It is very common for people to talk nowadays about environmental good and evil, but with virtually no explicit statement of the standards by which something is to be judged environmentally good or evil. People are unaware that a standard is always present and that there is more than one such standard. There are in fact two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive standards of environmental good and evil. The following example will bring them out.
Thirty years ago, the land under the house I live in, in Southern California, was empty desert. Had I wanted to sleep in the same location that my bedroom now stands on, I would have had to bring a sleeping bag, take precautions against rattlesnakes, scorpions, and coyotes, and hope I could find a place for my sleeping bag such that I wouldn’t have rocks pressing into my body. If it rained, I would get wet. If it was cold, I would be cold. If it was hot, I would be hot. Going to the bathroom would be a chore. Washing up would be difficult or impossible.
How incomparably better is the environment provided by my house and my bedroom. I sleep on a bed with an innerspring mattress. I don’t have to worry about snakes, scorpions, or coyotes. I’m protected from the rain, the cold, and the heat, by a well constructed house with central heating and air conditioning. I have running water, hot and cold, a flush toilet, a sink, a shower, and a bathtub, in fact more than one of each of these things, and I have electricity and most of the conveniences it makes possible, such as a refrigerator, a television set, a VCR, and CD and DVD players.
It’s obvious to me that the existence of my house constitutes an enormous improvement in my environment compared with living at the same location on the bare ground, and that the same is true of the existence of virtually all houses in relation to the environment of their occupants. It’s further obvious to me that the process of improving the environment in this way starts with developers and contractors who bring in bulldozers and other heavy construction equipment to clear the tops of hills, level and compact the land, build streets, and utility connections, and construct houses.
Yet those who are called “environmentalists†describe the exact same process of development and construction as harming the environment. Why? Because they have a profoundly different standard of environmental good and evil than the one that is present in my example. The standard that is present in my example is that of human life and well-being. What is environmentally good according to this standard is the promotion of human life and well-being, notably, housing construction and the existence of houses. What is environmentally evil is what impairs human life and well-being, such as preventing housing construction.
The environmentalists call the construction of houses evil because, as I say, their standard of value is very different. Instead of taking human life and well-being as their standard of value, they take nature in and of itself as their standard of value. Nature, they say, has intrinsic value, i.e., value in and of itself, apart from all connection with human life and well-being. Thus, in their view, hillsides and empty land, as they exist in a state of nature, together with their wildlife, have intrinsic value. And it is those alleged intrinsic values that are harmed by development and construction. In other words, the harm the environmentalists complain about in such cases is harm only from a non-human, indeed, anti-human perspective.
Here is a classic statement of the doctrine of intrinsic value by one of its leading environmentalist supporters:
This [man's "remaking the earth by degreesâ€] makes what is happening no less tragic for those of us who value wildness for its own sake, not for what value it confers upon mankind. I, for one, cannot wish upon either my children or the rest of Earth’s biota a tame planet, be it monstrous or—however unlikely—benign. McKibben is a biocentrist, and so am I. We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value—to me—than another human body, or a billion of them.
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line—at about a billion years ago, maybe half that—we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.
It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. (David M. Graber, in his review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, in the Los Angeles Times Book Review, Sunday, October 22, 1989, p. 9.)
The doctrine of intrinsic value is present in such statements as the North Slope of Alaska is “a sacred place†that should never be given over to oil rigs and pipelines. It is present in such statements as, “There is a need to protect the land not just for wildlife and human recreation, but just to have it there.†It is present in all instances in which forests, rivers, canyons, hillsides, or any other natural formation is presented as automatically deserving to be preserved, irrespective of its value in being put to use by human beings. And, of course, it is present in all the numerous cases in which human life or well-being have been sacrificed for the sake of the preservation of this or that species of animal or plant. Such cases range from the sacrifice of the property rights of human beings for the sake of snail darters and spotted owls, to the sacrifice of untold millions of actual human lives. This last has occurred as the result of the resurgence of malaria because the use of DDT was prohibited in order to preserve the alleged intrinsic value of some species of birds.
It is crucial that people recognize the distinction between the two standards of environmental good and evil and that the standard of the environmental movement is fundamentally that of the intrinsic value of nature, not that of human life and well-being. Given its standard of value, it is certainly not possible to accept as sincere or well-motivated any of the claims the environmental movement makes of seeking to improve human life and well-being, whether in connection with its allegations about global warming, the ozone layer, acid rain, or anything else.
Indeed, environmentalism’s acceptance of the doctrine of intrinsic value implies a profound hatred of man and a desire to destroy him. Such statements as those of Mr. Graber, that I quoted above, expressing a wish for a virus to come along and kill a billion human beings, are not at all accidental. They are logically implied by environmentalism’s standard of value.
Acceptance of the doctrine of intrinsic value, as I wrote in Capitalism, “inexorably implies a desire to destroy man and his works because it implies a perception of man as the systematic destroyer of the good, and thus as the systematic doer of evil. Just as man perceives coyotes, wolves, and rattlesnakes as evil because they regularly destroy the cattle and sheep he values as sources of food and clothing, so, on the premise of nature’s intrinsic value, the environmentalists view man as evil, because, in the pursuit of his well-being, man systematically destroys the wildlife, jungles, and rock formations that the environmentalists hold to be intrinsically valuable. Indeed, from the perspective of such alleged intrinsic values of nature, the degree of man’s alleged destructiveness and evil is directly in proportion to his loyalty to his essential nature. Man is the rational being. It is his application of his reason in the form of science, technology, and an industrial civilization that enables him to act on nature on the enormous scale on which he now does. Thus, it is his possession and use of reason—manifested in his technology and industry—for which he is hated.†(p, 82)
The primitive hunter-gatherers who were modern man’s remote ancestors left virtually no mark whatever on the rest of nature. The alleged intrinsic values destroyed in their gathering and eating nuts and berries and in their hunting, killing, and eating animals were quickly and automatically replenished by nature. The pre-industrial farmers who were modern man’s more recent ancestors left an imprint on nature that was essentially limited to plowed fields and primitive villages. And though somewhat more enduring, it was still very limited in extent. Great limitation of extent characterizes the enduring mark left by the pyramids, the ruins of towns and cities built in antiquity, and the stone castles of the Middle Ages.
In contrast, the modern man of capitalism clears entire forests and jungles; he drains swamps and irrigates deserts. He changes the balance of nature by decimating and destroying entire species of plants and animals and, though not often mentioned, radically increasing the populations of others, whose characteristics he alters to suit him. He establishes mechanized farms, large numbers of major towns and cities, indeed, giant metropolises. He builds factories, roads, bridges and tunnels, dams and canals. He digs mines, sometimes moving entire mountains in doing so, and drills for oil and gas, often reaching depths of several miles. From the perspective of environmentalism and its doctrine of intrinsic value, these activities, which leave a large and enduring mark on a vast swath of the rest of nature, constitute the destruction of intrinsic values on a massive scale and thus characterize modern man as the doer of massive evil.
Keeping all this in mind, it follows that it is absolutely perilous for human beings to allow themselves to be guided by policies recommended by the environmental movement, especially when doing so would impose great deprivation or cost, such as would be entailed in having to make radical reductions in carbon dioxide emissions to combat global warming. Nothing could be more absurd or dangerous than to take advice on how to improve one’s life and well-being from those who regard one’s wealth and happiness as a source of harm, who accord one the status of vermin, and who wish one dead as the means of preserving nature’s alleged intrinsic values. Indeed, not only Mr. Graber, but also other prominent environmentalists have expressed a wish for human deaths on a scale that far surpasses all those caused by the Nazis and Communists combined.
The danger of accepting environmentalist claims, it must be stressed, applies irrespective of the scientific or academic credentials of an individual. If an alleged scientific expert believes in the intrinsic value of nature, then to seek his advice is equivalent to seeking the advice of a medical doctor who was on the side of the germs rather than the patient, if such a thing can be imagined. It is the equivalent of a Jew asking the medical advice of a Dr. Josef Mengele.
All advice, all policy recommendations emanating from the environmentalist movement must be summarily rejected unless and until they can be validated on the basis of a pro-man, pro-wealth, pro-capitalist standard of value. Such a standard will never imply such a thing as the destruction of the energy base of industrial civilization as the means of addressing global warming.
The environmental movement is the philosophic enemy of the human race. It should be treated as such. If we value the material well-being and, indeed, the very lives of billions of our children and grandchildren, we must treat it as such. We must treat environmentalism as our mortal enemy.
This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
{ 39 comments }
Here’s an article on Prince Charles’ recent green initiative. Kudos for him at least attempting to raise awareness of global warming…
http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
You say environmentalists are anti-human, yet you are anti-nature. Can you exist outside of nature? What a strange and bleak existence that is.
I often engage in the global warming debate on-line, and I often make the point that the lives of 7 billion humans depends on the burning of fossil fuels, and that actually decreasing energy consumption by even half will doom many of these people to premature deaths. Many of those environmentalists I debate with are not only unbothered by such an outcome, but eagerly wish it to be an underestimate.
I wonder sometimes whether the environmentalists realize their policies promote hoarding by the State in the economic sense; when resources are preserved/reserved in perpetuity the market has no account of them. The State acts the same as a curmudgeonly gold-hoarder.
“…those of us who value wildness for its own sake.”
The environmentalist’s valuation of nature is nothing but personal preference. Why do they think they have the right to impose their personal preferences on the rest of us. That’s like musicians saying that only we should be allow to listen to classical music only and all other music should be allowed.
The non-profit Nature Conservancy has proven that the private ownership of land is the best way to protect it in its natural state. Why don’t all environmentalists pool their money and buy land that they want to maintain in its natural state and leave the rest of us alone? Instead, they try to harness the power of government to force their quasi-religious beliefs on us non-believers.
Being pro-human does not imply being anti-nature.
Insofar as nature promotes human well-being, we should maintain it. The benefits of nature to humanity range from feeding us to carbon dioxide recycling to the pleasure of a walk in the forest. This is precisely the divide that the article is getting at: the claim that nature has intrinsic value (and thus that humanity is intrinsically bad) versus the claim that nature is valuable for human happiness.
***You say environmentalists are anti-human, yet you are anti-nature. Can you exist outside of nature? What a strange and bleak existence that is.***
Well you pretty much proved the mindset. You’re the one injecting being pro-human is anti-nature. The whole article discusses using and changing existing forms to suit our needs. It is rather the difference between existing with nature (small n) and bowing before the majesty of Nature (capital N). It’s not a question of existing in a void, it’s using, and maintaining, resources to fit our needs.
Continuing from the half-baked department of my mind, this is just another of the many examples of the pitched battle between “permanance” and “variablity”. The vast majority of philosophies I’ve encountered, there are aspects of permanance and variability. The Godhead versus the apparent randomness that surrounds us. People want a mixture of each, and even in different quantities depending on their mood. But most seem to need some panultimate Certainty. They pick one, a God or Nature or whatever, are so charmed by it because it feeds their (existential?) need and endeavor to force it on everyone else.
I don’t view anything as permanent, but as flowing and changing. All of it valueless unless there is a mind to comprehend and value some portion the chaos that surrounds us. And that for only a limited time anyway. Perhaps that is why I prefer political and economic philosophies that understand this. Free markets and scoped and limited democracy.
Being pro-human does not make one anti-nature. They are not mutually exclusive. However, many policies advocated by environmentalists would result in increased levels of poverty and suffering for humans, which equates to misanthopy. I do not see how rising the levels of suffering would be pro-nature, since people that live in abject poverty tend to overexploit their surrounding environments. Environmentalists seem to forget that conveniently, being most of them anti-capitalists anyway.
I is all well and good to declare that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will decrease welfare, but what about the decrease in welfare that will accompany severe, irreversible (in the short term, anyway) global climate change? Recent estimates say that up to 20 of global GDP could be lost due to climate change… How do completely unrestricted markets account for externalities of this magnitude, particularly when the damaged parties have not yet been born?
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20061030/britain-global-warming.htmis
I have the DISTINCT feeling that ALL of those human-hating environmentalists sleep and spend much of the rest of their time in “environments” like Reisman’s house, the way he describes it.
And they live there, no doubt, with certain other humans whom they do not hate – perhaps even very much the contrary.
They want to choose, which is fine. The rest of us would like to choose, too, and THAT is what they object to.
It’s like the definition of overpopulation: too many of THEM.
Thank you, Dr. Reisman, for another masterpeice of logic and persuasion. You have identified the primary error–the myth of intrinsic value, in this case, of “untrammeled nature”–that lies at the heart of environmentalism.
To Roger M., the tension between environmentalism and humanism is a battle of conflicting moral visions, rather than conflict arising from subjective preferences. If moral principles were fiction, if they were only subjective preferences dressed up as “Moral Principles”, then what reasonable basis would any of us have to protest ANY action or policy–including that of compulsory environmentalism? Moral principles do exist, as the principles by which people–given the nature of what it means to be human–ought to live by. Moral principles exist to guide people in pursuit of living well. This is why the ethos of environmentalism, with its hostility toward living man, is vicious.
To Anthony, the “externality” of global warming is unproven, and actually, is an incredible claim. The idea that Man’s greenhouse gas emissions will alter the titanic forces of climate contains logical problems that have been addressed repeatedly. The biggest increase in man’s C02 emissions happened after 1940, while the rise in temperature–as measured by land stations adjacent to growing cities–occurred before 1940! (Measurments by satellite and weather balloon show no significant increase.)
In addition, as Professor Reisman documents on his blog http://www.capitalism.net there are several instances in geologic history in which atmospheric concentrations of C02 dwarfed those of today, by multiples rather than percentages, during periods of ICE AGE!
Finally, C02 is a tiny component of total Greenhouse gases–less than 5%. Over 90% of changes in atmospheric C02 derives from natural causes, such as volcanic eruptions. So Man’s activities affect a very small percentage of total greenhouse gases, of which the largest component is water vapor.
The propaganda we constantly read in the press about melting ice caps in Greenland, the Arctic, and the Antarctic, complete with color photos of dripping ice and forlorn polar bears, is politics masquerading as science. The ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica are growing thicker due to increased precipitation that accumlates as ice and snow. The melting occurs around the edges, where warming sea water encounters the ice. The sea water is probably warming in response to submarine vulcanism. That volcanic activity is on the rise is, as I recall, not controversial. You can read about this on http://www.Iceagenow.com.
â€Instead of taking human life and well-being as their standard of value, they take nature in and of itself as their standard of value. Nature, they say, has intrinsic value, i.e., value in and of itself, apart from all connection with human life and well-beingâ€.
George Reisman is right, this is silly. Values are derived from human nature. Only men values things. It does not exist any intrinsic value, i.e., value in and of itself.
Man is a part of nature. Everything is a part of nature and the universe. To be antihuman is the same thing as being anti nature.
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
If anyone doubts the axiom “that man is a part of nature”, go and watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMHNnhAEDN4
Björn Lundahl
Water in its frozen state displaces more volume than in its liquid state. The greatest majority of an iceberg is underwater. When any of this ice melts the water it becomes consists in a amaller volume of space that the ice. Thus the level of sea water falls, not rises, as a result of warmer air and water melting underwater and surface ice of icebergs.
Mr. Robb:
It’s true that the effect of the melting of icebergs and floes would leave the level essentially unchanged. Together, the above-level
portion and the submerged portion, when melted, would occupy, roughly, only the volume formerly occupied by the submerged portion alone.
Personally, I don’t give a shit one way or another. (Show me all that extra water and I’ll drink the damn stuff!) But the environmental whackos aren’t quite that stupid as to be unaware of the facts we’re discussing; their estimates of water-level rise are probably unrelated to the floating ice of which we’re speaking and have to do with other masses of ice potentially subject to melting by (if true) increasing global temps.
Actually, temperature changes in either direction prevailing on a continuous basis (unrelated to season) have even other, more complex (and possibly even more profound) effects–having to do with changes in salinity (and thus density) and contributions to sea currents, etc. You and I know next to nothing about it and the experts just a wee bit more. And none of us–you, me, the whackos, or the experts–are going to do anything about it (whatever it is).
So many environmentalists, who are the philosophic and mortal enemy of the human race! How do we identify them, how do we enlist and when do we start to eliminate them? Will it cost us less than half a trillion? Whom to we get to hate and scorn? Point the way!
Do we start with the Christians? http://conservation.catholic.org/cornwall_declaration.htm
Do we get to bump off anybody who sues anyone else for an environmental harm?
Do we get to eliminate the the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, NEPA, the EPA and FDA? Can we execute people who want clean air and water? The attorneys general of state that bring nuisance claims against others?
Do we get to eliminate economists such as Cordato, Block and Rothbard, John Baden, Terry Anderson, Gary Leal and legal scholars like Jonathan Adler, who allege that environmental problems stem from unclear and unenforceable property rights? How about Nobel prize winning economists who say that such failures result in expensive “tragedies of the commons”?
Do we get to eliminate the hunters who form the backbone of conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited and NWF? Fisherman who call for ITQs?
And after we eliminate all these, then everything will be fine, right, because there never really were any real problems with corporate irresponsibility or corporate statism – just a bunch of evil and jealous people-haters who lived downwind or downstream from all that makes America great, right? Responsible corporations that can act with limited liability (backed by investors who have even less liability).
I`m with you, Dr. Reisman!! You`ve convinced me. Hating America and hating the human race are wrong, and loving nature is evil! Let`s keep our focus on this vicious threat.
And by the way, don`t ask me to pick up my litter; that kind of request for “responsible” behavior clearly masks a hatred of mankind.
“And after we eliminate all these, then everything will be fine, right, because there never really were any real problems with corporate irresponsibility or corporate statism[ . . . ]”
It is really laughable, TT, what you imply, that envronmentalists are the bastion against corporate “irresponsability” or even statism, when the thing they advocate ENCOURAGES corporate irresponsability AND statism.
“As long as I comply with the laws (no matter how silly or senseless they are) . . . nothing can touch me!”
“These regulations will strike at the heart of our competition! Hooray!”
“Prices WILL soar! Hooray for environmentalism!”
Hello Customers,
We are proud to announce to you as one of the leading Electronics distributor worldwide.
We decided to contact you to let you know we have it mobile phones,psp,gps,laptops and xbox in stock at affordable prices.
Shipment is via UPS or DHL (48hours)
MOQ 5units and increasingly.
The mobile phone is brand new euro and american spec with 1/2
years international warranty,and in thier original Boxes
Find below our email address so as to enable you open
communication with the sales department.
EMAIL:glophonesinc@yahoo.co.uk
Tel: +234 803 318 6911
PRICES
XBOX 360
Xbox 360 core: ————————$170
Xbox 360 platinum——————— $190
Xbox 360 premium ———————-$200
PLAYSTATION 3 ————————-$250
GPS NAVIGATION SYSTEM
TOM TOM GO 300 ————————$180
TOM TOM GO 500 ————————$200
TOM TOM GO 700 ————————$220
TOM TOM GO 910 ————————$300
T-Mobile Sidekick II (T-Mobile)——–$109
T-mobile Sidekick III (T-Mobile )——$150
Nokia 8800————–$240
Nokia N92—————$280
Nokia N95—————$400
Nokia N93—————$300
Nokia N91—————$250
Nokia N90—————$230
Nokia N70—————$210
N71———————$250
N73 ——————–$260
Nokia N80—————$280
nokia 6020 tri-bank edge gsm/gprs ——$224.99
nokia 7610 tri-band gsm/gprs ——$324.99
nokia 9500 tri-band pda gsm/gprs ———$724.99
nokia 6822 gsm/gprs phone ——-$274.99
nokia 3200 ———–$90usd
nokia 3300 ———–$95usd
nokia 3660 ————-$95usd
nokia 5100 ————$140usd
nokia 5140 ————-$142usd
nokia 6100 ———–$150usd
nokia 6108————– $150usd
nokia 6220 ————-$155usd
nokia 6230 ———-$160usd
nokia 6230i————- $165usd
nokia 6260 ————-$170usd
nokia 6270 ————$180usd
nokia 6600———— $185usd
nokia 6630 ————-$185usd
nokia 6610 —————-$175usd
nokia 6610i ————$175sd
nokia 6650 —————$180usd
nokia 6670 smart phone —$200usd
nokia 6820 —————-$190
nokia 7200 ————-$195usd
nokia 7210 ————–$198usd
nokia 3230 ————-$130usd
nokia 7610 ————-$220usd
nokia 9300 ————$220usd
nokia 7250 ————–$70usd
nokia 7250i ————–$175usd
nokia 7260 ————–$160usd
nokia 7200 ————–$110usd
nokia 7600i ————–$150usd
nokia 7610 ————–$150usd
nokia 8910i ————–$140usd
nokia 8910ic..————–$140usd
nokia 9210i communicator————–$ 160usd
nokia 9500 communicator————–$260usd
nokia 9300 communicator————–$200usd
nokia n-gage————–$180usd
nokia n-gage qd.————–$200usd
nokia 7710 ————–$250usd
SONY ERICSSON
Sony-Ericsson – K500i———$117
Sony Ericsson K750i———–$203
Sony Ericcson – W800i———$300
Sony-Ericsson W900 ———–$350
Sony Ericsson – W550———-$250
Sony Ericsson K608i ———-$260
Sony Ericsson D750i ———-$209
Sony-Ericsson Z520i ———-$190
Sony ericsson p990 ———–$300
Sony ericsson p910i———–$270
Samsung P300—————–$250
Samsung E530—————–$200
Samsung Z560 —————-$195
samsung x820—————–$170
samsung D800—————–$190
samsung D600—————–$200
Samsung P300—————–$250
Samsung E530—————–$200
MOTOROLA
MOTOROLA raz V3————–$109
MOTOROLA Razr V3————$100 PINK
Motorola RAZR V3x———— $200
Motorola RAZR V3i ———-$200
Motorola L6 —————-$180
Motorola V3 Blue————- $140
Motorola SLVR L7———— $200
Motorola PEBL U6————-$180
SONY PSP’s
Sony PSP Super Value Pack w/2 Games, Spider Man Movie,
UMD Sampler ”’$160usd.
Sony PSP – 3 Games, Spider Man Movie—- $200usd.
Sony “PSP Tony Hawk’s Underground 2 Remix Value
Pack” —-$149usd.
Sony PSP “Sports Value Pack” – 2 Games, UMD Sampler
Pack——$109usd
Sony PSP “Value Pack” – 1 Racing Game, UMD Sampler
——$150usd.
Sony PSP “Sports Value Pack” – 2 Games, UMD Sampler
Pack —-$109usd.
Sony PSP Limited Edition(White) 20 Games+Car Kit
Etc—-$195usd
IPOD
apple ipod nano 2GB Black MP3 Player….$100USD
apple ipod Video 30GB Black MP3 Player…$150usd
apple ipod Mini 4GB 18hour battery – Pink MP3 Player…$120usd
apple ipod nano 4GB Black MP3 Player….$150usd
DVD
Panasonic DVD-LS5 DVD Player…$150USD
Mintek MDP-5860 DVD Player…..$90USD
Panasonic DMR-E50S DVD Recorder…$190USD
Samsung DVD-L200 DVD Player….. $150USD
LAPTOPS
Dell Latitude C640 1.8GHz P4 Laptop w/CD-RW……$350USD
Dell Inspiro n XPS M140 Notebook Computer for Home…..$480USD
Sony VAIO FS540P – Pentium M 730 1.6 GHz – 15.4″ TFT…$500USD
Sony Intel Pentium M 100GB Notebook Computer with DVD+/-R/RW Drive…$550USD
ThinkPad G40 2389 – C 2.5 GHz – 14.1″ TFT IBM…..$580USD
Panasonic Toughbook 18 Touchscre……$500USD
Find below our email address so as to enable you open
communication with the sales department.
Tel: +234 803 318 6911
EMAIL:glophonesinc@yahoo.co.uk
Please write to us for
faster Service.
Regards
Edmond
The comment immediately above, inserted by a commercial artist with a phone number in a west African Country known for its internet scammers, is a reason why we need envirionmental laws — Legitimate businesses, consumers, and scammers alike love to hop in to utilize free resources, whether the air we breath (for exhausts), the ground we live on (for solid wastes) or the planet itself, demonstrably warming because of our use of fossil fuels.
Its not that having a house is anti nature, its that in building a house, builders and consumers may dump small or LARGE amounts of externalities on everyone else.
And the spammer in the entry above polluted this column by inserting commercial advertising in a forum because the scammer paid nothing to do so.
So there has to be a way — using prices where they can be defined and enforced (like a carbon tax), using regulations where harder to define, and simply avoiding scammers trying to sell Nokia phones through a media that was dedicated to honest discussion of important issues.
so lee,
you really believe that theft (such as a carbon tax) where money is stolen from individuals by govt thuggery and fraud is going to result in a better environment? That really is anti-man.
Where have you been? Simple point: govts are the biggest polluters of all. Giving away yet more control over individuals is not going to clean up the environment or whatever you wish for (unless it’s creating an authoritarian mess you are after). It never has. Look at what has actually occurred in practice and quit dreaming.
You need to read the article again. Actually you should go further. Get a copy of “Capitalism” by Prof Reisman. Read it and THINK carefully on the issues. There’s a lot there.
Sione
Most of my opposition to global warming and other environmental initiatives is, like them, science-based.
Their positions are (typically in a very twisted way) based on environmental science.
My objections to all the government/law/tax “solutions” I’ve seen so far are based on social science. They’ll be very expensive, they won’t work, and no solution is called for in the first place.
Francisco:
It is really laughable, TT, what you imply, that envronmentalists are the bastion against corporate “irresponsability” or even statism, when the thing they advocate ENCOURAGES corporate irresponsability AND statism.
Great comment, but you misstate my pre-conversion position. I agree with you that enviro positions have had the effect of encouraging corporate irresponsibility AND statism. My old, naive view was that there was a sick dynamic, where corporate statism blocked private remedies and enabled irresponsible behavior by corporations and government (as as Block explains: “Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights” http://mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf); this helped to feed the monster that some of the enviro movement has become, in which the enviros also seek to extract favors from government and try to block corporate actions.
But I’ve shed my tortured, “shades of gray” balance for the much simpler position that Dr. Reisman has proven above – enviros are simply evil misanthopes who are the true enemy of mankind.
This view not only has the advantage of moral certitude, but also allows me to abandon my previous worries about how favored corporations have misused the power of government for their own advantage.
So I would now say that your argument – that the enviros are wrong because they in fact encourage corporate misbehavior – both misses the point and introduces unneeded complexity. As Dr. Reisman argued, the enviros must be opposed because they hate mankind. Your suggestion that the enviros should be opposed because they might call forth undesirable behavior from corporations is a subtlety that no longer concerns me.
Regards,
TT
Enviro misanthropes are the enemy of mankind!
But I’ve shed my tortured, “shades of gray” balance for the much simpler position that Dr. Reisman has proven above – enviros are simply evil misanthopes who are the true enemy of mankind.
I do not think Dr. Reisman has said that evironmentalists are the true enemy of mankind. He just stated (correctly, I am afraid) that many environmentalists (and the environmentalist movement per se) is misanthropic. The reason for this is logical: if you want to place an intrinsic value on nature, then you must also place an intrinsic value on humans. Once you do this, however, humans become mere commodities (things) which are subject to the Law of Marginal Utility. This position allows some environmentalists to think, for example: a) There are too many of us; b) We can be detrimental to Nature. Both positions are logically consistent with placing an intrinsic value on Nature and people (Nature losing value as Humans gain value, and viceversa), but cannot be considered other than misanthropic. Both permeate environmentalist literature and propaganda. Such position precludes human freedom, since free-acting humans lessen the value of Nature – thus the procurement of State intervention to reduce human freedom (slavery).
The other view, that humans have no intrinsic value but are ABOVE value judgments is philanthropic (others take the religious view that humans are the most important creation done by god or gods, which is NOT logically inconsistent with the philanthropic position). It advocates that the only ethical and moral standard is to always seek improvement of human life and human freedom. From this ethical position we can arrive at a more humanistic environmental position, one that advocates freedom and private property. You cannot be an advocate of freedom when you advocate “carbon credits” and other forms of statist interventions. Both are mutually exclusive positions.
For this reason, I cannot find the “shades of gray” that you mention when it comes to the environmentalism movement – at least, the mainstream environmentalist movement. Either you are philanthropic, or you are not. It cannot be any other way.
This view not only has the advantage of moral certitude, but also allows me to abandon my previous worries about how favored corporations have misused the power of government for their own advantage.
Exactly how does one thing leads to the other, TT? How can the realization of these “shades of gray” allow you to lose your previous anxiety about Big Business’ coziness with the State? I do not understand how that works. I would think that having the ambivalent position regarding environmentalism would not preclude you from seeing (and worry about) the obvious.
My objections to all the government/law/tax “solutions” I’ve seen so far are based on social science. They’ll be very expensive, they won’t work, and no solution is called for in the first place.
You are absolutely right, but TT and others think that, somehow, the atmosphere is a natural monopoly for the State to manage. I would imagine the State would be as proficient at this as it is managing Water, Parks, Justice, Licences, Education, the Roads . . . what are you guys laughing at???
I wrote:
Exactly how does one thing leads to the other, TT?
My bad. You meant Mr. Reisman’s position. Sorry
hard return:
I wonder sometimes whether the environmentalists realize their policies promote hoarding by the State in the economic sense; when resources are preserved/reserved in perpetuity the market has no account of them. The State acts the same as a curmudgeonly gold-hoarder.
This is an interesting point, but tends to be the exception to the rule, which is that those who govern have short timeframes and tend to make decisions beneficial to them personally during that period. This means that resources are frequently over-expolited (below-cost timber sales and BLM grazing fees) and done so in a way that benefits elites and favored industries.
It’s too bad that those enviros don’t understand this, but keep butting their heads against government managers, thus further politicizing resource management. We should definitely focus on getting the government out of the natural resources business (you can bet if a private owner of resources would make sure at least collect the royalties he is entitled to receive from lessees!), but since enviros are evil we need to bump off all of them first.
Francisco:
I do not think Dr. Reisman has said that evironmentalists are the true enemy of mankind. He just stated (correctly, I am afraid) that many environmentalists (and the environmentalist movement per se) is misanthropic.
Are you arguing that Dr. Reisman’s position is more subtle than he himself has stated it? And that some kind of “humanistic environmentalism” is accpetable? This is starting to get confusing.
Other than that, I now agree with you that we should look at economics and philosophy through the binary philanthropic/misanthropic dialectic, and discard other views such as those provided by religious traditions. They are confusing, too, and don’t provide nearly the moral clarity that Dr. Reeisman does.
Regards,
TT
So what Lee is really saying is that what we need more criminality (imposed by government) to combat existing criminality. A very good solution isn’t it?
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
A very common error I see in evironmentalism vs. free market debate is to impute angelic motivations to the State and devilish motivations to corporations, something Mises noted well in HA. Lest we forget, only individuals act, whether those individuals declare themselves guilty of stealing “the State’s”, “the Emperor’s”, or “the People’s”, air, by breathing, whilst simulataneously poisoning that air by exhaling CO2. Or is breathing magically exempt from “pollution” status? Who will punish the punishers if they can’t even first punish themselves for their global warming hot air blowing crimes?
Björn:
The progress of man has been due to the development of institutional arrangements, such as private property and communal/public institutions, that allow for exclusive ownership and thus to positive-sum transactions via a free market. The government can help, but the government can itself be a major problem, such as in China for example: http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=274&Itemid=34
No such institutions are in place for the atmosphere, and a similar lack of clear and enforceable property rights is at the root of all other environmental problems – which are much more common and severe in the third world and in transnational/multinational/global resources. Absent meaningful private property rights or other institutions, open-access resources will be overexploited, to the detriment of all.
This is not a simple problem, but at least Lee has made a suggestion. Do you care to try, or are you in the “no solution today, no solution tomorrow, no solution ever” mindframe? Perhaps there IS no solution, but certainly discussion at least ought to be possible.
TokyoTom
TokyoTom†This is not a simple problem, but at least Lee has made a suggestion. Do you care to try, or are you in the “no solution today, no solution tomorrow, no solution ever” mindframe? Perhaps there IS no solution, but certainly discussion at least ought to be possibleâ€.
Björn Our environment is very important indeed. But I do think there are solutions to our environmental problems.
I quote from the book “For a New Libertyâ€, by Murray Rothbard:
“The remedy against air pollution is therefore crystal clear, and it has nothing to do with multibillion-dollar palliative government programs at the expense of the taxpayers which do not even meet the real issue. The remedy is simply for the courts to return to their function of defending person and property rights against invasion, and therefore to enjoin anyone from injecting pollutants into the airâ€.
For more suggestions and information, please go to:
http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty12.asp
Björn Lundahl
Björn:
A simple recitation of basic Misean views on the environment doesn’t help you in individual cases.
We finished off the passenger pigeon, the American bison and the greatest fishery in the world – the Grand Banks. Why – greed? No, simply because no one owned them and use of the resource was consequently unregulated and everyone had a great interest in using the resource than in saving it for future use. Same is true of the atmosphere and the seas, and had also been true of the air, land and water in the US before we imposed pollution laws (which could have been much cheaper, but were still very effective without destroying our economy or our competitive position – although we are still struggling over acid rain in the US). The handwriting is on the wall with respect to the global atmosphere and other resources that are ineffectively owned or regulated.
Cheers
Thats fact are tha the UNIBOMBER wasa big time eco-freak who live in a tiny shack and read AL GORE eco-babble book EARTH IN THE BALANCE and subcribed to LIVE WILD OR DIE put out by the ec-terrorists group EARTH FIRST
“We finished off the … American bison … No, simply because no one owned them and use of the resource was consequently unregulated and everyone had a great interest in using the resource than in saving it for future use.”
True in many cases but wasn’t exterminating the wild buffalo a government subsidized program.
BTW, what’s this we shit paleface. I had nothing to do with exterminating any of those.
Anthony,
“I is all well and good to declare that cutting greenhouse gas emissions will decrease welfare, but what about the decrease in welfare that will accompany severe, irreversible (in the short term, anyway) global climate change?”
I say the people making these chicken little claims are incompetent to make such assessments. I’ve looked into it and it is totally unsupported.
No one dies from climate, for the same reason that no one dies from being eaten alive by snails. Weather change kills, climate change doesn’t. Heck, energy levels of hurricanes are trending downwards not upward.
People adjust to climate change all the time. If a change in climate killed then I’d be dead. I moved from Minnesota to New York. That’s a 40 degree difference in minimum winter temperatures. I’m not dead.
Radical enviromentalists would return us to a pagn exitence sacrificiing virgins and children to the various deities they worship mostly like GAIA and others
The environmentalist who got the UN to ban DDT, killed more children that Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot combined.
There are four, possibly five, types of environmentalist:
1. hardcore; misanthrope, wants humans to become extinct.
2. marxist; wants to use environmentalism to control the masses (through guilt, legislation, etc.)
3. the hypocrite; people like Al Gore who preach environmentalism but do not follow it themselves. Like limousine liberals.
4. the suburban environmentalist; doesn’t really understand environmentalism, but wants his neighborhood to look nice.
There are also the “feel-good” environmentalists, like the suburban environmentalist, wants to do what they have been told is good for the earth, but do not really think about the greater philosophical implications and are a bit like the hypocrites and do not always follow it strictly.
Thanks for the sensible critique. Me & my neighbor were just preparing to do a little research about this. We got a grab a book from our local library but I think I learned more from this post. I’m very glad to see such magnificent info being shared freely out there.
Comments on this entry are closed.