Make Every Hour Earth Hour

[psychoanaleesis]

This is from a nationwide news paper here in the Philippines... gave me the chills

News Article

MANILA, Philippines—It’s one thing to turn your lights off for an hour for Saturday’s global celebration of Earth Hour, but it’s an entirely different thing to commit to make every hour of your life an effort to ensure the planet’s survival.

Former Environment Secretary and now Earth Day Network chair Elisea Gozun says that more than just turning lights off, ensuring Earth’s survival means a change in lifestyle.

“The key to achieving sustainability is changing the lifestyle of everyone. That’s what switching off really means,’’ she says.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Change... for whose benefit?

Here's my response for last year's "Earth Hour"/Environmentalism in general:

We going back to caves?! AGGGHH!!

What is the true goal of environmentalism? The preservation of nature as a static environment without human intervention? The gradual wipe-out of the human race? The submission of Man to nature's cycles? Personally, I like seeing those wild animals free on their natural habitats - endangered or not but if I find my comfort and happiness threatened by these creatures, then I'd rather see them boiling in a cauldron.

I do not imply that let's actively kill them for game because that would be purposeless but I recently watched/read on the news that some environmental group proposes that a portion of Baguio City (I do not know which) should be placed as a "protected" spot since they found two forms of "native mammals" there and that the cultivation of land for vegetable farms should be stopped in deference to these rats mammals. And I thought, What the hell? The prices of food (veggies in this case) are soaring off the market and the only thing that may alleviate that is by planting more and here they go saying that farmers SHOULD STOP planting?!? I'm not so much a veggie loving person but I seem to remember that somewhere in Australia, cattle farming went on a shutdown of some sort because some enviro-hippies said that the cows are destroying the soil? Errr... so what if the ground grows deeper than a few centimeters it's a small price to pay for me and all those who love burger patties.

Okay, the argument there would be let's stick to veggies and become vegans which are proposed by some environmentalists. First of all, there are some nutrition that can only be acquired through the sustenance of meat and secondly, should I substitute my true joy for a fake? And granted everybody did switch to veggies, environmentalists will claim-just like Baguio-some areas of huge agro-industrial potential sealed off from human hands and use the government to point its guns at its own citizens. I'm beginning to see that the true purpose of environmentalism is the destruction of human property ergo achievements and consequentially, man as we know him.

When certain areas become wildlife sanctuaries, the usual plan of these short-sighted people is Eco-tourism. That's laughable because how can you promote tourism if there is barely anything to eat? Wait, don't these people also want us to stop using cars, airplanes and boats? Are they suggesting that we bike up the mountain? Use row boats to travel from continent to continent? Use up precious human time in laborious activities when we have replaced them with something more efficient? Are those farmers just going to sit idly until a flock of tourists come once a year or move to cities which environmental groups will deter because people are already clogged up in cities and will therefore be another "excess" source of pollution?

Environmentalism is some form of hypocrisy, where they scream "Let's not cut down trees!" but are enjoying a cozy winter inside a log cabin. "Let's save energy!" and parties all night. "Plastics are a danger to nature!" while holding a brand new cellphone while listening to his I-pod and typing away in front of their computers.

Consider Earth Hour, where some fanatics of environmentalism really did turn everything off that uses energy (including their minds?) Just earth hour? why don't we have Earth Month or Earth Year? Let's see if you like it. While I'll be sitting inside a concrete house , sitting on a comfy-synthetic chair, listening to music through a stereo or watching TV with the lights and the AC on.

Let me tell you that in submission to nature, you are turning away from Man's Hour. I would rather not join those environmentalists. So if you want to be cavemen again., you have the freedom to do it on your own. Don't drag others who are and want to continue existing as Man.

Edited March 22, 2010 by David Lee

[imurray]

This is from a nationwide news paper here in the Philippines... gave me the chills

News Article

MANILA, Philippines—It’s one thing to turn your lights off for an hour for Saturday’s global celebration of Earth Hour, but it’s an entirely different thing to commit to make every hour of your life an effort to ensure the planet’s survival.

Former Environment Secretary and now Earth Day Network chair Elisea Gozun says that more than just turning lights off, ensuring Earth’s survival means a change in lifestyle.

“The key to achieving sustainability is changing the lifestyle of everyone. That’s what switching off really means,’’ she says.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Change... for whose benefit?

Here's my response for last year's "Earth Hour"/Environmentalism in general:

We going back to caves?! AGGGHH!!

What is the true goal of environmentalism? The preservation of nature as a static environment without human intervention? The gradual wipe-out of the human race? The submission of Man to nature's cycles? Personally, I like seeing those wild animals free on their natural habitats - endangered or not but if I find my comfort and happiness threatened by these creatures, then I'd rather see them boiling in a cauldron.

I do not imply that let's actively kill them for game because that would be purposeless but I recently watched/read on the news that some environmental group proposes that a portion of Baguio City (I do not know which) should be placed as a "protected" spot since they found two forms of "native mammals" there and that the cultivation of land for vegetable farms should be stopped in deference to these rats mammals. And I thought, What the hell? The prices of food (veggies in this case) are soaring off the market and the only thing that may alleviate that is by planting more and here they go saying that farmers SHOULD STOP planting?!? I'm not so much a veggie loving person but I seem to remember that somewhere in Australia, cattle farming went on a shutdown of some sort because some enviro-hippies said that the cows are destroying the soil? Errr... so what if the ground grows deeper than a few centimeters it's a small price to pay for me and all those who love burger patties.

Okay, the argument there would be let's stick to veggies and become vegans which are proposed by some environmentalists. First of all, there are some nutrition that can only be acquired through the sustenance of meat and secondly, should I substitute my true joy for a fake? And granted everybody did switch to veggies, environmentalists will claim-just like Baguio-some areas of huge agro-industrial potential sealed off from human hands and use the government to point its guns at its own citizens. I'm beginning to see that the true purpose of environmentalism is the destruction of human property ergo achievements and consequentially, man as we know him.

When certain areas become wildlife sanctuaries, the usual plan of these short-sighted people is Eco-tourism. That's laughable because how can you promote tourism if there is barely anything to eat? Wait, don't these people also want us to stop using cars, airplanes and boats? Are they suggesting that we bike up the mountain? Use row boats to travel from continent to continent? Use up precious human time in laborious activities when we have replaced them with something more efficient? Are those farmers just going to sit idly until a flock of tourists come once a year or move to cities which environmental groups will deter because people are already clogged up in cities and will therefore be another "excess" source of pollution?

Environmentalism is some form of hypocrisy, where they scream "Let's not cut down trees!" but are enjoying a cozy winter inside a log cabin. "Let's save energy!" and parties all night. "Plastics are a danger to nature!" while holding a brand new cellphone while listening to his I-pod and typing away in front of their computers.

Consider Earth Hour, where some fanatics of environmentalism really did turn everything off that uses energy (including their minds?) Just earth hour? why don't we have Earth Month or Earth Year? Let's see if you like it. While I'll be sitting inside a concrete house , sitting on a comfy-synthetic chair, listening to music through a stereo or watching TV with the lights and the AC on.

Let me tell you that in submission to nature, you are turning away from Man's Hour. I would rather not join those environmentalists. So if you want to be cavemen again., you have the freedom to do it on your own. Don't drag others who are and want to continue existing as Man.

I found the original article to be quite moderate, the form of "environmentalism" you described to be extreme, and your reaction to it to be equally extreme. I don't understand why being careful with the planet is "submission to nature" - don't humans reap some real and measurable benefits from acting as caretakers of the planet? Why take it to the extreme of becoming cavemen? If you want to say things like that then I'll say that you want to poison the water supply because you think it would be 'wicked awesome' if the water in your reservoir was bright yellow. Or that you want to cut down all of the rain forest because it would 'rock' to use the land to build a swamp-themed casino.

It makes more sense to use common sense. Read Jared Diamond's "The Rise and Fall of Civilizations" if you think human ingenuity can always compensate for being inconsiderate with nature.

Ian

[psychoanaleesis]

I found the original article to be quite moderate, the form of "environmentalism" you described to be extreme, and your reaction to it to be equally extreme. I don't understand why being careful with the planet is "submission to nature" - don't humans reap some real and measurable benefits from acting as caretakers of the planet? Why take it to the extreme of becoming cavemen? If you want to say things like that then I'll say that you want to poison the water supply because you think it would be 'wicked awesome' if the water in your reservoir was bright yellow. Or that you want to cut down all of the rain forest because it would 'rock' to use the land to build a swamp-themed casino.

It makes more sense to use common sense. Read Jared Diamond's "The Rise and Fall of Civilizations" if you think human ingenuity can always compensate for being inconsiderate with nature.

Ian

Would you say the same for murder? If a man was stabbed once or thirty-times, would it make a difference as to the senselessness it wreaked? Hmm, careful with the planet? If I have a piece of land, I could do whatever I want with it as long as it's within my "right of way" correct? I cannot, as a moral man, endanger my neighbors by poisoning the town's reservoir just to kill myself. I'd put cyanide in my coffee instead. If that rain forest was mine and no one else lays claim to it, yes, I'd build a casino if I so deem it potentially profitable.

I'd post my reply again since you present a similar argument to another person on my blog:

mabhhellee said

i see your point... but dont you think we still need to protect our nature? would you and me be able to live with out it? ME, i can't!..... maybe environmentalism was implying on protecting the future OUR FUTURE.. i dont think its hypocrisy....

Can't we protect our nature and existing as MAN at the same time as you've pointed out? That having it protected means being a caveman?

My reply:

Nature has only come this far and we could use it to achieve so much more. Environmentalism is hindering Man from pursuing higher forms of knowledge and happiness on demand. For example, instead of preserving those plankton in our oceans, we ought to concentrate more on developing synthetic means of recycling CO2 to O2 again. Besides, there is NO definite result on the effect of Human made CO2 emissions as a major contributor to the supposed "global warming" and how do we differentiate the carbon dioxide coming from our cars and that of a volcano produced one in the atmosphere? And if there was and we found out that there is NO SIGNIFICANT effect? Would environmentalists shut their traps then? If there IS, then we should SOLVE it and overcome it instead of trying to reverse the effect. As a saying goes, "No use crying over spilled milk." You, may know for a fact that if we DID decrease the level of CO2 significantly in the atmosphere, another Ice Age would ensue.

As man, we should be conquering matter and nature and find out how we could harness it all to cater to our happiness and survival.

[tjohnson]

Besides, there is NO definite result on the effect of Human made CO2 emissions as a major contributor to the supposed "global warming" ...

You, may know for a fact that if we DID decrease the level of CO2 significantly in the atmosphere, another Ice Age would ensue...

If CO2 has no effect on global warming then how can it precipitate an Ice Age? Maybe this is not what you meant.

[imurray]

Would you say the same for murder? If a man was stabbed once or thirty-times, would it make a difference as to the senselessness it wreaked? Hmm, careful with the planet? If I have a piece of land, I could do whatever I want with it as long as it's within my "right of way" correct? I cannot, as a moral man, endanger my neighbors by poisoning the town's reservoir just to kill myself. I'd put cyanide in my coffee instead. If that rain forest was mine and no one else lays claim to it, yes, I'd build a casino if I so deem it potentially profitable.

I'd post my reply again since you present a similar argument to another person on my blog:

mabhhellee said

i see your point... but dont you think we still need to protect our nature? would you and me be able to live with out it? ME, i can't!..... maybe environmentalism was implying on protecting the future OUR FUTURE.. i dont think its hypocrisy....

Can't we protect our nature and existing as MAN at the same time as you've pointed out? That having it protected means being a caveman?

My reply:

Nature has only come this far and we could use it to achieve so much more. Environmentalism is hindering Man from pursuing higher forms of knowledge and happiness on demand. For example, instead of preserving those plankton in our oceans, we ought to concentrate more on developing synthetic means of recycling CO2 to O2 again. Besides, there is NO definite result on the effect of Human made CO2 emissions as a major contributor to the supposed "global warming" and how do we differentiate the carbon dioxide coming from our cars and that of a volcano produced one in the atmosphere? And if there was and we found out that there is NO SIGNIFICANT effect? Would environmentalists shut their traps then? If there IS, then we should SOLVE it and overcome it instead of trying to reverse the effect. As a saying goes, "No use crying over spilled milk." You, may know for a fact that if we DID decrease the level of CO2 significantly in the atmosphere, another Ice Age would ensue.

As man, we should be conquering matter and nature and find out how we could harness it all to cater to our happiness and survival.

Again with the extreme examples. Is there no such thing as common sense here? If you own a massive tract of land like a rain forest and destroy it then you're going to have a real and measurable negative impact on the surrounding land that you don't own and the planet as a whole unless you first come up with a way to duplicate everything that the rain forest did and had the potential to do. I say potential because you just potentially destroyed the cure to cancer or HIV when you cut it down. I'm all for 'conquering' nature - as long as you're sure you know what the hell you're doing first. I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to act a bit conservatively, especially when we don't yet have all the answers. Sure, once you know that the septic system in your back yard that you refuse to fix won't hurt anyone but you, by all means do what thou wilt. I just don't want a bunch of ignoramuses running around thinking they're infallible and that their happiness is dependent on doing what comes impulsively without a basic understanding of the consequences. Your line of thinking is how you breed stupidity and kill off a civilization. Read the book - each of the civilizations in it thought they'd be just fine because they were too "advanced" to fail. I'm not saying you have to go hug trees or stop eating meat, I'm saying one should be conscious of their actions and that entails being knowledgeable.

It makes no sense to eschew every article or idea that merely advises considerate action when it comes to the environment.

One additional point: so what's your ultimate goal here? Is the aim to conquer nature or is it the pursuit human happiness? It appears that you're dangerously close to advocating hedonism on an objectivism website. Oh the horror!

Edited March 22, 2010 by Panoptic

[psychoanaleesis]

My reply:

Nature has only come this far and we could use it to achieve so much more.

Again with the extreme examples. Is there no such thing as common sense here? If you own a massive tract of land like a rain forest and destroy it then you're going to have a real and measurable negative impact on the surrounding land that you don't own and the planet as a whole unless you first come up with a way to duplicate everything that the rain forest did and had the potential to do. I say potential because you just potentially destroyed the cure to cancer or HIV when you cut it down. I'm all for 'conquering' nature - as long as you're sure you know what the hell you're doing first. I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to act a bit conservatively, especially when we don't yet have all the answers. Sure, once you know that the septic system in your back yard that you refuse to fix won't hurt anyone but you, by all means do what thou wilt. I just don't want a bunch of ignoramuses running around thinking they're infallible and that their happiness is dependent on doing what comes impulsively without a basic understanding of the consequences. Your line of thinking is how you breed stupidity and kill off a civilization. Read the book - each of the civilizations in it thought they'd be just fine because they were too "advanced" to fail. I'm not saying you have to go hug trees or stop eating meat, I'm saying one should be conscious of their actions and that entails being knowledgeable.

My good man, you will only get so far using common sense *read 3rd entry.

Okay, you want some good stuff from everything being privatized too? Don't get all hot-headed. I was just playing with your examples. LOL.

Let's say, I own a rain forest and a group of scientist suspects that the cure for cancer lies in a certain plant that grows in a certain part of it, if they get to me first, I could sell/loan them the "rights" to explore my land and keep anything that they find from it say provided I get 30% of "final products" derived from their finds plus credit to whatever material they publish or whatever I fancy as the owner. Then I can!

In this example, I was using my reasoning to the best that I could. If I only see that far ahead, making a certain amount from short-term profits than seeing it through for aeons to come, then it's my fault and nobody else. If this is the case, would you suggest that as the rightful owner, I'd be imprisoned, coerced or muscled out by the government who has the monopoly to initiate the use of force? Or would you rather have me assassinated for the "common good"? (which is actually derived from individual rights i.e. Me and you but currently being used without acknowledging the source). One suggestion as interested parties, (assuming that you are moral) you could tempt me to sell it to you entirely or in trade terms: Buy me out.

Sure, civilizations come and go because of their individual stupidity but you cannot lay claim for a fact that even if the Mayans have gone "extinct", you will find no trace of their genes in the natives in South America and thus, the potential for another rise still exists. (and if you can, I'll gladly remove this paragraph)

You see, even when you "destroy", you actually cannot as demonstrated by the law of conservation of mass or energy. Each man, must understand that due to his nature (at least one of his remarkable qualities), that being he is a highly complex organism, that he is the most fragile as well and therefore, if he is to actualize his potentials, he has nowhere to go but up. This example is clearly evident in babies since they are the weakest animals on this planet and one who needs more care from its parent if it is to survive and survive properly at that.

Tell you what, since you're so enthusiastic about me reading that book, send me a copy. I'll be happy to read it and critique it too i.e. give credit where it deserves and refute it to the best of my reasoning where it needs to be. We cool?

Edited March 22, 2010 by David Lee

[imurray]

My reply:

Nature has only come this far and we could use it to achieve so much more.

Again with the extreme examples. Is there no such thing as common sense here? If you own a massive tract of land like a rain forest and destroy it then you're going to have a real and measurable negative impact on the surrounding land that you don't own and the planet as a whole unless you first come up with a way to duplicate everything that the rain forest did and had the potential to do. I say potential because you just potentially destroyed the cure to cancer or HIV when you cut it down. I'm all for 'conquering' nature - as long as you're sure you know what the hell you're doing first. I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to act a bit conservatively, especially when we don't yet have all the answers. Sure, once you know that the septic system in your back yard that you refuse to fix won't hurt anyone but you, by all means do what thou wilt. I just don't want a bunch of ignoramuses running around thinking they're infallible and that their happiness is dependent on doing what comes impulsively without a basic understanding of the consequences. Your line of thinking is how you breed stupidity and kill off a civilization. Read the book - each of the civilizations in it thought they'd be just fine because they were too "advanced" to fail. I'm not saying you have to go hug trees or stop eating meat, I'm saying one should be conscious of their actions and that entails being knowledgeable.

My good man, you will only get so far using common sense *read 3rd entry.

Okay, you want some good stuff from everything being privatized too? Don't get all hot-headed. I was just playing with your examples. LOL.

Let's say, I own a rain forest and a group of scientist suspects that the cure for cancer lies in a certain plant that grows in a certain part of it, if they get to me first, I could sell/loan them the "rights" to explore my land and keep anything that they find from it say provided I get 30% of "final products" derived from their finds plus credit to whatever material they publish or whatever I fancy as the owner. Then I can!

In this example, I was using my reasoning to the best that I could. If I only see that far ahead, making a certain amount from short-term profits than seeing it through for aeons to come, then it's my fault and nobody else. If this is the case, would you suggest that as the rightful owner, I'd be imprisoned, coerced or muscled out by the government who has the monopoly to initiate the use of force? Or would you rather have me assassinated for the "common good"? (which is actually derived from individual rights i.e. Me and you but currently being used without acknowledging the source). One suggestion as interested parties, (assuming that you are moral) you could tempt me to sell it to you entirely or in trade terms: Buy me out.

Sure, civilizations come and go because of their individual stupidity but you cannot lay claim for a fact that even if the Mayans have gone "extinct", you will find no trace of their genes in the natives in South America and thus, the potential for another rise still exists. (and if you can, I'll gladly remove this paragraph)

You see, even when you "destroy", you actually cannot as demonstrated by the law of conservation of mass or energy. Each man, must understand that due to his nature (at least one of his remarkable qualities), that being he is a highly complex organism, that he is the most fragile as well and therefore, if he is to actualize his potentials, he has nowhere to go but up. This example is clearly evident in babies since they are the weakest animals on this planet and one who needs more care from its parent if it is to survive and survive properly at that.

Tell you what, since you're so enthusiastic about me reading that book, send me a copy. I'll be happy to read it and critique it too i.e. give credit where it deserves and refute it to the best of my reasoning where it needs to be. We cool?

I'm afraid it would be unethical for me to send you a copy as that would result in a net loss in my bank account. However, if you're not against visiting communal institutions like your local library, it will surely be available there.

You would not be killed for effectively destroying the cure for cancer because nobody will know that you set humanity back x number of years because you were unaware that the rain forest has historically been an indispensable source for novel organic compounds.

I still don't agree with you, haha. I'm not angry, I just see this as a clear cut example of cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Also, I wasn't using Rand's definition of common sense which fails to acknowledge that what we consider common sense isn't static and changes over time to include a broader set of knowledge. Some day, if she's lucky, a part of her theory will become "common sense" - I guess we'd have to consider it to be childish reasoning at that point. I wonder how she would have felt about that?

Edited March 22, 2010 by Panoptic

[psychoanaleesis]

I'm afraid it would be unethical for me to send you a copy as that would result in a net loss in my bank account. However, if you're not against visiting communal institutions like your local library, it will surely be available there.

You would not be killed for effectively destroying the cure for cancer because nobody will know that you set humanity back x number of years because you were unaware that the rain forest has historically been an indispensable source for novel organic compounds.

I still don't agree with you, haha. I'm not angry, I just see this as a clear cut example of cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Also, I wasn't using Rand's definition of common sense which fails to acknowledge that what we consider common sense isn't static and changes over time to include a broader set of knowledge. Some day, if she's lucky, a part of her theory will become "common sense" - I guess we'd have to consider it to be childish reasoning at that point. I wonder how she would have felt about that?

As with any "communal" object, the libraries in this country is in far much worse conditions than yours (through socio-economic factors). I'd prefer private ones though I cannot say that I have access. That is why I have my own though I cannot boast about its size and it does not include that book which you speak of.

If no one knows what they've done and is only guilty of not being omniscient, then what's the problem again? Human activities just go on in its current pace. If you do not know what those "organic compounds" are or where or how they could be potentially be discovered from, then we (as owner and interested individual) won't get to cross paths and essentially, there won't be a 'we' in this case. However, since it is known that "novel organic compounds" can be found in such areas, then they (scientists/private individuals) should lay claim to it wherever possible and exploit it to whatever interest they have which is essentially the same game.

The unnatural would be that when one who wants to claim but is stopped by another group who says that no one has the right to claim except "future generations" and that it must be preserved for them but not for the present. Woe to those who think that way because they play blind to the fact that without the present who can own, there could be no one else in the future as well. OR do they deceive others for they have something more sinister in mind like power over man's actions and thoughts?

They say they want to preserve? That which you want to preserve but are ignorant of its nature will eventually reach an apex and as to the natural order, be replaced by other organisms via extraneous events out of your capability to stop with your shouts and placards.

It's all good even if you do not agree with me but do analyze your language (3rd paragraph). I think it hints aggression.

No use speculating what Rand would have felt. Also, she need not luck to be part of "common sense" as her system heralds that of Aristotle's though of added value -as even you say to the nature of common sense which do not even oppose hers- then it therefore makes sense to say that it is at least in part, already "common sense".

Edited March 22, 2010 by David Lee

[imurray]

Your last post was much more palatable, but I still disagree. I'd say that there's value to preserving for the sake of future generations, but I understand how that can become a problem too. I think that it's flawed to think that human civilization only advances positively. I know it's purely speculative, but I tend to wonder how far along we could be if some of the great civilizations would have balanced their insatiable drive for progress with an equally insatiable drive for understanding what may eventually impede this desire from sustaining. I can't help but assume that we'd be more advanced if they had persisted because in many cases their way of life, technologies, etc. died with them leaving them to be rediscovered or reinvented - which would generally be considered a set back.

[psychoanaleesis]

Your last post was much more palatable, but I still disagree. I'd say that there's value to preserving for the sake of future generations, but I understand how that can become a problem too. I think that it's flawed to think that human civilization only advances positively. I know it's purely speculative, but I tend to wonder how far along we could be if some of the great civilizations would have balanced their insatiable drive for progress with an equally insatiable drive for understanding what may eventually impede this desire from sustaining. I can't help but assume that we'd be more advanced if they had persisted because in many cases their way of life, technologies, etc. died with them leaving them to be rediscovered or reinvented - which would generally be considered a set back.

A. Thanks. But I cooked, essentially, not for you.

B. You're an ingrate.

C. You're attempting to use contradictions i.e. implying the idea of "advancing negatively"

D. I liked you better when you claimed to be using 'common sense' i.e. being like that of a child.

E. Speculate on encountering Mayans who still cut your heart out and expect you praise them for their oh so accurate calendar.

F. Good night.

Edited March 22, 2010 by David Lee

[imurray]

Advance in the sense of time positively in the sense of knowledge/technology. No contradiction.

I already told you I wasn't using Rand's definition of common sense - others exist. Not to mention common sense in any sense of the word was all that was needed to disarm your extremist stance.

Don't plan on meeting any Myans - it's just history. Ignore it if you must. By the way, there were other civilizations besides the Myans.

Goodnight.

[Peter]

I thought Sarah Palin had a cute reply to environmentalism.

I,m all for wild life. Right next to the mashed potatoes.

Peter

[psychoanaleesis]

Advance in the sense of time positively in the sense of knowledge/technology. No contradiction.

I already told you I wasn't using Rand's definition of common sense - others exist. Not to mention common sense in any sense of the word was all that was needed to disarm your extremist stance.

Don't plan on meeting any Myans - it's just history. Ignore it if you must. By the way, there were other civilizations besides the Myans.

Goodnight.

Yup, I know, there are others besides Mayans and (somebody correct me) I'm just using straw-men because they're the easiest to attack. Woah, let's not forget the old Egyptians where would they have been existing up to now, let's see where your "diplomacy" towards slave culture end up. Which end of the whip would you rather feel if you were born in their territory? You claim they were great then? Try bringing the chieftains and warlords to this era would you and add them to the already existing ones... right... thought so. OR we're you just actually talking about individuals? If so, then don't talk about "civilizations" as if they consist of one entity.

Now you say it's just history? Who's turning the blind eye now? I thought you were just contemplating on bringing them back? Well, physically, you cannot. However, try to practice their ideologies, see if its comparable to the state that man is now.

You said, "I think that it's flawed to think that human civilization only advances positively." (emphasis mine)

We're you speaking of "advancing sideways"? "advancing backwards"? or as I said before "advancing negatively"? or "retreating positively"? Neither of these contribute to that "flawed" thinking and more so perversely, these take away from it the spirit of which it is intended. Look, the one whose got it wrong is you.

If you really want to say something then identify the things which you speak of. Do not speak of haze as if it were some object you could grasp. It appears that you rely on me to bring out such hideous alternatives because you are terrified to name them yourself. I should say, "Show some spine!" but that may be too much to ask of you.

Define your "common sense" and see if it totally departs from Rand's. You talk about me visiting the library? Read some more you foolish brat! Yep, am not very good with dealing with blobs or abstract conglomerates which you hastily labeled "in any sense of the word (of an object)".

"Panoptic" you dub yourself? Yes, suiting, you have the same name as your forefather "Plato".

Disarmed my "extrimist" stand? Au contraire, you never even touched it. I merely slept to recuperate from bodily exhaustion since no one in this fora is paying me to stay awake at present.

Hey, at least I have a stand, where's yours? Ah, no, you're preserving it for some exotic plant that may or may not cure cancer right?

Edited March 23, 2010 by David Lee

[imurray]

Advance in the sense of time positively in the sense of knowledge/technology. No contradiction.

I already told you I wasn't using Rand's definition of common sense - others exist. Not to mention common sense in any sense of the word was all that was needed to disarm your extremist stance.

Don't plan on meeting any Myans - it's just history. Ignore it if you must. By the way, there were other civilizations besides the Myans.

Goodnight.

Yup, I know, there are others besides Mayans and (somebody correct me) I'm just using straw-men because they're the easiest to attack. Woah, let's not forget the old Egyptians where would they have been existing up to now, let's see where your "diplomacy" towards slave culture end up. Which end of the whip would you rather feel if you were born in their territory? You claim they were great then? Try bringing the chieftains and warlords to this era would you and add them to the already existing ones... right... thought so. OR we're you just actually talking about individuals? If so, then don't talk about "civilizations" as if they consist of one entity.

Now you say it's just history? Who's turning the blind eye now? I thought you were just contemplating on bringing them back? Well, physically, you cannot. However, try to practice their ideologies, see if its comparable to the state that man is now.

You said, "I think that it's flawed to think that human civilization only advances positively." (emphasis mine)

We're you speaking of "advancing sideways"? "advancing backwards"? or as I said before "advancing negatively"? or "retreating positively"? Neither of these contribute to that "flawed" thinking and more so perversely, these take away from it the spirit of which it is intended. Look, the one whose got it wrong is you.

If you really want to say something then identify the things which you speak of. Do not speak of haze as if it were some object you could grasp. It appears that you rely on me to bring out such hideous alternatives because you are terrified to name them yourself. I should say, "Show some spine!" but that may be too much to ask of you.

Define your "common sense" and see if it totally departs from Rand's. You talk about me visiting the library? Read some more you foolish brat! Yep, am not very good with dealing with blobs or abstract conglomerates which you hastily labeled "in any sense of the word (of an object)".

"Panoptic" you dub yourself? Yes, suiting, you have the same name as your forefather "Plato".

Disarmed my "extrimist" stand? Au contraire, you never even touched it. I merely slept to recuperate from bodily exhaustion since no one in this fora is paying me to stay awake at present.

Hey, at least I have a stand, where's yours? Ah, no, you're preserving it for some exotic plant that may or may not cure cancer right?

You are hilarious! Do you do birthdays or retirement parties?

You can now add ad hominem to you list of logical fallacies.

You leave me two options:

1. Filling the obvious lacuna in knowledge between us - you're getting caught up and asking for information on things that I would normally assume from a reasonably educated audience.

or,

2. Walk away.

I choose number 2.

Goodnight David

Edited March 23, 2010 by Panoptic

[psychoanaleesis]

You are hilarious! Do you do birthdays or retirement parties?

You can now add ad hominem to you list of logical fallacies.

You leave me two options:

1. Filling the obvious lacuna in knowledge between us - you're getting caught up and asking for information on things that I would normally assume from a reasonably educated audience.

or,

2. Walk away.

I choose number 2.

Bye-bye Toohey.

Edited March 23, 2010 by David Lee

[tjohnson]

Hey Ian, welcome to the the Toohey club! It's just me and you so far.

[imurray]

Hey Ian, welcome to the the Toohey club! It's just me and you so far.

Even the insults are refried Rand. Do they serve anything else here? Did Rand have a character who couldn't think for themselves? Ah, what the heck - I apparently have already asked David to do all the research and to fill in all my hideous thoughts so why not ask for one more favor? Dave can you find me a Rand character who can't think for herself and kindly apply that name to yourself. Thank you.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Panoptic

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I thought Sarah Palin had a cute reply to environmentalism.

I,m all for wild life. Right next to the mashed potatoes.

Peter,

That was William Shatner on the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. He did a beat poetry shtick (with bass and bongos) using cherry-picked excerpts from Sarah's book, Going Rogue. She was also on the show. She walked on, took Shatner's seat and did a similar "beat" version of some lines out of his autobiography, Up Til Now.

Here is the line Shatner gave. I haven't read Going Rogue, but I imaging the line is a mashup of two different quotes.

"I always remind people from outside our state that there's plenty of room for all of Alaska's animals -- right next to the mashed potatoes."

I tried to find the video. It is hilarious. I couldn't find it easily so I stopped looking. But you can real a lot of the lines both delivered in this article.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael Stuart Kelly wrote:

That was William Shatner on the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. He did a beat poetry shtick (with bass and bongos) using cherry-picked excerpts from Sarah's book, Going Rogue . . . Here is the line Shatner gave. I haven't read Going Rogue, but I imaging the line is a mashup of two different quotes.

William Shatner quoted:

"I always remind people from outside our state that there's plenty of room for all of Alaska's animals -- right next to the mashed potatoes."

End quote

Thanks, Michael. I have seen that funny clip, in fact I have seen it twice. I was discussing it when it was first done with math professor Michael Hardy and I said I thought she may have been hurt by his satiric reading and avoided contact with Shatner when they were leaving the stage. Hardy disagreed.

I re-watched the video, and she did NOT deliberately, move away from him. I think she veered to avoid a prop. After re-watching it more critically, and doubling the size of the film, I also noticed how star-struck she was at being with him, and that she genuinely liked Captain Kirk, in spite of being spoofed by him. I was astonished that my first “eye witness account” was so wrong. I read into it what I thought I would have felt at being mocked.

I didn’t realize it may have been a mish-mash of two quotes. My daughter has her book and I will borrow it from her.

Thanks Michael.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[tjohnson]

"I always remind people from outside our state that there's plenty of room for all of Alaska's animals -- right next to the mashed potatoes."

What's so funny about that?? Guess you had to be there.

[9thdoctor]

That was William Shatner on the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. He did a beat poetry shtick (with bass and bongos) using cherry-picked excerpts from Sarah's book, Going Rogue. She was also on the show. She walked on, took Shatner's seat and did a similar "beat" version of some lines out of his autobiography, Up Til Now.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgiqSNNuhQg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgiqSNNuhQg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgiqSNNuhQg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

For me, Palin is an instant tune out. Flip the channel. Can’t stand her. Last night I was channel surfing, and Michael Moore was on CNN and Palin was on Fox, and someone puke-inducing was on MSNBC…I sat through this old Peikoff debate instead.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8409&pid=94138&st=0entry94138

And don’t get me started on Howard Dean, Hyaaaaaa!

While I’m thinking of it, does anyone have a tape of Peikoff’s appearance on Politically Incorrect? It was in the mid-nineties, Shatner was one of the other guests. I remember it was pretty good, I wish someone would upload it to YouTube.

[psychoanaleesis]

I thought Sarah Palin had a cute reply to environmentalism.

I,m all for wild life. Right next to the mashed potatoes.

Peter,

That was William Shatner on the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien. He did a beat poetry shtick (with bass and bongos) using cherry-picked excerpts from Sarah's book, Going Rogue. She was also on the show. She walked on, took Shatner's seat and did a similar "beat" version of some lines out of his autobiography, Up Til Now.

Here is the line Shatner gave. I haven't read Going Rogue, but I imaging the line is a mashup of two different quotes.

"I always remind people from outside our state that there's plenty of room for all of Alaska's animals -- right next to the mashed potatoes."

I tried to find the video. It is hilarious. I couldn't find it easily so I stopped looking. But you can real a lot of the lines both delivered in this article.

Michael

Peter and Michael,

ROFL! Thank you for the relief that pseudo-quote gave me. Man, I'm still so green! (pun not intended) I read too much at times that it really gets on my nerves and narrows my focus to a pencil tip. If you have the time and interest, guys, I'd like my article to be properly corrected i.e. errors be identified and the idea be chewed over. My critique above "We're going back..." is what I think of the essence behind environmentalism. Please do note that if either one or both of you would take time to look this over, I do support the inventions that would "make this world a safer place" via the use of already existing entities - as long as its their money.

To be honest, I was on the verge of calling Michael to be an arbiter (as the owner-moderator of this site) on whether I was already going overboard and possibly, help me see Panoptic's valid points.

Thank you again.

D.

Edited March 23, 2010 by David Lee

[Peter]

David Lee wrote:

If you have the time and interest, guys, I'd like my article to be properly corrected i.e. errors be identified and the idea be chewed over.

End quote

It is too “area specific” to be published in a paper or magazine other than in the Philippines, and it jumps around, to my thinking.

And for me it is old news. What interests me is the tie in between environmentalism and global warming. It’s the same gang!

Rand was first to note that the discredited communist and totalitarian *leftists* had switched sides to environmentalism. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they jumped ship to environmentalism big time, but their agenda was still the destruction of individual rights and capitalism. They continue to view themselves as “the elite” who should rule others.

Here, chicken farming is a big business. One woman has started an environmentalist group to keep the runoff from polluting the Chesapeake Bay. She has gotten a few followers, including a scientist, who snuck onto one chicken farming property and its adjacent spring, to record bacterial levels. She sued them and she has shut the farm down. One busybody woman! She need not prove any contamination of the ground water (which is not happening) only that marine life “might be” affected, 10 miles down stream when the water flows into the Bay.

Slightly off point, David, you might want to read the letter I posted to the Law section of Objectivist Living on Zoning laws, several months ago, for some ideas.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[psychoanaleesis]

David Lee wrote:

If you have the time and interest, guys, I'd like my article to be properly corrected i.e. errors be identified and the idea be chewed over.

End quote

It is too “area specific” to be published in a paper or magazine other than in the Philippines, and it jumps around, to my thinking.

And for me it is old news. What interests me is the tie in between environmentalism and global warming. It’s the same gang!

Rand was first to note that the discredited communist and totalitarian *leftists* had switched sides to environmentalism. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they jumped ship to environmentalism big time, but their agenda was still the destruction of individual rights and capitalism. They continue to view themselves as “the elite” who should rule others.

Here, chicken farming is a big business. One woman has started an environmentalist group to keep the runoff from polluting the Chesapeake Bay. She has gotten a few followers, including a scientist, who snuck onto one chicken farming property and its adjacent spring, to record bacterial levels. She sued them and she has shut the farm down. One busybody woman! She need not prove any contamination of the ground water (which is not happening) only that marine life “might be” affected, 10 miles down stream when the water flows into the Bay.

Slightly off point, David, you might want to read the letter I posted to the Law section of Objectivist Living on Zoning laws, several months ago, for some ideas.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Yup, I noticed that too Peter. If any, I should have placed my response under Rants section. I do digress a lot especially when writing for myself. I have no intention of this getting published here and it stands virtually no chance either owing to the prevailing mentality.

Sad to say, most readers in this country belong to

a. cannot comprehend properly (within its context)

b. cannot refute it in a similar manner that has been presented (use of critical thinking skills)

c. just plain bigots playing blind to reality.

Sometimes, I do still feel that disappointment for the "many" *gasps* but I try to engage each individual that still acknowledges that there is a more suitable way of living for man.

[Peter]

I tried to locate that old zoning letter but I could not. OL only keeps the last 200. I did have an inferior copy stored on my system. If you want to read it, David, or anyone else, here it is.

Peter

Randall wrote:

Did Ayn Rand write or say anything about zoning laws? I thought she was not opposed to zoning laws on the condition that the laws are objective and rational. Maybe I am mistaken?

end quote

(I will include some quotes that pertain, at the end of this letter, from The Objectivist Center, Ayn Rand, and Michael Miller.)

Zoning Laws.

Consider the following legal issues as a preliminary to our discussion:

Aren’t the following legitimately illegal: “Some” Insider Trading, Privacy, Dirty Tricks, Mental Cruelty, The spreading of false and harmful information, Impersonation, Cruelty to Animals, or Frivolous Lawsuits?

And don’t Zoning Laws, to sustain property values, stop coercive activities?

Objective laws define the legal line between what may be considered morally wrong by different individuals who all have different moralities, and legally wrong behaviors, that infringe upon legitimate rights. Many illegal activities do not involve the ‘strict’ initiation of force. Rather, they are considered coercive. I maintain that zoning prohibits coercive activities.

Michael Miller wrote to the old Owl, about zoning:

The proper purpose of laws is to guarantee your right to do what you want with your property subject only to restrictions you have agreed to in contracts with others. The purpose of zoning laws is to enable others to tell you what to do with your property without your agreement.

End quote

I agree in spirit, but I disagree on finer points that might be considered coercive in nature.

When someone buys or already owns property the land’s dimensions are strictly defined, by surveying. One could say that piece of land is five acres, relatively rectangular in shape, and borders three other properties and the road. However, there is a further dimension to land: The sky above it, the land below it, the surrounding view, and the air you breath.

Property is more than two dimensional. Let me enumerate some cases that illustrate more than two property dimensions.

Water and mineral rights.

Air quality rights.

The sky above. In other words, sunlight and rainfall rights.

My last three enumerated rights are intertwined and tougher to defend:

Who got there first?

The right to a surrounding view.

And the right to a continuation of a property’s fair value.

Water and mineral rights. This is the easiest to defend property right because virtually everyone agrees, mineral rights under the property are justifiable, and require little defense. However, a corollary right is that no one on surrounding properties can legally pump out ground water until the water table under your property is lowered so much that you have no access to well water.

This recently happened in Somerset County, Maryland where a newly built state prison caused dozens of surrounding properties to go dry, and it stopped Wal-Mart from building a distribution center in that County. And there have been many cases where corporations poisoned the ground water.

Another issue, is using up all the water in a river, or damming it, legal, even though the river previously ran through your property?

And there have been cases where individuals or countries drilled sideways under a neighbor’s property to steal oil or minerals.

Air quality rights. No one can deny you breathable air, by burning, building a pig farm, or a manufacturing plant near you, without your consent, if the land is zoned residential or agricultural .

The sky above. No one may plant trees that extend over your property, or block the sun or the rain, with a building, without your permission, if the land is zoned residential, or agricultural.

Who got there first, and the surrounding view? This is a tough one. If I have bought property with the sensible expectation that I may have a certain view, then a property owner near me should not be legally able to block my view, at a later date. This happens frequently in tourist areas, where preexisting buildings have a view of the ocean, or of mountains, or of a waterfall. This right to a surrounding view should also extend to commercial property.

And now my last, more nebulous concept. Does a person have a right to diminish your property’s value, because of something that they do on their property? Let us postulate that I have a Beverly Hills estate and The Clampetts move in next door . . .

I am dumbfounded that no Objectivists have tackled these issues. What a great subject for an essay. Let me throw out the gauntlet! I would like to see a definitive article on Zoning published on Objectivist Living. Who is up to the task?

I am no lawyer or Objectivist scholar, but how does my view square with the following quotes?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Ayn Rand, "What is Capitalism" Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, p. 19

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

End quote

From the Objectivist Center:

It is possible to live independently only if one is allowed to do so. One's choices must be voluntary if they are to be freely made. Fundamentally, only the threat of deadly force can undermine one's ability to reason and choose. Assault, murder, theft, fraud: all these are examples of the use of force to deprive someone of freedom, of goods, or even of life. Normally, one employs one's mind to support one's well being. The threat of force makes one accept someone else's dictates, rather than one's own judgment. This was the way the totalitarian systems such as Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Maoist China treated their citizens, and that is why the effect of those systems was a gray, uniform style of life, faltering production, and periodic bouts of mass imprisonment and slaughter. Because force is a fundamental threat to the independent life of production and trade, there is one fundamental principle of social organization that a just society must secure: the principle that no one may initiate the use of physical force against any other . . . .

The individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—mentioned in many American political documents—identify different dimensions of freedom and prohibit the corresponding types of force. "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context," wrote Ayn Rand. "There is only one fundamental right (all others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life." To live, one must be able to take action, by one's own choice, in support of one's life; that is the right to liberty. We are material beings, and so we need the freedom to keep the fruits of our labors and use or dispose of them as we see fit: that is the right to property. And we live as ourselves, for ourselves, so we have a right to pursue our own happiness.

End quote

Michael Miller

III. ZONING

Zoning laws are inherently contradictory to the function of government. The proper purpose of laws is to guarantee your right to do what you want with your property subject only to restrictions you have agreed to in contracts with others. The purpose of zoning laws is to enable others to tell you what to do with your property without your agreement.

If you want to prevent a tall building from blocking your view, you’d better contract with your neighbors in a deed restriction to ban that possibility now, before construction starts. If they want to leave the option open because they think they would rather have the increased value of their property than a clear view, you may not enlist the government to enforce your preferences on them.

End quote