RoR: Forum

Brett:

This has been an interesting discussion. But unfortunately people are still responding to "environmentalism" and not what I am actually saying-- a basic concern for the environment consistent with objectivism and capitalism.

Brett, calm down. People are responding to what you are saying, you are just choosing to ignore the responses or not understanding them, I'm not sure which. But you certainly seem to not hold back the arrogant attitude everyone else just doesn't "get it". A basic concern for the environment is already consistent with Objectivism and Capitalism. They were never mutually exclusive, you seem to be suggesting they need to become inclusive, and are not now.

Not everyone who cares about environmental issues thereby hates humanity, progress, and freedom. But rather we should think of environmental issues as how to sustain the human habitat for many years to come.

The only way to sustain the human habitat for many years to come is through rapid technological advancement and industrialization. I think Michael Dickey's post on the theme of existential threats and how to combat them are right. The current crop of "renewable resources" require more energy consumption than just extracting more non-renewable resources. That doesn't make environmental sense. Does it? It take more energy to recycle paper in an effort to save trees that are used for making paper, yet these trees come from tree farms, privately owned property that plants a new tree for everyone cut down to sustain that operation. Yet thousands of towns and municipalities through coercive recycling programs in the U.S. recycle paper in what is one of the most counter-productive efforts I'm aware of to preserving the environment. Don't you think that is a problem?

Post 41

Monday, July 14, 2008 - 7:42pm

Thanks to the suggestion from TSI, I searched my other favorite Objectivist website, MSK's "Objectivist Living" and found the posts I had in mind, from Michael Brown and Chris Grieb:

Michael Brown wrote:
I like "Its a Wonderful Life". Like a recent poster, I think some of the meaning of this story are topics such as an individual CAN make a difference (such as when Clarence shows George what the world would be like without him). I think it also touches on the idea of what makes a man a success. George thinks he's a failure because he wasn't able to do certain things, but Clarence makes him realize he is a success. Too often I think people latch on to a wrong idea of what makes someone a success (lots of money, big house, trophy wife, etc).

And Chris Greib said:
On the question of It's a Wonderful Life it has the most anti-Objectivist sense of life of any movie I can think of but it is so well done that it has to be including in any list of great movies.

The thread is called "Christmas Movie List"

Post 42

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 9:21pm

From an old post, elsewhere...

It is probably absurd to get into a debate about Capra's feel-good "It's a Wonderful Life" ... but

George Bailey was good at managing his family's bank, and he clearly enjoyed the satisfaction of seeing the fruits of his work in the growth of his home town. Yes, travel was always glamorous to George, but so was Donna Reed. If not as a kid, certainly as a man, George knew there would always be another time when he could travel, and he never did give up his daydream - he just postponed it to pursue what he (truly) wanted more.

Roark wouldn't run over anyone to do what he wanted, nor did he want or need to drag anyone along with him in pursuing his goals, but he would certainly go over or around anyone who unfairly tried to block his path. (To his credit, so did George).

Rand could have liked the movie, but probably would not have liked that the movie is generally perceived by audiences as an argument for selflessness, which should not be inferred.

... After the first sasparilla, George mentions how he longs to travel, and Howard mentions his cruise on the Wynand yacht. George tells him"ya know, they really have the best milkshakes here - none better anywhere in the world. Now, I'm gonna order us some, and you just keep telling me about that trip. Now, ...TWO CHOCOLATE MILKSHAKES, HOLD THE CHERRY!..., does that tower, there.. in Pisa, does it really lean like that? I've always wondered how..." Howard grins, and then explains the engineering devised to keep it standing..

Post 43

Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 1:55pm

he just postponed it to pursue what he (truly) wanted more.

Wrong - he accepted the fallacy of 'duty' as being moral, and tried to make the best of what in fact were secondary choices...

Post 44

Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 2:16pm