Objectivism and Environmentalism

I've been learning about Objectivism for the last few months and am in complete agreement with the principles, but there is one thing which is bothering me - the stance on environmentalism.

Please note that I'm NOT a "green" or any kind of environmentalist, if this means taking the view that nature has “intrinsic value,” to be revered for its own sake, irrespective of any benefit to man. What worries me is that the Objectivist position seems to be cutting of its nose to spite its face, in the sense that it ignores (correct me if I'm wrong) the metaphysical reality that we live on a finite earth with limited resources and so cannot continue to multiply at the rate we are and at the same time demand for every human being the modern technological comforts we have come to expect in the west.

For example, I recently received information from the ARI (which I've recently subscribed to) regarding an event (a talk) "In Defense of Oil":

What: A talk arguing that oil is a proper and vital component of Americans’ standard of living

Description: Think oil is an “addiction” we need to get rid of as soon as possible? Think again.

Don't we need to be moving away from Oil? regardless of whether you believe in man-made global warming (and personally I'm sceptical), doesn't it make sense to develop technologies which are sustainable? Again, this has nothing to do with intrinsicism - but only the FACT that you can't get a quart out of a pint pot. Now, it may be that there is enough oil on the planet to last for hundreds more years (though given the rate of population increase that's doubtful), but even if this is the case, there is still the issue of oil (being a finite resource) having to exist in a specific geographic location (and hence not in other locations) which raise all kinds of problems with regard to security - those who have it and those who don't.

In my opinion, the greatest threat to humanity is over-population. We are in danger of becoming victims of our own success. I haven't seen this issue addressed anywhere by Objectivists, only (in the words of AR) a "blank out".

Post 1

Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 12:04pm

Jules, you've fallen into the fallacy of thinking that because a resource is finite, that it must be rationed by non-market / socialist / governmental actors to prevent running out.

This is false on several counts regarding oil.

1) Even if one was, for the sake of argument, to temporarily pretend that oil is in imminent danger of running out (which it is not, as I argue below), a rational person familiar with how politics and economics actually work would note that markets are much better at allocating scarce resources with alternate uses via the price mechanism (as explained at length by Hazlitt in "Economics in One Lesson" at http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf) than by top-down command and control decision-making by bureaucrats (as explained at length by Hayek in "The Road to Serfdom").

2) Just because a resource is finite does not mean that it is scarce. There is an enormous abundance of oil stashed in the earth -- what is scarce is the supply of oil that has been currently discovered and that is currently economically profitable to extract and bring to market at the current market price. But, as that supply of oil slowly runs out, then the market price will rise, causing previously uneconomical sources of oil to become economical to discover, and also causing currently known reserves that are not being exploited due to price to become economical to extract and bring to market.

3) Just because oil is currently the favored choice for power generation at the current market price doesn't mean that other, alternative sources of energy can't be exploited if the price of oil rises as the most easily extracted sources run out. Nuclear, coal, etc. are also abundant sources of energy that are available as backup.

4) Current useage of energy is predicated on the cheapness of oil. As the price gradually rises, it will become economical to conserve and use this energy source more efficiently.

The bottom line is that the price mechanism of markets will ensure that future sources of energy remain abundant -- unless government screws things up and distorts or eliminates those price signals, leading to irrational allocation and shortages.

Post 2

Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 12:26pm

I do not think man made anything has a significant impact on the climate. CO2 especially.

Oil in the Earth is not like Oil in your car's gas tank. Its not like one day we are going to be like uhoh- the Earth tank is empty. Like Jim was saying, there are increasingly more difficult places to get oil from, and we'll get a continual rise in oil prices, which will give other technologies plenty of time to be developed once oil becomes so expensive that the other technologies become profitable.

Jules, Answer me this: what's the energy density of state of the art currently manufactured and sold rechargeable batteries vs the energy density of regular automotive gasoline? (Both volume wise and mass wise).

You will find that hands down, oil is the highest energy density raw material that is easily available. You can't beat it-- not until better battery technology is developed.

Post 3

Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 12:59pm

Metaphysical reality is that the universe is infinite, therefore so are resources. Resources have never run out, only become more plentiful, OR have been replaced as their cost exceed their value.

People are not "multiplying beyond sustainability" - in fact, population decline is making economies unstable in Japan and Europe and Russia. This is again a myth perpetuated by people who are, to put it bluntly, anti-human and evil.

So absolutely none of what you say is true. Were it so, I may believe you, but it is not. The only danger is making it a self-fulfilling prophesy through draconian taxes and regulation being proposed.

Nor is there any evidence oil is ready to run out any time soon. We have just been forced by regulations, taxes, lawsuits, etc. to stop exploring, stop drilling, etc.

Post 4

Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 1:03pm

Nor is there any evidence oil is ready to run out any time soon. We have just been forced by regulations, taxes, lawsuits, etc. to stop exploring, stop drilling, etc.
.................

Especially this - as there are reports that there is more oil here, in various forms, than all of the middle east, but not allowed to be explored let alone developed for the market...

Post 5

Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 2:57pm

Kurt -- "Metaphysical reality is that the universe is infinite, therefore so are resources."

That is a theory, not unquestionable objective reality. But, the size of the known universe is so incredibly, unfathomably large, that it might as well be a supply of infinite resources, limited only by our inability to get off-planet and harvest them.

And, even the vastly more finite supply of fuel sources on and in the Earth is also so incredibly huge as to be hard to comprehend, again essentially only limited by our ability to profitably harvest them and bring them to market.

Post 6

Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 3:00pm

"People are not "multiplying beyond sustainability" - in fact, population decline is making economies unstable in Japan and Europe and Russia. This is again a myth perpetuated by people who are, to put it bluntly, anti-human and evil."

I completely agree with Kurt. China is experiencing a shortage of females because of it's long standing and tyrannical "one child" policies. Because the culture valued males more than females, there are now too few females to sustain the nation's population. If you check the circumstances behind any population "problem," you'll usually find a tyrannical government, unenlightened culture, or religion at the base.

Taiwan is super crowded, but no one's starving over there. Same with Hong Kong. These industrious nations produce loads and loads of wealth, not starvation.

Post 7

Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 3:06pm

To add to what Kurt said about the alleged unsustainability of human population growth -- what do you mean by "unsustainable"? That people are about to die off en masse due to a lack of food, water, etc.? Based on what evidence? People in the U.S. and other relatively free areas of the earth enjoy the highest standard of living of any human beings ever in the history of mankind, with that prosperity continuing to grow.

The only thing unsustainable about all this growing prosperity is the attempts by those who would replace the engine of prosperity -- free markets -- with greater and greater admixtures of socialism.

If you really think the earth's population levels are unsustainable, please let us know how many human beings you think need to be snuffed out or not allowed to be born to bring us to sustainable levels. Do you think going from 6 billion plus humans to 3 billion will suffice? One billion? How many lives do you want to eliminate or prevent?

Post 8

Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 4:54pm

The population size is an economic issue. If you understand Capitalism, you understand that people are consumers AND producers and that under free enterprise they will average out as net profit centers. That is, they will create and produce more than they consume. They will add more value than they require. The business about scarcity is all relative to demand. Only people who get stuck in the socialist framework make the mistake of thinking everything is like an unchanging, fixed-size pie to be carved up and once there are too many of us, some won't get a piece at all.

The extraordinary capacity of human creativity and productivity is such that we end up almost buried in a surplus of things that grow increasingly cheap as time goes on. We carry cell phones in our pockets that nowadays let us surf the web, show us our location via map applications and GPS, and hold our favorite tunes and this week's grocery list. In a few years they will be almost free. That is the real world where new ideas turn into new products that add to all the things already here and they become cheaper and better and more plentiful at the same time. And the more humans there are (given free enterprise) the more this will be the case.

If someone is more specific and means over-crowded when they are talking about population, that's a little bit different since the amount of the earth's surface is a form of a fixed limit. But if you've traveled through most countries you've see a great deal of open space - even in China. Even in Indonesia (Jakarta was one of the most densely populated cities I've ever seen). People pack themselves together in cities because they like to, they pay more for a place to live when they could live more cheaply in a rural area. Population density makes for increases in market efficiency and a more vibrant existence. There are reasons why you get good restaurants in NY, NY. And by the time the planet becomes really crowded, we will have gone for outer space.

Under socialism, you start getting scarcity and over crowding when you have more than one person. Because that second person has a 'right' to half of whatever you've got.

Post 9

Friday, April 23, 2010 - 8:27am

Well stated, Steve. Sanction.

Post 10

Friday, April 23, 2010 - 11:02am

I recommend the excellent FREE book The Ultimate Resource II by Julian Simon to refute the "finite" claims of the greens and other hysterical types.

Post 11

Friday, April 23, 2010 - 1:32pm

Indeed - quite forgot it is available free online... great book, as are most all of his writings...

Post 12

Friday, April 23, 2010 - 7:06pm

Too many people hang on to the idea that human beings are deeply wrong, and unnatural to the world somehow.

Arizona's crazy new "criminal" illegal immigration law is a logical out come of that view. It sees human beings as all consuming locusts, never producing anything but more locusts.

Do you see how you've fallen prey to this idea, Jules?

Post 13

Friday, April 23, 2010 - 7:14pm

Jules,

Welcome to RoR. Others have already commented about how unimportant it likely is for us to worry about running out of oil (because scarcity increases price, which increases innovation -- with the market solving the problem). Perhaps you are unconvinced because these are abstract (philosophical) arguments dealing with how markets function. Another way to discuss this with you would be to use concrete (encyclopedic) facts.

If you go to the "peak oil" page on Wikipedia, you will find that world demand for oil may go up to 118 million barrels per day in the next 20 years:

World demand for oil is projected to increase 37% over 2006 levels by 2030 (118 million barrels per day (18.8×10^⁶ m³/d) from 86 million barrels (13.7×10^⁶ m³)

118 million barrels per day sounds like a lot. It sounds like enough to make us run out of oil in a few decades. But that is not the case. Let's assume that oil demand actually goes up much farther than this. Let's say it goes to 150 million barrels per day before the demand curve levels off. If you go to the "oil shale" page on Wikipedia, you will find that there's a generous supply of this 'somewhat-harder-to-refine' oil -- enough to supply us our liberal amount of 150 million barrels per day for 20,000 days (55 years):

A 2005 estimate set the total world resources of oil shale at 411 gigatons — enough to yield 2.8 to 3.3 trillion barrels (520 km³) of shale oil

So, let's pessimistically say that for some reason we are unable to innovate to wean off of oil at all and are also unable to innovate to continue to find regular oil reserves on earth. What do we do about that? Develop shale. What about in a century or so, when we get low on shale?

Well, in a century, technology will be so advanced that oil will go the way of the steam engine. Now, imagine early American settlers getting together to worry about the prospect of running out of steam. Sounds silly, from our standpoint as their descendents -- with all of our oil refineries, and coal mines, and nuclear power plants, etc.

If you become convinced of mankind's ability to use technological progress to improve his lot on earth, then you will not be so worried -- as if you were an early settler worrying about running out of steam.

Ed

Post 14

Monday, January 3, 2011 - 7:46pm

I think objectivists largely do not appreciate the scale of environmental problems or the truth of environmentalism. In short, environmentalism is not about the elimination of humankind but the proper valuing of nature. Before there was technology or money or even humans there was life and all of us must come to understand they we all originate from it. It is not man vs. nature. It is man submit to nature or die.

The previous ethic of objectivists for ever increasing technological innovation, increased consumption/production, and policy making will never solve the environmental crises. These are all human activities that work best in a human setting ie society. But they are of little importance to the ecological society in which all of humanity is only a member.

We must learn how to work in nature as a member instead of trying to subdue it blindly through mechanical intervention. It is not good for us but more importantly it disturbs the biological/ecological community in which we are only a small part. In short we must learn how to respect nature for itself. Without nature, there would never have been man in the first place as evolution and biology has informed us.

Post 15

Monday, January 3, 2011 - 11:31pm

Hi Delong,

What you have written rests upon the assumption that there IS a massive environmental crisis pending.

1. There is no evidence that an environmental crisis exists at all - lots of extreme claims are being made, but there is no solid evidence. Please name what crisis you think endangers us and point at the evidence. I completely disagree with your position. Technology's growth, by itself, is making our planet a better place to live with every passing year.

2. There is also no evidence that the championed environmental solutions would do anything but cause far more harm. Please name the changes that you believe we must make and I'll explain what I mean.

3. The claims that man is responsible for the alledged environmental crisis is also without solid evidence. Please point out the evidence you think contradicts this.

4. Newer technologies tend to be cleaner than old technologies.

5. If a real environmental or natural crisis does occur in the future, it is more likely to be dealt with successfully by the application of technology. Demonizing technology will handicap our ability to solve problems.

6. Capitalism generates the wealth that will make it possible to chose from alternatives - including 'greener' approaches.

7. The greatest interference with nature in this context is the self-made blindness that comes when government pollutes science with partisan political ends and when government interferes with man's natural processes which require freedom to innovate and engage in voluntary exchanges.

8. You state that nature must be respected for itself. But there must be a standard for values, and that standard is man's life. I believe you can not make a moral case for your position that strays from that standard yet stays logical. Respected by whom, and using what standard? Without standards like I'm discussing how will you be able to determine what to do in a situation where you face a conflict between say the delta smelt and significant loss of human employment?

9. There is so much more that needs to be said about this subject but the complexity is only addressable by a system of knowledge that reaches from the basis of philosophy with metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, on through political philosophy and economics. There is more here than just bad some science.
-----------

I ask you to consider that your assumptions might be wrong and that the so-called environmental crisis is more of a political facade that is believed by most of those at today's universities but still not true.

Post 16

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 12:23am

Welcome to RoR, Delong.

Ed

Post 17

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 5:09am

Wow Steve I hope that was a copy and paste! Good points!

Post 18

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 7:14am

Jules:

In my opinion, the greatest threat to humanity is over-population.

The U.N. doesn't seem to think so, and that's one institution Objectivists like to trash (and justifiably so). According to their population projections the world's population will level out by 2050 and then likely remain at those levels or decline. They do not think there will be any global catastrophe. Wealthy parts of the world because of a change of lifestyle (couples choosing to have fewer or no children) like Europe is experiencing negative population growth and so is Japan.

The economist Thomas Malthus predicted in 1798 that agriculture could never keep pace with population growth condemning man to perpetual subsistence existence with famine and pestilence as a check to that growth. One look at your typical Westerner 212 years later and famine doesn't seem to be an issue (in fact being over fed now seems to be the greatest health risk to Western individuals) and the population has grown from 1 billion to 6 billion since Malthus made those dire predictions.

It's difficult to get worked up over these over-population predictions when they have been consistently wrong for two centuries. It's one thing to make predictions but another to show a proven track record of making accurate ones.

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/04, 7:21am)

Post 19

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 10:44am