Posted by tkstone 2 years, 11 months ago to Science
22 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I recently read POV The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand. She expounded in it her insight into the true motive of the green movement, anti-human, and death to man. While I agree with her assessment, I wonder sometimes if we too quickly disregard anything attached to the movement. I am a farmer and sometimes question blind industrialization. I believe it is reasonable to question long term implications of industrial methods. Animal welfare in particular is of interest to me. Industrial methods tend to disregard natural instinct, and only focus on operator or farmer considerations. Recent studies commissioned by "green" movements make some good points and suggest sound design changes that are beneficial to the animals while maintaining profitability. Most farmers I know value the life of their livestock and appreciate our place in the foodchain. My point is that we can learn from various viewpoints if we are open to reasonable dialogue and using sound judgement when evaluating systems. I do feel like Rand held this position, but sometimes question conservatives and their knee-jerk response to "green" advocates.

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ blarman 2 years, 11 months ago
    One of the best burgers I ever had came from a beef processor that took great care of their animals up to the point of slaughter. The representative selling the patties not only described their packaging methods (guaranteed fresh, individually sealed less than 2 hours after death) but the entire life cycle which included no hormones, grass until the last six months, and no antibiotics for at least a year before slaughter. When the animal was brought to slaughter, they climbed a spiraling chute which made the cattle felt part of the herd while they were being scrubbed and washed with warm water and soap. The goal was to have the cow be as relaxed as possible until the last second when they were killed with an electrical charge to the brain. To me, this process was the ultimate mix of natural and industrial and yielded the best product!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 2 years, 11 months ago
      You are describing the work of Temple Grandin.
      Engineer, woman, autistic.
      Her brilliant designs combined practicality and economy in meat processing with humane treatment of the animals.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 2 years, 10 months ago
        That was a great movie. Her autism actually helped her get into the feelings of the animals better than the cowboys who ran the slaughter houses.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 2 years, 11 months ago
    A hostile negative reaction to the green movement is justified.
    Their proposition is that any progress using materials has downside.
    The proponents jet to global scattered conferences in resorts to talk about carbon and want to restrict others from earning their living.
    In fact, the moving of materials may have beneficial, neutral or negative effects so the basic idea is fallacious.
    The crap talk about carbon is grossly illogical and ignorant.
    The more carbon (actually CO2) in the atmosphere the better, all life on earth benefits.

    -the CO2 released from burning coal and gas came from the atmosphere, it is being returned
    -of the amount of CO2 now in the atmosphere only 3% is from human activity, we need to free more
    -the green movement is an outgrowth of the national socialist movement, their ideas are based on medieval myths favoring collective authoritarianism, spirits and feudalism and are anti-life.
    In the movement today there are people who are genuine conservationists, some have left and more will follow as they wake up.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 2 years, 10 months ago
      The viro movement didn't come from the national socialists, it preceded it and helped to influence it. It began as the ecology movement in mid 19th century Germany, named by the Hegelian biologist Ernst Haeckel. In the early 1970s when it was promoted by the New Left they still called it Ecology, which is why Ayn Rand called it that in her essay. In addition to their authoritarian collectivism and anti-industry envirochondria, the early ecologists promoted the idea of rule by elites assumed to be scientists, just like the bureaucratic agencies today operating in the name of 'science'.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 2 years, 10 months ago
      Always the hidden agenda with most political groups today. One has to dissect everything they say and translate it through the hidden agenda filter.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 2 years, 10 months ago
    If it were possible to disconnect all those who believe they are saving the earth from all benefits of industrialization they might change their minds. Or their sudden removal from the gene pool might improve the planet to their desired degree. However I watch Greenpeace using its ships built of steel, driven by oil, every inch and parcel of the ship supplied by what they hate. They should only be allowed on the high seas when they can build their ships from wood that has naturally fallen into the sea (to avoid wood that should naturally rot in the forest) and supplied themselves with food only they have grown and not transported over oil roads with oil burning vehicles and they can row out to sea without the benefit of electronic navigation to hunt down those evil users of industry to harm the earth. When they are actually willing to live by the philosophy they espouse I would be willing to listen to their argument, mostly for amusement.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 2 years, 10 months ago
    Industrialization is not "blind". Individuals building industries and new methods have their own goals and values they are achieving, which they have a right to pursue. If you don't like how they do it then don't to it yourself, but you have no right to suppress them just because you prefer a different way. The viros are an ideological and political movement that is totalitarian, misanthropic and nihilistic, not just some "variety" of "viewpoints". Rejecting them as fundamentally destructive of human life and the rights of the individual is not knee-jerk.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bspielb 2 years, 10 months ago
    I agree with the need to consider all consequences of any act affecting anything and everything on earth. I think the knee-jerk reactions of conservatives is in response to the extreme positions of the climate/environmentalist cult arising from legitimate concerns.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 2 years, 10 months ago
    I'm feeling ya. I rarely eat beef anymore, but I harvest the hell out of the tuna stocks and feed my family with it. I have several vegan friends who are that way due to their concern for animal suffering. Interestingly, they don't pester me about it because I really do respect the animals and strive to treat them as humanely as possible. Hard to explain here...But, when you pull on a fish as hard as you can for over half an hour, pull it over the rail, and take in the beauty of a fat tuna it's hard to be cavalier about the death. I always give a moment of thanks, as corny as that might sound.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bassboat 2 years, 10 months ago
    The knee jerk response is due to so many things that the greenies have advocated only to be proven wrong time and again. Examples: the Ice Age predictions of the 1970's only to be followed by global warming today. The Spotted owl extinction only to find out that they were plentiful. The infamous Snail Darter only once again to be found all over the place. To question industry is another way for the green movement to stand in the way of progress. How many people will be affected by this? How many will not get a job? a cheaper food cost? a better standard of living. Sure, mistakes will be made along the way but the free market will get rid of mistakes and a higher standard of living will be the result. Quit using awsuits to stop the inevitable onslaught of mankind. You hurt many more than you help and even that is debatable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 2 years, 10 months ago
    every tried to sue the govt for abuses of freedom, liberty, freedom, the environment, power.....the list is endless...private enterprise is your highest probability of getting the best outcome....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 2 years, 11 months ago
    I agree lucky. Just stating that reason should always be used in evaluating a system. Not just assuming a proposition is wrong because it was developed by someone I disagree with on most things.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by cowboynuclear 2 years, 10 months ago
      It's a balancing act. Reason should always be used in evaluating a system, sure. But when reason has been shown so often to be missing from those propositions, the reasonable position is to assume wrong until reason is presented. The burden of proof is much higher and on them, "the green who cried 'carbon!'" == "the boy who cried wolf".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbroberg 2 years, 10 months ago
    Ecological concerns are valid. Environmental concerns are valid. I remove pests from the residence in which I live. We also had air filters installed for the ventilation system. Removal of environmentalists from my property is also valid.

    Environmental and environmentalist are separate concepts. Environmental means that which concerns the environment. Environmentalist means a host of things, but most obvious among them is the supposed ethical primacy of the natural world.

    On the one hand, "from the forest comes the ax". Human beings developed in the natural world and evolved consciousness. On the other hand, man has developed not in peaceful coexistence with nature, but has developed by employing his mind to meet the requirements of his survival. The treatment man as a kind of malignant growth upon the natural world is dependent upon unspeakable nihilism, but also upon personification of the world. The primacy of consciousness camp has attempted to strengthen their theory in a supernatural consciousness, in a social consciousness, and now in a natural consciousness. In each of these assertions, the crucial problem remains to be solved. Who has access to that consciousness?

    But the world does not "choose" what is good and bad any more than it chose the speed of sound to be less than the speed light. It is the nature of the entity in question that determines its properties. Man is (or should be) a moral being. To him alone right and wrong can be validated, to him alone the concept of ethics applies. This is not to beg the question as to whether animal abuse exists or applies. Of course, it does exist. And man should deal with animals and the environment as he should all else: with rationality.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by CircuitGuy 2 years, 11 months ago
    I don't accept everything about the green "movement", esp the part that says the environment untouched by humankind has an intrinsic value beyond what benefits people. I strongly agree with environmentalism when it means accounting for the environmental costs of our actions. This was an issue when hunter-gatherers took care to avoid over-hunting an area, but it's much much worse in a modern world with billions of people living affluent lives powered by burning fuel. Human activities are causing a mass extinction event and radically changing the climate of the planet. We should be doing our best to make an accounting of the costs and benefits of this to everyone else's property.

    Some people try to take advantage of the facts to argue we really don't have a right to our property since our actions affect others. They say we should all be one big family. At the other end of this spectrum, people just deny reality. They start with the desired answer that the world is so vast our actions don't affect one another and then find evidence to support their wish. One wonders how many people we could have on earth before these people would accept our actions affect one another.

    Rejecting that, accepting reality when it's undesirable, trying to quantify our actions and make people whole for any damage we do is right in line with what I took away from the books.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 2 years, 11 months ago
      You took a couple of hits for that. You are back to zero with my +1.

      Mary Ruwart is a pharmaceutical researcher who is active in the Libertarian Party. She has a couple of books out with a sort of "new age" viewpoint. She is not alone in starting from the premise of property rights when discussing the environment.

      We inherited a medieval English view of rivers, for instance. You can do whatever you want to the river that runs through your land. In the American West, out of necessity, a different legal theory was born. You cannot damage your neighbor's property. If the river on your land is "yours" then the part on his belongs to him and you cannot decrease its value or utility.

      Ultimately, of course, we get to a "butterfly effect." My next door neighbor might reasonably object to my nuclear-powered electrical generator. But can someone 1000 miles away complain about my wood-fueled fireplace?

      That discussion is highly important in face of the "green" movement as more pollution comes from the wood fires of poor people than the cities of the rich. Now. I say "Now" because 100 years ago, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and other cities knew "darkness at noon" as coal smoke blotted out the sky, sooted over everything, and caused lung diseases in the general population.

      It ain't easy... but it needs to be parsed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by CircuitGuy 2 years, 10 months ago
        "My next door neighbor might reasonably object to my nuclear-powered electrical generator."
        I think the best we can do is compare values. If we took basket of houses near nuclear plants and far from them, we would probably find some slight disparity. When they make the decision to build the plant, they could make everyone whole for the lost value. Maybe a $200k house turns into a $180k house. You cut the owner a $20k check. It's up to her if she wants to sell her $180k house and buy $200k house. She can do whatever she want. She's been made whole.
        "But can someone 1000 miles away complain about my wood-fueled fireplace? "
        We could do a similar calculation comparing property values in similar areas with soot pollution and without it and then work out how much each unit of wood burnt contributes. We would also add any increased global warming due to the soot's absorption of sunlight, if research indicates it's significant. Users of wood-burning stoves would weigh this cost against the cost of a filter system to capture the soot.

        "That discussion is highly important in face of the "green" movement as more pollution comes from the wood fires of poor people"
        It feels onerous to ask the poor to pay. When the industrial revolution happened, it started with inefficient processes that produced local pollution and large amounts of green house gasses. Now that industry was successful in creating enormous value and some costs to the environment, we found more efficient processes. The rich people are telling the poor people of the world they don't get the same environmental free ride during early stages of development. That's an unfortunate fact of history, though. If we give poor people a pass on pollution, esp greenhouse gases which incur costs on people living far from the poor, it's just an indirect transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo