The Objective Morality of Environmentalism


Matus1976

Recommended Posts

Objectivists consider Life as the objective standard of morality, the basis of ethical judgment. Anything which harms life is evil, anything which is beneficial to life is good. Now by “Life” objectivists do not mean the mere mechanical perpetuation of existence, but a particular kind of life, a fulfilling Aristotlean Eudaemonic life proper to rational beings living in the real world in voluntary co-operation with other rational beings. Those beings must have goals, values, and engage in a productive course in life to achieve that which they value and not be co-dependant or exploitative. Someone who values their mechanical existence over their ‘good life’ will find himself quickly betraying those things that make life enjoyable for the sake of things that allow him to exist, leading in a perpetual spiral toward a less meaningful existence. Rand clarifies this as ‘Life qua Man’ that is, the thing’s proper to life in the context of an individual’s values and Man’s nature.

Nihilistic skeptics, atheists, and philosophers throughout the ages have insisted that there is no such thing as an ‘objective’ morality. Theists will make a claim that the word of god handed down as moral commandments are in fact an ‘objective’ basis for morality, and in their case they use ‘objective’ to mean something like ‘absolute’ and ‘irrefutable’ in this their use of the term objective has infiltrated the skeptical philosophers, like Michael Shermer, using the religious definition of objective also insists there is no ‘objective’ basis for morality and justifies this by saying how can you say this or that is right or wrong, according to what? Shermer misunderstands ‘objective morality’ when he uses this a criticism of Objectivism, as if Objectivism has identified through revelation the one true morality, instead of identifying the only one proper to rational beings in the real world.

But when theists use ‘objective’ morality they hijack the concept of truth and deliberation through reason and usurp it with revealed dogma. To them, ‘objective’ morality is something that demands obedience no matter what and achieves it only through an omniscient omnipotent being as revealed through an elite aristocratic few only possible to those few. But skeptics are wrong to use this as the idea for ‘objective’ morality. We do not say that the ‘objective’ mass of 1 cubic centimeter of water is 1 g because it is announced by the fabric of space-time or decreed by an omniscient being and revealed through divination. They are ‘objective’ because they are the product of reason, logic, and observation. Objective in the context of science is something that is strived for that is removed from subjective interpretation and bias. An “Objective” morality is not something ingrained into the fabric of the universe in the sense that it can be deduced through Newton’s laws of motion or quantum mechanics, as skeptics seem to think is a requirement for morality to be objective, (in doing so rendering the very concept of objective pointless) but it is objective in the sense that it is removed from subjective interpretation or bias, it is objective because it is the natural logical consequence of the laws of physics and the nature of rational beings that exist in a real universe.

Liberals are still confused about this, theists have it easy, they look it up in their book, argue a little about interpretation, then decree something as ‘objectively’ immoral. But nothing that only an elite few have access to who provide official interpretations is ‘objective’, it is not something discernable by any person using their mind, reason, and observation - as anything that is called ‘objective’ should by definition be. Liberals aren’t sure where to go, they know that, for instance, killing someone is wrong, but not sure if it is right to say someone in another country is wrong to kill someone else when their culture makes it ok, such as ‘honor killing’, the inhumane treatment of the ‘untouchables’ in India, etc. Richard Dawkins wrestles with this contradiction in ‘the God Delusion’ where he associates religious indoctrination with child abuse, but then is a little confused about what that demands of him morally, if one is witnessing child abuse, expending a reasonable amount of energy to stop it is moral to him, so if a country is indoctrinating children with a hate filled ideology, abusing them essentially, it should be morally defensible to remove from power the tyrants of that nation. But this get’s in the way of the moral relativism, ‘tolerance’ and ‘multi-culturalism’ liberals profess so strongly (but rarely extend to inhabitants of their own nation who hold different opinions!)

Some Liberals though, I realized, do have an objective basis for morality, which they seemingly adopt whole heartedly, that of environmentalism. In the way that Life qua Man is the objective standard of morality to Objectivists, some vague platonic ideal abstraction of a pure and pristine environment is the objective standard of morality to liberal environmentalists. Whatever nation, culture, or creed, regardless of multi-culturalism and ‘tolerance’, if you’re burning down trees, killing cuddly animals, or dumping trash in rivers, all that bottled up moral rage and condemnation that liberals have been holding comes billowing forth. Now, you could be killing people because of their ethnicity, holding the people in your nation as literal hostages and running it like a prison camp, etc, but moral condemnation is sparse. They just say “who are we to say they are wrong” or “That’s just their culture” But if you’re burning coal, forget it! You are the incarnate of all that is evil!

This falls right into line with the growing criticism that environmentalism is just filling the psychological void of religious thought that secularism in the west has left gaping wide open. It has their garden of Eden – “Sustainability”, the fall of man from that where everyone lived in blissful harmony with nature (and not the painful disgusting short brutish lives they actually lived), it’s emotional disregard for facts, it’s original sin, and now, it’s ‘objective’ basis for morality.

One might try to argue that environmental degradation affects everyone and that’s why it’s morally objectionable to everyone everywhere, but this argument fails for two reasons. First it implies that unless something directly affects ME then I make no moral judgment on it, so what if you’re raping my next door neighbor! In fact an assault on any person on the planet is an assault on everyone’s rights because leaving it alone promulgates a world where that kind of thing is ok, where rights in general are not respected. It is always in your best interest to oppose the assault and infringement on rights any where in the world, because when you do not it will always, eventually, come back to bite you. Which leads to the second, the harm which comes from the promulgation of murderous tyranny, which is so often ignored because of ‘multi-culturalism’ and things like ‘self determination’ (as if a small group of thugs getting hundreds of billions in weapons from an expansionistic murderous tyranny like the Soviet Union and using that to enslave and force to war an entire nation, such as was the case of Vietnam, was anything remotely like ‘self determination’) is far more detrimental to your average person’s well being than coal power is. While it is true that these kinds of nations, the most unjust when life is your standard of morality, are also the worst polluters, it is also very true that they are the source and primary fuel for aggression, democide, famines, wars, terrorism, and pandemics.

At the end of WWI, Winston Churchill insisted that British Troops assist the Czars in defending themselves against the revolution which brought Lenin and communism to power, but the war weary west labeled him a war monger. Less than a thousand troops took the Czars with little resistance. It is said that in the making of a movie some years later glorifying the revolution more people were injured than in the actual revolution itself. A little opposition may have gone a long way, but instead what rose to power was the most murderous tyranny in the history of humanity. At the end of WWII, Winston Churchill again warned that we should move on the Soviet Union, while it is now at it’s weakest, and they again called him a war monger, and so we were thrust into an existential prisoners dilemma game with a murderous expansionistic tyranny that brought the entire world to the brink of complete nuclear annihilation.

It was not the Soviet Union’s dirty coal plants or poorly designed nuclear power plants that killed 60 million people this century (more than twice as many as were killed in World War II) and motivated the invasion of 1/3rd of the nations on the planet, thrusting dozens into civil wars and perpetual slavery. It was not the emissions of the crematoriums in Auschwitz that did not meet EPA guidelines that enabled Hitler to kill 20 million Jews, Gypsies, ‘unfits’ and homosexuals (incidentally, Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler did, but he just killed them along with other people, so it was not ‘genocide’ in the eyes of the semantically obsessed morally confused west) It was not raping the earth for steel that started the most dreadful war in all of humanity, it was the alliance of two militaristic tyrannical xenophobic megalomaniacal cultures and one merely power hungry expansionist culture. It was appeasement, indifference, moral relativism, isolationism, and utopian wishful thinking that ignored these murderous tyrannies and every reasonable warning sign until too late that wreaked this havoc upon humanity and the inhabitants of the world, and it will be those same characteristics that will wreak havoc upon humanity and indeed all life on earth in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Caution: It is one thing to say X, Y and Z about Objectivism. It is quite another to say "Objectivists consider" or "Objectivists say" or "Objectivists mean." I consider myself to be an Objectivist, but what I say or mean may be quite different from what you do.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Caution: It is one thing to say X, Y and Z about Objectivism. It is quite another to say "Objectivists consider" or "Objectivists say" or "Objectivists mean." I consider myself to be an Objectivist, but what I say or mean may be quite different from what you do.

--Brant

Fair enough, but do you not consider "life qua man" to be the objective standard of morality? I thought that a universal amongst objectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Caution: It is one thing to say X, Y and Z about Objectivism. It is quite another to say "Objectivists consider" or "Objectivists say" or "Objectivists mean." I consider myself to be an Objectivist, but what I say or mean may be quite different from what you do.

--Brant

Fair enough, but do you not consider "life qua man" to be the objective standard of morality? I thought that a universal amongst objectivists.

"Qua man" raises the question of what does that mean? I decline to participate in such a discussion as I don't have time.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a less meaningful existence. Rand clarifies this as ‘Life qua Man’ that is, the thing’s proper to life in the context of an individual’s values and Man’s nature.

Nihilistic skeptics, atheists, and philosophers throughout the ages have insisted that there is no such thing as an ‘objective’ morality. Theists will make a claim that the word of god handed down as moral commandments are in fact an ‘objective’ basis for morality, and in their case they use ‘objective’ to mean something like ‘absolute’ and ‘irrefutable’ in this their use of the term objective has infiltrated the skeptical philosophers, like Michael Shermer, using the religious definition of objective also insists there is no ‘objective’ basis for morality and justifies this by saying how can you say this or that is right or wrong, according to what? Shermer misunderstands ‘objective morality’ when he uses this a criticism of Objectivism, as if Objectivism has identified through revelation the one true morality, instead of identifying the only one proper to rational beings in the real world.

Life qua -which- man?

And while you are at it, perhaps you can tell us how to derive moral laws from the physical laws that faithfully describe how the real world works. I can see where physical laws can -constrain- moral laws (see evolutionarily stable strategy) but I cannot see how physical laws can -determine- moral laws. Perhaps you know something that I am missing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Caution: It is one thing to say X, Y and Z about Objectivism. It is quite another to say "Objectivists consider" or "Objectivists say" or "Objectivists mean." I consider myself to be an Objectivist, but what I say or mean may be quite different from what you do.

--Brant

Fair enough, but do you not consider "life qua man" to be the objective standard of morality? I thought that a universal amongst objectivists.

"Qua man" raises the question of what does that mean? I decline to participate in such a discussion as I don't have time.

--Brant

That is a good topic for an interesting discussion, but in the context of this discussion, whether your objective basis for morality is an abstraction of environmentalism or 'life qua man', the difference possibly of what I might consider "life qua man" and what you might consider it to be are probably orders of magnitude smaller than what we collectively share in 'life qua man' and the vague environmentalists abstraction of a proper existence. i.e. it's unimportant to the essence of the article, which I'm wondering if you have any constructive criticisms or comments on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a less meaningful existence. Rand clarifies this as ‘Life qua Man’ that is, the thing’s proper to life in the context of an individual’s values and Man’s nature.

Nihilistic skeptics, atheists, and philosophers throughout the ages have insisted that there is no such thing as an ‘objective’ morality. Theists will make a claim that the word of god handed down as moral commandments are in fact an ‘objective’ basis for morality, and in their case they use ‘objective’ to mean something like ‘absolute’ and ‘irrefutable’ in this their use of the term objective has infiltrated the skeptical philosophers, like Michael Shermer, using the religious definition of objective also insists there is no ‘objective’ basis for morality and justifies this by saying how can you say this or that is right or wrong, according to what? Shermer misunderstands ‘objective morality’ when he uses this a criticism of Objectivism, as if Objectivism has identified through revelation the one true morality, instead of identifying the only one proper to rational beings in the real world.

Life qua -which- man?

Again, a VERY interesting topic for discussion and one I have been mulling over a great deal (had some discussions about it over at Objectivismonline.net) I'd like to discuss this topic if you or others are interested, in a separate thread.

And while you are at it, perhaps you can tell us how to derive moral laws from the physical laws that faithfully describe how the real world works. I can see where physical laws can -constrain- moral laws (see evolutionarily stable strategy) but I cannot see how physical laws can -determine- moral laws. Perhaps you know something that I am missing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You can't derive moral laws from physical laws, that's the point, it's wrong to ask for that in the first place. Morality is not embedded into the fabric of space time. It's the religious push for an 'objective' morality that is undeniable and absolute that leads people to search for that. The only thing relating to morality written in the laws of the universe and laws of physics is the consequences of your actions. What you choose as your basis is not embedded in the grand unified field theory or quantum fluctuations, but the consequences of choosing action A or B as it relates to what you choose to value is. Shermer's main criticism of Objectivism is that he thinks it is saying there is an 'objective' basis for morality (in the religious sense) that Rand asserts she discovered and demands be accepted as true by everyone, this is utterly incorrect (Incidentally Shermer is essentially an objectivist and admirer of Rand) Objectivisms' 'Objective' code for morality is 'objective' in the sense that it is understandable, discoverable, and available to anyone with a mind. And it's not the 'only' morality, but it is the ONLY one proper to rational beings in a real universe who wish to 'live' any other system, in other basis, is ultimately one that leads to death, destruction, and decay THAT is written into the laws of physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't derive moral laws from physical laws, that's the point, it's wrong to ask for that in the first place. Morality is not embedded into the fabric of space time. It's the religious push for an 'objective' morality that is undeniable and absolute that leads people to search for that. The only thing relating to morality written in the laws of the universe and laws of physics is the consequences of your actions. What you choose as your basis is not embedded in the grand unified field theory or quantum fluctuations, but the consequences of choosing action A or B as it relates to what you choose to value is. Shermer's main criticism of Objectivism is that he thinks it is saying there is an 'objective' basis for morality (in the religious sense) that Rand asserts she discovered and demands be accepted as true by everyone, this is utterly incorrect (Incidentally Shermer is essentially an objectivist and admirer of Rand) Objectivisms' 'Objective' code for morality is 'objective' in the sense that it is understandable, discoverable, and available to anyone with a mind. And it's not the 'only' morality, but it is the ONLY one proper to rational beings in a real universe who wish to 'live' any other system, in other basis, is ultimately one that leads to death, destruction, and decay THAT is written into the laws of physics.

The Swedes are rational beings and they manage to live in a working "People's State" So much for the "only" you assert.

Moral and ethical systems are conventional. They are based on conventions, protocols, customs and laws that are made up by people from whole cloth, determined (if that is the word) primarily by habit and convenience. This is not to say that all ethical systems are equal. They surely are not. We have seen in our own time what systems that completely subordinate individual liberty and choice can do to people. They grind them into a state of perpetual squalor. One need not look further than Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or North Korea. China has saved itself from this fate but permitting some economic freedom and giving up on strict Marxist-Leninist ideology (it is only there for show, mostly on May Day). China has become a standard model neo-fascist thugocracy, and they do not kill all

the geese that lay golden eggs. Which is why they will survive.

Thank you for making my case.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Thank you for this thoughtful composition.

George Reisman has criticized the widespread environmentalist premise that nature possesses intrinsic value. I heard him speak about this roughly 15 years ago. He has an article on this, which is linked below. Reisman’s talk was under the auspice of the Ayn Rand Institute. In the Q&A, I pointed out that in Rand’s theory of value every organism is an end in itself and that its own inherent value constitution is what it is without any relation to human cognizance or human utility. I asked him how he would accommodate this idea, which is part of the base of Rand’s objective theory of value, with his Austrian-inspired approach of maintaining that all goods in the earth, whether living or not, are only goods in relation to human utility. He said he would have to defer that to the Objectivist philosophers.

“Standards of Environmental Good and Evil: Why Environmentalism Is Misanthropic”

George Reisman

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1925

I would try the following philosopher, for tackling my question.

Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature’s Favorites

Tibor Machan

http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/S...p;thepassedurl=[thepassedurl]

Edited by Stephen Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature’s Favorites

Tibor Machan

http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/S...p;thepassedurl=[thepassedurl]

Actually we are not. The bug population of the earth outweighs the mammal by at least 100 to 1. Long after humans are extinct the cockroach will still be around along with ants and other critters. Humans have a high opinion of themselves.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't derive moral laws from physical laws, that's the point, it's wrong to ask for that in the first place. Morality is not embedded into the fabric of space time. It's the religious push for an 'objective' morality that is undeniable and absolute that leads people to search for that. The only thing relating to morality written in the laws of the universe and laws of physics is the consequences of your actions. What you choose as your basis is not embedded in the grand unified field theory or quantum fluctuations, but the consequences of choosing action A or B as it relates to what you choose to value is. Shermer's main criticism of Objectivism is that he thinks it is saying there is an 'objective' basis for morality (in the religious sense) that Rand asserts she discovered and demands be accepted as true by everyone, this is utterly incorrect (Incidentally Shermer is essentially an objectivist and admirer of Rand) Objectivisms' 'Objective' code for morality is 'objective' in the sense that it is understandable, discoverable, and available to anyone with a mind. And it's not the 'only' morality, but it is the ONLY one proper to rational beings in a real universe who wish to 'live' any other system, in other basis, is ultimately one that leads to death, destruction, and decay THAT is written into the laws of physics.

The Swedes are rational beings and they manage to live in a working "People's State" So much for the "only" you assert.

Baal, you just argue for the sake of arguing, it's irritating. The Sweedish social state has caused it's economy to steadily decline for the past 40 years or so. If the entire world was a 'sweedish peoples state' it would fail, eventually, and decay. To the extent which a moral and political system holds life as it's objective standard for morality is the extent to which it prospers and is successful. To the extent which it does not, it declines and decays. You act like if there is even one regulation on trade, it instantly should cause everyone to die. Get real.

Moral and ethical systems are conventional. They are based on conventions, protocols, customs and laws that are made up by people

bla bla bla yes I know all that. Half the point of the essay is that to call something an 'objective' morality should not mean it somehow transcends conventions, protocols, customs, whatever. The other half is that liberals, who scoff at the concept of an objective standard of morality, readily embrace one in the form of environmentalism.

This is not to say that all ethical systems are equal. They surely are not.

Thank you for making my case. Objectively, (i.e. empirically verified) using Life (life qua Man) as the standard of moral value, leads to the only successful and fulfilling existence for all rational beings that exist in that world. It should be obvious that if 'tree life' were the objective standard of morality, that this standard would be the one most conducive to a succesful life for trees. This would be obvious to any rational tree who cared to investigate the question. whatever you make the objective standard of your morality is what prospers from that, and because we are humans, sentient, rational, non-omniscient, and exist within the same universe, if you want to continue to live and existence then objectively the only standard of morality conducive to that is the life of those sentient, rational, non-omniscient entities. What you hold as your standard is conventional, that you have a standard and it has consequences regardless of your opinions is objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Thank you for this thoughtful composition.

George Reisman has criticized the widespread environmentalist premise that nature possesses intrinsic value. I heard him speak about this roughly 15 years ago. He has an article on this, which is linked below.

Thanks Stephen, I'll read the essay. I am aware of this criticism of environmentalism, but I had not made the connection that liberals, who tend to avoid the idea that there is any kind of 'objective' standard of morality, who will sit back and appeal to multi-culturalism in the face of a rampaging genocide, never the less hold this abstract pure environment as their objective standard of morality, applicable and morally justified in defending. They'd cry imperialism if one nation insists another not imprison people for writing essays about democracy, but if the emissions of the smoke stacks of their factories are too bad they'll be more than happy to unleash a holy wrath upon them, and yet no one complains that they are just imposing their arbitrary standards upon another people.

Reisman’s talk was under the auspice of the Ayn Rand Institute. In the Q&A, I pointed out that in Rand’s theory of value every organism is an end in itself and that its own inherent value constitution is what it is without any relation to human cognizance or human utility. I asked him how he would accommodate this idea, which is part of the base of Rand’s objective theory of value, with his Austrian-inspired approach of maintaining that all goods in the earth, whether living or not, are only goods in relation to human utility. He said he would have to defer that to the Objectivist philosophers.

I think this is something that still needs to be worked out, and your question was a good one. While i am all for using the material environment to better human life, I'd still oppose cutting down EVERY tree, even if some human mechanical equvalent performed all the functions that trees do in the atmosphere. I'll sometimes use 'intrinsic value' but when forced to define it would say it is the small amount of value that every rational entity places on something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature’s Favorites

Tibor Machan

http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/S...p;thepassedurl=[thepassedurl]

Actually we are not. The bug population of the earth outweighs the mammal by at least 100 to 1. Long after humans are extinct the cockroach will still be around along with ants and other critters. Humans have a high opinion of themselves.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's much more than that, Baal, but if what you measure 'success' by is percent of biomass used up in the tissue of that entity, you have an odd standard of success. Are you a 'more succesfull' entity at existing in the world if you are a big fat guy then if you are a little skinny midget? When another giant asteroid strikes the earth, it will wipe out ALL life, including cockroaches, it will only be HUMANS that will stop this from happening. Misanthropes have a low opinions of humans, and a high opinion of cockroaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is something that still needs to be worked out, and your question was a good one. While i am all for using the material environment to better human life, I'd still oppose cutting down EVERY tree, even if some human mechanical equivalent performed all the functions that trees do in the atmosphere. I'll sometimes use 'intrinsic value' but when forced to define it would say it is the small amount of value that every rational entity places on something.

I too, would object to unnecessarily cutting down all the trees. Subjective as my objection is, I oppose destroying beauty in the world, just to destroy it. Our ancestors used to live in trees. I would like to keep some trees around just to be able to be connected to our far away, long ago past. Nature is here to use, not to destroy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I recently read an article by ARI slamming environmental policies and liberalism. It was fairly narrow in conceptual structure, and I was forced to disagree that environmentalism contradicts the edicts of Objectivism.

For one, we know that certain business practices actually harm the environment, such as polluting the Hudson River or nuclear waste leakage. We are also unclear of the future impact current business practices will have on the environment, such as from the release of large amounts of CO2, etc. into the atmosphere. Additionally, most people I meet appear to take subjective pleasure in natural environments such as state parks.

Following a simple train of Objectivist reasoning in relation to the economy: it is recognized that when the government implements deficit spending, it steals from future generations for use by people today. Therefore, deficit spending is generally not condoned (as far as I understand it). When discussing the environment, this future-oriented perspective is generally forgotten.

It is inevitable that someone argues against environmentalism for the sake of productivity and efficiency. However, strictly speaking productivity and efficiency are not premises of Objectivism, self-responsibililty and the life of man are premises. Therefore, if certain economic practices increase efficiency and productivity today at cost to the future, those practices are not consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism. If future generations inherit a more polluted environment, an environment into which their money must be used to unwind environmental damage, or simply an environment in which there is no nature, then we are not being self-responsible today. We are stealing from the future for our immediate benefit.

Sure, there are degrees of environmentalism. I'm not a radical environmentalist However, to argue only for efficiency and productivity in the debate on environmentalism is to miss the big picture.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently read an article by ARI slamming environmental policies and liberalism. It was fairly narrow in conceptual structure, and I was forced to disagree that environmentalism contradicts the edicts of Objectivism.

For one, we know that certain business practices actually harm the environment, such as polluting the Hudson River or nuclear waste leakage. We are also unclear of the future impact current business practices will have on the environment, such as from the release of large amounts of CO2, etc. into the atmosphere. Additionally, most people I meet appear to take subjective pleasure in natural environments such as state parks.

Following a simple train of Objectivist reasoning in relation to the economy: it is recognized that when the government implements deficit spending, it steals from future generations for use by people today. Therefore, deficit spending is generally not condoned (as far as I understand it). When discussing the environment, this future-oriented perspective is generally forgotten.

It is inevitable that someone argues against environmentalism for the sake of productivity and efficiency. However, strictly speaking productivity and efficiency are not premises of Objectivism, self-responsibililty and the life of man are premises. Therefore, if certain economic practices increase efficiency and productivity today at cost to the future, those practices are not consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism. If future generations inherit a more polluted environment, an environment into which their money must be used to unwind environmental damage, or simply an environment in which there is no nature, then we are not being self-responsible today. We are stealing from the future for our immediate benefit.

Sure, there are degrees of environmentalism. I'm not a radical environmentalist However, to argue only for efficiency and productivity in the debate on environmentalism is to miss the big picture.

I don't think you are using very good examples to illustrate your thesis. Nuclear waste leakage? CO2? Even Hudson River pollution; some of it is so-called. I'm also not sure who is arguing for "efficiency and productivity today at cost to the future." You should consider "the tragedy of the commons."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Challenge to Matus.

Derive morality from physical and biological laws established scientifically. If that were possible there would not be a multitude of moral and ethical systems.

Ba'al Chatzaf (your local skeptical nihilist and atheist)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature’s Favorites

Tibor Machan

http://www.rowmanlittlefield.com/Catalog/S...p;thepassedurl=[thepassedurl]

Actually we are not. The bug population of the earth outweighs the mammal by at least 100 to 1. Long after humans are extinct the cockroach will still be around along with ants and other critters. Humans have a high opinion of themselves.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's much more than that, Baal, but if what you measure 'success' by is percent of biomass used up in the tissue of that entity, you have an odd standard of success. Are you a 'more succesfull' entity at existing in the world if you are a big fat guy then if you are a little skinny midget? When another giant asteroid strikes the earth, it will wipe out ALL life, including cockroaches, it will only be HUMANS that will stop this from happening. Misanthropes have a low opinions of humans, and a high opinion of cockroaches.

Nature has one criterion of success. Reproductive success. Natural selection is the driver of evolution. The universe does not care who is good or bad. In fact the universe does not care -- period. Only us advanced apes with the three pound brains care. We are the smartest baddest apes In The Monkey House. As you can see I have a high opinion of apes with three pound brains, mostly because I am one of them.

The last one reproducing is the winner.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's much more than that, Baal, but if what you measure 'success' by is percent of biomass used up in the tissue of that entity, you have an odd standard of success. Are you a 'more succesfull' entity at existing in the world if you are a big fat guy then if you are a little skinny midget? When another giant asteroid strikes the earth, it will wipe out ALL life, including cockroaches, it will only be HUMANS that will stop this from happening. Misanthropes have a low opinions of humans, and a high opinion of cockroaches.

If you evaluate our technology realistically you will see that we are not going to be able to stop a Big One. An asteroid of solid iron seven miles across is out of our league. And if one does hit, we are done for (unless we have found a new home before it happens). There is a good chance that one cell animals and other simple critters that live in the ocean depths near hot vent holes will survive. For over two billion years the only form of life on this planet was one cell biota which can be seen today as stromatolites. Biologically speaking, our species Just Arrived and we are a blip in the biological history of this planet.

P.S. I prefer people to cockroaches. Some of my best friends are people and none of my best friends are cockroaches. But if I were to place a bet on long term survival say of the order of a hundred million years, I would bet on the cockroaches and the bacteria. No mammalian species yet has lasted even thirty million years without either evolving or becoming extinct.

In the world of biological entities the main survival virtue is reproductive success. Making near copies. It has nothing to do with moral excellence or being smart. This is just a matter of fact, rather than a preference. If I had my druthers, we would be gods. But we are not.

Ba'al Chatzaf (your local nihilist skeptic and atheist)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently read an article by ARI slamming environmental policies and liberalism. It was fairly narrow in conceptual structure, and I was forced to disagree that environmentalism contradicts the edicts of Objectivism.

For one, we know that certain business practices actually harm the environment, such as polluting the Hudson River or nuclear waste leakage. We are also unclear of the future impact current business practices will have on the environment, such as from the release of large amounts of CO2, etc. into the atmosphere. Additionally, most people I meet appear to take subjective pleasure in natural environments such as state parks.

Following a simple train of Objectivist reasoning in relation to the economy: it is recognized that when the government implements deficit spending, it steals from future generations for use by people today. Therefore, deficit spending is generally not condoned (as far as I understand it). When discussing the environment, this future-oriented perspective is generally forgotten.

It is inevitable that someone argues against environmentalism for the sake of productivity and efficiency. However, strictly speaking productivity and efficiency are not premises of Objectivism, self-responsibililty and the life of man are premises. Therefore, if certain economic practices increase efficiency and productivity today at cost to the future, those practices are not consistent with the philosophy of Objectivism. If future generations inherit a more polluted environment, an environment into which their money must be used to unwind environmental damage, or simply an environment in which there is no nature, then we are not being self-responsible today. We are stealing from the future for our immediate benefit.

Sure, there are degrees of environmentalism. I'm not a radical environmentalist However, to argue only for efficiency and productivity in the debate on environmentalism is to miss the big picture.

Chris

Excellent Chris, I couldn't agree more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought - the older the planet is the less likely it will be hit by a large body from space, IMO. I arrive at this conclusion based on the assumption that the planets were formed by tremendous numbers of collisions of small bodies and so there are very few left to be "collected" by the larger ones. Thus the probability of collisions with significant sized bodies should go down, it seems to me. Assuming we don't have a significant collision and a mass extinction I would bet man could be here a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought - the older the planet is the less likely it will be hit by a large body from space, IMO. I arrive at this conclusion based on the assumption that the planets were formed by tremendous numbers of collisions of small bodies and so there are very few left to be "collected" by the larger ones. Thus the probability of collisions with significant sized bodies should go down, it seems to me. Assuming we don't have a significant collision and a mass extinction I would bet man could be here a long time.

Two replies. Oort Belt and Kuyper Belt. There are hundreds of millions of objects that could be earth killers. All it would take is a random bump to send one our way. The Oort and Kuyper objects are much more numerous than the asteroids in the asteroid belt.

By the way did you think Jupiter was too old to be hit by a big one? Recall the Levy-Schumaker comet, a large object first broken into pieces by the gravitational forces of Jupitern than hit serially by the pieces each of which was rather large. The impact foot prints on Jupiter were earth size.

Another thing. In about one billion years the hydrogen of the sun will be so diminished that helium fusion will provide much of the energy. The sun will become so hot as to boil off the oceans on earth. The sun will not have to become a red giant to reach this stage. So if we are still around we have to be off this planet by a billion years in the future. Judging from past experience it is highly unlikely for a mammalian species to last that long. The longest any mammalian species has lasted without becoming extinct or evolving into something else is about thirty million year which is about a hundred times as long as we have been around.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two replies. Oort Belt and Kuyper Belt. There are hundreds of millions of objects that could be earth killers. All it would take is a random bump to send one our way. The Oort and Kuyper objects are much more numerous than the asteroids in the asteroid belt.

By the way did you think Jupiter was too old to be hit by a big one? Recall the Levy-Schumaker comet, a large object first broken into pieces by the gravitational forces of Jupitern than hit serially by the pieces each of which was rather large. The impact foot prints on Jupiter were earth size.

Another thing. In about one billion years the hydrogen of the sun will be so diminished that helium fusion will provide much of the energy. The sun will become so hot as to boil off the oceans on earth. The sun will not have to become a red giant to reach this stage. So if we are still around we have to be off this planet by a billion years in the future. Judging from past experience it is highly unlikely for a mammalian species to last that long. The longest any mammalian species has lasted without becoming extinct or evolving into something else is about thirty million year which is about a hundred times as long as we have been around.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes, I have heard the theory that the large gas planets actually act as a "gravitation sink" that helps prevent collisions with earth. For me, a "long time" would be millions of years, even hundreds of thousands, for mankind. I know this pales in comparison to bacteria yet think what we could accomplish - probably could live in space habitats by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now