SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Sunday, July 24 - 6:41am

Link

Edit

Max,

I agree that there are far superior free market solutions to environmental problems. Specifically, on global warming, I believe it a waste of time and treasure to try to 'prevent' global warming. The emphasis should be on preparing for the effects of global warming which are cyclical and unavoidable.

Post 1

Sunday, July 24 - 2:39pm

Link

Edit

Indeed, especially Global Warming is a subject that has undergone many end-of-world-mongering, but no clear line of constructive thought.

I just think that there are valid reasons for protecting some things in the environment, since we must be able to live in this world. And (speaking for myself) I wouldn't want to lease the woods I like to wander around in and the many animals you can encounter there.
And I think that Objectivism is not necessarily poled against environmentalism of the Old School, but rather against the dogmatic movement of the 90s (like Greenpeace, Friends of Earth etc.). They all head some use or credibility when they started, but they got out of line and were anti-capitalist and anti-life.

Many environmentally concerned people, I know, never thought about doing it through the idea of property rights. They just never encountered such approaches to a solution in their (mostly) leftist milieu.
Especially, there, we (Libertarians and Objectivists) can try to change the minds and show them that environmentalism and capitalism are not two things to be seperated by their nature.

Post 2

Sunday, July 24 - 6:47pm

Link

Edit

Max writes:

...environmentalism and capitalism are not two things to be seperated by their nature.

I disagree emphatically...and extensively, on my website, ecoNOT.com:

http://www.ecoNOT.com

Post 3

Sunday, July 24 - 7:12pm

Link

Edit

What about Greenspirit? Created by the (co?)founder of Greenpeace who left after it he realized it was, in fact, anti-human rather than pro-environment. Works off of the premise of sustainable development rather than conservation.

Sarah

Post 4

Sunday, July 24 - 9:34pm

Link

Edit

After taking a look at Robert B.'s site it seems he's using the term environmentalist where I'm using conservationist. With that in mind, my above post would read more like:
"Works off of the premise of sustainable development rather than wacko environmentalist human-hating."

Sarah

Post 5

Sunday, July 24 - 11:22pm

Link

Edit

Conservationism is based upon false premises. Resources on the Earth and in the universe are virtually unlimited. It is all a matter of creating new technology that more effectively converts resources into wealth. I repeat (because many still do not understand this) -- It is not conserving resources that humans need to concentrate on. This is a dead end. Our goal must be to create new and more efficient ways of converting the endless resources available to us into useable goods.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 7/24, 11:27pm)

Post 6

Sunday, July 24 - 11:59pm

Link

Edit

Jason -

The decision on whether to conserve or to develop a way to make a resource available for cheaper use should always be decided on a rational basis. It is sometimes wise to build a refrigerator with more and better insulation, rather than to use more electricity. It may also be wise for a farmer to take actions to prevent his topsoil from being washed away. It may make sense for a homeowner to improve caulk the cracks around his windows.

Sure, for about 100 years we have been about to run out of oil. Nonetheless, at some point we may actually use up most of the cheaper oil to extract and have to turn to more expensive oil from shale or from caverns very deep in the earth.or some such thing. The fear mongering has been wrong, but we should keep assessing our resources as rationally as we can.

Post 7

Monday, July 25 - 3:56am

Link

Edit

What exactly means conservation in respect to a dynamic environment, that cannot be controlled (just look at Australia and their methods to control the Environment). I think the only way environmentalism can be sustained is by leaving things to themselves. Just give them to private owners and look what they make of it.

I know your blog, Robert. I also know that you disagree with this, but still you should think about whether it might not be an option to be a bit environmentally conscious (as they call it).
We do not only want to have the best technocracy around, but also preserve something of artistic or refreshing quality. Don't you enjoy to walk the woods or to fish on a lake? Well, then it is in your self-interest to take care of those environmental sites.
And exactly at this point, environmentalism and capitalism is not necessarily antithetic.
Another point that habours some truth, is that ultimately we must take nature into account, if we want to obey to reality. I don't say we have to succumb to nature, but to reason that we live because this nature has the certain factors that allow life in it is essential. It is again in our self-interest to conserve those factors or to transform those factors to the better.
This can be done by staying inside Objectivist principles, because property and ownership give people the means to do exactly that.

Post 8

Monday, July 25 - 10:01am

Link

Edit

Max wrote:

I know your blog, Robert. I also know that you disagree with this, but still you should think about whether it might not be an option to be a bit environmentally conscious (as they call it). We do not only want to have the best technocracy around, but also preserve something of artistic or refreshing quality. Don't you enjoy to walk the woods or to fish on a lake?

Max, you clearly don't know very well my website ecoNOT.com, which differs from my blog. On the ecoNOT site, I state specifically on my bio page, "With his wife Cynthia and their stridently individualistic cat, Luna, Robert makes his home on the shore of the Chesapeake Bay, where he avidly enjoys the sights and sounds of nature. 'The natural world," he says, "is an inspiring setting and inexhaustible resource for the creative work of human beings.'"

On both the home page statement and in my extended manifesto, "Environmentalism or Individualism?," I also distinguish between "nature-loving" and anti-human environmentalism. I have no problem at all with those who "see the earth's bounty as resources for human use, appreciation, development, and spiritual enjoyment." I am one of those people.

In short, the aesthetic and spiritual pleasures that stem from appreciation of the natural world are very real, and very valid -- within an anthropocentric philosophical context.

However, such "nature loving" doesn't require validation by an "ism." And we don't gain a thing by identifying ourselves with an "ism" that, from the outset, was defined to mean an anti-human perspective, as my website demonstrates in chapter and verse.

Post 9

Monday, July 25 - 11:11am

Link

Edit

Yea, I have read this part, but it proves not to be a refute of my approach to environmentalism and I think we actually talk about the same kind of environmentalism. And I certainly don't want to endorse some naturalism that gives power to some "Mother Earth" idealism.
However, I also think that there are certain problems that are washed away because of such argumentations.

I actually enjoyed your argument on the French Heat Wave, which is actually a really stupid example of environmentalism, but also an indication of socialism.

Well, then you shouldn't answer that capitalism and environmentalism are necessarily antithetic with a yes, but with a no, but... :)

It always depends on how you define environmentalism and I do it the same way you define it as a good thing. The roots of property ownership are within the system called capitalism and therefore environmentalism can be included within capitalism. This was the whole point, I wanted to prove and you said nothing really to deny it.
That's why I am baffled by you response above.
In my opinion, you don't negate this possiblity, you just point to that environmental organisations (employing philosophers of environmentalism)are anti-capitalistic and there I agree. However, again, it all depends on the kind of definition. You define all radicals as environmentalists, where I take the old term of environmentalist (as nature-appreciator) and label everyone else as eco-fundamentalist.

...environmentalism and capitalism are not two things to be seperated by their nature.
I disagree emphatically...and extensively, on my website, ecoNOT.com:

Post 10

Monday, July 25 - 12:07pm

Link

Edit

To Charles Anderson

"It is sometimes wise to build a refrigerator with more and better insulation, rather than to use more electricity."

Thus my use of the phrase : "Our goal must be to create new and more efficient ways of converting the endless resources available to us into useable goods."

"It may also be wise for a farmer to take actions to prevent his topsoil from being washed away. It may make sense for a homeowner to improve caulk the cracks around his windows."

But the goal of all such action is not to save resources -- any added efficiency in terms of cost savings in the use of one resource is done with the goal of CONSUMING OTHER RESOURCES in the form of usable goods. When we buy a more energy efficient refrigerator we don't buy it so that we can save energy for some grand utilitarian cause we do it so that we can deploy more of our remaining wealth to the consumption of other goods and services. The reason this type of rational decision is necessary is not because of any limit on available resources, it is because there is a scarcity of LABOR which greatly limits our ability to convert recources into wealth and our ability to develop new technologies to create new and more efficient types of wealth.

"Sure, for about 100 years we have been about to run out of oil. Nonetheless, at some point we may actually use up most of the cheaper oil to extract and have to turn to more expensive oil from shale or from caverns very deep in the earth.or some such thing. The fear mongering has been wrong, but we should keep assessing our resources as rationally as we can."

But this doesn't really mean anything, unless you are suggesting some form of central planning. If we fail to develop new ways of extracting oil, or better yet an entirely new and more efficient energy source to replace it as fuel for cars before the price of oil begins to rise substantially then the price system will step in and limit consumption. No further regulation or rational assessment will be necessary. A free market (with each individual acting in his own interest in the desire to consume MORE RESOURCES in the form of usable goods) will do the assessing and will begin applying a much higher price to petrolium due to supply and demand pressures. This pressure will create far too many business opportunities for new technologies in this area not to develop. This will likely occur well before a lack of efficient oil sources becomes an economic problem.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 7/25, 3:42pm)

Post 11

Monday, July 25 - 9:16am

Link

Edit

Who is responsible for baring the costs of Evironmentalism? Unless my rights are being violated somehow, I can't imagine any of you would say that it's a government issue. That doesn't mean its not an important consideration or that we should run around opening fire hydrants, of course.

Laissez-faire solves the problem. We must exercise a little more foresight and realize that individual responsibility is intrinsic in a pure Laissez-faire economic system. When people stop feeling like there is always someone there to fix the problem, that someone will come up with a solution, they (and this means businesses, too) will begin to be more responsible in the use of the, "scarce" resources on which their livlihood depends.

Creating environmental/conservation legislation is wholly ineffective (have we deluded ourselves into thinking we have a major effect on the cyclical nature of this planet?) and economically crippling...particularly in this, a mixed system economy. While environmentalism itself is not opposed to capitalism, any amount of environmental legislation is toxic to the entire idea.

MCD

Post 12

Monday, July 25 - 1:39pm

Link

Edit

Yes, the problem with your approach is, that it would require a totally free system, which will most-likely not be found here within the next 50 years. However, enviro-fundamentalists are not patient, which is an inherent characteristic in their policy and philosophy (given that they must be alarmists and judgment-day-prophets), thus they won't want to wait for our solution to problems.

That's why they want government action, because it would act now and not in some supposed future time.

Post 13

Sunday, August 7 - 7:37am

Link

Edit

May I recommend the participants of this thread to urgently read Michael Chrichton's "State of Fear"?

In this blockbuster of a page-turning book Chrichton denounces, as well expressed by the comment of a reader, the whole global warming argument as false. Chrichton's view is that environmentalism has degenerated into a quasi religious system devoid of scientific veracity. Thus, the proponents of the global warming hysteria are pushing faith over fact; many of them having lost their moorings and the inevitable result being a grand conspiracy.

Truth requires many more of such famous authors to speak about important issues for else there will be little hope in this world of political horrors for people who hold to Objectivist principles.

Chrichton uses the background of an extensive bibliography to make his argument and his "Author's Message" and "Why politicized science is dangerous" are in themselves worth to be read, quite apart from the novel itself. Besides the footnotes in the book are real, as the publishers themselves state in a special note.

Post 14

Sunday, August 7 - 10:42am

Link

Edit

Manfred: I concur, heartily.

This has been a subject on SOLO. I hope a lot more people will read it.

http://solohq.com/Spirit/News/238.shtml

Sam

Post 15

Thursday, August 11 - 11:59pm

Link

Edit

Sam, thank you for leading me to the commentary on Chrichton's book which, in turn, took me to the thread of commentaries and, thus, to Chrichton's lectures, which I consider superb.

I do hope Chrichton's work starts a tendency for more and more famous writers and scientists to speak against the environmental deception.

Manfred