Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Objectivist arguments for environmental sanity
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Ilya Shambat
Jan 30, 2012, 10:30:28 PM1/30/12
to
Many people among the followers of Ayn Rand have taken an anti-
environmental stance. As someone who has read Ayn Rand and respected
many of her ideas, I see this direction as contradictory to the intent
of her work. Here are some arguments for environmental sanity that
agree with objectivism and to which an objectivist should be able to
relate.
First, having nature in good shape is of benefit to people and impacts
greatly upon their quality of life. Everyone prefers clean air and
clean water over polluted air and water, and to protect the
environment benefits people's rational needs - such as the rational
need for health. In places such as Linfen, where air and water are not
clean, people come down with all kinds of diseases. This reduces their
quality of life and shortens their lives. To have clean air and water
is a rational and rightful human need, and to protect the integrity of
these resources is therefore a rational and life-affirming endeavor.
Secondly, having nature in a good shape benefits life and property.
When the atmosphere is flooded with greenhouse gases at the same time
as rainforests are cut down, extra carbon dioxide is created that has
nowhere to go except air and water. It goes into water, it makes water
acidic and kills the fish, damaging not only natural life but also
economic activity. It goes into the air, it destabilizes the climate
and results in floods, heat waves and other events that destroy life
and property. To protect the environment is therefore very much the
matter of defending property and life; and to fail to do so is to
destroy property and life and to therefore be guilty of
murder and theft.
Furthermore, nature itself is very intricate and complex and contains
things of greater beauty and intricacy than anything that people have
been able to devise. To blindly destroy something that one cannot
recreate is to leave the world poorer for oneself having been in it.
Nobody at this time can from scratch design a tree, much less the
Amazonian rainforest. To blindly destroy such things is to do vast
damage and to vastly impoverish the world.
People's quality of life, and human life itself, is tied deeply to the
fate of the planet. Even from the perspective of people's self-
interest it is important to defend nature. The cleanness of air and
water, the balance of the climate, and the existence of the beautiful
and intricate things that exist in nature, greatly impact upon
people's quality of life as well as upon economic activity. And
defending such things is therefore rational and ethically correct by
simple reason.
environmental stance. As someone who has read Ayn Rand and respected
many of her ideas, I see this direction as contradictory to the intent
of her work. Here are some arguments for environmental sanity that
agree with objectivism and to which an objectivist should be able to
relate.
First, having nature in good shape is of benefit to people and impacts
greatly upon their quality of life. Everyone prefers clean air and
clean water over polluted air and water, and to protect the
environment benefits people's rational needs - such as the rational
need for health. In places such as Linfen, where air and water are not
clean, people come down with all kinds of diseases. This reduces their
quality of life and shortens their lives. To have clean air and water
is a rational and rightful human need, and to protect the integrity of
these resources is therefore a rational and life-affirming endeavor.
Secondly, having nature in a good shape benefits life and property.
When the atmosphere is flooded with greenhouse gases at the same time
as rainforests are cut down, extra carbon dioxide is created that has
nowhere to go except air and water. It goes into water, it makes water
acidic and kills the fish, damaging not only natural life but also
economic activity. It goes into the air, it destabilizes the climate
and results in floods, heat waves and other events that destroy life
and property. To protect the environment is therefore very much the
matter of defending property and life; and to fail to do so is to
destroy property and life and to therefore be guilty of
murder and theft.
Furthermore, nature itself is very intricate and complex and contains
things of greater beauty and intricacy than anything that people have
been able to devise. To blindly destroy something that one cannot
recreate is to leave the world poorer for oneself having been in it.
Nobody at this time can from scratch design a tree, much less the
Amazonian rainforest. To blindly destroy such things is to do vast
damage and to vastly impoverish the world.
People's quality of life, and human life itself, is tied deeply to the
fate of the planet. Even from the perspective of people's self-
interest it is important to defend nature. The cleanness of air and
water, the balance of the climate, and the existence of the beautiful
and intricate things that exist in nature, greatly impact upon
people's quality of life as well as upon economic activity. And
defending such things is therefore rational and ethically correct by
simple reason.
Michael Gordge
Jan 31, 2012, 3:46:11 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 12:30 pm, Ilya Shambat <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As someone who has read Ayn Rand and respected
> many of her ideas,
So where are ewe going wrong?
> As someone who has read Ayn Rand and respected
> many of her ideas,
MG
David Johnston
Jan 31, 2012, 4:30:40 AM1/31/12
to
On 1/30/2012 8:30 PM, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> First, having nature in good shape is of benefit to people and impacts
> greatly upon their quality of life. Everyone prefers clean air and
> clean water over polluted air and water, and to protect the
> environment benefits people's rational needs - such as the rational
> need for health. In places such as Linfen, where air and water are not
> clean, people come down with all kinds of diseases. This reduces their
> quality of life and shortens their lives.To have clean air and water
> First, having nature in good shape is of benefit to people and impacts
> greatly upon their quality of life. Everyone prefers clean air and
> clean water over polluted air and water, and to protect the
> environment benefits people's rational needs - such as the rational
> need for health. In places such as Linfen, where air and water are not
> clean, people come down with all kinds of diseases. This reduces their
> is a rational and rightful human need, and to protect the integrity of
> these resources is therefore a rational and life-affirming endeavor.
Or you could just make sure to profitably pollute the hell out of some
> these resources is therefore a rational and life-affirming endeavor.
place far from where you live.
TheInquirer
Feb 23, 2012, 3:56:00 PM2/23/12
to
On 31/01/2012 11:30 AM, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> Many people among the followers of Ayn Rand have taken an anti-
> environmental stance. As someone who has read Ayn Rand and respected
> many of her ideas, I see this direction as contradictory to the intent
> of her work. Here are some arguments for environmental sanity that
> agree with objectivism and to which an objectivist should be able to
> relate.
...
> Many people among the followers of Ayn Rand have taken an anti-
> environmental stance. As someone who has read Ayn Rand and respected
> many of her ideas, I see this direction as contradictory to the intent
> of her work. Here are some arguments for environmental sanity that
> agree with objectivism and to which an objectivist should be able to
> relate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4
what do you think of this?
--
I ask, becos I'm curious.
0 new messages