A Rational View Of Environmentalism

Introductions and Personal Notes
1

I would like to Introduce myself to this forum and state that this is my first time in correspondence with fellow Objectivists. I first read Ayn’s work at a time when I was truly breaking away from my religious upbringing after suffering for a long time in parochial school. I have read, reread, and read again, Ayn’s novels, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and We the Living. I have also perused the Romantic Manifesto and the Virtue of Selfishness. I state this simply to show the reader of this posting that I am thoroughly acquainted with her works.

However after visiting the ARI’s site for a short amount of time I was surprised to see such a venomous hatred of serious environmental undertakings. Science is the highest manifestation of Ayn’s ideas, and Environmental research is based on good science. Polluting the air and our natural resources will hurt us in the long run, as poisoning ourselves is the eventual outcome. Preventing this, does not restrict industry (I would never want it so) but is the intelligent rational undertaking for the furture of a healthy mankind. It is my _ selfish _ interest to see researchers find new medical cures, but as the rainforest is being cleared previously unknown flora and fauna may hold the answers to unlocking the cures to diseases such as cancer and Parkinsons disease.

I do not wish to be yelled at for my views. I would like an intelligent rational conversation on this matter. I will be happy to expound further on my idea of a selfish environmentalism.

2

Welcome to the forum.

There are many articles about environmentalism on the ARI site. You are not advocating what environmentalists are advocating.

Also, for details about how much environmental research is based on bad science, see the The Science & Environmental Policy Project site.

3

Welcome to the forum.

If you knew what environmentalism truly advocates and has done to our economy (and to the lives of millions), you’d understand our justified hatred of it. Environmentalism is based on a hatred of man. It presents itself to the public as a sugar-coated poison, claiming to advocate “clean air” and “clean water”, etc…when what it has in mind isn’t man’s welfare, but his destruction.

You should know by now, since you’ve read Ayn Rand’s novels, that the government’s protection of the “environment” is IMMORAL. Its business is solely the protection of individual rights. The initiation of force against individuals to protect the “environment” is a total inversion of the proper function of government. So EVEN IF environmentalism’s claims were true (which they are not), it would still NOT justify all the costly regulations the government has gradually imposed over time.

Justify this action by environmentalists:

"A New York commodities dealer pled guilty in Federal District Court today to destroying 86 acres of wetlands on his hunting retreat and was ordered to pay a $1 million fine and $1 million as restitution.

"The dealer, Paul Tudor Jones II, was also banned from hunting migratory wildfowl through 1991–“restitution for the birds,” said Judge Frederick Smalkin, who sentenced him.

“…Under the plea bargain, he was fined $1 million, order to pay $1 million in restitution to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and order to restore the 86 acres, said Jane Barrett, assistant United States attorney. Mr. Jones was placed on 18 months’ probation and barred from developing 2,500 of his 3,272 acre estate. Wetlands are critical because they filter pollutants and provide wildlife habitats.”

“Marsh Destroyed, Owner is Fined,” New York Times, May 26, 1990.

This isn’t just one isolated case. There are much more than you’d probably like to admit, all in the name of the “environment”. There’s a law pending in King County, WA, which will ban all private property owners from developing 90% of their own private property, in order to “preserve the vegetation”. Read this article.

4

I would like to Introduce myself to this forum and state that this is my first time in correspondence with fellow Objectivists. I first read Ayn’s work at a time when I was truly breaking away from my religious upbringing after suffering for a long time in parochial school. I have read, reread, and read again, Ayn’s novels, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and We the Living. I have also perused the Romantic Manifesto and the Virtue of Selfishness. I state this simply to show the reader of this posting that I am thoroughly acquainted with her works.

I am glad that you discovered Ayn Rand and that you have read her major novels and perused two of the non-fiction books. However, the explicit philosophy of Objectivism was developed by Ayn Rand and presented by her in thousands of pages of non-fiction newsletters, journals, books, lectures, and speeches, written and published over an almost thirty-year period. Until you study the philosophy of Objectivism in some detailed and systematic fashion I do not really think you can claim to be “thoroughly acquainted with her works.”

However after visiting the ARI’s site for a short amount of time I was surprised to see such a venomous hatred of serious environmental undertakings. Science is the highest manifestation of Ayn’s ideas,

Sorry to interrupt in mid-sentence but those of us who hold Ayn Rand in high esteem usually show our respect for her by properly referring to her as “Ayn Rand” or “Miss Rand.” The familiar use of “Ayn” is usually reserved for those who were actually on a first-name basis with her.

and Environmental research is based on good science.

On what are you basing this conclusion?

Polluting the air and our natural resources will hurt us in the long run, as poisoning ourselves is the eventual outcome.

Is there something specific that you read at the ARI web site which would make you think that they would think otherwise?

Preventing this, does not restrict industry (I would never want it so) but is the intelligent rational undertaking for the furture of a healthy mankind. It is my _ selfish _ interest to see researchers find new medical cures, but as the rainforest is being cleared previously unknown flora and fauna may hold the answers to unlocking the cures to diseases such as cancer and Parkinsons disease.

Okay. But, if it is privately owned do you acknowledge that the owners have a right to use their property as they see fit, as long as they do not violate the individual rights of others? Aside from education, what do you propose?