Objectivism and the environment

I am fairly new to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I am a rational and intuitive individual and understand the common sensical values of objectivity. I have been a student of history and Environmental studies (the later being more in tune with this discussion) and am wondering about objective ideas involving the environment, more specifically the apparent fact that production is limited to the resources available through the environment. I understand that most objectivists are opposed to the environmental movement due to its imposed limitations on development. What I want to know, is, will the market account for limitations in resources before it is too late to reverse trends in environmental blowback (a term I think I just coined haha), or will limitations on a mans life cause him to seek wealth, ignoring the environmental effects due to his not having to bear them? This may be a difficult question to answer but I hope to at least spark a discussion that can help my ambivalence. I'm sure that Ayn would point out that I need to check my premises. Could any of you help me identify which one or ones are wrong?

excuse my punctuation - I was a terrible rhetoric student

Post 1

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 9:50am

Ok, this statement is simply incorrect:
more specifically the apparent fact that production is limited to the resources available through the environment.

Ultimately, all resources are infinite, as is the universe. The question is, how can we best accomplish A using the resources we have. All through history, man's mind has made more and more from less and less - less muscle labor - using previously worthless "resources" - becoming more efficient with the resources we have. So, this is simply false.

Furthermore, private property rights strongly dissuade people from damaging the environment - see the Tragedy of the Commons - If you pollute my backyard, you had better be prepared to be sued. If you pollute some communal land, no one really cares, because no one (or everyone) owns it.

That said, there will be some unavoidable shared areas, such as water supplies and such, which can still be addressed through the application of some reasonable principals. It is not coincidence that the worse environmental abuses were from the most communal - i.e. Communist - nations. The fewer people in control, or rather giving power to elites of any kind - is a recipe for disaster. The original intent of our Nation was true government of the people, and the more local control and spread out power is, the better individuals who have vested interest can make the decisions, to handle those few areas that may not be private property.

Post 2

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 10:43am

Hmm...I agree with your statements but perhaps I have misworded my question. You are correct that all resources are not finite. I suppose I am answering my own question when I state that the limitations of resources (i.e. the amount of oil on the planet is limited and the natural production of more is so enormously slow that it is referred to as a limited resource) might cause us to look elsewhere for different and unlimited resources (such as sunlight and wind energy). But what if environmental impacts are unapparent until bioaccumulation (such as we see with lead/mercury and fish) occurs over enough time to leave no one accountable? What is an objectivist answer to instilling what appears to be non-wealth accruing responsible clean up of harmful externalities? One of my economic professors (of unknown moral/political persuasion) has suggested a finite number of marketable waste permits that the state gives out in equal shares to companies so smaller companies can sell off excess shares they don't need to larger companies (which isn't his personal idea I should add but an interesting take). I would think this idea is more of a compromise that would be rejected by free-market advocates despite attempts at making it appear as a free market solution; but I can't imagine other solutions that would be both sustainable and/or profitable. I suppose my main problem is my inability to integrate my studies of free-market capitalism and environmental science as seamlessly as I would like.

Post 3

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 11:34am

Perhaps you should read Julian Simon's free online book The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment.

Post 4

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 11:55am

Thank you! I will read this tonight and get back to this post tomorrow. I appreciate the responses and plan on posting more on this site in the future...although does it bother anyone else that there is a moderator? I personally observe that it slows down member interaction and makes conversation quite difficult unless you have all day to sit and wait for approval. Secondly, wouldn't it be an abuse of objectivist freedom to be censored? This is a private site, so I'm not going to object to something I use but didn't create, but I would suggest a way to report abuse instead of having to filter everything. Hmm, I wonder if I'm on to something pertaining to my initial question.

Post 5

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 12:48pm

The moderator will go away eventually it is for new accounts. I will give you a sanction to help since your question is reasonable.

Post 6

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 2:36pm

Patrick, welcome. You might want to fill out your extended, profile, it will help us get to know you a little better and make our responses a bit more relevant to your context.

As for environmental concerns, I would make a comment. Although a certain resource may be limited within a certain context, it can almost always be used more efficiently, or be substituted for by some other material. For example, one can switch to alcohol or hydrogen instead of gasoline if oil becomes to expensive. In a free market, the increasing price of oil leads people both to explore for more oil, and to explore alternative fuels. The important thing is not the supply of gasoline, but the supply of some fuel of some type at a market driven price.

Post 7

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 7:27pm

I suppose my main problem is my inability to integrate my studies of free-market capitalism and environmental science as seamlessly as I would like.

I can see how that would be a problem. You might be forced to make a choice between them, but that isn't to say they're at hopeless odds forever and ever. It's up to the free market to come up with the solutions to the problems discovered by science. That's how I look at it. And if all property were privately owned, those solutions would be developed a whole lot faster.

(I wish RoR had some kind of "sound" attached to it so I could hear when something is dropped into the moderation box.)

Post 8

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 10:20pm

It's up to the free market to come up with the solutions to the problems discovered by science.

I would also add to that the exponential growth we've experience and hopefully will continue to experience of scientific and technological knowledge is only possible in a free market society. Free minds able to reap the fruits of their own labor. The solution to any scientific problem is never more government, it's more freedom. To the extent that we have experienced such a wealth of growth in science and technology it has always been handicapped by government interference.

Post 9

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 - 10:40pm

Patrick:

You are correct that all resources are not finite. I suppose I am answering my own question when I state that the limitations of resources (i.e. the amount of oil on the planet is limited and the natural production of more is so enormously slow that it is referred to as a limited resource) might cause us to look elsewhere for different and unlimited resources (such as sunlight and wind energy). But what if environmental impacts are unapparent until bioaccumulation (such as we see with lead/mercury and fish) occurs over enough time to leave no one accountable?

Patrick I'm not sure if you meant to relate these two sentences together, because if you did it seems like a non-sequiter. Finite resources are efficiently allocated through pricing in order to stave off shortages. Substitutions may occur if the price is high enough. Bioaccumulation and externalities has exactly what bearing on that? Limited resources has nothing to do with externalities.

One of my economic professors (of unknown moral/political persuasion) has suggested a finite number of marketable waste permits that the state gives out in equal shares to companies so smaller companies can sell off excess shares they don't need to larger companies

The problem with that is that the theory rarely works in reality. Programs like that are so ripe with government corruption and abuse. As long as private property is well defined, there shouldn't be a Tragedy of the Commons. The government is also too quick to use questionable science to ban substances regarded as pollutants. The most famous is that of DDT, used for controlling mosquito populations, it almost wiped out malaria from this planet. But since its ban, which the government also as a condition of foreign aid requested that the recipients of that aid ban DDT as well, malaria came back with a vengeance, is still with most of Africa, and has killed hundreds of millions of people. The fact is there has not been a net benefit to the environment due to government interference, but rather, governments have been responsible for more environmental destruction than any private company has. If an industry has shown to pollute private property, torts can be used to remedy the problem.

Post 10

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 6:51am

I updated my profile and started to send a long post to this board but since I haven't read that online book yet (I watched a WW1 documentary I received from netflix instead) I want to read that before I post anything else. Great replies so far though! I'm sure I will get better at posting more engaging content with clear and concise questions as I go forward on this site. As I said I am rather inexperienced (content wise) with objectivism but I am an eager student and very hungry for more.

Post 11

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 12:55pm

Here is quote from economist Brian Simpson's article, "The Assault on Energy Producers" in The Objective Standard:

The earth is a solid ball of chemical compounds and elements, from its molten core to the perimeter of its gaseous atmosphere. We literally have just begun to scratch the surface toward gaining access to the resources contained within the earth. The deepest oil wells today descend only about seven miles into the earth and the deepest mines only about one or two miles; yet it is almost four thousand miles from the surface of the earth to its core. The sheer physical volume of potential resources contained within the earth is about 260 billion cubic miles. As long as scientists and businessmen are free to profit by tapping and using the earth's resources, there is no end in sight to sources of energy.

Even if we could manage largely to deplete currently known supplies of a particular fossil fuel, say petroleum, we would be in no danger of running out of natural resources -- or even that resource. Since the early days of the oil industry, people have been predicting the imminent end of oil reserves. But we have, in fact, continually discovered more oil reserves. And today, even with dramatically increased oil consumption around the globe, the years of reserves of known oil deposits are higher than ever. Likewise, the years of reserves of other fossil fuels -- coal and natural gas -- as well as the uranium used by nuclear plants continue to grow. And even if the years of reserves of any particular resource began to diminish, barring market distortions caused by price controls and other regulations, the price of the diminishing resource would begin to rise long before the resource was depleted. This would (a) signal to consumers well in advance to reduce their consumption of this resource and to turn to different sources for the relevant need, and (b) signal to businessmen that their profits lie in developing different sources to supply the relevant need. (pp. 63-64)

-- Bill

Post 12

Thursday, January 22, 2009 - 2:42pm