tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post4875221969002363561..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Trickle-Down AltruismGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-77957830440528253542010-10-09T07:24:10.664-06:002010-10-09T07:24:10.664-06:00I think that we should say what we mean and mean w...I think that we should say what we mean and mean what we say, rather than focusing too much on what tthe environmentalists are doing. It's fine to oppose what they stand for and to propose rational alternatives. But to adopt a superfluous artificial vocabulary or extraneous symbolism strikes me as indulging a little bit in two errors. (1) THEY distort language and resort to symbolism because they're actually attempting to OBFUSCATE and PREEMPT rational thought. We don't need those kinds of tricks. (2) We should concentrate on substance first, then worry about form -- which will be dictated by the substance, rather than whatever the Greens are doing, anyway.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-82681037438428761322010-10-08T21:45:47.285-06:002010-10-08T21:45:47.285-06:00Gus
do you think then that we should re-define th...Gus<br /><br />do you think then that we should re-define the words "environment" and "sustainability"? Or use a colour opposite to Green perhaps.Monoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-8023030457441372262010-10-08T21:04:33.884-06:002010-10-08T21:04:33.884-06:00Mo,
I take your comment to be directed at Michael...Mo,<br /><br />I take your comment to be directed at Michael, but if I understand what he means, I would venture that he would tie something like that in ONLY if it really were good for an individual's own welfare. Otherwise, scuttle the idea. (e.g., I turn lights off when I leave the house to save money, and not because I am "green."<br /><br />Anon,<br /><br />Love the rhetorical question -- as well as the global cooling/warming refutation of the idea that the science in any way conceivably leads to the suggested political controls, even in the minds of the greens. Very economical, that.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-34431352261289584692010-10-08T17:06:17.119-06:002010-10-08T17:06:17.119-06:00Gus,
I've always thought that the abrupt turn...Gus,<br /><br />I've always thought that the abrupt turn-around from Global Ice Age to AGW that occurred in the 1970's was due to the fact that, originally, the perpetrators of the myth were going to tout the superiority of central planning to protect mankind from the impending apocalypse. <br /><br />When it became evident that that dog wouldn't hunt, they inverted their quest. If we can't have central planning as saviour then we can, at the very least, pillory capitalism as the devil. So we still need that Communist Messiah to protect Mankind from the Apocalypse. [1]<br /><br />So, either way, we're getting Collectivism. And Righteously So! <br /><br />[1] Except the unredeemed, of course. Those we cast into outer darkness. After appropriately Expropriating them, of course. I'm curious. Did the Inquisition seize their victims' property before or after they burned them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-6609324486932893462010-10-08T16:49:46.008-06:002010-10-08T16:49:46.008-06:00so for example, producing preservatives that are b...so for example, producing preservatives that are biodegradable is good for the environment. How would you tie this to the individual's well-being ?monoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-46285104931596454302010-10-08T07:46:27.982-06:002010-10-08T07:46:27.982-06:00Andrew,
Yes. Thanks for elaborating on that point...Andrew,<br /><br />Yes. Thanks for elaborating on that point.<br /><br />The kind of argument that environmentalists make is a kind of bait-and-switch, whereby they present some semiplausible argument (often, quasi-scientific) as bait, and then, based on acceptance of its truth, foist a complete non-sequitur on anyone they catch off-guard.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-28993884528915241972010-10-08T07:37:51.469-06:002010-10-08T07:37:51.469-06:00In any event, no scientific conclusion can invalid...<i>In any event, no scientific conclusion can invalidate the fact man has rights and the proper purpose of a government is to protect them. </i><br /><br />Exactly. Or as I've said before, <i>man's nature</i> hasn't changed -- and none of the environmentalists' specific empirical claims about the climate, even if true, will suddenly make statism right or practical.<br /><br />I also think that madmax gives too much credit to the Greens for having political views that somehow follow from scientific premises. Environmentalism has always been a <i>moral crusade</i> against the ability, need, and right of man to alter the natural environment to his own ends. <br /><br />In this respect, it reminds me of vegetarianism, which is an idea that our intellectuals seem to keep wanting to be true. "Premise A, therefore vegetarianism. Oops, premise A is wrong? Then premise B, therefore vegetarianism. Oh, premise B is wrong? Then ..." You can see the pattern here.Andrew Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11001665674703307354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-52802378787427303322010-10-07T19:08:01.467-06:002010-10-07T19:08:01.467-06:00"The Green movement argument is that modern i..."<i>The Green movement argument is that modern industrialization has caused a crisis situation and that the warming of the planet will cause the melting of the ice caps and that there will be devastating consequences for the world's population. In essence, rational man if left free will destroy himself by means of his technology and his greed. Therefore, capitalism must be restrained.</i>"<br /><br />This is definitely the argument they want people to accept, and many of the environmentalists (<a href="http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3966/" rel="nofollow">but probably not all</a>) may indeed believe it themselves, but (1) even the worst-case scientific estimates of AGW effects are slow enough for people to react to in a non-emergency fashion, and (2) I doubt you could firmly establish who was responsible for it (assuming it's happening for the sake of argument) to handle it via torts. <br /><br />In any event, no scientific conclusion can invalidate the fact man has rights and the proper purpose of a government is to protect them. Without exception, the solutions promoted by environmentalists to the problems supposedly caused by AGW violate the proper purpose of government, and most would be worse than allowing the "worst-case scenario" to happen.<br /><br />So suppose the science were right (and worst-case). If there is not a political solution that protects individual rights, there isn't a political solution. That said, don't forget that protecting property rights so, say, land purchases made farther from the coast are honored by the law, are, at the end of the day, just one example of a political solution.<br /><br />Altruism isn't the entirety of ethics any more than statism is the entirety of politics. Making sure individuals can promote their own welfare IS a political solution.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-64501590910354104402010-10-07T18:35:28.961-06:002010-10-07T18:35:28.961-06:00Gus,
But doesn't the environmentalist hatred ...Gus,<br /><br />But doesn't the environmentalist hatred of capitalism follow from their view of man-caused AGW? I ask because your position, with which I agree, that the actual climate science and the political solutions are two different things seems to me to be a tough argument to make.<br /><br />The Green movement argument is that modern industrialization has caused a crisis situation and that the warming of the planet will cause the melting of the ice caps and that there will be devastating consequences for the world's population. In essence, rational man if left free will destroy himself by means of his technology and his greed. Therefore, capitalism must be restrained.<br /><br />It seems that the scientific question is at the heart of the matter. Because if it were true that human technology were about to create major climate disturbances, then it would follow that political intervention was necessary. Or am I wrong on that? <br /><br />I have always had trouble with the environmentalist movement based on one question. What if they are right about the science?madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-12627093933311129222010-10-07T17:24:33.942-06:002010-10-07T17:24:33.942-06:00Or both. Or the one leading to the other. There...Or both. Or the one leading to the other. There's quite a bit you could do with this.<br /><br />Your idea of making a positive argument FOR capitalism is golden: Too many times, people allow environmentalists to cower them into a defensive position.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-54091523183706379242010-10-07T16:26:28.101-06:002010-10-07T16:26:28.101-06:00so perhaps videos that link to the positivity of p...so perhaps videos that link to the positivity of production and human progress. Greenovation for a Greener planet. Or basically something that exalts capitalism.<br /><br />is what what you're trying to sayMichaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-3315886776918053452010-10-07T16:16:15.104-06:002010-10-07T16:16:15.104-06:00That's a good start, but an underappreciated p...That's a good start, but an underappreciated part of the kind of debunkery that is required is to freely admit it when some scientific claim made by the greens is actually correct (or could be correct), but is being misused to foist that political agenda on us. (The first link in the post will take you to one of the posts where I partially explain why.) Part of what conservatives consistently screw up in this debate is that they allow themselves to be dragged in to a scientific debate when it is the political principles of capitalism that are being cast aside as irrelevant.<br /><br />It is important to establish that we will accept whatever conclusion is supported by science -- but also show that we know that such conclusions would not/do not invalidate political principles.<br /><br />Whatever the trend (if any) of the earth's temperature, it's good to know, but whatever the trend, capitalism is the proper political system for man.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-65381456418262125872010-10-07T15:48:39.648-06:002010-10-07T15:48:39.648-06:00you know I've been thinking about this for qui...you know I've been thinking about this for quite some time. As someone who will go on and study environmental science next year, I think it would be a good idea to release multimedia that counters all the negative and hysterical videos we see from those eco whack jobs. I also think the sound bites they use e.g. help the environment, save the planet etc... should be either put in the context of human production or just completely revamped e.g. exploit the planet or die, conservation is sacrifice, for a sustainable future we must produce more, human progress means a healthy planet etc.....<br /><br />I'm thinking of several formats: Illustrations, flash presentations and youtube videos. And to top it all off put these up on a website with the name GreenCorpMichaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-80327523357063587472010-10-07T15:20:40.046-06:002010-10-07T15:20:40.046-06:00Vigilis,
Thomas Friedman also has the gall to cal...Vigilis,<br /><br />Thomas Friedman also has the gall to call himself a "clean-energy hawk," which makes about as much sense as calling oneself an "artificial Arab oil-embargo hawk" or an "unnecessary body cast pugilist." <br /><br />Environmentalists have, in the past, admitted that there would be nothing like a good plague or natural disaster to curtail human energy consumption, and even that they regard humans <i>as</i> the "real" plague.<br /><br />Jeff,<br /><br />Your point on waste reminds me of a time about a decade ago that I heard about Yaron Brook surprising some reporter interviewing him about environmentalism by admitting that he did things to avoid wasting energy. Brook recalibrated him by saying, "I don't like to waste money."<br /><br />Roger,<br /><br />Agreed, and that will be the case whether they succeed in ruining our economy in the process or not.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-25560935904701100082010-10-07T11:31:00.350-06:002010-10-07T11:31:00.350-06:00Water, or the lack of it, in some form, will be th...Water, or the lack of it, in some form, will be the next environmental panic once "Climate Change" has run its course. I heard that years ago, and it was confirmed for me this past summer. While in Europe, I caught a promo for a documentary to air on the BBC. It's title was "Are We Running Out Of Water?" You can bet that the doomsayers aren't too far away.Rogernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-68092082940668910832010-10-07T10:50:39.855-06:002010-10-07T10:50:39.855-06:00Good title :)
To prevent my head from exploding, ...Good title :)<br /><br />To prevent my head from exploding, I left a long comment at Slate.com. http://www.slate.com/id/2268920/<br /><br />Aside from rejecting self-sacrifice, my take-away from this whole issue is that reducing water usage still does nothing to help water delivery. It still does not automatically come out of our faucets, and someone still has to find a way to get it to us. <br /><br />I'm all in favor of *not being wasteful* with what is rightfully mine, but conservation per se is simply sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice.mtnrunner2https://www.blogger.com/profile/10974435572236740294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-62190009968135326092010-10-07T07:13:41.376-06:002010-10-07T07:13:41.376-06:00Gus, unfortunately, your observations and conclusi...Gus, unfortunately, your observations and conclusions are accurate. <br /><br />The shameful pretense's of environmentalism were driven home to me by Thomas L. Friedman in his shameful, Nov. 17, 2009, defense of cap-and-trade legislation:<br /><br />Friedman equated the toll of a devestating plague with the impact of Cap and Trade --- lower human demand for energy and water.<br /><br />Friedman and likeminded leaders fear ordinary Americans live too well, and as the hordes in developing nations aspire to our middle-class lifestyles, cumulative demand will deplete energy and water resources. Their solution? Saddle Americans with passed-along carbon taxes to lower current consumption and alter lifestyles, of course. No effect on leaders (e.g. Al Gore) of course, except with the masses driven out of the local resource equation Gore's supply would be more assured.Vigilishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05051789616490005367noreply@blogger.com