Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Environmentalist Suicide Watch

In a previous post, I discussed a 17 year old psychiatric patient in Melbourne who was refusing to drink water because he was convinced that if he drank water, millions would die from drought caused by climate change. Doctors deemed the case to be the first known instance of "climate change delusion".

Here is a
post by British journalist Peter Foster, living in Beijing, recounting a story in which his son admonishes him not to waste water:
"Dad," he said, in that tone of voice his parents reserve for telling him off, "The shower is running. The water's getting wasted and we can't waste water in the city."
Foster then takes us on a bipolar journey through his warring psyche as he contemplates the dire fate of the children:
It was a moment that left me feeling initially depressed, then slightly proud, then faintly hopeful, then depressed all over again. Let me explain.

Depressed? Well, it's a sign of the grim times for our planet when pre-schoolers are worrying about something as basic as water, a commodity which my generation never even thought about at his age.

When I look at my kids like my son and wonder what kind of place the world will be when they are my age - about 2050 - I find myself wondering if me and my family shouldn't just open the balcony doors of my 16th floor apartment and do the planet a favour by jumping out.
Here we have an educated professional man with a wife and three kids openly contemplating the suicide of his own family in order to "do the planet a favour". What could explain such a psychotic reaction? Is this man suffering from "Climate Change Delusion"? I will leave that to the psychiatrists, but in my Climate Change Delusion post, I argued the following;

Students are being thoroughly immersed in environmentalist propaganda from a young age. They are taught that nature is intrinsically valuable, i.e., that nature is a value apart from man. Since man's nature requires him to transform nature if he is to survive, this doctrine regards man as inherently evil. This "original sin" concept is the essence of environmentalism...

...Just as those indoctrinated into a cult, a religion, or any philosophy which holds that man is evil and that the standard of morality is sacrifice, the budding environmentalist will be racked with guilt, uncertainty, and fear.

Just as Catholics are famous for the adult psychological consequences of guilt instilled at an early age, now environmentalist children will suffer the same fate - for the same essential reason. In other words, the Catholic concept of Original Sin holds that man is a sinner by nature which requires life to be spent in perpetual self-punishment (penance) to atone for this wrong doing. Similarly, as cited above, the environmentalist views man's nature as essentially evil which must lead to the same type of psychological effect. Quoting from my past post:
If one takes the tenets of environmentalism seriously, every action by any man necessarily impinges on the intrinsic value of nature. The basics of life such as eating, drinking, and shelter require consumption of plants and animals and the procurement of materials drawn from nature. Even the act of exhaling results in the emission of the satanic carbon dioxide gas, not to mention the higher forms of technology which entail the burning of fossil fuels or the fission of atoms in a nuclear power generator. To such a mind, literally every form of human action would have to be regarded as evil. The cumulative emotional effect on such a mind must be devastating...
Now if Catholics and Environmentalists would follow the lead of St. Anthony and keep their asceticism to themselves by say retreating to the desert for twenty years or by really jumping off balconies - I really wouldn't care what they think. But they don't retreat to the desert do they? No, evidently misery does love company as they want us all to suffer with them.

Foster makes another telling claim - lamenting the "grim times" that require pre-schoolers to worry about something as "basic as water, a commodity which my generation never even thought about at his age." First, he is living in Beijing - where price controls enacted by the communist state cause shortages for a vast array of goods and where individuals have no remedy against private property violations (such as pollution) caused by state owned enterprises. Second, in the developed world, when has water ever been more plentiful than it is right now? We have the technology to bottle, purify, transport or even desalinate (if need be) water on a scale unimaginable even a few decades ago. In fact, in America, you can go to Las Vegas (a desert) and watch one of the largest water shows on earth in front of the Bellagio Hotel every hour - then go inside and receive free drinks all night. Is this worse than it was one hundred or two hundred or a thousand years ago when people died of all manner of diseases, starvation, and lack of water? When exactly was this past golden age when no one thought about or worried about basic commodities like water? It is only in recent times as a result of technology and capitalism that we don't worry about water anymore - the same technology and capitalism that are under attack by environmentalists.

(As an aside: I remember seeing an environmentalist cartoon which I think captures the essence of the environmentalist mentality. It showed a kid brushing his teeth while simultaneously showing a pond with a fish. As the kid left the water running, it showed the pond draining and the fish evaporating (or something like that) - the message ostensibly being to not leave water running(?). My question then as now is: where does the water go when it goes down a drain? Does it literally disappear as this cartoon seemed to indicate? If you leave water running, does the water get sucked into space and sent away to a far off galaxy? The water goes down the drain, through a sewer, where it is usually treated and then dumped back into a lake or somewhere other than space.)

If Foster is truly worried about the water then he should move from Beijing to a developed country (without price controls) and/or support private property, technology, and capitalism, right?

The fact that my rising five-year-old is already concerned must be a hopeful sign for the future. His generation is, out of necessity, going to have to be conservation-minded. It's never too early to start, even for those privileged to grow up in an environment where they do have clean water to drink.

Depressed again? I'd love to believe in the potentially transforming powers of a collective water-consciousness among the new generation, but then I look around and find myself swamped with the hopelessness of it all. [emphasis mine]

Is it really "a hopeful sign" that five year olds are worried about water? I would say that is a bad sign. Is it really "privilege" that accounts for clean drinking water? Are some just lucky enough to be in a "clean" environment and some are not? Are Americans just lucky and privileged to have clean water available - do they have a "collective water-consciousness" or is abundance due to good ideas like the rule of law, private property, free markets, the profit motive, and the pursuit of happiness? He goes on:
I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect that when the planet is down to its last few drops of H20, the policy-wonks, businessmen and politicians that make the decisions that really affect water policy will still be sat in conferences drinking Perrier.

As the Chinese environmentalist and campaigner
Ma Jun wrote recently about a spate of chemical pollution incidents in Yancheng in Jiangsu Province in eastern China, the attitude prevails that it's okay (and inevitable) to make a mess now in the name economic development - 'better to be poisoned than poor', to coin the media slogan.

As he points out: "It is mostly the officials - who can afford to drink bottled water, live apart from polluters and eat uncontaminated foods - who think it is best to run the risk of dying. It is vulnerable social groups who suffer most from water and air pollution.

If he is really hopeless over the idea that the all powerful communist Chinese government can wantonly poison its own people and deprive them of drinking water - does it occur to him that the solution might be freedom from the Chinese government, i.e., supporting individual rights and capitalism? Does it occur to environmentalists who supposedly decry the conditions in third world countries dominated by corrupt statist dictatorships that relinquishing more power to the state in developed countries will result in corrupt statist dictatorships? The answer is that the environmentalist is above such concerns. His concern is the planet not man. Capitalism results in prosperity and life. The more human beings that get wiped out the better.

As for poor Foster who on some level does seem genuinely concerned about his children - when he is on the balcony with his family ready to jump, someone yell into the bullhorn: "Just come down and we will tell you about individual rights and free enterprise...really, I have a whole case of Aquafina right here..."

9 comments:

seine said...

Doug, well supported post.
The two false premises, this, the "finite resource" and, the "pristine nature" from your 'Climate Change Delusion', when taught to an individual with an altruistic moral code, will cause an evasion or result in mental problems in the person who tries to apply principles to life.
No human being can develop an intact ego holding a believe, that their every action is harmful to their fellow man. The guilt is simply too corrosive and inevitably such a person will hate themselves for destroying other or hate all others for destroying their quality of life.
I think that is why the leaders of the environmental movement tend to be both criminal and irrational. It is their only defense as, if they became honest they would have to kill themselves and if they became rational they drop environmentalism.

dan said...

Doug,
good post and i came here via Peter Foster's blog where you commented....but you made one small minor mistake, Peter lives in New Zealand, he was blogging from NZ, not Beijing. How did you get that wrong, it is on his blog that he is in NZ, not China. I guess in your haste and paste, you were reading too fast, as we all do online from time to time. Me too.

that said. he was joking. Drudge picked up the story the wrong way and didn't see the humor. Peter was kidding. Kidding.

but your post was good too.

btw, Doug, you might want to post and blog and link to my over the top graduation speech to the class of 2099 about cliamte change. i guess you will not like what i am saying, but blog on it pro or con, and see what i have to say:

DanNY BLOOm, Tufts 1971

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wnrm2jE-E&feature=channel_page

dan said...

DOug
now it was ME who was reading too fast online,,,Peter is in Beijing, he moved there from NZ, i didn't know that.....my bad. sorry for earlier gaffe.

danny

Doug Reich said...

Dan,

I realize (hope) that Peter would not actually jump off a balcony and was making a point. But the principle is what is important. I believe he was conveying the common environmentalist sentiment that man is "bad" for the planet. This implies the concept of "intrinsic value", i.e. that nature is a value in and of itself or apart from man. Such a philosophy logically must regard man as evil since man must use nature in order to survive, etc. which I expounded upon in the post.

Nothing is valuable intrinsically. Man's choice to live gives rise to the concept of value. I believe the doctrine of intrinsic value is a crucial premise in environmentalism and explains their destructive, anti-human policies - their rhetoric notwithstanding.

I'll check out your graduation speech. Thanks for the comment and feel free to follow up.

dan said...

Hi Doug

Thanks for your reply and here is my reply and let's keep chatting.

re:


Dan,

I believe he was conveying the common environmentalist sentiment that man is "bad" for the planet.
---------------
But Doug, I know Peter Foster and he does not feel that way, that man is bad for the planet. He loves life as much as you do. Me too. This putting all us freenies in one narrow box and saying we hate man and think man is evil is not fair or rational. I love the Earth and I love humankind deeply. And I do not feel man is evil. I am a Jewiswh optimist, eternal optimist. Yet I have made this grad speech to wake people up and i created the concept of polar cities, google it, for the same reason. Give me a fair shake.
---------------
This implies the concept of "intrinsic value", i.e. that nature is a value in and of itself or apart from man. Such a philosophy logically must regard man as evil since man must use nature in order to survive, etc. which I expounded upon in the post.

BUT DOUG, I LOVE LIFE, I LOVE HUMANKIND. MANKIND. AND yet i am deeply climate activist wake up call man. I choose to value life, yes i do. that is why i created my speech and polar cities and my lawsuit against all world leaders for manslaughter of future generations. google that too. Reuters wrote about the suit last year. It's real. CLimate change and AGW are real. Trust me. And if you disagree with me, that's cool, let's still be friends and chat. And do blog about my grad speech pro or con, and don't paint me in a corner. I am on your side, too.

DANNY\\

Nothing is valuable intrinsically. Man's choice to live gives rise to the concept of value. I believe the doctrine of intrinsic value is a crucial premise in environmentalism and explains their destructive, anti-human policies - their rhetoric notwithstanding.

I'll check out your graduation speech. Thanks for the comment and feel free to follow up.

Doug Reich said...

Danny,

Thanks for your response.

Just because one "feels" a certain way - it does not change the logical implications of their actions. For example, I'm sure many Germans felt that they were doing the right thing when they voted for Hitler. The logic underlying environmentalism's premises (as I argued in the post) lead to anti-human policies as is obvious by the actions of environmental groups which consistently side with "nature" over human interests.

For example, I lived in a place where environmental groups lobbied to stop the construction of a biotech research park in order to protect an orange grove (and won). There are thousands of such examples (in fact, I just read this a few minutes ago

http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/fish-vs-men-in-the-supreme-court/

Indeed, the entire movement is dedicated to thwarting the progress of man usually on the basis of apocalyptic pseudo-science.

If one regarded human life as the standard of value, he would see that individual rights, capitalism, and technology have brought about untold prosperity as is obvious by comparing our standard of living to any time in history. He would see that private property rights provide the basis for anyone to protect their own land and/or provide an objective basis for tort claims, i.e. lawsuits that can be brought against those who can be scientifically shown in a court of a law to be harming the plaintiff.

As to global warming, I respectfully disagree that man made global warming is "real". I have blogged about this issue for several years and you can see my lastest post by just scrolling down a few or see

http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2009/03/global-warming-petition-project.html

I would be happy to provide other links to my posts and other's if you are interested.

Here again is a good example of my point.

Quote:
A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.
****end quote

The effects of such policies are known absolutely. It will cause massive economic destruction. That is FOR SURE. Why - upon what basis - the controversial uncertain theories of climate scientists predicting the weather one hundred years from now?

To cause massive known destruction on this basis is motivated not only by poor science - it is motivated by the environmentalist philosophy which regards nature as intrinsically valuable and which logically regards man as evil by nature since we must use nature to survive.

There is an ethical component too as I have argued many times. Environmentalism is a modern remapping of the religious ethics of altruism (self-sacrifice) where God has been replaced by Earth. Altruism holds that self-sacrifice is the "good" (as opposed to self-interest and the pursuit of happiness) and dominates modern culture. The environmentalist has usurped these ethical premises and substituted Earth in place of God. That is, they wish man to sacrifice for the sake of their God - the Earth. Just as Christians admonish us to live a life of self-denial and self-punishment in service to a higher cause (God), the modern environmentalist urges us to give up modern technology and the pursuit of happiness in service to the planet.

I hope this gives you an alternative view and again, I am happy to link you to more detailed treatments of my arguments by myself or by others more lucid than I.

dan said...

Doug,
You are a gentleman and scholar and you think things through very well, I admire your spunk and your pizzaz and your intellect. I see your points and they are well taken. Now can you blog about my speech to the class of 2099 and give it the same kind of treatment, even dismissive is okay, I just want to see your POV on all this as it relates to my video speech. -- Danny

RE

"I hope this gives you an alternative view and again, I am happy to link you to more detailed treatments of my arguments by myself or by others more lucid than I."

You are a brilliant thinker. I admire your intellect. -- Danny

my video is here and is awaiting your dissection, pro or con, especially the part about "we must tighten the noose around coal". But that is okay, I like criticism, it helps me see the way more clearly, and it might even change my POV, too. Please do blog on this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wnrm2jE-E&feature=channel_page

dan said...

In other words, what would Anne Rand say about my video speech? I used to read her books in college....Tufts 1971

green said...

Hi,

We have just added your latest post "The Rational Capitalist: Environmentalist Suicide Watch" to our Directory of Environment . You can check the inclusion of the post here . We are delighted to invite you to submit all your future posts to the directory for getting a huge base of visitors to your website and gaining a valuable backlink to your site.


Warm Regards

greenatmos.com Team

http://www.greenatmos.com