About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 9:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've sent this to all my major local newspapers, and will be sending it other places as well:

Why I Won’t Be Observing Earth Hour

 

Far from dousing the lights during Earth Hour, I will be blinking mine in protest against this insanity.

 

I oppose the environmental movement as anti-technology and anti-humanity. It is scientifically bogus, and in essence a philosophical and political movement aimed at granting the government totalitarian power over every aspect of our existence in service of its vision. Its intellectual leaders are quite open about the fact that they value untouched nature over human life and comfort. The suffering they have caused by halting, hindering, and denouncing all forms of man’s mastery over his environment is incalculable. The countless deaths caused by one of their bibles, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, through the banning of DDT is just one example. The prevention of practical new sources of energy, such as nuclear power and hydroelectric dams, are just a few others.

 

The dark spots of the city caused by those myopic enough to go along with this latest aberration should be noted as a symbol of what is to come if the environmental movement continues its march unopposed. Extinguishing the lights of civilization is one of the dreams behind their vision. Their alleged concern with the health of future generations is smoke and mirrors.

 

Let us not let them get away with it. Someone has to blink--let it be us, not in weakness but in defiance.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rodney Rawlings

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 3/20, 2:55pm)


Post 1

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 3:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I had no idea...  So, I looked it up...
This simple act has captured the hearts and minds of people all over the world. As a result, at 8pm March 29, 2008 millions of people in some of the world’s major capital cities, including Copenhagen, Toronto, Chicago, Melbourne, Brisbane and Tel Aviv will unite and switch off for Earth Hour.
http://www.earthhour.org/
Wikipedia offers some sanity:
Although the Herald equated this with "taking 48,613 cars off the road for one hour," [Andrew] Bolt noted that it also represents taking a mere six cars off the road for a year - a negligible practical impact.
The newspapers, part of Fairfax Media, an Earth Hour sponsor, published misleading captions on 'before' and 'after' photos of the event and over-exposed the 'before' shot to exaggerate the event's impact. ... Though Fairfax angrily rejected the claims, the company later admitted that the captions were incorrect. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Hour


Post 2

Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 4:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm sure the symbolic impact is prized by the greens far more than the practical one. All the more reason to revive some obsolete HTML code thus:

<blink>Your house lights</blink>

in hopes of inducing seizures in the proponents of Earth Hour.


Post 3

Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 7:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The irony, of course, is that in order to enlighten, one must extinguish their light.

Post 4

Monday, March 24, 2008 - 3:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I won't be observing Earth Hour, but I hope Earth Hour will be observing me.

Post 5

Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 10:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you plan to defy Earth Hour, don't simply leave your lights on. Pundits who are pushing this idea are trying to imply that those who do not go along with this activity are doing it out of cynicism or "selfishness." That is, they want everyone to believe that the only people who are opposed to Earth Hour are those who do not think it will be effective against "selfishness," or who are "selfish" themselves.

We must disabuse them of this notion with some active symbolic action, like blinking the lights (periodically and randomly) as I have suggested. Another idea--which might be combined with this one--is to put on your window a big mirror-image of the word NO with shaving cream or paper cutouts. I will stand out nicely with your lights behind it. On second thought, it does not even have to be a mirror image, since from the outside that word would look like it says ON, which is exactly the reinforcement of what you are doing.

Or use both words:

                      NO--ON!

--which looks like "noon," a nice connotation. In that case don't use the reverse order for the two words, or you will send the opposite message!

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 3/29, 10:42am)


Post 6

Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yet another useless gesture.

Bob Kolker


Post 7

Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 2:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's far from useless to let environmentalists know that there exists principled opposition to their philosophy, as opposed to mere cynicism and apathy.

Post 8

Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 8:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reminds me of a quote I put up of Michael Crichton from a global warming debate he participated in.

That we can really address [global warming] by changing our light bulbs, or that we can really make an impact by unplugging our appliances when we‘re not using them, is very much out of whack. So if we're only [going to] do symbolic actions, I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that…might really mean something. One of them, which is very simple, [of which] 99% of the American population doesn‘t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And…in addition, let‘s have the NRDC,…the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their…members, cannot fly on private jets, they must get their houses off the grid, they must live in the way that they‘re telling everyone else to live. And if they won‘t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?
Michael Crichton
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/GlobalWarmingDebate.pdf


Point being that things like "Earth Hour" are pointless symbolic acts that do nothing. Other than live in the dark for an hour.

Rodney I think your article is good but I think it's only for a certain audience, that being us. We know environmentalism is a sham but your typical citizen reading this will simply ignore it because many Americans believe energy conservation is noble but don't share the sentiments that nature should be completely untouched in lieu of human life and comfort. Most Americans think you can do both, conserve energy and not be a bunch of mud-hut people. The environmentalists that take this extreme view of total and complete anti-industrialization are a very small minority, but unfortunately an extremely vocal one. I think the debate should be focused on why energy costs so much, that being largely due to government intervention. And talk about why we use far more destructive forms of energy like coal instead of nuclear power because of misguided environmental policies. And let's focus on energy conservation as a matter of individual economic choice rather than draconian regulations that have historically not only made life more expensive but has worsened the environment because of the unintended consequences and perverse incentives it creates. Address the audience of most Americans, the ones that could be swayed to our cause, not the already converted, and forget about the nut-cases that will just brush you off and dismiss you out of hand no matter what you say.
(Edited by John Armaos on 3/30, 8:38am)


Post 9

Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, I disagree, but will answer later.

Post 10

Monday, March 31, 2008 - 7:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We live in Ann Arbor Township.  Even our Republican neighbors have "Impeach Bush" yardsigns.  For about a month, our front lamp post has been burned out.  For Earth Hour, I replaced the bulb so that I have one more light to burn.  Coming up the road, our house was lit up like a Christmas tree -- in fact, I still have the Yule Lights up on the living room.  No tree -- we don't do trees -- and, also, after Christmas, I took out all the greens, so that what is hanging is Red White and Blue.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Monday, March 31, 2008 - 8:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My piece from a year ago reflecting on the "lights-out" hour in Australia. - Ed Hudgins
-----

New Cult of Darkness

by Edward Hudgins

 

 

April 2, 2007 -- Since early men ignited the first fires in caves, the unleashing of energy for light, heat, cooking and every human need has been the essence and symbol of what it is to be human. The Greeks saw Prometheus vanquishing the darkness with the gift of fire to men. The Romans kept an eternal flame burning in the Temple of Vesta. Our deepest thoughts and insights are described as sparks of fire in our minds. A symbol of death is a fading flame; Poet Dylan Thomas urged us to "rage, rage against the dying of the light."

 

Thus a symbol of the deepest social darkness is seen in the recent extinguishing of the lights of cities across Australia and in other industrialized countries, not as a result of power failures or natural disasters, not as a conscious act of homage for the passing of some worthy soul, but to urge us all to limit energy consumption for fear of global warming.

 

This is not the symbol of the death but, rather, of the suicide of a civilization.

 

Certainly most of the individuals turning off their lights saw their acts in a narrower perspective. They have been told by every media outlet that the warming of the earth's atmosphere due to human activities will certainly cause a global catastrophe unless we act now to radically curtail our energy use. The case for disaster is still weak; but this matter, which deserves dispassionate and serious consideration, is being hyped like the problematic products aimed at an attention deficit disordered audience by the entertainment industry and by pandering politicians.

 

In our individual lives it is quite rational to want the most for the least. We want the highest quality food, automobiles, and houses for the lowest price. And we want to pay as little as possible to run our cars, heat our homes, and power our consumer electronics. This means we want to waste as little as possible because waste is money that could be spent on other needs. So turning off the lights in an unused room is an act of self-interest.

 

The goal of our actions should always be our own welfare. And in a fundamental sense, this means using the material and energy in the world around us for our own well-being. The means for doing so is the exercise of our rational minds, to discover how to light a fire, to create a dynamo to generate electricity by burning fossil fuels or to tap the inexhaustible energy of the atom. The standard by which to choose which means is best is economics. In a free market, if producers can generate a kilowatt of power for pennies by burning oil compared to dollars per kilowatt through windmills and solar panels, it makes no sense to use the latter.

 

Some will argue that the full costs of each means must take account of unintended adverse consequences such as pollution that measurably harms our lives, health, and property. But there are means for dealing with such externalities -- usually involving a strict application of property rights -- that will not harm us far more than the alleged ills they aim to alleviate by dampening creative human activities and innovations.

 

When the costs of generating energy via oil rise too high as supplies dwindle -- still many decades if not centuries away -- our creative minds in a free market will develop less costly ways to harness wind, wave, and sunlight.

 

Through short-sightedness, sloppy thinking, emotional indulgence and even a deep malice, many environmentalists today -- especially in their approach to global warming -- are perpetuating an ethos of darkness. Consider the harm of their symbolic acts, to say nothing of the policies many of them advocate.

 

Most individuals acquire their values through the culture, often through implicit messages that they do not subject to rational analysis. The implicit message for many of turning off the lights of a city is that we should feel guilty for the act of being human, that is, for altering and employing the environment for our own use.

 

In her novel Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand describes the consequences of such an assumption in the view from a plane flying over a collapsing country:

 

"New York City … rose in the distance before them, it was still extending its lights to the sky, still defying the primordial darkness… The plane was above the peaks of the skyscrapers when suddenly … as if the ground had parted to engulf it, the city disappeared from the face of the earth. It took them a moment to realize ... that the lights of New York had gone out."

 

We must keep focused clearly on the fundamental issues in every discussion about the environment: the right of individuals to pursue their own well-being as they see fit; the requirement that man the creator utilize the material and energy in the environment to meet his needs; the rational exercise of our minds as the way to discover the best means to do so; and the exercise of that capacity as a source of pride and self-esteem

 

The spectacle of a city skyline at night is the beauty of millions of individuals at their most human.

 

Energy is not for conserving; it is for unleashing to serve us, to make our lives better, to allow us to realize our dreams and to reach for the stars, those bright lights that pierce the darkness of the night.



Post 12

Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 9:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I always write letters to the editor with the same goal in mind: to reach readers who are open to having their minds changed, and to shift them to a higher level of thinking. I would have no wish to try to convert a hard-core nutcase who rejects reason. But this still raises the question of what level my readers are starting with, and what I wish to "convert" them to and away from.

With respect to environmentalism, the most important thing today is to strip it of its moral standing and its scientific credibility. But no matter how many times one points out the stated motives of some of its proponents and the flaws in their arguments, the general public simply concludes that this is an exception or mistake, and on the technical side notes that the arguments are continually going back and forth with neither side giving in. Moreover, they take the attitude that even if we do not know whether man really threatens the Earth, we should err on the side of caution and submit to control by the government, which is routinely regarded with admiration, as a noble "watchdog" over all things social.

So what is needed? For the public understanding of environmentalism to be questioned and undermined, it would have to be able to conceive some all-pervasive and fundamental error in its very nature, so that all future statements and initiatives that emanate from that quarter are viewed with strong suspicion. And the only way to do this, on the sort of forum offered in opinion sections of newspapers, is to state the facts loudly, clearly, confidently. Because the average reader is going to think: if the movement is so wrong and pernicious, wouldn't someone be stating the motives and the lapses involved loudly, clearly, and confidently? I mean, I am slightly uneasy about all the government controls that are being proposed piecemeal lately, and now and then I hear dissenting scientific opinion from respectable sources, and I have a sneaking suspicion there might be a connection with the blackouts, but everyone seems to be praising environmentalism and supporting it, but no one is crying out in horror--I certainly won't.

What a letter to the editor such as I wrote above accomplishes is to fill that gap that a reasonable person would sense, if he were inclined to consider rejecting environmentalism outright, but is afraid he will seem crazy both to others and to himself. Armed with his strengthened suspicions, he can easily look up the facts about DDT, the construction of dams, nuclear energy, the destructive effects of regulation etc. The important thing for him to be aware of is that there is opposition to all this, it is confident, and it is intelligent.

As for focusing on individual energy conservation, this plays into environmentalism's hands. As individuals, we already know that we shouldn't waste our money or other resources. There is nothing new to be learned or done here. To encourage individual energy conservation would simply reinforce the idea that energy is a collective resource, generously provided by government, and we must all pitch in to make this service less onerous for our official watchdog. Besides, if anyone is wealthy enough to be profligate in his of energy for his own comfort and pleasure, he should do so if the fancy strikes him, and it won't be a waste.

In short, in a letter to the editor you should ask yourself who you want to address and what you hope to achieve. Then you have to enter readers' heads, and leave your own, so that they will be lifted to another level from within their own context of awareness. You will not always be published, but if you keep it up you will break through--as I have--and your words may make a difference.

Clearly, your abstract level must not be too high for your audience. Normally, for example, you will not be trying to convert people to Objectivism. But your level must not be too low, either, or you will just blend into the background.






Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.