I’ve read Cookingham’s book and I have to say I was seriously underwhelmed by it. The very few points he makes tend to get drowned out by 1) The lack of a good editor 2) A very patent pettiness (on one moment refuses to talk about the ‘problems’ that happened at the Objectivist Institute, but a couple of page turns later he is freely batting away at the A.R.I. and pulling no punches, which demonstrates a hidden agenda— if he were as honest as he pretends to be, he would either air all dirty laundry from both camps or keep it all unaired) and 3) Rather bizarre propositions— an Objectivist Church? Rituals? I stopped reading the book when he was trying to pair Objectivism with Judaism. At that point -if you pardon me being prosaic- I gave him up as having sunk head and shoulders into a river of crazy and sold the book used.
Has anybody read “The Politically Correct Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism”? I got halfway through it before I read Atlas Shrugged (which immediately got my full attention), so I never finished it. Anybody else read it? What did you think of it? I’m just curious.
Moderator’s Note:
The part of the discussion involving environmentalists has been moved to the Debate Forum: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=13281.
Please note that this forum is private property and we do not wish to let people use it as a vehicle for anti-Objectivist propaganda. Posters who continue to advocate for environmentalism outside of the Debate Forums will have their posting privileges revoked.
But is it not in the best interest for large companies to preserve the environment, while at the same time using its resources? For example, by cutting down wood, is it not in the best interest of the company to replant the trees so that they can cut down the new trees in the future?
You just answered your own question. Of course it would be in a tree harvester’s best interest to plant more trees. Otherwise, what are they going to have left to harvest when the trees are all gone? Not surprisingly, that exact approach is followed in the industry.
The argument tends to get more difficult when it comes to things like air and water pollution, where the supply appears “infinite.” I would argue that it is still in the best interest of large companies to preserve the environment around them, for several reasons: public relations, employee health and safety (benefits costs, minimizing sick time, etc), smoothing the path to future growth, etc. There is also a large moral component to it, and successful companies tend to understand that morality plays an increasingly important role in their business.
However, this line of thinking should be balanced against the other side of the coin, which is employee support and consumer demand. Without both of those, the company couldn’t exist. For example, people buy cars and work for car manufacturers even though the cars pollute the air because they believe the trade-off is worth it.