Objectivism and environmentalist

What is the objectivist stance on conservation and the environment,ie. global warming, energy sources, recycling ? Can an environmentalist be an objectivist? Jbrad

Post 1

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 10:10pm

Josh -- The answer is no. If one accepts the premises of Objectivist ethics (and Objectivist ethics are for more in depth and original then you make them out to be in your other posts) then it is impossible to support the environmentalist movement. I cannot possibly explain my entire viewpoint on this subject in a single post but here are some excellent writings that I agree with entirely on this issue. These will provide you will clear arguments on the important issues from two of the foremost living objectivist intellectuals. The first is an article by economist George Reisman.

http://www.capitalism.net/Environmentalism's%20Toxicity.htm

The second item is an entire website by Robert Bidinotto, who happens to be a regular user of SOLO. The website is :

www.ecoNOT.com

So read through these and if you have any arguments I will be glad to answer them for you.

A general summary of my opinion on this topic is that I am in favor of improving the environment on this planet and within the universe for the benefit of human beings. With the rise of the industrial revolution, the division of labor, freedom and free trade these improvements have come at a faster rate then at any time in human history. We live much longer and better lives because of direct, rational actions we've taken to improve upon the raw material nature has given us. So in this sense you can call me an "environmentalist" but I am not at all concerned about nature or "the environment" outside of this context. I am only concerned with how nature can be better used to improve my own life.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 7/22, 10:12pm)

Post 2

Friday, July 22, 2005 - 10:53pm

This is a place for people who believe in private property.

Acquiring, dispensing, trading, updating, excavating, maintenance, management, translation, transformation, liquidation, preservation, economisation and conservation, and all other property operations, are private operations. That's it in a nutshell. Between this and good science there's nothing left to get hysterical about.

Post 3

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 2:29am

There are many reasons why an Objectivist is concerned to control his environment, but he does so within the context of private property and within the context that it is not right to threaten the lives and health of others with irrational exposures to pollutants. Ours is a human value centered philosophy for life on this earth. The Environmentalist Movement is generally anti-man and assumes that every other life-form has greater value than man.

As a property owner, one is rationally concerned to care for one's property. One wants to maintain it in good health for its present value and for its future value. Many of us also enjoy the wilderness experience, but this need not be created by taking land from others by force and designating it as wilderness. Finally, we have a moral, and properly a legal, obligation not to release dangerous substances in a manner that will unreasonably endanger the lives of others upon their own properties. Unfortunately, much of the legal or administrative regulation of today pays scant heed to a rational assessment of pollutant waste cleanup and disposal versus health issues for people.

Objectivists live on the earth and we have a rational need to be very concerned about the health of the environment. This need is very great and it demands a very concerted use of our rational faculty to develop the means to protect the rights of all individuals as we use the resources of the earth in the pursuit of our individual life goals. We should all be Rational Environmentalists, not the anti-man mystic Environmentalists dominant in the movement known as Environmentalism. The Earth is too valuable to us to entrust it to those who are irrational.

There are many things we should want to know about the Earth. Is it really warming and if so is it warming due to the actions of man? Is there an increase in the carbon dioxide concentrations which is due to man? If so to either, what are the consequences? If it man is having a substantial effect and the effect is bad, what cost-effective actions can we take to address the issues? Rationally, these questions make sense. Unfortunately, the present discussion of them is not primarily a rational discussion. It is generally assumed that any warming or any increase of CO2 is of course caused by man, despite the fact that the earth has had many warmer cycles and much more CO2 in the past when man clearly contributed nothing to it and despite the fact that we do not understand these natural cycles at all well. An article in Scientific American a few months ago claimed that man's agricultural developments have prevented an ice age from occurring. If so, is this bad? Would the rapid advances in civilization in Europe and N. America have been possible if we had spent the last few hundred years in an Ice Age? There is a lot to think about, but it deserves to be thought about rationally.

Post 4

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 8:02am

Rick, that was actually a very good quick summary.

The general solution is privatize environmental concerns that are artificially subject to government interference and tragedy-of-the-commons now.

eg. individuals would be liable for the pollution they produce, rather than govt granting the rights to produce x amount. Recycling would be used where it is economically profitable to do so, rather than feel-good govt programs which subsidize recycling and actually waste more energy. Market and innovation will adjust to new energy sources better without price ceilings or floors on fossil fuels or artificially subsidizing this or that alternate source.

The biggest difficulty I see with Objectivist (or any other) proposal for dealing with environmental issues is tackling the case of the small polluter. Exxon or Eli Lilly dumping tons of waste in the river - pretty straightforward to deal with in a libertarian system where they are liable for their dumping. Millions of individuals each contributing a trivial amount of air pollution from their cars that adds up to a nontrivial amount - not so straightforward to deal with. I haven't seen a practical solution, Objectivist/libertarian or not, to really address the cases of extremely dillute pollution.

Post 5

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 9:46am

Joshua:

I would encourage you to read, 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton.

Sam

Post 6

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 9:50am

Yes - very good book to read....

Post 7

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:44am

Aaron,

You wrote: �The biggest difficulty I see with Objectivist (or any other) proposal for dealing with environmental issues is tackling the case of the small polluter.�

Don�t we deal with that effectively and fairly already in some instances? For example, a single act of littering is of no consequence, but we still pass laws that make each and every act of littering a crime.

Jon

Post 8

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 8:40am

Thanks guys,

I agree with pretty much everything Bidinotto says. My only concern is that we can switch from fossil fuels to hydrogen as an energy source but it comes down to economics.No one wants to foot the bill to begin the switch to better alternatives. and i don't agree with congress making laws forcing companies to do it but if they continue to damage our environment in spite of the scientific evidence then is congress right in their authority to force the companies to change? I don't know.

Perhaps if capitalism were to operate without interference it would produce the results we are after? I dont know.

At what point will we as humans decide that what is best in the long run may hurt us for a few years but we should go for it anyway?

lastly, Jason, I know objectivism is deeper than I made out and that it takes a committed person to digest and strip it down to its core to determine its validity, which I feel that many of the people in here are in the process of doing. By joining this group, I needed to find out if the members adhered to the objectivist creed or if the group was full of disenchanted people who have gone off the deep end. By reading the responses thus far I find that most take it very seriously and have deep convictions about what they believe. I respect that. Anywho, talk to you later. Jbrad

Post 9

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 11:27am

Thanks for your replies.

In return I have a few more questions.

1. If in fact, global warming is real and all of the consequences that go with it, and the companies that make cars, energy and so on, do not change in order to alleviate the problems associated with global warming, is congress , or any government, right in forcing the issue through law changes?

2.If in fact , global warming is real and all of the consequences that go with it, would you be willing to give up your car and elelctricity, in order to reverse the effects of global warming, if in fact that would fix it?

3. If in fact, global warming is real and all of the consequences that go with it, would capitalism, without interfernce, adjust and correct the problem on its own ?

jbrad

ps. Jason, I know that objectivism is deeper than I made it out to be. I have a tendency to test the waters upon any new venture.

Post 10

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:23pm

Before the hair-triggers come out, I ask that everyone note the precision in jbrad�s questions.

Each one contains, �If, *in fact*�� (My emphasis.) He�s talking purely hypothetically. And I find it a fascinating and highly plausible hypothetical. It�s worth analyzing how a proper, free market, objectivist earth should react to that. I think it could be done, I�m not afraid of this hypothetical at all.

What to do if a wonderful, genuinely pro-life activity like burning stuff turns out *in fact* to be deadly to all beyond some amount?

Jon

Post 11

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:34pm

Earth Day, a cute, pre-objectivist annual pot-smoking party, should be revived!

All proceeds will go toward private subsidies for users of electricity produced by nuclear power. All perfectly voluntary.

Post 12

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:57pm

Josh,

My only concern is that we can switch from fossil fuels to hydrogen as an energy source but it comes down to economics.

It's not a matter of economics. With present technology we use fossil fuels to produce hydrogen. For a given amount of hydrogen, production takes four times the energy in fossil fuels. We'd be much worse off if we switched to hydrogen fuels right now.

And don't think that there's pressure on scientists to keep fossil fuels in use. The scientists I'm working with are scrambling to find a way to use hydrogen because it's the fast track to becoming a "big name," which entails loads of money.

Sarah

Post 13

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 1:25pm

That�s right, Sarah. Tons of work is being done on alternative energy. I have no patience for conspiracy theories revolving around oil companies �burying� the 50 mile-per-gallon carburetor, or keeping alternatives down. We don�t have a practical alternative to burning stuff because *no one can figure one out yet*. (Linz, I know the period must go inside a quote. Must it go inside my substitute for italics? I�m not trying to emphasize the period as such, so I put it outside.)

When an alternative exists, (billions are being spent working on this,) it will be implemented. No amount of market distortion from taxes and subsidies that we suffer today will stop an alternative to burning stuff from taking over.

Jon

Post 14

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 2:07pm

Another point which keeps being ignored is - altering the enviroment is not the same as destroying or damaging the enviroment...

Post 15

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 4:21pm

Here's a thought experiment I came across:

Imagine *you* were the person cut down that famous last tree on Easter Island. Now, try to imagine what your arguments were to justify doing it.

- Daniel

Post 16

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 4:26pm

I wrote
>Imagine *you* were the person cut down that famous last tree on Easter Island. Now, try to imagine what your arguments were to justify doing it.

Here's a starter one:

"Don't worry, our new, plentiful stone technology will replace any need for wood"

;->

- Daniel

Post 17

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:15pm

"Imagine *you* were the person cut down that famous last tree on Easter Island."

Now my God will *finally* be happy with me!

Post 18

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 6:14pm

Aaron:
>Now my God will *finally* be happy with me!

Yes! Or:
"It is my customary tribal right to cut down this tree, as my forefathers have always done!"

- Daniel

Post 19

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 7:46pm