The Problem with Objectivism in a Finite World of Limited Resources

The Critics of Objectivism
21

I couldn’t help noticing the lack of response by the initiator of this thread.

On 10/14/2014 at 11:31 PM, Dustin86 said:

The biggest problem with Objectivism is that there is only so much oil, only so much natural gas, only so much lithium, only so many rare earth metals, etc. in the Earth’s crust. And even as new resources are discovered, these are almost always more difficult and expensive to extract than the old ones that just got extracted and used.

 

Economically, what this finite resource reality means is that for every Hank Rearden who “makes it”, there are many more who are just as talented and just as hardworking who are just barely hanging on, and still more who are completely unemployed, because there simply are not enough resources (oil, natural gas, lithium, rare earths, etc.) for the world’s 7.2 billion people to live the lifestyle of a middle-class American, let alone a Hank Rearden, no matter how smart, talented, and hardworking they are. (By the way, this is fundamentally why so many Americans have gotten dumped out of the middle class since 2008.) This is why I find Hank’s callous attitude toward the underprivileged (p. 42, Atlas Shrugged) quite disturbing. Rand tries to defend this attitude in terms of meritocracy when really it can’t be.

 

Eventually what will happen is that industrial society will wholly cease to exist as the remaining resources will be too difficult to extract by any reasonable method. I know not whether this will happen in my lifetime, my children’s lifetime, or many centuries hence, but happen it will.

Dustin86,

The question on this, and other threads of your creation, have attempted to put the eventual fall of Western Civilization primarily on the backs of Objectivists. The scarcity of resources and other social-economic-political problems of the world existed long before Ayn Rand, her philosophy, and, for that matter, any persons who may have claimed to have been influenced by her philosophy. What I gather from your other posits, Objectivists should abandon their free-thinking/free-market mentalities, and join your imaginary military junta for the purpose of engaging an apocalyptic Holy War. (Is there any part of this that I got wrong?)

Time after time, well-reasoned and factual explanations made by others on this forum are met with either baseless accusations and name-calling, or as in this thread, blank out. Why is this? Given the fact that the problems of the world are centuries old, what proverbial axe have you to grind with Objectivism?

22

Probably the reason why I didn’t respond is that around this time is when I began having severe medical problems, meaning that when I could and couldn’t be on the forum around this time became very erratic, although it was unknown to me at this exact time just how severe my situation would become. I am a lot better off now than at that time, but still I never completely conquered my medical problems, although I hope to eventually.

23

But I’m glad you dug this up again because it’s an issue that I was thinking about today, actually.

I don’t think you guys realize how much sway people like you have over Western civilization. It is nigh impossible for a movement such as “Objectivism” to have arisen in any other context, this is basically admitted by Rand and her closest followers such as Peikoff.

The truth is that for every person that “makes it”, there are at least one or more other people who are equally talented who get stuck in long term unemployment or in dead end McJobs that do not pay enough to live on. I’ve seen it time and time again. And yet I see Objectivism teaching its followers to scoff at these people when the reality is that there is simply not enough in the world in terms of natural resources and global atmospheric carbon capacity for everybody, no matter how talented, to live the lifestyle of a Hank Rearden or even a contemporary middle class American.

As for my personal attitude toward Objectivism, there are parts of it that I really agree with. There are other parts that are clearly just rubbing salt in the world’s wounds while scoffing at everybody who is affected by that.

24

6 hours ago, Repairman said:

Time after time, well-reasoned and factual explanations made by others on this forum are met with either baseless accusations and name-calling

I have never called others names on this forum, that is just a straight-up mistruth.

25

9 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

Probably the reason why I didn’t respond is that around this time is when I began having severe medical problems, meaning that when I could and couldn’t be on the forum around this time became very erratic, although it was unknown to me at this exact time just how severe my situation would become. I am a lot better off now than at that time, but still I never completely conquered my medical problems, although I hope to eventually.

While that may explain your evasion of military training or other physical activities, you seem rather bold in your responses to opposition to your confrontational posts. The majority of your inquiries seem to suggest you have little regard for free-market economic principles, as in this thread and a few others. But rather than frame the question as addressing the principle, (in which case you could do some independent research), you frame the issue as a problem caused by Objectivists. Or, you image some conspiracy of Objectivist design. Either why, I’m just curious to know why you are prone to writing these accusations, when in every case, the participants here pretty well level your argument. Why is that?

3 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

But I’m glad you dug this up again because it’s an issue that I was thinking about today, actually.

I don’t think you guys realize how much sway people like you have over Western civilization. It is nigh impossible for a movement such as “Objectivism” to have arisen in any other context, this is basically admitted by Rand and her closest followers such as Peikoff.

The truth is that for every person that “makes it”, there are at least one or more other people who are equally talented who get stuck in long term unemployment or in dead end McJobs that do not pay enough to live on. I’ve seen it time and time again. And yet I see Objectivism teaching its followers to scoff at these people when the reality is that there is simply not enough in the world in terms of natural resources and global atmospheric carbon capacity for everybody, no matter how talented, to live the lifestyle of a Hank Rearden or even a contemporary middle class American.

As for my personal attitude toward Objectivism, there are parts of it that I really agree with. There are other parts that are clearly just rubbing salt in the world’s wounds while scoffing at everybody who is affected by that.

This assertion, that the world’s scarce resources will result in some Mauthusian disaster has been addressed quite nicely in earlier posts, if you cared to read them. But in any event, you are giving Objectivism way too much credit for the state of global affairs.

So, in part, your personal attitude explains your reasoning. At that I should remind you that wishing it doesn’t make it so. You are entitled to your attitude, but it will not change reality. 

3 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

I have never called others names on this forum, that is just a straight-up mistruth.

I’m sure it’s just a figment of my imagination.

26

1 minute ago, Repairman said:

While that may explain your evasion of military training or other physical activities

JFTR, I was a distance runner (marathon, half-marathon, 10K, 5K, 2 mile, and many other “physical activities”) for many, many years before I began having medical problems. As I am recovering I am restarting my shorter events. Please don’t make judgments about my personal life without knowing me.

27

8 minutes ago, Repairman said:

This assertion, that the world’s scarce resources will result in some Mauthusian disaster has been addressed quite nicely in earlier posts, if you cared to read them. But in any event, you are giving Objectivism way too much credit for the state of global affairs.

So, in part, your personal attitude explains your reasoning. At that I should remind you that wishing it doesn’t make it so. You are entitled to your attitude, but it will not change reality. 

What about the world’s greenhouse gas capacity? 2015 was a record-breaker in world temperatures. There is a 99% chance that 2016 will be another record-breaker. I hate to quote Al Gore, but the science is settled, and there is no skirting around the issue.

28

30 minutes ago, Repairman said:

What would you prefer to call it?

I think I would call it a mistruth and a personal attack, because from before high school up until I started having medical problems I was more physically active than 99% of the population with marathons, half-marathons, etc. Even now, I am building myself back up starting with my shorter runs (2 mile, 4 mile, up to 6 or 7 mile on some days). I am more physically active even now than 50% of the US population at least, even with medical problems that have never entirely gone away.

29

" The truth is that for every person that ‘makes it’, there are at least one or more other people who are equally talented who get stuck in long term unemployment or in dead end McJobs that do not pay enough to live on. I’ve seen it time and time again. And yet I see Objectivism teaching its followers to scoff at these people when the reality is that there is simply not enough in the world in terms of natural resources and global atmospheric carbon capacity for everybody, no matter how talented, to live the lifestyle of a Hank Rearden or even a contemporary middle class American."

Crucial distinction to be made - you cite things you’ve witnessed “time and time again” as evidence that Objectivist capitalistic economic systems result in equally capable people having vastly different outcomes, some thriving, some struggling to barely get by. However, what you’ve witnessed has taken place in an economic system FAR from the capitalism espoused by Objectivism. This is a mixed economy with heavy government meddling. I agree that lots of very capable people have gotten rather unjustly screwed and I feel badly for those many individuals, but I strongly disagree with you about the source of this injustice. The problem is government meddling in the economy. Problems in the economy leading good people to bad living conditions are pretty well proportional to just how much the government meddles in the economy. Being so far from capitalism, I think it’s hard to say we’ve shown in a capitalistic system we just still wouldn’t have enough resources for everybody to live comfortably. You may argue eventually some things will have to run out, but left free, people come up with new sources and better replacements anyway. Seriously, if government doesn’t get in the way, mining asteroids and such for more resources is already looking feasible in the foreseeable future, crops are being engineered to produce more, I’d bet an eyeball we mass produce synthetic oil and natural gas or find a superior replacement long before those run out.

(Have you read Atlas Shrugged? Far from encouraging just blindly hating on the poor, Rand has a main, rich protagonist at one point give a random homeless stranger some food and warm safe passage with her in her personal car on the train and she talks with him. Not to mention Cheryl and many other protagonists living in pretty poor conditions for a long time.) 

30

33 minutes ago, Repairman said:

So, we went from scarcity of global resources to climate change. We’re getting a bit scatological.

Atmospheric greenhouse gas capacity is a resource and a rapidly dwindling one.

Really this isn’t just an Objectivist problem. There is no country on Earth (not counting non-developed, largely non-industrialized countries such as those in the middle of Africa) that is doing enough to deal with the threat of depletion of this resource. The Kyoto targets, even if countries were serious about keeping is (which they were not), are not nearly enough. Again, what is needed is togetherness and interconnectedness, not selfishness.

I’m afraid that some form of military government in many developed countries may be necessary to ensure compliance with strict greenhouse gas reduction targets, much stricter than the Kyoto targets, until the threat of runaway global warming has subsided. The alternative may be the extinction of the human species along with many others.

31

Anyway, Repairman, I can see I’m clearly not wanted here, and I think I’ve said just about all I have to say, so I’m going to take a hint and leave the forum.

32

1 hour ago, Dustin86 said:

I think I would call it a mistruth and a personal attack, because from before high school up until I started having medical problems I was more physically active than 99% of the population with marathons, half-marathons, etc. Even now, I am building myself back up starting with my shorter runs (2 mile, 4 mile, up to 6 or 7 mile on some days). I am more physically active even now than 50% of the US population at least, even with medical problems that have never entirely gone away.

I am honestly glad to know that you’re recovering. If I had a medical problem such as yours, I’d do everything possible to recover; it was not a personal attack.

41 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

Atmospheric greenhouse gas capacity is a resource and a rapidly dwindling one.

Really this isn’t just an Objectivist problem. There is no country on Earth (not counting non-developed, largely non-industrialized countries such as those in the middle of Africa) that is doing enough to deal with the threat of depletion of this resource. The Kyoto targets, even if countries were serious about keeping is (which they were not), are not nearly enough. Again, what is needed is togetherness and interconnectedness, not selfishness.

I’m afraid that some form of military government in many developed countries may be necessary to ensure compliance with strict greenhouse gas reduction targets, much stricter than the Kyoto targets, until the threat of runaway global warming has subsided. The alternative may be the extinction of the human species along with many others.

If you are an expert on climate science, I might look at your evidence. If not, I’ll regard the notion of “climate change” and the popular beliefs associated with it as inconclusive.

3 minutes ago, Dustin86 said:

Anyway, Repairman, I can see I’m clearly not wanted here, and I think I’ve said just about all I have to say, so I’m going to take a hint and leave the forum.

That, of course, would be your choice. If you have a reasonable argument for blaming the world’s problems on Objectivism, come on back any time.

33

*points up* I posted something too . . .