The Environmentalist Attack on Outdoorsmanship

Aaron,

If everything you say in your first post is true, then what are you worried about?

You don't need the government to prevent industry from making live possible/longer for more people, the environment will take care of all of them for you.

Seriously, what difference would it make?

Umm...when you actually learn about Objectivism and make actual arguments, I'll get back to the discussion on why Objectivism is inherently anti-environmental.

As for the burden of proof, your regurgitation of "the burden of proof" fallacy is laughable. You obviously missed the ironic position I was taking by both asking for you to prove deregulation is good for the environment and by providing links that prove the environment has been wrecked by laissez faire capitalism. And capitalist countries aren't the only culprits.

Re-read my post and then think about all the proof I piled into my response. I wasn't asserting anything. No single company has EVER enacted sound environmental policies without governement regulations or for public relations reasons.

Well said Harry Potter; although, I can't say the same for your pseudonym :)

Regarding Aaron Toscano post:
Sir—Although I commend your concision, I must insist that you mistake objectivist philosophy on a number of points. Significant among these (I would be hard pressed to say if it is most significant) is your notion that Objectivism stands against nature. Indeed, the claim that unregulated markets harm our environment is strange considering that the most devastating environmental disasters have all been perpetrated by the highly regulated communist governments—Chernobyl comes to mind. If you want people to take care of something, let them own it! (You don’t destroy your own property and when you harm someone else’s property you get sued.) It’s only the removal of ownership which leads to abuse. Therefore, if you want to be pro-environment, i.e. pro-your-environment, you ought to be pro-capitalist.

I don't have time to answer Aaron's whole comment, but one important point concerns the burden of proof fallacy. This is when a person inappropriately shifts the burden of proof. Aaron commits this error when he repeatedly calls on the author to "prove" that human actions (like watching TV, eating food, shopping, etc.) free from regulations will not cause harm to our environment. But the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim (i.e. Aaron), not with the author. It is Aaron who is arguing that people will harm our environment, unless they are hampered by regulations. Thus, the onus is on him to prove his claim.

Worse still, he wants the author to prove a negative. This means that he wants him to prove that something is not the case. This is almost always an impossible task. It's like saying: "Prove to me that there aren't aliens in the room that one cannot see, taste, touch, smell, or hear. Prove it. " One cannot prove it, but that doesn't give any credence to the claim that there are such aliens in the room. Again, the onus of proof is on the person asserting that there are aliens in the room. If he offers no credible proof that these activities harm the environment, one can safely dismiss the assertion as arbitrary.

Yo, Aaron, speaking of fear-mongering rants...

Besides the fact that there is ABSOLUTELY no such thing as a "free market," the anti-environmentalism of Objectivism is why I cannot subscribe to Objectivist philosophy. The environment is under attack from the laissez faire, Conservative lobby (think hard and you'll realize that you're BS conservatives ditto heading Rush’s fear-mongering rants) that refuses to understand that the environment has to be regulated, or else short-sighted nimrods will massage people into believing that we have infinite resources and space to consume. Well, the Earth and its resources are finite, and, if we follow Objectivism to a ‘T’, we will pave over and re-route (as in rivers and streams—look it up naysayer) our environment until there’s nothing left. I know your rant about conservationists wanting to eradicate hunting and people coming to parks is just a smokescreen for Rand’s view that the environment and all the resources in it are man’s (and she’s a misogynist, so I purposely used the masculine) domain to build what he wants. That is utter garbage. Research India, China, Russia, and even the US and look at what unregulated environmental philosophy brings. Sure, we have a greater quality of life post Industrial Revolution, but think of all the toxins and stresses we put on the environment. Think it can last? Let’s debate it.

Ayn Rand is pretty clear about her anti-environmentalism, and she makes great arguments about the benefits of industrialization extending quality and length of life (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ecologyenvironmentalmovement.html). Unfortunately, she didn’t live to see or she ignored the negative impacts of unregulated environmental abuse. Talk all you want about your “sadness” that National Parks aren’t getting enjoyed by Americans. Those Americans don’t care to explore the wilderness—hiking, fishing, soaking in the wild—because Disney and Busch Gardens are a lot more accessible. The average American is too concerned about his or her wallet (what free market…those CEOs sucked us dry) to contemplate the cataclysmic situation that would occur if species (think bees, plankton, plants, etc. before you point to polar bears and whales) were to become extinct.

Prove to us that we can all own huge flat screen TVs, gorge ourselves at buffets, buy all Wal-Mart has to offer, and live the life of a “typical” consuming American while allowing our environment to sustain itself. Prove it. Don’t give me your regurgitated Objectivist theory that no government is THE way; instead, give me an empirical argument that unregulated Capitalism is good for the environment. Don’t bring up the life expectancy stuff Rand gives us—that’s a great argument, rhetorically, but it’s old. Prove that we’ll be able to continue to breathe clean air and drink clean water while using the environment WITHOUT regulations. Prove it. I want facts and figures. There are way too many of us on this planet to continue doing business as usual. Before you say, “Well, you don’t give us any facts as to why the environment is worse without regulation,” go and look at what is happening to the following lakes and rivers: http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water_quality/quality1/1-americas-ten-m.... This is our drinking/fishing water, folks. Even if you are an Objectivist, prove that such a thing could last. Prove it. All I ask is that you prove ALL the arguments are wrong about the dire consequences of unregulated effluents. All you “outdoorsman” and fishers out there: Explain why the blue crab population in the Chesapeake Bay has decreased year after year: http://pollution-control.suite101.com/article.cfm/chesapeake_bay_pollution. Explain that. It was human-made pollution and over crabbing. I’m not saying we should get rid of crabbing, but we need to regulate it so businesses—yes, business—doesn’t over crab the Bay and destroy this resource. Sure, we eat ‘em, but, according to your “outdoorsman philosophy” that’s ok. I want us to keep eating them—I’m the REAL outdoorsman, wishing to keep the wild stocked for OUR consumption.

Personally, I’d rather live in an enlightened “social contract” where I’m protected by the state from unregulated, thinking-only-of-the-bottom-line capitalists who forget that ecology is global and, at least, eventually, pollution catches up. Let’s not return to caves, but let’s be sustainable. The track record of the corporations is bad. Don’t ape Rand’s views. Explore them, and come up with a 21st-century solution. This will require you to prove that capitalists are able to consider the environmental impact even if such a thought decreases their profit. None of you out there can refute that humans, unregulated, will not harm the environment. It is a cheaper short-run strategy to think only of the bottom line and forget the environmental impacts.

Those of you attempting to actually refute this: Don’t bog us down with your “life expectancy” or “quality of life” impacts because of industrialization—those are a given. I’m not refuting them. What I’m refuting is that a laissez faire system will not produce environmentally sound policies or business practices. As much as I hate to say it, we need the government to protect us from ourselves and our businesses.

Dejon Hamann,
The problem you refer to is the tragedy of the commons, and the only solution is privitization of the natural resource. Basically, there are two ways to prevent over-use: either have a government rationing system or private ownership. The government has no moral right to own the land, whereas a private entity utilizing unowned, unused property thereby earns the right to keep, use, and dispose of the land. This difference in moral right will be seen in the arbitrary and/or unfair practices seen in government rationing (think if the USSR's bread lines and the rampant abuses in that system). Some of us are more equal than others, according to the National Park Service; some of us get in for free if we belong to a special interest group, some of us are chosen for admission by lottery (the definition of arbitrary, which completely ignores values and the worth of the resource; private companies don't sell it's products by lottery ticket, they set the price according to their rational judgement of supply and demand), and some are chosen for admission based on our people knowing their people. These offenses are seemingly trivial in this context because it is just a recreational activity, but it has broader implications for ownership rights in society, as well as the fact that any arbitrary act by government is wrong (no matter the scope or scale of the arbitrary-ness).
Also, as a member of the NRA, I would advise you not to listen to *either* the NRA or GreenPeace on the issue of ownership rights; neither has a reasoned theory on that subject.

As a Fly Fishing Guide and self professed "Trout Bum" I subside off the general health and public access of the streams and rivers of this world. However, even within my own psyche there is most certainly an “environmentalist” and “outdoorsman” at war. As a guide and lover of nature I teach responsible use of our natural resources every day. I think there’s a great slogan rotating on ESPN or something right now: “Want to protect the outdoors? Hunt in it.” I generally agree with this edict. Learn to love something and you will learn to protect it. However, there is also the fearful individual who has seen the streams and rivers of my home state, New York, degrade and become overpopulated. That selfish inner voice wants to severely limit usage and sometimes ban the public from certain fields because I know we haven’t yet found a responsible way to collectively manage these resources. Each of these parties has a voice and forms the whole. I think we need GreenPeace just as much as we need the NRA. The radical voices of our collective humanity acting independently to form a happy medium.

Very interesting subject matter here which lies so close to my heart. Looking forward to more conversation.

I'm sorry I've only just come across this article. This is a perfect exposition on just why Environmentalism is exactly what it says on the tin - it's about preserving the environment; full stop. Not for the sake of man's enjoyment, or for the sake of 'saving man from himself'. It is simply to stop men dead in his tracks, to keep him immobile, lest he should run rampant and start 'interfering' with the natural world by trying to survive at anything above the level of subsistence.

This is a very good explanation of what is wrong with the so-called environmental movement.

As a biologist, I spent a number of happy years doing research into desert soil ecology. I do not call myself an ecologist, however, because I am a scientist--not a social reformer, and unfortunately the word has been co-opted to mean something other than studying the energy transfers in a living system. As a biologist, I am troubled by the dwindling numbers of true naturalists in the field. These numbers are dwindling because children are not getting out into nature and exploring it. One big reason for this is that a myriad of laws and regulations make it impossible for a child to go catching frogs in creeks or hunting mushrooms in the woods. These are the very experiences that form a naturalist.

These rules are often put there by so-called conservationists. And so we have a generation of biologists who have never seen their study species in it's native habitat. I can't help but wonder: Why should people be willing to pay to preserve natural resources that they cannot use and enjoy?

As the grand old man of American naturalists puts it:

"The natural world offers myriad forms of value in education, exploration, aesthetic experience, and irreplacable products and services." E.O. Wilson

We are a species on the planet.
Every species exploits its evironment for the purpose of survival. Since human beings live by their wits, I think we are equal to the challenge of enjoying the use of nature and maintaining it for future use.

I haven't met many ranchers here in NM who are eager to destroy the land from which they get their living. They are interested in exploiting it for their livelihood and also in making sure that their heirs can carry on the way of life from which they earn such bounty and pleasure.

The middle gray area. Any ideas what the right approach might be to find it? Where, between black and white, does "negative" trace fall? This is true environmentalist speak.

Part of what you say can be based on evidence, part is just black and white logic, as an environmentalist, I don't see myself as the master of the earth, but I do think people can and should be able to enjoy nature as its best without leaving a "negative" trace on it, I think with the right approach we can find the middle gray area.