Hi everyone, Before I get into the meat of todays responses from Gary. I want to share a picture my 4 yr. old daughter took yesterday while she was taking the lawnmower pic. I think it reminds us to stop and smell the roses look around and enjoy what we've got. Now on to the late night debate. Thanks again Gary for the thought provoking debate!On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:46 AM, Gary XXXXXXXXXXXXX wrote:
Hi Glen,
Sure, you can post my response.
I request though that you just say that I'm going to "vote for the Libertarian candidate whoever it may be; this election it is Bob Barr". Sorry for the equivocating, but alot of Libertarians (including me) have reservations regarding Barr so I'd rather it was clear that I'm voting Libertarian, rather than voting for Barr in the particular.
I just want to be clear here: I have nothing, whatsoever, against people privately doing whatever they wish, so long as they are not harming someone else. One of the Founders wrote: "Your Right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" and that's completely right, in my mind, but the problem we're facing today is that way too many people are claiming to have noses that are ten miles long.
Essentially, I don't like government becoming involved. All government business is done, at the end of the day, at the forceful point of an authoritarian gun (which is something altogether different from the point of a privately owned gun).
Our government is not designed to grant us all a guarantee that we will live to be a 105 years old, or to protect us from ourselves, and our Rights as outlined in the Constitution were purposely phrased in a particular way so that they would not be confused with entitlements, which most people confuse them for. Specifically, our Rights are defined not in terms of what we are allowed, but in terms of what government has no authority to do to us ("Congress shall make no law..."). Rights are not "government permission slips". Rather, in the Founders view, they are viewed as being "natural rights" meaning that you are not permitted them, but naturally embodied with their Freedom as something self-evident. In the same way you have skin, you have Rights. They're not permissions, they're guarantees that, if push comes to shove, you are entitled to the use of force to protect. (That, btw, is why the Second Amendment exists. It isn't to be repealed because someone might shoot a cop; it is there for the very reason that you may have to shoot a cop. You'll notice that it doesn't say "feel free to shoot cops". In fact, it expects that you will probably be killed for doing so. It only says "Yes, you have every right to have a gun.")
Many people, for example, will say "I have a Right to breath clean air". First, there really is no such thing as "clean air". If one wants to just breath in the basic components of the atmosphere their entire life, I hope they don't mind dying before they are 40 due to their complete lack of immunity and resistance. Also, one has no such "Right", but they are not necessarily excluded it either, because the Ninth amendment serves the purpose of making this clear. Basically, it says "just because a Right isn't listed here, that doesn't mean that you are being denied such a Right just because we failed to list it."
I also believe history has proven that we have had some effect on that system and the decisions and behaviors we engage in effect that system and it's course. I also think that technological advances alone won't help solve some of the challenges we are facing and will be facing as time marches on. The point of my blog is to advance such discussion and maybe give people a few ideas of what they can do to make it a little easier on the system.
First, again, this is America and you have every Right to say what you like, share those ideas with others, and engage in behavior that pleases you. There's nothing wrong, at all, with "going green", etc., so long as one puts the dividing line at believing that other people should be coerced via government into doing the same.
More to the point, in what you've written above, you've engaged in what I perceive to be a real philosophical problem with environmentalism. Namely, that "nature" and "we" are two separate things.
This philosophical problem is known as "Russell's Paradox" named for Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who came up with it. Actually, let me simplify this by giving a simpler version of the same problem called "The Barber's Paradox" because "Russell's Paradox" is a bit complicated.
Here is "The Barber's Paradox":
Suppose there is a town with just one male barber; and that every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven: some by shaving themselves, some by attending the barber. It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule: He shaves all and only those men who do not shave themselves.
Under this scenario, we can ask the following question: Does the barber shave himself?
Asking this, however, we discover that the situation presented is in fact impossible:
If the barber does not shave himself, he must abide by the rule and shave himself.
If he does shave himself, according to the rule he will not shave himself.
Here is "Russell's Paradox" (skip it if you want, "The Barber's Paradox" will do. Russell's Paradox causes headaches.)
Libraries have catalogues. Some libraries list the catalogue itself within their catalogues. Let's call these library catalogues "Type I". Other libraries do not list their own catalogue within their catalogue. Let's call these catalogues "Type II." I am the Library Director at the central, master library for my region. I have been assigned the function of creating a list of all the "Type II" libraries in my region for the regional master catalogue. I finish my task and realize that I've left something out. My library catalogue, the central catalogue, does not create a listing for its own catalogue, just like all of the other Type II libraries. So, I add my library to the list of "Type II" libraries. I return to my desk, finished with the task, when I now realize that the "Type II" listing of catalogues that do not include themselves as a catalogue entry now includes my catalogue in the listing, so it now includes itself as a catalogue entry, thereby no longer making it a "Type II" library. So, I get up yet again... and it won't be my last trip. I'll be going back and forth forever because there is no way to solve this problem.
You can't create a set of all sets that do not refer to themselves within their respective sets. If you do so, the set you just created belongs in the set. But when you put your set into the set you just created, you've destroyed the defining property of that set.
(Told ya. Apirin's in the cupboard)
So, "who cares?" and "What the Hell does this have to do with global warming?"
Global warming makes a presumption that finds itself trapped in this paradox. One system (the ecology of Earth) created an inclusive system (the system of mankind); we were not "put on" this Earth; we "came out" of it and we are not the masters of the Earth's ecology, but, in fact, a part of that ecology. That is, until it becomes inconvenient for global warming alarmists to think that way.
If we see a factory with a smokestack, we point at it and arbitrarily label it "unnatural". However, the only property the factory has that sets it apart from anything else is that it was built by humans instead of some bear or whale or bird or flower. Suddenly, humans are not part of the ecology of Earth, but foreign entities that stand above it and outside the system of it. Which is it? Are we in or are we out? If we are part of the interwoven collective of nature, then what we do is by definition part of nature. If we are not part of the interwoven collection of nature, then what are we? Alien beings? I don't think so.
One can not say that we are part of an interwoven network when if fits their needs, then suddenly decide that we are outside that network and "masters" when that argument fits their needs.
Global warming is not environmental, it is political. It is a coercive sales pitch for Socialism and if one wants to discuss the merits and demerits of socialism, that is something quite different from "The World is Ending" ideas of global warming. There is quite a difference between asserting that we are harming ourselves and that we are "harming the planet". The planet and nature, I can assure you, has fully taken us into account and it will have its way with us long before we will ever our way with it. In fact, it is now, always has and always will do with us what it intends to do. It is a complete contradiction to believe that everything in nature is good, but then make a special exception for human beings born of our own self-perception.
I've gotten carried away. Please don't misinterpret my being assertive for aggression. I enjoy the discussion and I hope you take it in the intended spirit.
Take Care,
Gary
Gary,
I totally understand your logic and have been down many of the same roads of thought you have as a result of the environmental science class I took at SUNY Albany. My philosophy with the blog is that if you can't beat them beat them(Them being, big energy, and big corporations). I want to eventually cover environmental business practices and help lead the market through free market principals and example not legislate it. Help contribute to economic evolution if you will because the minute you start labeling "Right Wing Whack-Jobs" and "Commie bastard leftie tree-huggers" it is counterproductive. Like our fore fatheres (framers of the constitution) I want to be active not apathetic in this crazy thing we label a democracy. Although I believe some legislation may be necessary because like nature everything in our society and our lives has to achieve some sort of balance. Our bodies do it everyday. Remember the old concept of homeostasis? (the body keeping it's systems up and running and in check?) Both government and Free market capitalism are needed because if one is given too much power it will run a muck. By the way Gary you should really start your own blog, you'd be good at it. Also can on cut and paste you last email in the comments section of my blog? Oh yeah check out today's posts "You're a star!" By the way it feels so good to be using my brain again for something other than being a German teacher.
Gary.....Friday July 18, at 1:07 AM
Glen,
Just found this.
Okay, I appreciate your practical outlook on the matter.
I was perusing your blog and, for instance, an electric lawn mower is a fine idea, especially for people with small yards. I'm quite skeptical regarding that websites statistics though and the comparisons drawn. As you are probably aware, statistics of that nature are not drawn from actual measurements but based on computer models that have a rotten tendency to be tweaked according to the political feelings of those who construct them. (Remind me some time to tell you about the skull measurements taken in the 19th century in Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man".)
On some of the conservative sites I visit, there is this banner ad (you've probably seen it) where it proclaims "There is enough oil under America to power 60 million cars for the next 60 years!" Of course, since there are 240 milion cars on the road in America, that oil would last us only 15 years, and we don't even know for sure that it is accessible. So, just playing devil's advocate to make a further example of political motivation.
Also, I read this book called "Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology" (Wendy and/or Sean may have read this, because I think I remember discussing it with them the last time I saw them, but I might be mixing things up.) Anyway, I reviewed it on Amazon so I won't repeat myself. (Scroll to bottom of page).
This book contains some of the themes in environmentalism that also disturb me; namely, the tendency to overemphasize the benefits of neo-luddism. I cover that in the review.
I find there to be a very disturbing subtext in modern environmentalism; a nihilistic undertone of self-hatred and misanthropy. There was a recent book that I didn't read that was very popular called "The World Without Us". Granted, this is an interesting concept, but I follow books a lot and I found it to be a bit of an oddball in terms of its popularity. I watched the History Channel documentary on it and basically it's "I Am Legend" without Robert Neville and the coldwar communist zombies. It's a documentary about weeds and decay destroying the remains of our infrastructure. I guess people find this fascinating because it puts humans "in their place" but, to me, this was not news. I've been quite aware for a long time that everything is a temporary state of affairs and that's kind of the inverse of what I was touching on in my previous email.
You, however, are not an extremist, so I'll give you some of my practical thoughts.
-Remember those old windmills that people had on farms? (Google "farm windmill" on image search). Why isn't something like that mounted on the roof of everyone's apartment building? In people's front yards? Why aren't larger windmills mounted on multistory buildings? I know that there is a serious cost prohibition in transporting wind power over power lines to municipalities, but this "windmill on a roof" option seems to me to be an easy solution that could be completely driven by the free market and be completely fostered through private property. In fact, probably the only obstacle in it's way would be, of course, government, which probably would forbid these structures as building violations. (Also, unlike RFK Jr., I happen to find the windmills aesthetically pleasing to look at.) Government should get out of the way of such alternative solutions or, at best, provide tax breaks for them. Hell, a lot of people have windmill replicas sitting in their yard or garden!
-I, like many, have apprehensions about nuclear power, but I also have apprehensions about flying and they are mostly irrational. Our Navy has nuclear subs floating around all over the place and has used nuclear power for decades without a single incident. If we are going to advance as a species and as a society, we are going to have to overcome our fears and take on our challenges and those challenges are likely to have risks, even if unlikely, that are comparable in scale to the challenges. (Obama, by the way, is the PERFECT guy to be saying this and it would serve him quite well considering the Kennedy-like place he holds in the imagination of many Americans. (Remember Kennedy saying "We're not going to do these things because they are easy, but because they are hard.") If Obama wants to start filling in the Superman outfit that has been placed on him, this would be an EXCELLENT step in the right direction. Truth be told, nuclear power would be much easier than going to the moon was. We already have the technology, but special interests keep us from using it.
-Hydroelectric power. ("Save the fish!" they'll scream)
-Regarding cars. I've watched "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and I wasn't blown away by it, to be honest. I don't think that there is a grand corporate conspiracy against electric cars, and their was also an issue with electric cars being a fire hazard ( a model named Veronica Webb had her house burned down from powering an electrical car). For now, we're stuck with oil and gas. This gets very, very involved on the grand scale so I can't give the issue proper service here. Drill. For now, we must drill. Also, if I ran the world, I would exempt commercial drivers only and totally from gas taxes and tolls, but we can't do that because it would be "unfair". Rush Limbaugh asked one of his corporate car manufacturing pals why the sell hybrids and his answer was simple: "Because they sell". If the technology and efficiency is there, car manufacturers will sell us energy efficient cars.
Sorry for running so long on these, but I like to write and it is a subject I'm interested in. I could keep this going for a hundred pages, I think. I'm actually stopping myself here.
The modern environmental movement has been overtaken by extremists who completely monopolize the discussion. There are "win-win" scenarios here, as you seem to recognize, but so many now have what I call a "sourcewatch" view of reality that it is becoming impossible to have a rational discussion. I take it that this is what you're looking to facilitate with your blog, so I will follow with interest. (Also, I've provided a video link as a P.S. It covers in a general sense some of my apprehensions.)
Take Care,
Gary
Posts
i've never heard of this other gary (pundit man), but thus far he affirms my opinions on pundits in general.
ReplyDeletehave you ever heard of the elitist theory of political science? it rings quite true (by observation, not necessarily endorsing it as right...) without the idealist pretense of pluralism.
i have enjoyed your blog thus far and will keep reading!
How did I become a "pundit"? How is that defined? Anyone who disagrees with you?
ReplyDeleteYou might find it useful in a rational discussion to make a rational refutation rather than attempting to arbitrarily sweep those with differing views into some category that is emotionally convenient for you.
Regarding this "elitist theory"; probably the best way to keep corporate domination out of our lives is to dissolve the marriage of corporations and government. One could argue, for example, that the FDA is now acting as a government arm of the pharmaceutical industry.
Other than that, let's look at the "prisoner's dilemma", game theory scenario, if you're familiar with it. Looking at this model, there can be no doubt: cooperation is a better strategy than compeitition. There's a problem, though: humans tend not to behave this way. This is the fundamental recognition that allows capitalism to work. Capitalism isn't based on the idea that everyone is a nice guy; it's based on the recognition that people can be real bastards. (This has proven true in real-life scenarios where game theory was tried out, and people have served themselves, even when they knew that their decision could be detrimental to the group.)
The reason an emphasis on individual freedom and autonomy is superior to our best collectivist intentions is that freedom also tends to isolate personal motives, shortcomings, and ruthlessness. One can only poison the water if they are all drinking from a collective source. If the water is their own property; this minimizes the potential for mass movements, tyranny, despotism and abuse by the powerful.