|
|
General Discussion
Started by The Youthopian at 12-28-2008 4:23 PM. Topic has 8 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 12-28-2008, 4:23 PM
|
The Youthopian
Joined on 12-29-2008
Posts 1
|
|
|
Hi,
I've been reading on this site and forum for several months and I'm
very pleased to find people thinking feely. However I have some
questions especially on the theme of environment/sustainability and
related issues.
On the one hand I understand the Objectivist objections to
environmentalisme and to some extend agree, but on the other hand I
find there's several points where that angle fails to address reality.
The persistent negating of global warming and related problems such as
the overburdening of the earth's capacity, I find baffling. I've done
extensive reading on the subject and logic and the lion's share of
proof are on the side of those who say human activity is seriously
harming the earth.
Progress in a objectivist fashion is a linear process of ever further,
ever better, ever more. However appealling this vision is to me, I'm
convinced that we must realize that it's impossible to have a linear
process like that go on infinitely on our finite planet.
We could say that a healthy planet earth is in everyones best interest,
however short term gain is so often chosen, causing such eromous long
term problems, that it is obvious most people think 'earth will be able
to take this as well, I'll be gone by the time the *** hits the fan'.
This may be true but I fail to see how this mode of behaviour can
possibly be called moral.
The built-in unsustainability of the current 'consumerism', is mind
boggling; things are made to break, not to last, needs are created on a
massive scale, prices are kept absurdly low by externalizing production
costs, natural resources are brutally exploited, etc, etc.
Rand wrote that 'reality is the final judge' and I agree, but if we
wait for reality to show us beyond any doubt that we're killing the
planet we live on, it almost certainly will be too late by the time we
get the message. Isn't it clear enough by now? Apparently not. . .
Sustainablility is what we should be looking at. And guys, relax,
there's loads we can do within the parameters of sustainability, it's
not about going back to the dark ages or living primitive, it's about
being smart enough to respect the planet that sustains us. Ultimately
we cannot do without it (all the outer space fanasies are avoiding
responsability here and now) so lets get real. Leaving the mess for
whoever comes after us cannot be a viable option, can it?
Also, I've become more and more convinced that Capitalism as Rand
pictured it, is not possible within the current monetary system as Rand
rightly describes money as value, but in this system, money equeals
debt. It's created out of debt and because of the interest due on it
evermore money must be created to pay that interest. However this is a
process without end , which is why this system needs continous growth,
which, in the end, isn't sustainable.
A few films to check out:
'Zeitgeist' and 'Zeitgeist Addendum' on : www.zeitgeistmovie.com
'Money as Debt' :www.moneyasdebt.net
'The Story of Stuff' : http://www.storyofstuff.com/international/
Sincerely,
The Youthopian
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
01-10-2009, 6:49 AM
|
Chris.S
Joined on 01-10-2009
Posts 5
|
Re: Sustainability Thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
[new to these boards, unsure of how fast they move usually, but it seems very slow indeed judging by posting dates]
I totally agree with you. I'm currently in college for construction
science and management, and our education is geared towards sustainable
and efficient construction practices. It's hard to fit Objectivism and
Sustainability together, but basically I ask myself; "what would Howard
Roark do?", and I'm positive he would go with a more energy efficient
and economical design and building practices. It just isn't rational
to waste one's resources just because there is a lot of it. Efficiency
and economical design also save money in the long run, increasing your
wealth and standard of living at the same time.
Sustainability in Objectivist terms is entirely possible. The John
Galts out there will continue to innovate technologies to better use
the currently available resources, and even invent new technologies
requiring new resources New technologies create another notch in the
economy - creating jobs, more wealth and increasing standards of living
- by real production means, not from borrowing money.
As for "money as debt", I'm not really sure what to make of it. I've
kept up with all the news about the current "economic crisis", and from
what I can tell, it just seems like both the people who take out loans
and mortagages and the banks giving the loans and mortgages are at
fault. Both parties are wanting unearned wealth - the people because
theyre buying $500 000+ houses on a $20 000 income, and the banks
because theyre charging huge interest on these loans and mortgages from
people who they know cant afford them. And now the banks, car
companies and every other business who "banked" on this corrupted form
of capitalism are demanding bailouts from government.
But how can this be changed? I think it would take a massive overhaul
of the global economy. If all the governments in the world hadn't
given "bail-out packages", I think there would've been some kind of
vaccuum there for actual restructuring of the economy to a more real
capitalism. Decent companies could have moved in to replace the failed
ones, and people who were laid off or bankrupt could be re-trained and
re-educated for new jobs by these companies. But I'm not an economist
by any means, although I am just starting a macro-economics class this
semester.
Also, I should say that I am currently borrowing money for my education. Bit of a hypocrisy, I know.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03-22-2009, 1:55 AM
|
salmongirl73
Joined on 03-22-2009
Posts 3
|
Re: Sustainability Thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this "sustainability" issue is quite vexing, isn't it? Admittedly, we hadn't even been aware that it was an issue until recently; however, this is largely because, until recently, there weren't enough people on Earth to make it an issue. We're seeing an unexpected effect of false wealth: population explosion. When people have enough perceived wealth, they procreate. Or, lacking appropriate means to support children, if they believe that someone richer -- say, the guilt-ridden citizens of industrialized countries -- will bail them out, then they will also procreate. It is an effect observed by Jeff Allen, the hitchhiking tramp in Atlas Shrugged, among the serfs of the Twentieth Century Motor Company. Meanwhile, true wealth -- the products of men's labors -- cannot keep pace when produced by sustainable means, so corners get cut. Arable land is over-farmed, timber is cut for building and replaced with farms, and food is manufactured -- not prepared -- using artificial chemicals and additives. The sad fact is that Earth's current population is unsustainable, a fact that thus far has not been mentioned in regards to the current economic crisis. I never thought I would ever say this, and it pains me to refer to humans in terms of herd management, but unless we see a major correction in the world's population, we will never recover from this economic crash. Oh, you'll see market upturns, and then downturns, as one money-manufacturing scheme after another is tried and fails, until finally the whole system freezes -- and mass extinction of humanity results.
You see, this is the culmination of everything Ms. Rand warned us about. A man cannot be his brother's keeper. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03-22-2009, 11:47 PM
|
slacker00
Joined on 03-08-2009
Posts 22
|
Re: Sustainability Thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does Objectivism say about "leaving a legacy"? I know Ayn Rand didn't talk much about family, much less what kind of planet we might be leaving to our grandchildren.
I might imagine that she'd recommend that we somehow engineer our way out of whatever environmental problems that might crop up over time. But isn't there truth to the old saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
03-23-2009, 12:34 AM
|
galtsgulcher
Joined on 03-15-2009
Posts 47
|
Re: Sustainability Thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Youthopian wrote...)
"On the one hand I understand the Objectivist objections to environmentalisme and to some extend agree, but on the other hand I find there's several points where that angle fails to address reality."
Hi Youth,
This is Old Age... ; )
No one can speak for the whole Objectivist movement... so I'll just speak for myself.
I have ~no~ objections against environmentalism...
...But I do have objections against leftist socialist government ~coerced~ environmentalism legislated by stupid bureaucratic parasitic failures who don't even know how to make a decent honest living out in the real world.
My wife and I are organic "microfarmers" in our own Galt's Gulch. And enjoy fresh vegetables in their season from the garden, fruit and nuts from our trees, and grapes from our vines. We compost all of our garbage in anerobic bins to enhance the quality of the soil, and keep a worm farm that produces rich humus.
So I see no conflict between acheiving financial success through Objectivist Capitalist business principles and being a tree hugging environmentalist...
... because being an environmentalist does NOT mean you HAVE to be a financial failure.
Take Care,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2009, 2:00 PM
|
Martin Lundqvist
Joined on 04-11-2009
Posts 15
|
Re: Sustainability Thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will not discuss the validity of the "unsustainability"-theory, however I would like to point out a few things.
I think that most of this so called "unsustainability" come from two sources, none of which are compatible with rational egoism, and thus essentially, objectivist thinking. These are:
1. Fraud
2. Property damage
Let's start with fraud: if a manufacturer would claim that a consumer product is "safe" or "healthy", while it actually contain traces of lethal toxins, then this is essentially a contract breach. One example of this was the "milk scandal" in China, where thousands died because a few businessmen lacked self-esteem and thus started parasiting on their customers. Here it was the duty of the government to intervene in order to protect the liberty of its citizens against the sacrificial behaviour made by these businessmen. (Disclaimer: I will not comment on how chinese authoraties handled the situation in practice, that is for another discussion)
The other aspect: property damage. If let's say a coal plant produces enough "harmful material" to cause an estimated property damage of 100.000 US dollars annually, then I think it is proper that the coal plant managers are forced to pay this "property damage cost" in order to go about their business. This would be quite reasonable, since otherwise the coal plant managers would commit the same error as did the fraud businessmen above. However: this form of "compensation payments" should naturally be based on objective law, and not on the whim of a politician, otherwise the whole concept is self-defeating.
Also: what I think is lost in this debate is that there is too much emphasis on "nature". Compare this use of the word "nature" with the common man uses phrases like "for the greater good", "in the name of God", "for the good of society" - obviously, the similarities with collectivism are glaring. Instead, we should focus in what is good for man, and man only. If man are to chose to promote some "green technology", it should always be because it furthered his own self-interest, not because of a duty to society.
I found the following video quite good at summarising my views (it's from Ayn Rand Institute's youtube page): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdsMMdkhlfM&feature=channel_page
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
04-14-2009, 6:20 PM
|
slacker00
Joined on 03-08-2009
Posts 22
|
Re: Sustainability Thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good writing, Martin. I think I can agree that there is a certain responsibility in business. At the very least one should not profit by directly damaging others, as in the milk example. The environment is simply an extension of the same concept. We all need clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, safe food to eat, etc. I think the problems can lie in the enforcement, as well as sorting out the gray areas. How much CO2 pollution is unsafe, for example. Figuring out and assessing financial damages is even more tricky, I'd imagine. Nevertheless, it needs to be done in an objective society.
If man are to chose to promote some "green technology", it should always be because it furthered his own self-interest... I've got a question about this concept. What legacy should an Objectivist care about beyond their own natural life? I mean, if an Objectivist is purely only acting in their own self interest, they shouldn't care about pollution as long as they don't cause problems for themselves within their own lifetime. This seems irresponsible to me at first thought. I think there's an explanation somewhere that I am missing.
Maybe it's the same as the milk example, except instead of milk customers being poisoned in the present, humans 100 years from now are perhaps being compromised by environmental damage. Is this really something we should worry a whole lot about? Where do we draw the line about concerning ourselves with the future of humanity? 100 years forward? 1000 years forward? Indefinitely? Doesn't this seem like a "greater good" type of an idea?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-31-2009, 4:25 PM
|
Hotu Matua
Joined on 10-30-2009
Monterrey, Mexico
Posts 10
|
Re: Sustainability Thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that if Howard Roark had discovered that some specific building technology or process was giving health problems to others and to himself, he would have stopped doing it, right away.
And he would have stopped doing it even if it represented a loss of money or fame.
Objectivist ethics is not about pursuing money or fame, but values. This is why Howard Roark could stand poverty and unemployment and ridicule. He did not give up his long-term values.
In the same way, we all should choose to implement greener methodologies, energies or processes, regardless a temporary slowdown of the economy, provided those modifications have been proven to be safer.
Objectivists should have no doubts about it: if science (which is a rational way to seek truth) show us that we will have more chances to keep or achive our long term, larger values by adopting "greener" lifestyle, it would be moral to adopt them, even when it represents the sacrifice of shorter-term, lesser values.
In the lifetime of Ayn Rand, activists of ecology were mainly hippies, anarchists or collectivists with weak scientific foundations. That's why she despised their movement. Today, however, we have a solid body of scientific evidence calling for action. Today, ecology activism does have a rational, serious side (even when irrationalism is still present among many groups) that allows for a rational dialogue with objectivism. Preventing a climate catastropher is not about "saving the planet": it is about saving our own interests, our freedom, our ability to keep pursuing our own happiness.
To be is to be is to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
10-31-2009, 5:05 PM
|
Hotu Matua
Joined on 10-30-2009
Monterrey, Mexico
Posts 10
|
Re: Sustainability Thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One concern about "going green" is that it opens the door for the government telling us what to do and how to do it.
This is a very valid concern, of course.
Let us remember, however, that Ayn Rand was fine with the idea of having a strong army protecting the US against the Soviets (by the time of the Cold War) and having health authorities putting infected people in quarantine if they could have an infection for which there was no vaccine or cure.
Being at war implies following instructions from a leader. It is not up to a soldier to decide whether he will follow path A or path B. He has to follow instructions.
As Ayn Rand said, it is not about citizens giving up some freedom. All the contrary: it is about ensuring we keep our freedom. It doesn't matter if it is a war against the Soviets or against a lethal virus, or against a meteorite in collision course or, in this case, against a climate change, provided all these global threats can be rationally proven.
If science shows that a large group of individuals (or all humanity) is under serious global threat, and that efforts to prevent damage will be more effective if coordinated by a government, an army or an agency, we better follow instructions.
Again, I am not calling for indiscriminate obedience. I am calling for using laws and politics as our instrument of personal survival.
To be is to be is to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Re: Sustainability Thoughts
|
|
|
|