Creating a new thread to discuss a topic that came up in another...
liberty student, I don't mean to be hard on you here - I am using your post as a kind of a springboard to ask some questions and raise some issues that I have in general with libertarians and environmental issue. Hopefully, I won't offend you in so doing.
Here's the starter post:
liberty student: ozzy43:I'd also counsel you to be cautious in regard to your assessment of global warming. I've personally put an enormous amount of effort into studying both the science and the politics of this issue, and have concluded that the most one can say with total confidence - based on the facts and evidence - is: we just do not know. We simply do not have an adequate understanding of the global climate system to even give probabilities that make any sense. But it is entirely within the realm of possibility that human inputs ARE causing temperatures to rise, just as it is entirely within the realm of possibility that this is not occurring. Thus, to assert that it is a 'scam' is to engage in magical thinknig instead of reason or logic or fact or evidence. Oh, I believe there is global warming. I just don't believe that our exhaling is the cause of it. I also believe in global cooling, and I don't believe our exhaling is the cause of that either. The planet changes temperature. I fully believe that. As for the rest, I don't want to argue with or insult you, but I think it's pretty clear you have a perspective settled closer to warming/change=true and that's cool, it's your deal. I'm just saying, I don't have that perspective.
ozzy43:I'd also counsel you to be cautious in regard to your assessment of global warming. I've personally put an enormous amount of effort into studying both the science and the politics of this issue, and have concluded that the most one can say with total confidence - based on the facts and evidence - is: we just do not know. We simply do not have an adequate understanding of the global climate system to even give probabilities that make any sense. But it is entirely within the realm of possibility that human inputs ARE causing temperatures to rise, just as it is entirely within the realm of possibility that this is not occurring. Thus, to assert that it is a 'scam' is to engage in magical thinknig instead of reason or logic or fact or evidence.
Oh, I believe there is global warming. I just don't believe that our exhaling is the cause of it. I also believe in global cooling, and I don't believe our exhaling is the cause of that either.
The planet changes temperature. I fully believe that.
As for the rest, I don't want to argue with or insult you, but I think it's pretty clear you have a perspective settled closer to warming/change=true and that's cool, it's your deal. I'm just saying, I don't have that perspective.
First, perspective does not matter. Anthropogenic global warming (hereafter, AGW) is either factual or it is not. If I choose to disbelieve in gravity, it does not stop operating, so my perspective on it is immaterial. The question is: can I back up my perspective - my opinion - with facts and evidence OR is it a logically unjustifiable matter of faith?? In other words, can I show that my opinion matches what we do know of the reality via fact, evidence, data, or can I not?
The fact is that I have just stated that my analysis indicates that we do not know if AGW is factual or not, and yet here you say it's "pretty clear that you have a perspective settled closer to warming/change=true". Well, if by 'closer' to warming you mean 'neutral/don't know', then OK, but that's not what I think you mean. To be clear, in my mind, as I have said, AGW could well be factual, and AGW could well be non-factual, but that we (I) do not know, because the evidence - on net - does not support coming to either conclusion at this point, so if I am giving the impression that I think it is factual, I'd like to understand, so that I can correct it.
I guess this touches on the central point I wanted to make. Now, this is not directly in reponse to you, LS - this is a generalized statement.It often seems that, anyone who challenges the 'belief' (and it is per force faith based) I see all too often among ancaps and libertarians in general that AGW is bullsh*t gets categorized as an AGW-believer. That is, 'if you are not with us you are against us' (a position NO non-Statist should EVER hold, IMO, thanks to the Statist legacy of this sort of thinking!!!).
But I am not a 'believer' of anything sans evidence. Now, that does not necessarily mean that logic cannot enter into this in the form of something like Pascal's Wager, of course. One can be uncertain, and not have rock solid evidence and facts, and still make a good decision based on a chain of logic. This is part of the beauty and usefulness of logic and reason in an uncertain world where we often do not have enough data to support a decision, and to deny it is to deny that reason is as powerful as it demonstrably is. Anyone who has read Socrates/Plato knows this.So let's get away from AGW for a moment. My analysis of a different set of facts indicates that there most definitely is ongoing, human-caused, massive biodiversity loss - and this definitely will impact future generations, perhaps dramatically. But those who have not taken the time to understand just exactly what role biodiversity plays in safeguarding human survival and sustainability could not care less, of course. Just as most Americans who do not understand that the major yield enhancements that come from monoculture farming also leads to major vulnerabilities could not care less. In other words, we are not an informed and educated people, even when it comes to subjects that bear directly upon our own survival as a species. Which is just one reason my view of the future of our species is dim. We really, most of us, are sheep, yielding even a basic understanding of the things that could threaten us to our shepherds. But this point of view SHOULD BE abhorrent to anarchists, shouldn't it? We believe in taking responsibilty for ourselves, and yet from where I stand, far from it, we go along with the conservative status quo! Astonishing!
Regarding the biodiversity crisis, EO Wilson has for decades done some fiercely intelligent work and I consider the case to be compelling, by which I mean the evidence for it is abundant and clear, unlike for AGW, and the evidence against it is weak and most seems to me to be clearly ideological in nature (much like Intelligent Design Theory is an ideological theory, and not a scientific theory [not testable, nor falsifiable]).
Additionally, the geological facts of peak oil are also clear - this is inherent in the words 'finite' and 'non-renewable', after all. Doesn't take a rocket scientist (and I know, because I know a few rocket scientists). The question there is 'when'? The only possible way that peak oil is not factual is if oil is abiotic in its origin, a notion which a few geologists in Russia have been publishing, but which seems clearly flawed, according to the evidence (e.g. biomarkers which exist in all oil thus far discovered).
So because I understand that Peak Oil is not a 'theory' [more on 'what do we mean by scientific theory' here], and because I have determined that the evidence is compelling for a biodiversity crisis, both of which have immense and grave and relatively near term implications for our species, I have often been cross-categorized as an AGW-'believer'. Huh? How does the one translate to the other? It doesn't logically. But it DOES - ideologically - because, irrationally, these issues - which are distinct - are all lumped together indiscriminately. And that's the core problem, as I see it. It doesn't surprise me when Republicans do this - they're willing subjects of magical thinking and mind control. It does greatly surprise me when I see libertarians - including ancaps - do it, because they're supposed to be more rational.In other words, in general, what I see is this: any person who says - in regard to any environmental issue, not just AGW - 'there are increasingly negative ecological consequences to current human activity' generally gets branded by both libertarians and Republicans - remarkable how similar the responses are from these two groups who in such cases tend to speak as one (which is something I'd be very worried about were I one of these speakers) - as an "environmentalist" - and we all know what that's code for: Statist.
So I, an anarchist, am labeled a Statist by minarchists!?! It's so absurd as to be hilarious, and I think this as much as anything points out the ideological problem. After all, if it's not the case that an anti-Statist is a Statist, then the other half of the equation MUST - by all the rules of logic - be wrong: that an environmentalist is necessarily a Statist. And thus we come full circle: those who are not with us in believing AGW is bogus must necessarily be against us in believing it is true. This is a pernicious example of illogic and a failure to use reason.
Why do I see this clear evidence of non-reason so often among otherwise seemingly rational libertarians? Bottom line: are libertarians ACTUALLY more rational than most, as we commonly presume, or do they just happen to be ideologically aligned with a rational ideology, and therefore appear to be rational, but demonstrate that they are not, in fact, when it comes to issues like this one which manage to expose that illogic?? Now that could serve as at least the basis for a Master's Thesis, though whether poli-sci or psychology would be the question. ;-)
In a sense, this is just another way of saying, at what point do ideology and rationality necessarily part ways, and are libertarians (I use the general term for convenience) more or less ideological, i.e. more or less rational, than those with other political beliefs? I am sure most of us assume we're more rational (we sure as hell hold ourselves out to be), but I am not as sure as I used to be. In fact, it's gotten to the point where I feel the need to attach 'rational' or 'non-ideological' to whatever label I choose to give myself in regard to my political beliefs to distinguish myself from other libertarians. Non-ideological anarchist? Rational individual anarchist? Anarchic rationalist? Dunno...
So, in short, enough about belief. Enough with the magical thinking already. I don't care what anyone BELIEVES. I care what they think, and can back up with logic, fact and evidence.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
Whilst only indirectly related to the topic of this thread, this seems interesting.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Your article, Jon, sure gave me a number of inspirations on a topic I've long been pondering about. Thanks for that.
It's a useful introduction on the debate, I guess. I think the author loses the plot though when he goes into government funding of research. I don't see why this could not be done privately, especially at the amounts he is mentioning. It should be left up to individuals if they think the risk is high enough to justify the costs of such an activity.
Jon Irenicus: Whilst only indirectly related to the topic of this thread, this seems interesting. -Jon
"By implication, if we were at 3 °C of warming at the end of this century, we would be well into the 22nd century before we reached a 4 °C rise, with this associated level of cost. This is the central problem for advocates of rapid, aggressive emissions reductions. "
In other words, the ONLY implication worth considering - the "central problem" - is 'what is the impact on the economy?'
Ecological balance - which all 6B of us depend on utterly for our very lives - not worth looking into?
This is an astonishingly myopic view, in my, err, view. I consider sustainable survival to be of considerably more importance than prosperity, which is a joke anyway as long as the current State is in charge. Only the State's pets, and a few lucky folks here and there, get access to any *real* prosperity (i.e. prosperity which escapes the tax man). Additionally, it establishes the rule for treating all environmental issues the same way - as standalone issues with no interconnection to anything else that is worth considering, and only worth talking about in terms of 'will they make GDP go down and if so how much?' About what I would expect from Cato, Reason or the rest of the inside-the-Beltway crowd, most of whom are just glorified Republicans.
Sorry, but my interests extend well beyond the GDP. Life and liberty come before the pursuit of happiness - these are what seem more pressing to me, and both are under threat, in my estimation.
Don't get me wrong - his argument against State intervention is right, but for the wrong reasons. He argues on the practical grounds that such intervention would be 'too expensive' - when in fact, we all know State intervention invariably leads to a negative outcome, meaning that, if there is a problem, the State is the least competent to attempt to solve it. It's more important to stress that it will be ineffective than it is to implicitly admit it will be effective, just inefficient, which is the heart of his argument. Because this latter argument is a *judgment call* - what you deem 'too expensive' I can argue is not. But if you make the case that it's ineffective, I am left arguing that it is, and abundant historical fact, rather than just my judgment vs yours, is available.
Haven't the Cato people been accused of increasingly becoming Beltway Libertarians? It wasn't a surprise for me when the author began talking about government-funded research as that was the only option he could arrange with his (and Cato's, as seems to me) utilitarian framework.It's unfortunate indeed he didn't employ the non-aggression principle at all, but I figured that it may not be valid to use in the case of AGW since we have to engage in "GHG aggression" in order to survive (breathing). In my opinion, the Cato people are on a good road by comparing the estimated costs of AGW with the approximate economic damage of government intervention on behalf of "saving the climate". While I'd be happier to see the problem solved via non-aggression, no fruitful solution of that kind has yet appeared to me.
Yes, he's a neoclassical economist, and they tend to have a very pecuniary view of how things are. There are a number of criticisms an Austrian could raise of his paper, e.g. whether GDP can be considered equivalent to growth, whether praxeological as opposed to mere catallactic (i.e. economic) analysis is required in this case &c. But he does put the economic costs of the matter into perspective, IMO.
Jon Irenicus: Yes, he's a neoclassical economist, and they tend to have a very pecuniary view of how things are. There are a number of criticisms an Austrian could raise of his paper, e.g. whether GDP can be considered equivalent to growth, whether praxeological as opposed to mere catallactic (i.e. economic) analysis is required in this case &c. But he does put the economic costs of the matter into perspective, IMO. -Jon
Well, that all depends. From whence come his assumptions about GDP impact? From the very same IPCC report which conservatives and many libertarians regularly fault for: fatally flawed assumptions.
It hardly seems rational to say that the IPCC scientists are fudging the numbers when it comes to future temperature trends - but let's take them at their word when they forecast an even more notoriously difficult thing to forecast: economic trends. One hundred years in the future, at that!
Where is the skepticism?
In Wikipedia's section on this issue, it says:
"Many estimates of aggregate net economic costs of projected damages and benefits from climate change across the globe are now available. These are often expressed in terms of the social cost of carbon (SCC), the aggregate of future net benefits and costs, due to global warming from carbon dioxide emissions, that are discounted to the present. Peer-reviewed estimates of the SCC for 2005 have an average value of US$43 per tonne of carbon (tC) (i.e., US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide, tCO2) but the range around this mean is large. For example, in a survey of 100 estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide.)
One of the most widely noted projections on this issue is the Stern Review, a 2006 report by the former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank Nicholas Stern, predicts that climate change will have a serious impact on economic growth without mitigation. The report suggests that an investment of one percent of global GDP is required to mitigate the effects of climate change, with failure to do so risking a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP The Stern Review has been criticized by some economists, saying that Stern did not consider costs past 2200, that he used an incorrect discount rate in his calculations, and that stopping or significantly slowing climate change will require deep emission cuts everywhere. Other economists have supported Stern's approach, or argued that Stern's estimates are reasonable, even if the method by which he reached them is open to criticism. Research by Harvard Economist Martin Weitzman has suggested that structural uncertainty and low-probability high-impact risks are very important, and that "the influence on cost-benefit analysis of fat-tailed structural uncertainty about climate change, coupled with great unsureness about high-temperature damages, can outweigh the influence of discounting or anything else
But of course then others weigh in on the other side, disputing these estimates. And so it goes...
So - JUST like the theory itself, we have loads of disagreement from so-called 'experts' about its impact. Big honking surprise.
But what does suprise me is: why areallegedly rational, fact and data driven libertarians seemingly so eager to swallow what this know-nothing from Cato - which we know is a pro-State-in-some-form organization - says?
ozzy43:Additionally, the geological facts of peak oil are also clear - this is inherent in the words 'finite' and 'non-renewable', after all.
So it's not up for debate?
banned: ozzy43:Additionally, the geological facts of peak oil are also clear - this is inherent in the words 'finite' and 'non-renewable', after all. So it's not up for debate?
Sure I'm happy to debate it if you don't find this self-evident. I mean, if you have a finite, non-renewable resource and you continue to consume some portion of the total, what are your arguments that you will not someday reach the halfyway point?
While we're at it, would you like to debate gravity? How about electricity? The internal combuston engine? Whether or not 2+2 = 4 in a base 10 numbering system? You pick...
ozzy43: banned: ozzy43:Additionally, the geological facts of peak oil are also clear - this is inherent in the words 'finite' and 'non-renewable', after all. So it's not up for debate? Sure I'm happy to debate it if you don't find this self-evident. I mean, if you have a finite, non-renewable resource and you continue to consume some portion of the total, what are your arguments that you will not someday reach the halfyway point? While we're at it, would you like to debate gravity? How about electricity? The internal combuston engine? Whether or not 2+2 = 4 in a base 10 numbering system? You pick...
You didnt even click the link!
Peace
Sorry - did not realize it was a link. My bad.
So - banned - have you researched the abiotic origin theory in depth? In other words, was this the result of a quick google search, or are you seriously proposing that this theory is worthy of serious consideration? If the latter, please provide the compelling arguments as you see them, including rational justification for rejecting the findings of virtually every petroleum geologist in the world.
If the former, you have just provided a compelling example of what I have been talking about with respect to non-rational, non-fact-based, jumping to conclusions via ideology rather than reason, in which case, thanks very much.
BTW, note that my intent here is not to argue whether or not peak oil is fact, whether or not the biodiversity crisis is fact, nor the implications of either. It is not note that the high level of skepticism brought to bear upon one side of these debates is completely lacking when it comes to the other side. This indicates an ideological bias, IMO.
Having done my due diligence and looked at both sides of these issues, I am satisfied with my judgment, and I could not care less whether people here choose to believe, say, that the tooth fairy is the source of fossil fuels. I simply would point out in such a case that the rationality we (in many cases justly) celebrate ourselves for, vanishes without a trace when it comes to certain issues. That should concern every libertarian who cherishes independent thinking, IMO.
ozzy43:If the former, you have just provided a compelling example of what I have been talking about with respect to non-rational, non-fact-based, jumping to conclusions via ideology rather than reason, in which case, thanks very much.
Actually, I haven't researched it in depth, it was merely a citation that there are competing theories. And I wasn't attempting to say the abiogenic origin theory is true. But it IS debatable.
Anyways I'm neither a scientist, nor do I particularly enjoy biology or chemistry so I don't feel compelled to go read research journals on the topic or conduct my own experiments.
And frankly, I could care less. Free markets would solve the problem of peak oil and so I have no problem having it either way (petroleum being chemically renewable or being biotically created.)
The idea that we, as a collective, ought to be concerned about the future of the availability of fuel I think is entirely uncalled for.
ozzy43:including rational justification for rejecting the findings of virtually every petroleum geologist in the world.
Is an ad populum claim a rational sort of argument?
His point is that we don't have free markets presently. We have hampered ones that are significantly distorted by the state's activities.
banned: ozzy43:If the former, you have just provided a compelling example of what I have been talking about with respect to non-rational, non-fact-based, jumping to conclusions via ideology rather than reason, in which case, thanks very much. Actually, I haven't researched it in depth, it was merely a citation that there are competing theories. And I wasn't attempting to say the abiogenic origin theory is true. But it IS debatable. Anyways I'm neither a scientist, nor do I particularly enjoy biology or chemistry so I don't feel compelled to go read research journals on the topic or conduct my own experiments. And frankly, I could care less. Free markets would solve the problem of peak oil and so I have no problem having it either way (petroleum being chemically renewable or being biotically created.) ozzy43:including rational justification for rejecting the findings of virtually every petroleum geologist in the world. Is an ad populum claim a rational sort of argument?
Thanks - you have seemingly selected yourself to be my proof point. After all, I could not ask for a better example of magical thinking than this. Allow me to summarize:
You say you know nothing about chemistry or biology (though this does not stop you from commenting on "chemical renewable" oil), and you say you feel no inclination to learn about the actual facts of this matter, but still - absent any evidence or data whatsoever - you *know* that the market is capable of overcoming this particular, and by extension any and all, physical and geological limits that mankind may encounter.
That is as clear a statement of pure faith as any I have ever heard from James Dobson or Pat Robertson.
Have you considered joining the Republican Party? Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll continue...
One major problem I have with this aside from the obvious is: we don't have a free market. If you are saying that our currently heavily subsidized and regulated market (and nowhere more heavily regulated and subsidized than in the energy industry!) can yield the same exact benefits as libertarians are claiming are reserved to a free market, then you just torpedoed every practical libertarian/ancap argument for why we need to get the State out of our economic lives. Needless to say, I disagree.
Let's stipulate for a moment that the free market is indeed capable of miracles. Since we don't have one - what now?
Do you see the break in that particular chain of logic you are asserting?
Let's further stipulate that we won't have a free market in time - we can only work within the bounds of the lousy non-free market we have. In that context (i.e. the context of reality), do you now have some concerns? Or do you remain supremely confident? If so, why? The free market is not here to bail us out. What could make you continue to be confident that this is a non-issue?
BTW, if the market can do anything, why has it not - despite decades of intensive effort - managed to innovate a battery which can store sufficient energy to make an electric car economically feasible, hmmm?? The monetary rewards for accomplishing such a feat would be astronomical! I have worked with research groups which are attempting this and they are massively incentivized by the prospects of such a prize. Yet - to date - nada. And even presupposing that the wondrous market can do anything, can it do it - instantly? What if we have, say, only 2 years? Can the market accomplish all of the transitional steps and phases that it needs to accomplish in that time frame? Will there be forces working against the market in that time frame which might endanger timely completion of such a project? Does it matter what those might be?
But - miracles don't concern themselves with something as mundane as a time frame or potential obstacles. That's the clear implication here. That market can and will. Period. That's the magical assertion. Do you see that this argument not only is not based on reason or logic - but it requires the active suspension of reason and logic!
As far as being debatable, you need both sides of a debate to be able to withstand minimum scrutiny. The abiotic side cannot - this theory was conclusively disproven with data and evidence which was not available when the theory was proposed, 50 years ago but which is available now (only you would not know that, not having been motivated by a quest for 'truth' to do any due diligence). BTW, minimum scrutiny does not mean 'I found a web site that says such and such.' You have therefore failed to perform even the small amount of due diligence which is required to even come to a judgment as to whether there CAN be a legitimate debate.
But - that doesn't matter does it? As long as you can cite a web page, you can feel comfortable with the magical thinking in which you have engaged.
And that is my point. You do not KNOW - and you have made no attempt to KNOW (and you are clearly not interested in KNOWING) because it is sufficient for you to BELIEVE. The truth doesn't matter - only ideology. This is the same obstacle that I have observed in libertarians for years, and I think it is one reason (though only one, and not a primary one) why libertarianism has made so little headway. People get a whiff of the irrational ideologue and shy away.
You've been the perfect subject, and have demonstrated my point conclusively, thanks. Good luck with that faith thing.
Ozzmeister, this is a monster thread, and I started reading it, but I probably won't respond until the weekend. Didn't want you to think I was ignoring it, and thank you for accepting my friendship request!
ozzy43:You say you know nothing about chemistry or biology
I said I didn't care for the two... Of course I've only had high school level chemistry, so I won't really contest that.
ozzy43:(though this does not stop you from commenting on "chemical renewable" oil)
I raised a point of disagreement towards your universally true claim that oil is non-renewable (at least in a short term sense). Since there's still a contest as to whether or not it is, I think saying it is true beyond theory is utterly false.
ozzy43:and you say you feel no inclination to learn about the actual facts of this matter,
I said I had no inclination to delve further into abio/biogenic theories, atm. I'm trudging through Human Action and getting ready for a new semester and cant be bothered. I have read some of Gold's Deep Hot Biosphere though.
ozzy43:you *know* that the market is capable of overcoming this particular, and by extension any and all, physical and geological limits that mankind may encounter.
Do you question whether a free market can overcome peak oil? My statement was not faith based, It's fairly easy to prove.
ozzy43:If you are saying that our currently heavily subsidized and regulated market (and nowhere more heavily regulated and subsidized than in the energy industry!) can yield the same exact benefits as libertarians are claiming are reserved to a free market, then you just torpedoed every practical libertarian/ancap argument for why we need to get the State out of our economic lives.
I never said anything of the sort. But peak oil is not the problem, the problem is the group of thugs who steal and control property titles.
My statement stands.
ozzy43:As far as being debatable, you need both sides of a debate to be able to withstand minimum scrutiny. The abiotic side cannot - this theory was conclusively disproven with data and evidence which was not available when the theory was proposed, 50 years ago but which is available now (only you would not know that, not having been motivated by a quest for 'truth' to do any due diligence).
And yet, they still hold debates on something that has been thuroughly disproven. How strange.
ozzy43:and you have made no attempt to KNOW
false
ozzy43:(and you are clearly not interested in KNOWING)
Blasted Trade offs.
ozzy43:because it is sufficient for you to BELIEVE.
Is that what you BELIEVE?
ozzy43:The truth doesn't matter - only ideology.
I'm not the one who's quick to claim that there are unconditional truths in the Natural Sciences.
ozzy43:This is the same obstacle that I have observed in libertarians for years, and I think it is one reason (though only one, and not a primary one) why libertarianism has made so little headway. People get a whiff of the irrational ideologue and shy away.
Because Ad Homs are totally rational.
ozzy43:You've been the perfect subject, and have demonstrated my point conclusively, thanks. Good luck with that faith thing.
And here you demonstrate faith in my having faith in something I've already said I'm not prepared to make a conclusion on. I wish you luck as well.
So because I understand that Peak Oil is not a 'theory' [more on 'what do we mean by scientific theory' here], and because I have determined that the evidence is compelling for a biodiversity crisis, both of which have immense and grave and relatively near term implications for our species,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: So because I understand that Peak Oil is not a 'theory' [more on 'what do we mean by scientific theory' here], and because I have determined that the evidence is compelling for a biodiversity crisis, both of which have immense and grave and relatively near term implications for our species, Ecological balance - which all 6B of us depend on utterly for our very lives - not worth looking into? That is as clear a statement of pure faith as any I have ever heard from James Dobson or Pat Robertson. Have you considered joining the Republican Party? Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll continue... Ozzy, Have you considered joining the green party ? Sorry, couldn't resist...
LOL touche...nicely done...;-)
banned: And here you demonstrate faith in my having faith in something I've already said I'm not prepared to make a conclusion on. I wish you luck as well.
The conclusion you stated in your post: "Free markets would solve the problem of peak oil."
Thanks, but I don't need luck - I have reason and logic, coupled with an often maddening determination to seek truth, regardless of where it lies.
I'd guess you are not prepared to take advice from me, and I don't blame you, but nonetheless, I'll leave you with some Sir Francis Bacon in the hopes that it will register:
"The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate..."
Juan:I really don't know if peak oil's been reached or not, and AGW may be a fact. But you'd have a harder time arguing that 'ecological balance' is an objective and scientific concept - No offense intended =]
Well, perhaps - I am using the term conceptually, with no intended implication of human-ordered balance (i.e. as the eugenicists used to use it), and I think it's intuitive at that level. Ecosystems are webs of life where the individual components are interdependent. For example, it's been published by those who study such things that we've fished about 90% of the large, top-o-the-food-chain fish from the oceans. I think intuitively, most people can grasp that this is an example of humans, in just a few centuries, putting 'out of balance' a system which evolved into a stable (in terms of human lifetimes) 'ecological balance' over millions of years. Is this somehow dangerous for us? We don't know. Certainly, the fisherman who now catch the enormous number of jellyfish (their natural predators having been largely eliminated) are able to sell their catch - but they're fishing DOWN the food chain. That seems like an unsustainable situation to be in, caused by this human impact on ecological balance.
I simply think we have a responsibility to our kids and their kids not to leave them a huge mess to clean up (or maybe one that cannot be cleaned up) - and to have left them oceans with plenty of big tuna and sailfish instead of jellyfish woulda been nice.
What seems clear is that biodiversity is buffer. Strip away the buffer and you find youself in a marginally less survivable environment (analogy of monoculture farming is a good one - you need to constantly be spraying ever more chemicals to keep the plants - now utterly vulnerable - from insects and disease). Keep stripping it away, it becomes non-survivable eventually. Not rocket science.
Why do humans reproduce sexually? Because sexual reproduction keeps us a step ahead of the pathogens which are forever trying to catch up - it's an arms race. If we reproduced asexually, i.e. clones, then we'd almost certainly have died off because more of us be far more susceptible to a single strain of virus, or a single harmful bacteria. But we're not clones - the combination of father and mother grants us - diversity. Which renders us less vulnerable. No different anywhere else in nature. Reductions in diversity translates into increased vulnerability. Again, not rocket science.
Simple hyperbolic example: say we, unwittingly, somehow manage to undercut the ecosystem which supports plankton populations, and these creatures begin dying in vast numbers. That will in turn change the oxygen content of the atmosphere. Probably not good for us. But then, oxygen was a poison when it first appeared in large quantities in the atmosphere. Maybe we represent the long awaited revenge of the ancient methane breathers. ;-)
I think the following analogy is relatively apt:
We are children living in a huge glass machine, which crystal clockwork gears everywhere. We know the machine has *some* capacity for self-repair, but it's not clear to us how this works or how effective it is or where the 'weak links' might be. We know very little about how it operates (though most of us assume we know a lot more than we actually do). We do know that if it were to fail, in any of a number of ways, we would all die. So what do we do? We run around swinging sledgehammers and assuming that we won't break anything *too* important.
Our species is not 'homo sapiens' - it is 'homo sapiens sapiens' - that's how much we think of our brains - it's what we've named ourselves after, twice - wise, wise, men. Does running around swinging a sledgehammer in the glass machine that keeps you alive sound wise to you?
And what is the entity that has given us BIGGER sledgehammers and encouraged us to swing ever faster? The State, of course, which swings the biggest, fastest sledgehammer there is! Read about the toxicity and heavy metals contamination across Siberia sometime - average life span in many industrial towns is back down to under 40. Really astonishing how stupid and reckless we are - for such wise, wise men.
ozzy43:First, perspective does not matter.
Tell that to an artist!
ozzy43:Anthropogenic global warming (hereafter, AGW) is either factual or it is not.
The $100 trillion dollar question.
ozzy43:If I choose to disbelieve in gravity, it does not stop operating, so my perspective on it is immaterial.
Maybe. If you adopt a philosophy of heavy pants to explain why you don't float away, that works too.
ozzy43:Anyone who has read Socrates/Plato knows this.
My first job was at McDonalds. I didn't study Socrates or Plato. I wore heavy pants.
ozzy43:So, in short, enough about belief. Enough with the magical thinking already.
Does this mean Santa isn't real?
ozzy43:I don't care what anyone BELIEVES.
That's good, because I don't think many people care what you believe either.
ozzy43:I care what they think, and can back up with logic, fact and evidence.
In the absence of perfect knowledge (which seems to be the standard you are setting), people make guesses. They adopt stances based on imperfect information. I have done this. I don't know about AGW. I know the ice caps have more ice than they were supposed to. I know the earth has not been getting much warmer since 1998. I know in the 70s everyone was obsessed with global freezing. I know that when people like Al Gore tell us that man is evil for breathing out, and people like Gordon Brown tell us we have to reduce our food consumption as he gobbles down a 9 course lunch at the G8 meetings in Japan, something is awry.
I don't trust statists. So when they promote something with sketchy science that a lot of people are confused and concerned about, I am likely not to buy into it. Not when it oh so conveniently happens to come with a tax and regulation hit that will be devastating to mankind, and promotes the idea that man is evil and should be controlled/punished by his betters. Namely, the same Al Gore whose house needs a nuclear power plant to keep lit up, and the same Gordon Brown who has a little extra heft around his waistline, as he's taking my unfinished dinner away from me.
I appreciate you are very passionate about this topic. You are probably much more knowledgeable about it. However, I have yet to see an ironclad, irrefutable argument made for man made climate change. Oh I *believe* climate change occurs, but how much of the impact is man's, and how much of the impact is from driving, or running our air conditioners, or flatulence, I don't know, and I doubt anyone else does either.
PS, you know what I think about all of the time? How all of the big trucks on the road spill out a lot of bad air. How all of the fighter jets, tanks, and armoured personnel carriers, aircraft carriers, and battleships must not be very fuel efficient or environmentally friendly. Shame I will have to give up my car so we can keep bombing people back into the stone age. But then, I am the environmental criminal, not the state.
Peak oil might be reached soon, but I don't worry about it any more than people should have worried about peak whale oil. When something becomes to expensive due to scarcity than people move onto something else. If we have a regularly free market in oil then the transition should be pretty smooth.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Just to give you some more on this to read, here is my favorite introduction to the global warming topic.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
And, whatever is right or wrong regarding that issue in a scientific sense, what happens right now by conquering this issue to increase state power and opress people is sure wrong. This is, in my opinion, one of the biggest assaults against liberty ever.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Peak Oil is not fact, but an ideology. That oil is a finite resource seems certain, as is the fact that we would eventually run out if we continue a linear consumption curve. Of course, economics clearly shows that the consumption curve would not be linear, and thus, at least some of the fears of Peak Oil people are irrational and unwarranted.
But Peak Oil ideologists don't simply argue that we will run out of oil, but that oil is a "cheap' and powerful source of energy (energy efficient), and that running out of oil will mean chaos and disaster, a return to a pre-industrial age for humanity. They also think that we will run out of oil very soon, like within a generation.
People with more than a smattering of science (or those who think they have more than a smattering) will tell you about how much energy we get out of oil, and that no other energy source is comparable to it. Again, economics tells us that there are always substitutes (at least in the broader sense, and not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence), and shows us that economic incentives will encourage alternative energy development. If oil supplies run low, prices go up, and alternatives become more cost-effective.
There's more, but those are the points I can remember off the top of my head.
Oil as a finite resource? Fact (although there are some who mention making oil from other sources, but those, too, would be finite, although they may last longer than currently existing oil).
Peak Oil? Ideology, not fact.
As a person who is not libertarian and is somewhat knowlegable about global warming and other pressing enviromental problems, I've got to verify that liberty student is doing a pretty good job of turning me off of libertarianism in general.
I mean, if I were to go off on how free trade was stupid, arguing that the increased motivation of the American worker would more then make up the difference, then refused to read any non-Marxist economic books you'd probably go off on me for being closed minded and irrational. So how exactly is arguing that peak oil isn't a problem since the market solves everything, then refusing to read anything that didn't argue that it isn't a problem any different? How exactly is a Libertarian society going to be able to handle any sort of crisis if that's the best one of its committed members can do?
Also, just because the government is doing it doesn't make it okay. Saying the govenment is allowed to pollute, why can't I? is a school yard argument. Unless you have a realistic plan that, by maintaining or increasing your own pollution, you stop the government, I'm just going to roll my eyes at you.
Speckles: As a person who is not libertarian and is somewhat knowlegable about global warming and other pressing enviromental problems, I've got to verify that liberty student is doing a pretty good job of turning me off of libertarianism in general.
Well, you are a libertarian already, you just have to digg through the fallacies you, as we all, have learned to believe during your life :-)
Speckles: I mean, if I were to go off on how free trade was stupid, arguing that the increased motivation of the American worker would more then make up the difference, then refused to read any non-Marxist economic books you'd probably go off on me for being closed minded and irrational. So how exactly is arguing that peak oil isn't a problem since the market solves everything, then refusing to read anything that didn't argue that it isn't a problem any different? How exactly is a Libertarian society going to be able to handle any sort of crisis if that's the best one of its committed members can do?
Refusing to aquire knowledge is always a weak thing. How is a socialist, environmentalist, religious, atheist [write your favorite society here] going to be able to handle any sorts of crisis if members do not all ave the same perspective?
This is the real difference in your current point of view and ours. We do not think that everyone has to be the "new super human" being that has the same altruistic beliefs as anyone else, or, if he is not already there, needs to be "educated", which often means coerced to, at least act "as if".
We belief that there are no humans that have "the knowledege" and therefor are allowed to rule, which always means by use of force, to save the world, univers, McDonalds, the democracy, a glas of milk every day.
History shows that the central planners always failed, as there is no way to take all variables of a living system into account. Central planning and therefor, expert planners, does not work. We know from the same history, that laissez fair works. Now, works to achieve what? Works to achieve prosperity, allows for 6 billion people to live on earth, has been proven to be ingenious (planner are not invent anything they assume to go with what is already there), gave independence and toothbrushes to those people that implemented laissez fair even partially, like the US and parts of Europe. Managing the status quo is no way to evolve, it is a sure way to decline though -another lesson from history.
We libertarians believe that the individual is the the basis of all society and that societies are merely a group of individuals acting in consent. Society is not an entity with separat rights, it is a category of the mind to have a name for a group of consenting individuals. Therefor, all rights derive from the right of the individual to own itself. No rights can be valid that do not derive from this single basic right. A group can not declare to have rights, that a single person does not possess. Because you can not grant something you don't own, and because no individual owns the right to coerce others, you can not declare a right of a group to do so.
Speckles: Also, just because the government is doing it doesn't make it okay. Saying the govenment is allowed to pollute, why can't I? is a school yard argument. Unless you have a realistic plan that, by maintaining or increasing your own pollution, you stop the government, I'm just going to roll my eyes at you.
The libertarian view is not, if the government can do it I can do it too. Quite the oposite, if I do not have the right to do it, the government can't have that right too, because I can't grant it to the government. If I pollute the environment that is not in my possesion or if the pollution agresses against a third party, than this pollution is a criminal act, that requires me to compensate the violated. This is true for a single person and therefor it is true for a society.
Remember what the society did to the farmers whos property rights where agressed against by the railroads by smoke and moreover by igniting their crops through the engines spitting out burning pieces of coal? I would say, the railroad corporations where liable to the farmers, as they violated their property rights. But what happend? The judges decided, that the "common good" of having mass transportation is more important than the harm done to the farmers.
This is how a society claims rights on its own. I believe this is not justified. Because if it was, society was worth more than a single human being and therefor has the right to sacrifice you and me for any reason it wants. All society needs to do is to declare it is for the common good, and maybe have some experts arguing this to be the case. But because society is no entity in its own but only a category of mind, at the end of the day, this category boils down to a set of people - the government - that is to decide what rights you and I have. Now we have an oligarchy, that lives of the work of those not part of this elitist group. You think that is appropriate?
If I was to go into a bank and rob $ 100,000 only to give it to the needy, would that make me a rightful person instead of a thief? I doubt it. If a group of people do the same, call it taxation, now all of a sudden it is legitimate? Another slight doubt I have.
Libertarians are individualists that claim that a group has no inherent rights and that each human being owns at least itself. This is contrary to all collectivst systems, where the group -society, the state etc. - has more rights and can define rights without deriving it from the basic right of selfownership.
If you believe that the group has special rights, including the right to make rights, than you have to believe that there are either of two types of human beings, one that owns (controlls) other humans -that is the master human- and one kind that is controlled by the masters. Or you have to belief that every human being owns a part of every other human being on earth, say 1/6,000,000,000 of every human being is yours. Now as you can not controll your tiny part of all the other human beings that you own, someone would have to controll at least parts of them, and we are back to belief number one, the master and slave belief.
Only the idea that every man, and sure every woman, is a selfowner can prevent this.
Does that make sense to you?
Else I have to tell you that I want you to send me the part of yourself that I own
So how exactly is arguing that peak oil isn't a problem since the market solves everything, then refusing to read anything that didn't argue that it isn't a problem any different?
Is any of the "peak oil" literature addressed to unhampered market economies? Or is it addressed to hampered ones? Or better yet, is it addressed to "unhampered" market economies which are in effect hampered ones? Because the difference between each is radical, and if it is ignored, any such literature is pretty much a waste of time.
If you want to try to convert me, please go to the "Have we been going about it all wrong?" thread, I'm giving out pointers and stuff. If you specifically want to know why I think libertarianism makes the environment particularly vunerable to fanatics this parody sums up my argument fairly well. I'm not going to go back and forth on this issue too much in this thread though, as it's a bit off topic. I'm just going to restate that liberty student's attitude is a good way to scare people off. I'm actually sort of picking on him in the other thread too . I hope he's not too sensitive.
I'm not trying to convert you. I'm looking for rational people with an open mind. The more someone supposedly "knows" the more unlearning they have to do, and I simply do not have the patience (I lack the virtue as an individual, not as a libertarian) to do so. It's your journey, all I can do is provide some sketchy directions and wish you good luck. Each and every step is your own. It has to be that way, because I don't want you to think like me. I want you to find out the truth.