Objectivism and Environmentalism

The common ground I think environmentalists and anthropocentrists can stand on I think is a prioritization of the sustenance of life in general, human or otherwise. Whatever human interests may be none of it should interfere with the interest of making life possible since all humans are ultimately living things. As long as we value our life we must value the functioning of the ecosystem because that is what makes life possible, human or otherwise. The death of any particular species may be sad but it can be inconsequential. But the disruption of the ecosystem spells peril for all living things and so its maintanence is of primary importance.

Environmentalists who value nature and the life of other things must by extension value the life of all things equally and as result must acknowledge the pre-eminence of the ecosystem. The ecosystem is the only thing that makes life possible for all species and should be the focus of concern for enviromentalists. It is not an issue of human interests vs. the interests of other species. It is human interests vs. the sustainance of life in general.

Therefore anthropocentrists must prioritize the maintanence of the ecosystem if they value life at all. Environmentalists should do the same. This is the impartial middle ground that both sides can stand on. The maintanence of the ecosystem requires that certain human interests must be subordinated and some key areas should be preserved. It means that long term goals to maintain ecological balance should be implemented.

Now I don't know too much about what kind of policies I would legislate. I would say that I would vote for nuclear energy probably and preserving natural habitats from overconstruction. I would promote research that combines environmental health with technological development. I would vote for taking funds away from stuff like universal health care to environmental preservation. Maybe stuff from like building prisons to preerving the environment. That kind of stuff. Hope that helps.

Post 61

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 4:00pm

First, a quick observation of the extinction of a species. I'm willing and ready to dance a happy jig when the species we kill off is small pox, or the mosquito that carries malaria or dengue fever.

Now, to the second point. There is no way to judge the worth of one species over another that does not involve a value system and I know of no way to create a logically sound value system other than rational egoism which has man as the the standard of value. (It is from that perspective that I'm up for killing off that mosquito and calling it a moral act.)

Once you choose that standard of value it is much more difficult to lay claim to a priority for the ecosystem. Frankly, I don't buy into the arguments I've been hearing for decades. (And I majored in the biological sciences).

I find that the compelling arguments are those where we can measure concrete harm to an individual by the actions of another. With objective laws based upon individual rights, we have a way to prevent real pollution as a tortionable actions. Putting elites in charge is never a good idea, and it is just made worse when they are so clearly working off of a moral system that doesn't derive from man's life except in the most tenuous of fashions. They are too much like the Buddhist who became king and passed laws that no one may take a step least they step on an insect - but he claimed it wasn't for the bugs he was doing this, but to preserve man's moral nature. By what standard?

Post 62

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 6:44pm

Steve,

They are too much like the Buddhist who became king and passed laws that no one may take a step least they step on an insect - but he claimed it wasn't for the bugs he was doing this, but to preserve man's moral nature. By what standard?

That's a great story!

It's also coincidental to hear that you majored in the biological sciences. I did, too, but I had started out my college years by majoring in psychology first. I have incredible stories about my professors in psychology -- enough to make you understand why I switched majors.

:-)

Ed

Post 63

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 8:52pm

Ed,

My masters degree was in clinical psychology - and the good thing about that university was that the clinical psych school would only hire faculty with current licenses to practice psychotherapy and who had several years of recent, full time experience as therapists - most of them had also be supervising therapists. And they hired a from a wide spectrum of theoretical orientations which was good - Gestalt, existentialist, cognitivist, Freudian, Jungian, etc. It was a good school for experience, for an idea of the real world, but light on academics (which was no problem for someone who can read :-)

You'll have to tell me some of he stories.

There was professor of psychopathology who wore a 2 foot ostrich feather sticking straight up in his hair - which was sort of cut like a very full afro (which of the three stooges was bald on top and had a bushy afro on the sides? Well, his hair was like that. He was about 6' 2" to start with and had been in vaudeville when he was young. To pass the class you had to do a formal diagnostic work up on a client - and during the last week you learned that he was that client. It was interesting. The first class to graduate from the school - just after it's beginning was small - less than a dozen. The were all nude under their black gowns and nobody knew... till they got their diplomas.

Post 64

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 9:30pm

I typed something before but it didn't post again. Strange

Post 65

Sunday, March 6, 2011 - 9:40pm

First of all I wanted to say that I know it's weird for me to pop up after two months of not talking but I was developing some more of the environmentalist ideology. Also I should thank William Dwyer for his subsequent post and I will read your articles when I get the time.

Anyway, I think Buddha was trying to foster compassion for all living things since all living things can suffer and can receive compassion. I once was with some people who cut some bees in half or dipped them in boiling oil. It was fun at the time but later I look back at it and believe it to be rather wrong.

People may reply to me that because these insects are not human they do not deserve our concern. But just becaue something is not human doesn't mean we have no duty to treat it decently and respect the quality of its life.

Um I'm tired and I should be doing homework. >>>>

Post 66

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 4:37am

Delong, Make sure to hit "Post/Preview" or "Preview with Spell Check" after every change you make in the text editor. If you make a change then directly hit "Post", the changes are lost.

Hmm... maybe I should fix that.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 3/07, 4:38am)

Post 67

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 4:32pm

Ok :)

So to save a lot of time Steve Wolfer I will just say that I agree with you that we should measure everything by what is in our best interest and not compromise on that. Ok. I believe that a healthy environment is in our best interest and I think a healthy environment comes from a balanced ecosystem which we should learn how it works. That's the conclusion I have so far. Hope it works.

Post 68

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 4:54pm

Delong,

Take a look at the conflict between the environmentalists on behalf of the California Delta Smelt and the San Joaquin Valley farmers. One of the most productive agricultural areas in the world has be wiped out, just destroyed, because the irrigation water was so diminished in order to keep water at a higher level in the natural environment of the smelt. Here is a link to a WSJ opinion column on this, and I'm sure that a little intelligent Googling will let you find pieces that take the side of the ecosystem.

Take a look and see if you can actually come down on the side of smelt in this conflict while still claiming that you are working from values that are derived from man's life. And the most important thing is to understand how to make a rational, objective decision in any such conflict.

Post 69

Monday, March 7, 2011 - 8:48pm

I have read your article and I will think about it. But otherwise I have nothing more to say on the matter.

Post 70

Friday, April 8, 2011 - 4:42pm

To Delong Tsway:

You sound like a sensible person with a healthy ability to reason. I hope you will find more people like yourself. Dont allow any theorist to discourage you from seeing your truth and walking your road. Well done with mastering of the English by the way.
I found only one person here that reacted adequately to my enqueries, who showed both maturity and understanding. The rest are so engrossed with their opinions and problems, so ready to attack anything strange or foreign, it makes no sense to spend any time for it.
Little gangs form and attack anything threatening their established ideologies, their gods and priests. Let them fight their little wars, after all it is their turf, their site. You will not find objectivity here. Here is a trick for seeing a person who doesnt care about other points of view - such people dont ask questions. You do, thats what makes you different. So good luck to you, if you get lonely in your quest email me at gavrosh2005@hotmail.com

To the rest:

William - Thanks again.

Ed - Airways MUST be private, and everyone MUST be Honest and Fair, but they are not. I see no point in continuing with further questions, as you dont seem to have a plan of action. Well done at rhetoric.

To everyone else - be well.

Greetings from the islands!

Post 71

Friday, April 8, 2011 - 7:30pm

"Little gangs form and attack anything threatening their established ideologies"

Hmm... "threatening" or "idiotic & anti-productive-human"? lol!

Post 72

Saturday, April 9, 2011 - 5:27pm

Mike,

Here is a trick for seeing a person who doesnt care about other points of view - such people dont ask questions.
I had answers to your queries but you didn't like them, and now you want to claim that, just with your experience of one thread/subject matter -- that people don't care about other points of view. But that's a hasty generalization. Er, excuse me, let me put it this way:

Don't you think that that's a hasty generalization?

:-)

You know, I can just as easily put many of my points in that thread as posed questions -- instead of answers to your questions. Here is an example:

When you said:

How does an individual, and society in general, ensures that one doesnt trample over the rights of other individuals while persuing his goals and on what philosophical model this can be found? It has to be applicable to real world of course.

And I answered:

I take it you are referring to your "right" to breathe clean air -- i.e., the supposition that polluting industries violate your "right" to a pollution-free environment. The solution is technological, not political -- i.e., it doesn't involve back-tracking on the philosophy of Objectivism or the social system of free market capitalism

Instead of answering you like I did, I could have chosen to ask you a question like this:

Mike, regarding how individuals and society can ensure the "right" to breathe clean air, and the quote from "The Anti-Industrial Revolution", do you see how you are posing a scientific question and only mistaking it for a moral/political one? In other words, do you see how your question is inherently unanswerable on strictly moral/political grounds? Do you see how that makes it an instance of the Fallacy of the Complex Question?

Do you see how a failure to adequately answer how to ensure clean air for everyone -- while also expecting benefits from technology and industry -- is not a moral/political/philosophical failure? Do you see how it wouldn't involve back-tracking on the philosophy of Objectivism or the social system of free market capitalism?

Ed

Post 73

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 2:14pm

Ed:

I am amazed at how much free time you have on your hands. Good on yeah mate, as they say down-under.

You post 72.

Do you see how a failure to adequately answer how to ensure clean air for everyone -- while also expecting benefits from technology and industry -- is not a moral/political/philosophical failure? Do you see how it wouldn't involve back-tracking on the philosophy of Objectivism or the social system of free market capitalism?

No, I dont see. And notice how I dont say "and neither should you"? I am glad we lost the noise of the crowd, and have a slight opportunity for civilized discussion, where people actually try to listen to person they are talking to.

If someone is advocating a specific point of view, an opinion or call to action, they have to be investigated, before coclusions can be drawn about their true nature. Can I assume we both agree on this?

Mike

Post 74

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 - 6:31pm

Mike,

If someone is advocating a specific point of view, an opinion or call to action, they have to be investigated, before conclusions can be drawn about their true nature. Can I assume we both agree on this?

I can't agree with this as it is currently worded.

I'd say that in order to draw good conclusions you should first investigate, but that necessity of investigation isn't linked to any advocacy of any views. It seems to me that you are talking about the common behavior called "shooting the messenger" -- where someone's character is attacked ("ad hominem") instead of their arguments. If that's what you meant, then I agree that you shouldn't shoot-the-messenger.

Ed

Post 75

Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 12:25pm

Ed:

I'd say that in order to draw good conclusions you should first investigate.

Well said. So, lets say someone is advertising an idea, and we now have to investigate it.

Idea 1. Enviromentalism is bad.
Idea 2. Enviromentalism is good.
Idea 3. Enviromentalism should be directed at solving problems of enviromental degradation.

Which one shall we discuss?

Mike

Post 76

Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 3:15pm

Mike,

Let's take them in order: 1, 2, and then 3.

Starting with Idea 1 (that environmentalism is bad), let's investigate that idea. Good research questions might be: Who's saying it's bad? And why? What makes it bad (as opposing to being something good)?

Do you agree that those are good starting questions? Do you have more questions, or replacements for any of these?

Ed

Post 77

Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 4:26pm

And do NOT forget - ALTERING the environment is NOT THE SAME as destroying the environment - and what humans do is alter [not by chance, as the environment is always being altered by 'nature'] but by design - to better suit humans, as is their nature.....

Post 78

Friday, April 15, 2011 - 8:07pm

Right, Robert.

Humans are natural beings. They are a part of nature. The idea of some kind of an "ultra-pristine", humanless kind of nature is a non sequitur. Even the most primitive tribes require fire in order to survive, and the "pollution" that comes from them burning wood is an entirely "natural" pollution -- in the same category of pollution as that of a bear "shitting in the woods."

In this respect, getting to "zero" or even "near-zero" pollution is not a viable value/solution -- because that would be an unnaturally-low level of pollution (a mystic level).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/15, 8:09pm)

Post 79

Friday, April 15, 2011 - 8:40am