Edited June 19, 2006 by Bold Standard

[ggdwill]

I have a question to tack onto this thread.

Who owns the O-Zone layer? If some big company pumps out CO2 and is destroying the O-Zone layer, and thusly the temperature of my fish farm rises and I all my fish die then isn't the company cuasing harm to my property. Let alone if I can prove that the increase in solar radiation is giving me cancer.

I guess basically the question boils down to "What if someone is cuasing indirect harm to my property, or my person?"

Are these proper analogies?

What if GE, Ford, 3M, GM, and all of the other big fish on the Dow Jones take a dive tomorrow and as a result my little mutual fund, very sensitive to Wall Street fluctuations, takes a dive on the day before I was planning to cash out? Yes, their actions are indirectly harming my property but that is the risk I take by investing in the market. Of course, unlike the atmosphere, you have a choice to enter into or stay out of the market.

However, it is simply a fact of life that everything that everyone does can and most likely will, indirectly enganger someone at least a tiny bit or at least a little while.

The ethics involved in driving in traffic seems to be a microcosm of alot of sticky situations. Here's an example that I think will shed some light on this perdicament. Suppose you've just exited off of the highway and you're sitting at a red light, 3 or 4 cars back, waiting to turn left onto the street. Suddenly, you remember that you need to run another errand and the place you want to go is to the right, so you pull around and get into the right lane. Suddenly, you hear a loud crunch and you look over and see that the car you just pulled out from behind of had been slammed into by someone coming off of the highway much too fast. Now, in this situation you have acted solely in the furtherance of your own life (by deciding to go right to run your errand) and in doing so have exposed the person in front of you to a greater amount of danger - should you be morally condemned for living your own life simply because it could make someone else vulnerable? Of course, I realize that the ozone layer is just a layer of gas and not a person and thus doesn't have a right to self-preservation like you do by getting out of harm's way - but don't I have a right to self-promotion even if it increases the possibility of your suffering?

Here's another one. Say you have a bunch of flowers in your yard and in order for them to continue to grow you rely on the bees that come by and pollinate them. Then say that I decide I want flowers too, and so I start planting. Only I decide to plant a type of flower that the bees prefer and so they start hanging out in my yard. Have I altered nature to your detriment? I guess so. But is it may fault that the bees (nature) react to my actions in such a way that by implication causes your flowers to die out? I don't know.

There are really only two issues that I have not resolved since becoming an Objectivist, and along with the proper point at which children have rights, arcane questions about environmental ethics is one of them.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Some environmental regulation is certainly needed, the problem is that environmentalists usually have the worst ideas on how to regulate society to achieve this needed result. And then you have the extremist environmentalists to think industrial human society is not a good result to begin with.

The "direct harm" principle works for some limited environmental harms (such as a factory dumping pollutants into a river which you use for irrigation, for example) but doesn't work for larger problems.

For example, if millions of car owners using cars pollutes the air so that you have trouble breathing, who do you take action against? You can't sue one individual car owner, you can't sue all the car owners. The problem is too diffuse.

Government should only step in to protect the environment where there is a harm or risk to human life which private action is unable to eliminate or remedy due to a situation as I described above.

And once it is decided that action is needed, there are good ways and bad ways to remedy the situation. Things like blanket bans on activities are a bad idea. But the selling of "licenses" to pollute on the open market, such that the costs of pollution are shifted to those most willing to bear them, is likely the best method of environmental control at the government level.

[JMeganSnow]

Some environmental regulation is certainly needed . . .

Needed by whom and for what? Regulations are evil: they punish people that MIGHT commit crimes instead of people that HAVE committed crimes. If someone actually destroys or damages your physical property, you already have a right to seek redress in a court of law. What you do NOT have is the right to put a stranglehold on people that MIGHT damage your personal property.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Needed by whom and for what? Regulations are evil: they punish people that MIGHT commit crimes instead of people that HAVE committed crimes. If someone actually destroys or damages your physical property, you already have a right to seek redress in a court of law. What you do NOT have is the right to put a stranglehold on people that MIGHT damage your personal property.

As I said above, environmental regulation is needed where people DON'T have a legal remedy in court.

Consider this hypothetical.

Assume that the global warming theory is true. Greenhouse gas emissions by people and corporations all over the world have contributed to global warming to an extent that sea level has risen by 100 feet, completely covering your beachfront house and property with water. Who do you seek redress from in a court of law? No individual entity is even remotely close to legally responsible for the injury to your property. Even aggregation of your claims is unliklely to be useful because many of the parties are in other countries, often countries which couldn't care less about following US legal judgments.

Private property rights are the best way to protect resources, but government action is needed to protect resources which by their nature cannot be owned as private property. Who can own the atmosphere? Who can own the ozone layer? Who can own the ocean?

[ggdwill]

Consider this hypothetical.

Assume that the global warming theory is true. Greenhouse gas emissions by people and corporations all over the world have contributed to global warming to an extent that sea level has risen by 100 feet, completely covering your beachfront house and property with water. Who do you seek redress from in a court of law? No individual entity is even remotely close to legally responsible for the injury to your property. Even aggregation of your claims is unliklely to be useful because many of the parties are in other countries, often countries which couldn't care less about following US legal judgments.

I think that if you're going to create a situation like this you have to think of it in it's proper, wider context. There is alot to consider that underlies the term "beach front house and property." Most, if not all, of what has gone into creating your property has been derived from things that rely on the same raw materials that are polluting the ozone layer and indirectly threatening your property.

First, you cannot just build a house on the the first piece of land you come across. The topography and the type of soil has to be analyzed. This means that people have to come out to your land, in their automobiles, and do these things. Next, the land has to be reshaped in preparation for things like the plumbing, electricity, and the foundation. Again, these require machines that use gasoline and materials that were created in factories that pollute. Then, of course, you have to consider all of the lumber, and brick, and synthetic materials that go into building and furnishing your house; all derived from raw materials that, one way or another, "harm" the natural environment. In an economy as large and as complex as ours, virtually every man-made object you touch was created, at least in part, using things that are harmful to the environment.

It's just not reasonable to impose environmental regulations on certain people to protect the property of other people from the extremely minute and indirect threat that industrial activity presents. If people wish to enjoy the comfort of a modern civilization, then they should be willing to accept that there are widespread, albeit relatively minimal, drawbacks as well as the minute possibility of acute environmental impact on their property and well-being.

-Grant

[KendallJ]

For example, if millions of car owners using cars pollutes the air so that you have trouble breathing, who do you take action against? You can't sue one individual car owner, you can't sue all the car owners. The problem is too diffuse.

They have a word for things that result from diffuse causes. It's called: nature. Why is it necessary to think that you have to have something to take action against? I am walking down a path and a rock falls on me from a cliff above and it paralyzes me. Who do I take action against? huh?

Government should only step in to protect the environment where there is a harm or risk to human life which private action is unable to eliminate or remedy due to a situation as I described above.

Wait, are we protecting the environment, or human life? As to the need for "a little regulation" please see my post in this thread regarding the non-objective nature of regulatory law.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=120569

Assume that the global warming theory is true. Greenhouse gas emissions by people and corporations all over the world have contributed to global warming to an extent that sea level has risen by 100 feet, completely covering your beachfront house and property with water. Who do you seek redress from in a court of law? No individual entity is even remotely close to legally responsible for the injury to your property. Even aggregation of your claims is unliklely to be useful because many of the parties are in other countries, often countries which couldn't care less about following US legal judgments.

I find this argumentation spurious. Assume something that is not true is, take it to its far distant and absurd end, ignore all of the millions of private actions that will take place between now and "then" that will make the senario unworkable, and then use the implausible outcome as a basis to assert that reglatory legislation is necessary.

If as you say "No individual entity is even remotely close to legally responsible for the injury to your property." then guess what, you have no business seeking redress at all. It defies the nature and purpose of redress as a legal concept.

Edited July 13, 2006 by KendallJ

[Vladimir Berkov]

It's just not reasonable to impose environmental regulations on certain people to protect the property of other people from the extremely minute and indirect threat that industrial activity presents. If people wish to enjoy the comfort of a modern civilization, then they should be willing to accept that there are widespread, albeit relatively minimal, drawbacks as well as the minute possibility of acute environmental impact on their property and well-being.

-Grant

I think it is unacceptable to write off all environmental harms and pollution as the "acceptable risk" of modern, industrial society. The main problem is that without governmental controls and with the courts not providing a remedy, there are no real disincentives to pollute in incredible amounts. Even pollution controls with minimal costs will not be used because there is no direct benefit realized to the polluter. Yes, there is going to always be some environmental impact from industrialism which will be felt by all people. But the government's job is to make sure that this impact doesn't cause serious harm to people.

They have a word for things that result from diffuse causes. It's called: nature. Why is it necessary to think that you have to have something to take action against? I am walking down a path and a rock falls on me from a cliff above and it paralyzes me. Who do I take action against? huh?

Human action is not called "nature" just because it is the combined action of millions of humans. Obviously there is no legal or political recourse against nature, but there can be legal or political action taken against human action.

Wait, are we protecting the environment, or human life? As to the need for "a little regulation" please see my post in this thread regarding the non-objective nature of regulatory law.

The only valid basis for environmental regulation is the protection of human life and property. Regulations controlling pollution are needed not because we need to protect the environment as an end in itself, but as a means to providing humankind with a livable habitat.

I find this argumentation spurious. Assume something that is not true is, take it to its far distant and absurd end, ignore all of the millions of private actions that will take place between now and "then" that will make the senario unworkable, and then use the implausible outcome as a basis to assert that reglatory legislation is necessary.

The specifics of the example are irrelevant to my point. My point is only that it is convievable to imagine a sitaution in which action by many human actors causes damage to the environment which seriously harms individuals. Whether global warming is true, or whether it can cause the effects in the example doesn't matter for the purpose of the ethical, legal and economic argument.

If as you say "No individual entity is even remotely close to legally responsible for the injury to your property." then guess what, you have no business seeking redress at all. It defies the nature and purpose of redress as a legal concept.

Exactly, which is why I stated that the courts can't provide a remedy. Government regulation is needed precisely because no legal action is possible, but yet there is the possibilty of real and serious harm, and there are known actors which caused the harm.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Vladimir Berkov