The Objective Morality of Environmentalism

[BaalChatzaf]

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.

Spreading out in the cosmos is our only chance of long-term survival. That is the good news. The bad news is that the cosmos is Very Big and having energy sources large enough to even get to one tenth light speed is very iffy. Our only real chance is to extend our life span.

In any case our only long term prospects require that we find new habitats in the cosmos.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

In any case our only long term prospects require that we find new habitats in the cosmos.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I daresay we wouldn't be the first life-form to have spread out into space. Who is to say that some of those collisions that formed earth didn't have some virus in a suspended animation state??

[Brant Gaede]

I've read enough. I've ordered a spaceship off the Internet. I'm getting out while the getting is good.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

I've read enough. I've ordered a spaceship off the Internet. I'm getting out while the getting is good.

--Brant

"Well I dreamed I saw the silver

space ships flying

In the yellow haze of the sun

There were children crying

and colors flying

All around the chosen ones

All in a dream, all in a dream

The loading had begun

All in a dream, all in a dream

The loading had begun

They were flying Mother Nature's

silver seed to a new home in the sun"

[Brant Gaede]

I've read enough. I've ordered a spaceship off the Internet. I'm getting out while the getting is good.

--Brant

"Well I dreamed I saw the silver

space ships flying

In the yellow haze of the sun

There were children crying

and colors flying

All around the chosen ones

All in a dream, all in a dream

The loading had begun

All in a dream, all in a dream

The loading had begun

They were flying Mother Nature's

silver seed to a new home in the sun"

My favorite Neil Young song.

BTW, my spaceship comes in a kit. I've been assured it can be assembled with common household tools. The fuel is my hot air with a methane backup. I hope it gets off the ground.

--Brant

[Christopher]

I've read enough. I've ordered a spaceship off the Internet. I'm getting out while the getting is good.

--Brant

Reincarnation is another escape. Why bother extending our life... Perhaps if we die (in sin or otherwise), we'll be reincarnated on a planet light-years away with 50 virgins (of what species, who's to say) and a bottle of ???

Chris

[Jim Profit]

Edited February 6, 2009 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Brant Gaede]

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.

Regardless of the age, the probability is 100% since you have not defined "large."

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

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

That and the fact there are different sects of objectivism.. Nathaniel for example. But more importantly, the ego needs no justification..

I find enviromentalism to be very irrational and misguided. I think even those who are green, (Well, most of them. There's probably some eco-terrorists who'd disagree..) That human life is of the utmost importance. As creatures of God, evolution, whatever, it is our destiny, or obligation, to improve our livelyhood..

Whether you be a collectivist or an individualist, as a human, the Earth's resources are your's to rape. Because they will help you get to your destination. The only difference is if we use the Earth's resources as a means for ourselves, or for other people. And if there's something wrong with hurting the enivomrnet, thereby destroying the resources of the planet for other people to use. But then we come back to self ownership versus collective ownership. But the eco-argument will never move forward untill they admit that it is human's future who is most important. I really couldn't care less how many obscure fish types die, or if the weather will change..

Crap from a self-confessed sociopath. Troll and a bastard first-class!

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Crap from a self-confessed sociopath. Troll and a bastard first-class!

--Brant

I understand your annoyance with Jim Profit, but in all honesty your reply was ad hominem and did not address the points that Profit brought up in the post. Is the planet Earth an intrinsic good or is it good insofar as we require it to survive. I favor the latter. One does not destroy the house that one and one's children live in. It is not a good survival policy for our species and it is down right impolite.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Christopher]

I'm sitting here listening to Ayn Rand's lecture at Ford Hall entitled The Moral Factor Q & A, and about 7 minutes into it Ayn Rand is asked about environmentalism!

Link -> http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...44ewyrd42.app5a

Well that's just cool. Question: "In a pure capitalistic society, what force would prevent environmental pollution?"

There wouldn't be any force to prevent anything. But.. if there were actual cases of pollution, then the "force" that would prevent it would be public opinion, which is not a force. It would be the power of persuasion. It would be people protesting and suing for damages if physical damage to a city or air or to a neighbors property can be demonstrated (and if it's physical it can be demonstrated), then there is recourse in a court of law and it would be to the interest of industry to avoid pollution whenever it is humanly possible. But I would not try to avoid, nor try to save extinct bird species at the price of enormous unemployment, at the price of closing down industry. No, that would not come to pass. But not only in a free society, that would not come to pass in a semi-free society so long as men are not insane.