@AynRandInstitute The goal of environmentalism is to preserve an environment that can sustain human life. It seeks for the continuation of humanity through maintaining the environment that supports it. I ask you, do you accept that the Earth have limits to growth? There is only so much non-renewable resources to plunder....
Why is it that this person is so out of touch with the simple fact we are destroying and altering much of the place where we live. That is called common sense .The true learning won't be in those books that you use for a back drop, you are quite ignorant of common sense. Such intellectual hogwash.The world is us , not we are the world. Such an ego centered state of mind. Sure we alter the landscape but what if we are conscious of how we alter it instead of the usual selfish mindset. Hogwash
Okay, angry environmentalist will make you feel bad, so lets make the land so we can't grow food, make the air in-breathable, kill off the oceans and really piss off those pesky environmentalist. This video is a joke. Without environmentalism, every city dweller would need to wear oxygen mask's today.
ayn rand sucks and her legacy is terrible (e.g. this video, her philosophy). Nobody argues against altering nature to our needs (e.g. sustainable agriculture like permaculture). It's the exploitation and destruction of natural capital that disturbs us. If you destroy nature you'll destroy us, since we are part of nature, part of the food chain. Current practices ARE unsustainable, you can't grow forever on a finite sphere. Your economic laws are not real laws like the laws of physics!
Here's a simple idea, lets say we burn all of the oil that can possibly be formed on the earth by pressure of it. Ignoring trees sence we are destoying them any way, we would instatntly fall into a coma and die bylack of oxegen. Sure you may say but human ingenutity will sovle this problem, well create domes adn live under a gas mask, but i say why can't human enginutiy slove this promblem soon. (mind my spelling)
How long can we fill the world with dirty diapers before some future generation comes along and says, 'WTF is up with all of these dirty diapers?'. What kind of legacy do we represent?
One answer is simply not reproducing. That ends the dirty diaper issue. That's why I ask, 'Whose life?'. Do we value the unborn, the unimagined future of humanity? There seems to be a conflict there. Do we value these things or not? Is there an answer?
Oh, another place for nutcases to rant and support each other in their destructive inanity. Whenever I want to witness a bunch of nutcases ranting I just click on anything that has Ayn Rand's name attached. It's a sure-fire method of finding complete whackos ranting away.
@1368slaps I have to laugh after reading your comment as I am reminded of a story from some time ago, in which "Green Icon" Leonardo Dicaprio was doing his part for the planet by driving a Prius. The article lauded his use of commercial flights and only used private planes when "required". Not to mention his SUV and his Gigantic mansion (He does have an eco-friendly apartment in New York..how sensible!) The do as I say, not as I do attitude borders on madness, if one looks at the facts.
Let's analyze this Loser's REAL problem. And Ladies, I'm speaking to you here.... PLEASE, when you see that lonely virgin in the corner of the Student Union, PLEASE PLEASE throw him a 'mercy fuck'.
All this guy needs is to touch his first real, non-related, breast and Ayn Rand will be a memory... Heck, once he gets some vag, he'll be singing Kum Bah Yah!
@eaodak If Objectivists are such a joke, why do you waste so much time commenting on videos you hate involving a philosophy you abhor? Sounds like unintended masochism.
@eaodak Indeed, a perception of the world where everyone is against you, particularly those who disagree with you. That's a frightening sign of an antisocial personality disorder. Like I said before, get help. Get help quick.
@eaodak Hmmm, imaginary spouse, delusional perception regarding those you consider your enemy,obsessive fascination and sadistic personality. I think we're getting somewhere, but the diagnosis doesn't change
@eaodak Hmm, your delusions are worse than I thought. You also insist on using the royal "we" (ie no one will miss you), in that you assume the identity of a representative of all people. That unnatural and unhealthy level of self-absorption is indeed dangerous to you especially.
Randists are such a joke.... They peddle their charlatanism and when people laugh at the idiocy of it all and give it the zero respect it's adherents so crave, they whine, "Ad Hominem!" As if it is some sacred chant to ward off criticism.
I don't provide terribly sophisticated refutes to the Village Idiot either.
Randism is a cult for emotionally immature sociopaths.... LOL!
The only comments I see that are opposed to this video are people saying, "This guy is a fool, He's out of his mind, He's wrong!" You have absolutely no argument if your only premise is an Ad Hom attack.
Interesting perspective. I disagree with some although not all of your points. I think that there are some interesting points. However, not all environmentalists think that people should not exist, I strongly support an industrial society, I j he think that we shouldn't fry the planet, deplete the soil and wipe out most of the lifeforms. Sustainability to me is about allowing society thrive the long-term something which does not describe the current situation.
the Talowa Natives, the Hopi and others lived on this land for thousands of years maintaining the soil that nourished them, the rivers full of fish to feed them, the mountains.... We have managed to destroy it in only 160 years. Will the real savages please stand up.
This is about entitlement, thinking the earth is an Object to rape and posess, Ayn Rand has entitlment issues.
I recommend "Culture of Make Believe" by Derrick Jensen.
no living thing can achieve a zero carbon footprint...isnt that kind of obvious? the point isnt to have ZERO impact, but to be aware and considerate of how our excessive use of resources can have a negative effect on others.
and this isn't just an issue of morality, this is based in ecology and economic science as well. There is a correlation between a clean environment, health, and quality of life. no one likes radical environmentalists, and no one likes radical environmental haters either.
This guy is either completely out of his mind, or this is satire. Favorite part: "People in India and China are doing everything they can to increase their footprint."
@AaronTAB Considering he is an objectivist it is quite clear that he is so out of his mind that he has become his own parody; just like every other objectivist.
I think you increased your environmental footprint by several hundred percent just in building that massive straw man there, pal. Some pretty clumsy argumentation if you don't mind my saying. How'd you get your PhD? I'm guessing coupons.
Environmentalist talk like Nature is some kind of static entity. I'm a landscaper and I see the persistence of nature everyday. Just imagine if we didn't have lawn care or constant road and infrastructure maintenance.. Lawns would grow out of control bringing about snakes and small mammals everywhere. Plants would grow out of control destroying the whole infrastructure in a matter of years. Just look at the show "Life after People" for insight.
@CelticKraut The point obviously flew right over your head, or you just don't care. The point of environmentalism is to sustain and improve the environment from its current situation to allow for humans to remain in existence.
...as well, for all his ranting about the "angry green" guilt machine, he offers no real alternative to the eco movement, except to say "the quality of life has steadily gone up" since the 18th century. guess he forgot to mention the super slums parked next to most of the world's super cities
...as well, for all his ranting about the "angry green" guilt machine, he offers no real alternative to the eco movement, except to say "the quality of life has steadily gone up" since the 18th century. guess he forgot to mention the super slums parks next to most of the world's super cities
His rhetoric about the environmentalists...err, the angry protestors, errr the angry greens...who is going around spreading guilt about going green is what I wanna know? This guy has got pro-life conservative wingnut written all over him...you can't argue with these ppl when they set the framework for how the arguement will play out
I'm driving an SUV, while eating a big-mac in a styrofoam container! I'm promoting human life! That person taking the bus, and using re-usable or biodegradable products, well he hates life.
Yeah, I didn't think this guy was gonna come up with anything solid, but by the end of the video, i have to acknowledge his merits. Some people do indeed regurgitate environmental viewpoints as another form of misanthropy.
@acavideo The earth may be finite but what about the universe and the little we know about what's outside it. Greed is good, greed will drive us to the edges of the universe (if there are edges) in search of more to satisfy our desires; desires such as the desire to live, the desire learn and the desire to enjoy life. Now I don't know about you but I'm certainly not giving up the freedom to pursue those desires for the sake keeping everything 'untouched' by human activity.
Protecting the environment implies feeling guilty of existing? This guy should take some logic lessons. It might be possible to reach that conclusion, but his argument is nonsensical.
With the example of the CFL's, yes, they do have mercury, but that can be recycled. A CFL manufacturer should be more than willing to promote recycling of his products, not from government force, not from pretensions of altruism, but because it will give him a whole new source of a material he needs to create his product.
Applying this globally: vital resources are scarce. If we want to survive with this standard of living, we need to be a lot more conscious of the consequences of our actions.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Lest we forget that capitalism has not existed forever? This guy should learn that the problem is that this 'individuality' is defined by consumerism, and if we radically altered the economic base of society (the appropriation of nature) then indeed we would be liberated from this 'footprint'... he is not radical, just a humdrum egoist... Ayn Rand should have been shot in the face, this precious individuality is destructive.
Regarding whether organic food is healthier than conventional... it depends. We have no definitive knowledge of the long term effects of herbicides, pesticides on the human body, but the fact that these substances are designed to kill living organisms should make us cautions. What makes vegetables more nutritious is better soil health. Healthy soil= healthy plant=healthy person. Organic methods primarily are concerned with soil health, only tangentally with human health.
It's unfortunate that this speaker has followed the writing that has been approved by numerous means to appear on youtube in a "professional" manner. The reason for this, is to claim that numerous individuals are completely lost in their own righteousness that they now follow Objectivism as religion and no longer as a developing philosophy. High-end CFLs no longer contain that "dull" look; LED lights are exceedingly efficient through capitalism; savvy businessmen know resources are finite.
I completely agree with you about being born as a sinner. We learn that we are helpless and we must pay for that..
Though, I believe that the term 'footprint' should be viewed in a natural vs unnatural way. The difference between chemical/synthetical and natural sources.
Since the industrial revolution the amount of synthetics have gone over the top. Almost every item in a regular supermarket contains chemicals.
If we can avoid chemical compounds and substitute them for naturals, we go green
I would sacrifice population growth because I happen to love Nature and consider it the greatest wealth. But I see how others prefer to destroy it, to keep population growing to fuel economic growth, so that more and more products can be built in factories, and then considered obsolete and deposited in landfills a few years later. I guess thats their idea of prosperity. I sure would like to send those folks to Mars before they turn this planet into something similar.
It is unavoidable that one of these three things will be sacrificed: population growth, economical power, or a planet with biodiversity, wide expenses of pristine natural environments, a relatively stable climate and geology and enough natural resources for many centuries ahead.
Its a fact that an ecological footprint is unavoidable for every person, and also that generally speaking, the richer you are, the bigger your carbon and ecological footprints are.
What this correlates into is simply that whatever effects we are having on the planets atmosphere and biosphere or on the availability of its resources... to consider those effects undesirable, is to imply that there are too many people with economical power on the planet.
This has got to be one of my favourite videos on YouTube! Environmentalizm is nothing but a highly flawed counter-productive philosophy and it's an outrage that governments around the world are allowed to take away our freedom in order to adhere to whatever this apparantly compulsary religion preaches at us!
If we threaten ourselves environmentally then surely our best chance of overcoming it is to create a solution with our productivity (adaption, not conservation).
"Environmentalism", as it exists now, is based on mysticism, and is a grave threat to planetary health. We need a reason-based environmentalism that satisfies the short and long term needs of man in a way consistent with our knowledge of how nature works. There is no conflict between a sound environment and prosperity- since man is a living being, the latter requires the former. Nature = reality. I am an objectivist, and also an organic farmer. I don't need bad reasons to be a good steward.
Can you direct me to some information about why organic food is safer? The only arguments I have heard for it thus far were by discredited environmentalists. As a result, I thought that the organic movement was just a scam and an excuse to make people buy higher-priced produce.
I'd be really interested to see some good reasons for it.
Very well said. It is not ironic to relate environmentalist to Christianity at all, as refered below. See how Greenpeace built their Noah's Ark in 2007 to promote their global warming agenda!
If you are to alter nature for your own benefit you should do it in a way that does in fact benefit you. Our job is to seek the higher value. An object we create that causes damage beyond its own existence is not a higher value than the pre-existing state. The key here is not to go completely in one direction or another, to say make the largest possible foot print or make the smallest. The object should be to make the best footprint. To chose when it is wise to alter or to leave nature alone.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I've got nothing against altering nature to increase your own wellbeing but it is my belief that by changing certain elements within nature you are damaging the life of others within the sociaty. If in 100 years time the oceans rise and we all have a negative impact then how can the objectivists call this an achievment.
Where my belief differs from objectivists- instead of the government protecting freedoms, I think it should be there to protect market failures. Like certain types of pollution
If you would like to live a life as a lone wolf and be "self-sustaining" (whatever that means), that is for you to decide. However, individuals in a free society very often benefit from each others ability: the best example perhaps being the specialisation of labour - that every man are able to less work for the same value, or the same work for a higher value.
And btw, Mr Lockitch didn't refer to your property with "environment" -he refered to primitive, savage nature as such.
If you see yourself as a sovereign individual, why do you see trade (such letting a large-scale farm grow food, which you then trade for your money) with other inviduals as a form of dependance?
It is naturally your own choice if you want to devote long hours for very little food instead of trading for it, however it doesn't seem like the most selfish of choices, unless the food you grow has some other qualities I am not aware of.
Also, trading for "foreign oil" (such as from the Middle East) is not a 'dependance' - it is the trading of value for value, just like any other business arrangement. Now, it is true that the finances countries such as Iran make from oil is sometimes used to fund international terrorism, but that doesn't make the transaction any more 'dependant' than, say, buying treatment at a hospital.
If we are to drill for more oil, it is not in the name of 'independance', but of self-profit.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes we should increase our footprint until the planet cannot recharge oxygen, the oceans are dead, and the air is totally unfit to breath. We do not have to worry until the beer runs out,the suv's cannot be waxed,we get clover popping up through our scotts guard lawn, viagra becomes scarce, and our TV's stop showing us the series Lost. only then should we be concerned about the environment. This guy reminds me of a Catholic Priest spiritually dead but still making noise.
Speaker...if you read this, you should gain a more clear understanding of objectivism. It is certainly not anything your preaching with your emotional metaphors. Does reason not strike you as something that has fueled the green trend? Maybe we should just throw our waste out the window, you like that? I'm sure the plauge would be an incentive to achieve one's human's potential, lest he die achieving it. I am grateful that intelligence is continuing to thwart a potential ecological downfall. You?
Feel that emotional conviction? It's likely this guy is trying to make you feel bad that science is becoming more reasonably minded. I for one can only praise the individual efforts to pursue intellectually more efficient and rational ways of living. I certainly do not want to live in a garbage dump. Recycling makes me happy. Green efforts are to reduce the ecological footprint by developing more intellectual and advanced technology. Greens have all to owe to the mindlessness of human behavior.
Even if Americans decided to turn our backs on industry, even if we only grew organic food, China and India would be right there exponentially increasing the use of fossil fuels and the building of many new cities. Even if "environmentalists" are 100% right about everything, no amount of self-sacrifice will make a bit of difference. So you might as well enjoy your life and be comfortable. If you are REALLY worried, try going into engineering, and invent a means for achieving "cold" fusion.
I don't know whether you're wrong or right, but it doesn't make a difference regarding freedom. If there is exhaust, so be it. I don't believe it is without technological solution even if businessmen opt for the quick but wasteful. If you ARE right, then what is vital is *your* success in business or spreading that message especially to the people who make the choices which fundamentally shape the planet and more and more dramatically determine the future of mankind.
The president considers one of his main goals to regulate industry to help the environment. I would say that the issue is freedom, because the point of refuting the green stance is to protect individual rights from infringement by government regulation.
There can be no unprincipled stand against government regulation in this realm. Either you are for it - you're an environmentalist - or you are pro industry. And the most productive beneficial technology FOR the better earth is a result of the freedom. A system that seeks to regulate a clean earth into existence by stopping all industry to end the necessary exhaust is the true stupidity here. Industrial existence has consequences (exhaust) but the solution remains freedom and therefore industry.
That is true. But how much more efficiant is an industry who can (without sacrafice) produce a product which is reusable and has the least amount of negative impact? If an industry can manage to create reuseable products without jeprodizing the quality of that product, you maximize capitol. This issue is not you either build huge smokey industrial buildings or you live like Swiss Family Robinson. All efforts made under this standard will always fail, because its false bifurcation.
I will take the Virtue of Selishness to a knew level. I 'selfishly' want to live on a clean earth that has decent drinking water and hormone free food. Even if I did not give a rat's a@# about other people, or my children, selfishly I would want to see clean energy and the world lit up by natural resources like the sun. Like the 'DR.' in the video, I am an ignorant, selfish jerk, I just have different desires.
Although I am an Objectivist, I have to agree that this video's arguements are fairly weak. Why not use some cloth diapers and a few discardable ones? I also think that the 'environmentalists' being addressed here represent only a portion of those concerned with pollution and overall waste. We should be concerned about the negative impacts of our products on this earth. It is logically consistent with rational values because it relates to the quality of mans life and needs no sacrafice.
Although I fully agree with the first two points, most of this video is retarded. "Pollute, because you can, because unsustainability is just a myth". Damn that's stupid.
OMG, this is the stupiest thing I have ever heard. It´s not about what kind of diapers you buy for your children. It´s the fact that doing at least something, even the smalliest thing can help. People don´t expect you as a person to save the entire planet by giving up your own comfort that serves your need. People expect the big guy to do that, the big countries and companies not YOU.
I understand that nothing will ever seem "good enough", but that still doesn't counter the practical good of environmentalism.
It is good to preserve the fragile environment we have developed to thrive in.
We only have one planet anyhow.
Wind farms have a footprint, but it's a step in the right direction.
I don't think it's reasonable to say the down side to this is that moving in the right direction will create some apocalyptic tendency in us that will destroy human civilization eventually.
It's worth pointing out just how much Environmentalism has invaded and is currently invading the culture. I cite the anime (yes, seriously) Eureka Seven for prime example in both technical philosophy and cultural impact. The anime explicitly advocates all the environmentalist primaries, Gaia theory, and even goes as far as to reach Immanuel Kant and innovate a hybrid of ideas. This show is seen (and generally liked) by plenty of young kids in America, and our future is looking darker than ever.
Unfortunately Objectivists present no hard data on our impact on the environment. I have yet to see any research by them on how the use of oil is the pivotal point on which 20th century industrial progress was made and the massive population explosion that technology based on oil permitted.
True, while average standards of living (let's say, measured by people who get enough food to survive/day) have risen along with population, so has inequality. And if you create negative opportunity for people, you are imposing your twisted values on them, forcing them into situations they would rather not be (according to Rand).
i'd also like to know... environmentalists always talk about the beauty of nature... is it? i mean does a flower smell good if no humans are around to smell it? is yosemite or the grand canyon beautiful without any humans or evaluate as being beautiful. for what reason are trees or dirt or rock or animals more important than humans? i totally agree with this man, and my dream is to see environmentalism completely collapse in my life time it is the most immoral philosophy i have ever heard of.
The rational man will understand that it is proper to his health and virtue to exploit every oxygen atom, every protein filled animal, every useful plant in dedicated furtherance to his own life. Environmentalism is anti life, anti capitalism, anti freedom, and ironically anti nature if only because you are one of its products which due to its chosen stagnation became determined to act in discordance with its own very nature of being.
By the way organisms and natural processes like volcanoes expel more greenhouse gasses, like carbon and methane, than do all human activity combined. This is how the natural process works, and man faces the alternative of acting in support of his life or not. To say that he may only exert effort corresponding to the virtue of the collective is to restrain him. Nature "values" you and your activity in terms only of your own nutritive content in unnoticed furtherance of its activity.
Don't spit "intrinsic value" or try to regulate at what length anyone decides to further their own happiness. If you feel things of value to you are being rapidly privatized, what have you done to earn them as your possession? Beg for the conceding hand-out of the person next to you? You want better technology then begin your work to make it, don't advocate a stop on the process we have because it doesn't meet your standard.
Pollution is, and has always been, a pure technicality. It is "solved" with technological advance and requires no _government intervention_. People will always choose the better product. Whether it's durability, functions, color, design OR less energy consumption/recyclability.
Environmentalism is crap and the step between "green supporter" and the human hating ideologists is _not_ very far.
I don't understand why we can only have one or the other. All I want is a balance between the two. If we continue doing business as usual, we'll forever lose much of the natural world (species will go extinct, rain forests will disappear, the oceans will become more and more depleted, and corral reefs will continue to die). That isn't trading value for value, that's taking away from me something I value. Green technology trades value for value: technology for less impact.
I have been fortunate enough to see much of the natural world. I've seen the rain forests in Africa and New Zealand and saw Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe. I saw lions, elephants, giraffes, zebras and many more in Africa. I've explored the American West and it's national parks and went scuba diving in the gulf of Thailand. It's a shame that so much of sea life and the natural world is dieing off. I *value* the natural world just as much as I value civilization and human culture....
I think it's good that every solution is criticized. Without that, we wont see progress in improving our technology. Switching over to green technology is very new and has only really caught on in the past 2 or 3 years. That isn't a very long time compared to how long our current Industrialization has had time to grow and fully integrate into or lives. It will take a long time to completely replace it with better alternatives.
This is a straw man if I ever heard one: Taking the worst examples of environmentalism (the extremist anti-civilization, anti-humanity) and classifying ALL environmentalism like that. The moderate environmentalist wants a world where we have a balance between civilization and civilization's impact on the natural world. We *value* the natural world and don't think it's worth sacrificing it all to human production. That's why we want better solutions to our problems.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This guy forgot to mention the interesting fact that while No Environmental Footprint = No Life, it is also true that being an Objectivist = No Life. This is what happens when you spend too long listening to Rush in your mom's basement.
i guarantee you this man disagrees with rush just as much as he does with an environmentalist. you are obviously uneducated about either objectivism or rush limbaugh. oh also i'd like to point out that when somebody can't refute facts they stoop to poking fun.
chill out i never knew about objectivism till a few years ago. and stop commenting on this video if you just came here to be a little bitch to everyone. its boring.
seeing as how youre healthy to sit here and type, enjoy the luxury of a computer w internet and most likely a home around it, im thinking your 'ecosystem' is doing just fine. besides humans put less greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere than do all other plants animals, volcanoes, etc.
what you are forgetting is that even though pollution does have health consequences, the result of industrialization increases the standard of living and life expectancy.
"what you are forgetting is that even though pollution does have health consequences, the result of industrialization increases the standard of living and life expectancy."
Uhm, no, I'm not forgetting that. What you're doing is a FALSE DICHOTOMY, it's a fallacy.
We can BOTH industrialize AND regulate pollution! The US manages better than China at least, thanks to regulatory agencies like the EPA that conservatives try to gut!
I'm not too big on environmentalism myself but I can see a lot of problems with this way of thinking. For example, China and india are putting so much crap in the air because that's all they have.
A couple of months ago I found a website online for children. It asked the kids question about actions that would contribute to their carbon footprint. At the end it showed what their carbon footprint was and WHAT YEAR THEY SHOULD DIE with the given amount of carbon output.....
And the commenter below says objectivists have a psychosis?
The powers that be love to feed us fear & guilt to make us weak. I love this video's message, however I do think that the way we treat the earth is extremely disrespectful, for example, using paper towels instead of rags made from unwanted items. Much of the disrespect comes from laziness. While my heart tells me that we're not treating our home, the earth, kindly, I know that the science we're sold by mainstream media is paid for by those who certainly don't have our best interests at heart.
...not sacrificing it. Environmentalism is also a branch of science, which does not seek to feed guilt into people as one of it's purposes. It seems obvious to me that if humans continue to produce by the same means it does today, we won't a world to live in. So why not replace the old system for a more efficient one. The oil is going to run out, that is a fact, and more, it is an inevitability.
Environmentalism is not a science. Ecology is, perhaps you're thinking of that. But environmentalism is simply an ideology bent on making human life impossible.
And yes, the oil is going to run out. Big deal. Let's use it up! The earth certainly isn't using it.
When the term "environment footprint" is used, it's not used as a condemnation of guilt on humanity. Environmentalism seeks to decrease humanities burden on nature FOR our own benefit. And certainly it does not preach that humans should be killed to achieve that goal. Ayn Rand advocated for reason right? Then why is developing renewable energy a bad thing if the alternative will lead to the destruction of nature and of us? Logically, this is promoting humanity...(cont.)
Good point. We have to go to higher, cleaner technologies through try & error procedure but on the way if we have better solutions we can apply them. High levels of living will be achieved when we master the cooperation with nature. There is no doubt that industrialists thought just profits thus created hard line environmentalists. Just learn to share resources and do not let a single being (At least human and animal) to receive harm needlessly; that will be good start.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Equating green philosophy with the tennets of spiritual religion is disgusting. Green philosophy is an objective philosophy. Don't try to tie it in to some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo belief system that deals with anything but the future ecological status of the planet.
environmentalism is based on doomsday prophecies that never come true and blind faith in the belief that nature has intrinsic value and that man shouldn't touch it. The status of the planet is a mass of resources for man to exploit for his survival. That is the method of man's survival; using nature to shape into his values.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Absolute horseshit. I can't believe what I'm reading. "Doomsday prophesies"? As if reducing the pollution in the atmosphere for the sake of future generations would be something that'd be AGAINST Man's self-interest. Get your mug out of Atlas Shrugged and take a look at the damage we, a tiny species out of millions, have been doing for a tiny spectrum of the planet's remaining lifetime. "Doomsday prophesies"! You should be ashamed of yourself.
KajiCarson, there was more pollution and dirty inhuman 3rd world living conditions before large scale capitalism. We are much more greener and cleaner today and will be much more in the future thanks less polluting and efficient technology created through profit motivated competition of private companies.
Forcing smaller footprints guarantees all the catastrophes of exponential growth in a world of finite resources.
@shovelcharge But Rand champions notions of intrinsic value, in that an individual's value, according to her, is self-determined, and need not serve a purpose external to itself. This is itself an article of faith. Why is it superior to the belief that nature has intrinsic value?
The error you make is, that you assume that environmentalists want everyone to have a zero foot-print. That is not the case.
They want to reach a state of homeostasis, so that human life can go on on this earth. To reach that the footprint has to be limited, but not zero.
Ayn Rand said, that government is there to protect the individual from force. If my neighbour burns plastic and I get cancer from the dioxins that is a form of violence and should therefore be prohibited through the government.
No. Man must have unlimited growth in order to live. There cannot be any limits or plateaus. Man must always improve and become more advanced, or he dies. He either makes more and more scientific and technological innovations, or we return to the middle ages and die from starvation, plagues, witch-hunts, dictatorship.
You sound like you have a dictator pointing a gun at your head right now, buddy. Why the zealousness? You think if mankind would cut back on the flames for his barbecue you would end up trimming Hitler II's moustage? Give me a break, you fucking priest.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this guy is retarded
he makes an example of mistakes made by the environmental movement and then says therefore it's worthless
this is blatantly a straw man fallacy
then ad hominem circumstantial fallacy saying the enviromental movement has a stake in it, this might be true but it doesn't mean the core point is right or wrong
no environmentalist should say you should be guilty just to exist, it's a basic case of CLEANING UP YOUR OWN MESS
Think of the actual human side of most concerns environmentalists have and more often than not there's a market solution. People would probably be less wasteful if sanitation were private and they had to pay the real cost of the land and the shipping of their garbage. The same goes for many private companies that extract possibly sustainable natural resources more recklessly than they probably would if they owned the propery and had a vested interest in future use or reselling it.
Don't listen to this guy; he's got several copies of several books in his shelf. I know you love Ayn Rand mister, but eight copies of Introduction To Objectivst Epistemology? What a nut.
Seriously, there's no ad hominen attacks here. Anyone following the environmentalist movement knows what he's refering to. And what exactly is a "logical but absurd" arguement?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This 'video op-ed' is nothing more than narrow sophistry for irresponsible behavior and willful ignorance. Keith resorts to the ad hominem implicitly and explicitly and follows a logical, yet absurd argument to its inevitable point.
Just a quick question, for the sake of argument, if you will. Why do I care about species going extinct?
I will grant you that the extinction of a species is undesirable and should not be actively sought, but if it happens as a result of our existence and the use of our inventiveness and industriousness, how is it any different than if it came about by natural selection?
It is always said that man is a part of nature, yet if we behave according to OUR nature, how can you condemn the outcome?
Ah yes - I don't, but you're picking and choosing. If you want to minimize your impact on nature, I'm not going to stop you, if that's what you want to do.
The point is, if I value scientific and industrial progress over environmental concerns and would choose to live accordingly (as I do), I'm pretty sure that people of convictions not dissimilar to yours would condemn me.
You think the values you stated are more desirable than mine, well - I disagree.
Just to be clear though. When I talk about human nature, I mean things like intellectual inventiveness and industriousness. It seems that the assumption is that I'm talking about reckless, self-destructing hedonism - that is not the case.
Whatever comes of these qualities I mentioned should not be considered bad, since they are unquestionably qualities that we were endowed with by nature. Their application can therefore not go against nature.
Also, understand that, industrious people in charge of large scale polluting machines are not always simply polluting their own environment. In many cases, the mercury, carbon dioxide, methane, etc. float around and directly affect people who have no other relationship to this entrepreneur. Then it isn't just a rhetorical disagreement. In this case, even if this machine made cement (a real situation happening near me), then the health impact outweighs the need for the product.
A point with which you could easily SAY that you disagree, but, would you rather eat mercury-laced fish, or drive on an dirt road?
The neglect of reality has created a real dilemma.
If you're going to value inventiveness, you should be working to actually enhance life. I'm not saying throw away your iphone, or stop making roads. I'm saying recycle your iphone when you're done and figure out either a better way to make concrete or a cleaner substance with which to make roads.
Environmentalists are all assholes who want to destroy people's liberties through government coercion.
UltraConservative298 2 days ago
@AynRandInstitute The goal of environmentalism is to preserve an environment that can sustain human life. It seeks for the continuation of humanity through maintaining the environment that supports it. I ask you, do you accept that the Earth have limits to growth? There is only so much non-renewable resources to plunder....
pgdevil 2 months ago
Nice!
So the essence of this Video is:
"The greens make you feel guilty about destroying the planet, we don't. So come and adopt our point of view and feel no guilt anymore."
HiltownJoe 4 months ago
Just what I thought, mean nasty people. Thank you for pointing this out so clearly.
olliearl 6 months ago
This Dr. Keith Lockitch at his best! Highly recommended!
Wejer3 6 months ago
Why is it that this person is so out of touch with the simple fact we are destroying and altering much of the place where we live. That is called common sense .The true learning won't be in those books that you use for a back drop, you are quite ignorant of common sense. Such intellectual hogwash.The world is us , not we are the world. Such an ego centered state of mind. Sure we alter the landscape but what if we are conscious of how we alter it instead of the usual selfish mindset. Hogwash
olliearl 7 months ago
@olliearl Climb back into your gutter, bum. This video is not for you.
Wejer3 6 months ago
Okay, angry environmentalist will make you feel bad, so lets make the land so we can't grow food, make the air in-breathable, kill off the oceans and really piss off those pesky environmentalist. This video is a joke. Without environmentalism, every city dweller would need to wear oxygen mask's today.
ShenFromTerraTraba 9 months ago
ayn rand sucks and her legacy is terrible (e.g. this video, her philosophy). Nobody argues against altering nature to our needs (e.g. sustainable agriculture like permaculture). It's the exploitation and destruction of natural capital that disturbs us. If you destroy nature you'll destroy us, since we are part of nature, part of the food chain. Current practices ARE unsustainable, you can't grow forever on a finite sphere. Your economic laws are not real laws like the laws of physics!
Biostrath 9 months ago
Here's a simple idea, lets say we burn all of the oil that can possibly be formed on the earth by pressure of it. Ignoring trees sence we are destoying them any way, we would instatntly fall into a coma and die bylack of oxegen. Sure you may say but human ingenutity will sovle this problem, well create domes adn live under a gas mask, but i say why can't human enginutiy slove this promblem soon. (mind my spelling)
lennaylennay2 11 months ago
A philosophy that values human life? Whose life?
How long can we fill the world with dirty diapers before some future generation comes along and says, 'WTF is up with all of these dirty diapers?'. What kind of legacy do we represent?
One answer is simply not reproducing. That ends the dirty diaper issue. That's why I ask, 'Whose life?'. Do we value the unborn, the unimagined future of humanity? There seems to be a conflict there. Do we value these things or not? Is there an answer?
SBRslacker00 11 months ago
Oh, another place for nutcases to rant and support each other in their destructive inanity. Whenever I want to witness a bunch of nutcases ranting I just click on anything that has Ayn Rand's name attached. It's a sure-fire method of finding complete whackos ranting away.
quoidanslemondequoi 1 year ago
@quoidanslemondequoi Nothing is more destructive than Environmentalism
linghun 1 year ago
@1368slaps I have to laugh after reading your comment as I am reminded of a story from some time ago, in which "Green Icon" Leonardo Dicaprio was doing his part for the planet by driving a Prius. The article lauded his use of commercial flights and only used private planes when "required". Not to mention his SUV and his Gigantic mansion (He does have an eco-friendly apartment in New York..how sensible!) The do as I say, not as I do attitude borders on madness, if one looks at the facts.
kev3d 1 year ago
This loser would be hard pressed to be a bigger, whinier Douche Bag....
eaodak 1 year ago
Let's analyze this Loser's REAL problem. And Ladies, I'm speaking to you here.... PLEASE, when you see that lonely virgin in the corner of the Student Union, PLEASE PLEASE throw him a 'mercy fuck'.
All this guy needs is to touch his first real, non-related, breast and Ayn Rand will be a memory... Heck, once he gets some vag, he'll be singing Kum Bah Yah!
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak If Objectivists are such a joke, why do you waste so much time commenting on videos you hate involving a philosophy you abhor? Sounds like unintended masochism.
FreeEcon 1 year ago
@FreeEcon I have a character failing, I like to tease socially disenfranchised people. Especially when they are in a cult.... Free Country!
BTW, Randism is an ideology, not a philosophy. Seems your wrong again.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak A guilty pleasure is playful pastime. An obsession is a psychological and mental illness. Get help
FreeEcon 1 year ago
@FreeEcon Thanks for the advice Cultist. Get deprogrammed and we can talk. Before then, I think you need the help, Loser.
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Indeed, a perception of the world where everyone is against you, particularly those who disagree with you. That's a frightening sign of an antisocial personality disorder. Like I said before, get help. Get help quick.
FreeEcon 1 year ago
@eaodak For your information, Ayn Rand is wrong on almost every issue, but that doesn't make you any less mentally ill.
FreeEcon 1 year ago
@FreeEcon Yawn... Thanks amateur psychologist, but of course since my wife is an actual psychiatrist, she may disagree...
You must be the pride of your trailer park Loser. Lotsa luck asshole!
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Hmmm, imaginary spouse, delusional perception regarding those you consider your enemy,obsessive fascination and sadistic personality. I think we're getting somewhere, but the diagnosis doesn't change
FreeEcon 1 year ago
Comment removed
eaodak 1 year ago
@FreeEcon Freeecon eh? Let me guess, you made up this account on Dec 9 because you are too much of a pussy in your regular account.
So not only are you a Loser, not you are a pathetic Loser.
Go shoot yourself in the face, no one will miss you. LOL!
eaodak 1 year ago
@eaodak Hmm, your delusions are worse than I thought. You also insist on using the royal "we" (ie no one will miss you), in that you assume the identity of a representative of all people. That unnatural and unhealthy level of self-absorption is indeed dangerous to you especially.
FreeEcon 1 year ago
@FreeEcon Ok GoingGoingGalt, whatever you say....
Say, have you lost that Virginity yet? Clearly not...
eaodak 1 year ago
Randists are such a joke.... They peddle their charlatanism and when people laugh at the idiocy of it all and give it the zero respect it's adherents so crave, they whine, "Ad Hominem!" As if it is some sacred chant to ward off criticism.
I don't provide terribly sophisticated refutes to the Village Idiot either.
Randism is a cult for emotionally immature sociopaths.... LOL!
eaodak 1 year ago
The only comments I see that are opposed to this video are people saying, "This guy is a fool, He's out of his mind, He's wrong!" You have absolutely no argument if your only premise is an Ad Hom attack.
unseenxxx 1 year ago 3
@unseenxxx well i think you ought to read the opposing responses more carefully
21piecesofBlue 1 year ago
Hi,
Interesting perspective. I disagree with some although not all of your points. I think that there are some interesting points. However, not all environmentalists think that people should not exist, I strongly support an industrial society, I j he think that we shouldn't fry the planet, deplete the soil and wipe out most of the lifeforms. Sustainability to me is about allowing society thrive the long-term something which does not describe the current situation.
tcheneyhg 1 year ago
the Talowa Natives, the Hopi and others lived on this land for thousands of years maintaining the soil that nourished them, the rivers full of fish to feed them, the mountains.... We have managed to destroy it in only 160 years. Will the real savages please stand up.
This is about entitlement, thinking the earth is an Object to rape and posess, Ayn Rand has entitlment issues.
I recommend "Culture of Make Believe" by Derrick Jensen.
ethor5 1 year ago
Wrong!!!
jjoneill777 1 year ago
no living thing can achieve a zero carbon footprint...isnt that kind of obvious? the point isnt to have ZERO impact, but to be aware and considerate of how our excessive use of resources can have a negative effect on others.
and this isn't just an issue of morality, this is based in ecology and economic science as well. There is a correlation between a clean environment, health, and quality of life. no one likes radical environmentalists, and no one likes radical environmental haters either.
21piecesofBlue 1 year ago
This guy is either completely out of his mind, or this is satire. Favorite part: "People in India and China are doing everything they can to increase their footprint."
AaronTAB 1 year ago
@AaronTAB Considering he is an objectivist it is quite clear that he is so out of his mind that he has become his own parody; just like every other objectivist.
GuyMontag92 1 year ago
I think you increased your environmental footprint by several hundred percent just in building that massive straw man there, pal. Some pretty clumsy argumentation if you don't mind my saying. How'd you get your PhD? I'm guessing coupons.
1979lazarusmorell 1 year ago
What's with this guy??? lol he's a fool... An absolute fool...
annoythis 1 year ago
@annoythis I think some green acts are to sustain human wellbeing not just save trees.
tcheneyhg 1 year ago
Environmentalist talk like Nature is some kind of static entity. I'm a landscaper and I see the persistence of nature everyday. Just imagine if we didn't have lawn care or constant road and infrastructure maintenance.. Lawns would grow out of control bringing about snakes and small mammals everywhere. Plants would grow out of control destroying the whole infrastructure in a matter of years. Just look at the show "Life after People" for insight.
CelticKraut 1 year ago
@CelticKraut The point obviously flew right over your head, or you just don't care. The point of environmentalism is to sustain and improve the environment from its current situation to allow for humans to remain in existence.
TheHerbulator 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
...as well, for all his ranting about the "angry green" guilt machine, he offers no real alternative to the eco movement, except to say "the quality of life has steadily gone up" since the 18th century. guess he forgot to mention the super slums parked next to most of the world's super cities
mycalezz 1 year ago
...as well, for all his ranting about the "angry green" guilt machine, he offers no real alternative to the eco movement, except to say "the quality of life has steadily gone up" since the 18th century. guess he forgot to mention the super slums parks next to most of the world's super cities
mycalezz 1 year ago
His rhetoric about the environmentalists...err, the angry protestors, errr the angry greens...who is going around spreading guilt about going green is what I wanna know? This guy has got pro-life conservative wingnut written all over him...you can't argue with these ppl when they set the framework for how the arguement will play out
mycalezz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm driving an SUV, while eating a big-mac in a styrofoam container! I'm promoting human life! That person taking the bus, and using re-usable or biodegradable products, well he hates life.
QuebecEric 1 year ago
Comment removed
QuebecEric 1 year ago
Yeah, I didn't think this guy was gonna come up with anything solid, but by the end of the video, i have to acknowledge his merits. Some people do indeed regurgitate environmental viewpoints as another form of misanthropy.
simon1616 1 year ago
@acavideo The earth may be finite but what about the universe and the little we know about what's outside it. Greed is good, greed will drive us to the edges of the universe (if there are edges) in search of more to satisfy our desires; desires such as the desire to live, the desire learn and the desire to enjoy life. Now I don't know about you but I'm certainly not giving up the freedom to pursue those desires for the sake keeping everything 'untouched' by human activity.
Astrosisphere 1 year ago
Bravo! Well done! The " green movement " should be renamed to...
The " we will enslave you physically and financially but can't at this time. So we will settle with enslaving your mind (for now) " movement.
smoke24462 1 year ago
Protecting the environment implies feeling guilty of existing? This guy should take some logic lessons. It might be possible to reach that conclusion, but his argument is nonsensical.
EinarSunde 1 year ago
This video is awesome. Such a clear message and perfect delivery.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago 2
With the example of the CFL's, yes, they do have mercury, but that can be recycled. A CFL manufacturer should be more than willing to promote recycling of his products, not from government force, not from pretensions of altruism, but because it will give him a whole new source of a material he needs to create his product.
Applying this globally: vital resources are scarce. If we want to survive with this standard of living, we need to be a lot more conscious of the consequences of our actions.
Pylilotus 1 year ago
Very good items discussed.
GreenROI workshops discusses some of these.
Have you seen the article on Food Print in Food Safety Magazine?
It was published on January 2010.
MakeGreenCount 1 year ago
Right, but you can't go along as if our resources will last forever. We'd end up destroying our civilization in the process.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
The highest function of ecology is the understanding of consequences.
- FRANK HERBERT
nashvilleshigh 1 year ago
thank you
FlashingSpectacle 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Lest we forget that capitalism has not existed forever? This guy should learn that the problem is that this 'individuality' is defined by consumerism, and if we radically altered the economic base of society (the appropriation of nature) then indeed we would be liberated from this 'footprint'... he is not radical, just a humdrum egoist... Ayn Rand should have been shot in the face, this precious individuality is destructive.
MrSodapopinski51 1 year ago
To AlexanderLee1:
Regarding whether organic food is healthier than conventional... it depends. We have no definitive knowledge of the long term effects of herbicides, pesticides on the human body, but the fact that these substances are designed to kill living organisms should make us cautions. What makes vegetables more nutritious is better soil health. Healthy soil= healthy plant=healthy person. Organic methods primarily are concerned with soil health, only tangentally with human health.
wetmocs 1 year ago
if life equals changing the environment than life=death from global warming
ma0ma0ma0 1 year ago
It's unfortunate that this speaker has followed the writing that has been approved by numerous means to appear on youtube in a "professional" manner. The reason for this, is to claim that numerous individuals are completely lost in their own righteousness that they now follow Objectivism as religion and no longer as a developing philosophy. High-end CFLs no longer contain that "dull" look; LED lights are exceedingly efficient through capitalism; savvy businessmen know resources are finite.
LifeinaRaindrop 1 year ago
I completely agree with you about being born as a sinner. We learn that we are helpless and we must pay for that..
Though, I believe that the term 'footprint' should be viewed in a natural vs unnatural way. The difference between chemical/synthetical and natural sources.
Since the industrial revolution the amount of synthetics have gone over the top. Almost every item in a regular supermarket contains chemicals.
If we can avoid chemical compounds and substitute them for naturals, we go green
vroegahh 1 year ago
I would sacrifice population growth because I happen to love Nature and consider it the greatest wealth. But I see how others prefer to destroy it, to keep population growing to fuel economic growth, so that more and more products can be built in factories, and then considered obsolete and deposited in landfills a few years later. I guess thats their idea of prosperity. I sure would like to send those folks to Mars before they turn this planet into something similar.
borthwey 1 year ago
It is unavoidable that one of these three things will be sacrificed: population growth, economical power, or a planet with biodiversity, wide expenses of pristine natural environments, a relatively stable climate and geology and enough natural resources for many centuries ahead.
borthwey 1 year ago
Its a fact that an ecological footprint is unavoidable for every person, and also that generally speaking, the richer you are, the bigger your carbon and ecological footprints are.
What this correlates into is simply that whatever effects we are having on the planets atmosphere and biosphere or on the availability of its resources... to consider those effects undesirable, is to imply that there are too many people with economical power on the planet.
borthwey 1 year ago
This has got to be one of my favourite videos on YouTube! Environmentalizm is nothing but a highly flawed counter-productive philosophy and it's an outrage that governments around the world are allowed to take away our freedom in order to adhere to whatever this apparantly compulsary religion preaches at us!
If we threaten ourselves environmentally then surely our best chance of overcoming it is to create a solution with our productivity (adaption, not conservation).
Astrosisphere 2 years ago 6
"Environmentalism", as it exists now, is based on mysticism, and is a grave threat to planetary health. We need a reason-based environmentalism that satisfies the short and long term needs of man in a way consistent with our knowledge of how nature works. There is no conflict between a sound environment and prosperity- since man is a living being, the latter requires the former. Nature = reality. I am an objectivist, and also an organic farmer. I don't need bad reasons to be a good steward.
wetmocs 2 years ago 13
@wetmocs Well said!
Can you direct me to some information about why organic food is safer? The only arguments I have heard for it thus far were by discredited environmentalists. As a result, I thought that the organic movement was just a scam and an excuse to make people buy higher-priced produce.
I'd be really interested to see some good reasons for it.
AlexanderLee1 1 year ago
@wetmocs just out of curiousity, have you looked into or considered permaculture rather than conventional organic?
funnyguise 1 year ago
Very well said. It is not ironic to relate environmentalist to Christianity at all, as refered below. See how Greenpeace built their Noah's Ark in 2007 to promote their global warming agenda!
arthurfmh 2 years ago
This is one of my favourite ARI videos. So short and simple, right to the point.
Wejer3 2 years ago
If you are to alter nature for your own benefit you should do it in a way that does in fact benefit you. Our job is to seek the higher value. An object we create that causes damage beyond its own existence is not a higher value than the pre-existing state. The key here is not to go completely in one direction or another, to say make the largest possible foot print or make the smallest. The object should be to make the best footprint. To chose when it is wise to alter or to leave nature alone.
Travailer7 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy is retarded
waxwings 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I've got nothing against altering nature to increase your own wellbeing but it is my belief that by changing certain elements within nature you are damaging the life of others within the sociaty. If in 100 years time the oceans rise and we all have a negative impact then how can the objectivists call this an achievment.
Where my belief differs from objectivists- instead of the government protecting freedoms, I think it should be there to protect market failures. Like certain types of pollution
FlamingTide 2 years ago
Comment removed
jacobwarrick 2 years ago
Comment removed
jacobwarrick 2 years ago
@jacobwarrick:
If you would like to live a life as a lone wolf and be "self-sustaining" (whatever that means), that is for you to decide. However, individuals in a free society very often benefit from each others ability: the best example perhaps being the specialisation of labour - that every man are able to less work for the same value, or the same work for a higher value.
And btw, Mr Lockitch didn't refer to your property with "environment" -he refered to primitive, savage nature as such.
Wejer3 2 years ago
Comment removed
jacobwarrick 2 years ago
"dependence isn't beneficial"
If you see yourself as a sovereign individual, why do you see trade (such letting a large-scale farm grow food, which you then trade for your money) with other inviduals as a form of dependance?
It is naturally your own choice if you want to devote long hours for very little food instead of trading for it, however it doesn't seem like the most selfish of choices, unless the food you grow has some other qualities I am not aware of.
Wejer3 2 years ago
Also, trading for "foreign oil" (such as from the Middle East) is not a 'dependance' - it is the trading of value for value, just like any other business arrangement. Now, it is true that the finances countries such as Iran make from oil is sometimes used to fund international terrorism, but that doesn't make the transaction any more 'dependant' than, say, buying treatment at a hospital.
If we are to drill for more oil, it is not in the name of 'independance', but of self-profit.
Wejer3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes we should increase our footprint until the planet cannot recharge oxygen, the oceans are dead, and the air is totally unfit to breath. We do not have to worry until the beer runs out,the suv's cannot be waxed,we get clover popping up through our scotts guard lawn, viagra becomes scarce, and our TV's stop showing us the series Lost. only then should we be concerned about the environment. This guy reminds me of a Catholic Priest spiritually dead but still making noise.
jobedied 2 years ago
Comment removed
jacobwarrick 2 years ago
Comment removed
Operation2 2 years ago
Speaker...if you read this, you should gain a more clear understanding of objectivism. It is certainly not anything your preaching with your emotional metaphors. Does reason not strike you as something that has fueled the green trend? Maybe we should just throw our waste out the window, you like that? I'm sure the plauge would be an incentive to achieve one's human's potential, lest he die achieving it. I am grateful that intelligence is continuing to thwart a potential ecological downfall. You?
Operation2 2 years ago
Feel that emotional conviction? It's likely this guy is trying to make you feel bad that science is becoming more reasonably minded. I for one can only praise the individual efforts to pursue intellectually more efficient and rational ways of living. I certainly do not want to live in a garbage dump. Recycling makes me happy. Green efforts are to reduce the ecological footprint by developing more intellectual and advanced technology. Greens have all to owe to the mindlessness of human behavior.
Operation2 2 years ago
My responses to both of "TheAtheistChrist's" messages are pro-freedom and therefore pro-industry.
Skipberkes 2 years ago
this man is a complete retard haha,
might as well go and be a holocaust denier.
RP1117 2 years ago
Even if Americans decided to turn our backs on industry, even if we only grew organic food, China and India would be right there exponentially increasing the use of fossil fuels and the building of many new cities. Even if "environmentalists" are 100% right about everything, no amount of self-sacrifice will make a bit of difference. So you might as well enjoy your life and be comfortable. If you are REALLY worried, try going into engineering, and invent a means for achieving "cold" fusion.
Harikus 2 years ago
Environmentalists would probably complain that cold fusion hurts the environment by removing hydrogen molecules....
LOL
1337melee 2 years ago
I don't know whether you're wrong or right, but it doesn't make a difference regarding freedom. If there is exhaust, so be it. I don't believe it is without technological solution even if businessmen opt for the quick but wasteful. If you ARE right, then what is vital is *your* success in business or spreading that message especially to the people who make the choices which fundamentally shape the planet and more and more dramatically determine the future of mankind.
Skipberkes 2 years ago
The president considers one of his main goals to regulate industry to help the environment. I would say that the issue is freedom, because the point of refuting the green stance is to protect individual rights from infringement by government regulation.
1337melee 2 years ago
I think I may have misunderstood what you (skipberkes) said, but I am not sure...
1337melee 2 years ago
There can be no unprincipled stand against government regulation in this realm. Either you are for it - you're an environmentalist - or you are pro industry. And the most productive beneficial technology FOR the better earth is a result of the freedom. A system that seeks to regulate a clean earth into existence by stopping all industry to end the necessary exhaust is the true stupidity here. Industrial existence has consequences (exhaust) but the solution remains freedom and therefore industry.
Skipberkes 2 years ago
That is true. But how much more efficiant is an industry who can (without sacrafice) produce a product which is reusable and has the least amount of negative impact? If an industry can manage to create reuseable products without jeprodizing the quality of that product, you maximize capitol. This issue is not you either build huge smokey industrial buildings or you live like Swiss Family Robinson. All efforts made under this standard will always fail, because its false bifurcation.
TheAtheistChrist 2 years ago
I will take the Virtue of Selishness to a knew level. I 'selfishly' want to live on a clean earth that has decent drinking water and hormone free food. Even if I did not give a rat's a@# about other people, or my children, selfishly I would want to see clean energy and the world lit up by natural resources like the sun. Like the 'DR.' in the video, I am an ignorant, selfish jerk, I just have different desires.
gzucker954 2 years ago
Uh...That's good for you so long as you don't support government regulation on such grounds, in which case, I would regard you as evil.
1337melee 2 years ago
Although I am an Objectivist, I have to agree that this video's arguements are fairly weak. Why not use some cloth diapers and a few discardable ones? I also think that the 'environmentalists' being addressed here represent only a portion of those concerned with pollution and overall waste. We should be concerned about the negative impacts of our products on this earth. It is logically consistent with rational values because it relates to the quality of mans life and needs no sacrafice.
TheAtheistChrist 2 years ago
Although I fully agree with the first two points, most of this video is retarded. "Pollute, because you can, because unsustainability is just a myth". Damn that's stupid.
Koba82 2 years ago
OMG, this is the stupiest thing I have ever heard. It´s not about what kind of diapers you buy for your children. It´s the fact that doing at least something, even the smalliest thing can help. People don´t expect you as a person to save the entire planet by giving up your own comfort that serves your need. People expect the big guy to do that, the big countries and companies not YOU.
SodieStar 2 years ago
I understand that nothing will ever seem "good enough", but that still doesn't counter the practical good of environmentalism.
It is good to preserve the fragile environment we have developed to thrive in.
We only have one planet anyhow.
Wind farms have a footprint, but it's a step in the right direction.
I don't think it's reasonable to say the down side to this is that moving in the right direction will create some apocalyptic tendency in us that will destroy human civilization eventually.
Kurushimus 2 years ago
It's worth pointing out just how much Environmentalism has invaded and is currently invading the culture. I cite the anime (yes, seriously) Eureka Seven for prime example in both technical philosophy and cultural impact. The anime explicitly advocates all the environmentalist primaries, Gaia theory, and even goes as far as to reach Immanuel Kant and innovate a hybrid of ideas. This show is seen (and generally liked) by plenty of young kids in America, and our future is looking darker than ever.
Skipberkes 2 years ago
Unfortunately Objectivists present no hard data on our impact on the environment. I have yet to see any research by them on how the use of oil is the pivotal point on which 20th century industrial progress was made and the massive population explosion that technology based on oil permitted.
daglassey 2 years ago
True, while average standards of living (let's say, measured by people who get enough food to survive/day) have risen along with population, so has inequality. And if you create negative opportunity for people, you are imposing your twisted values on them, forcing them into situations they would rather not be (according to Rand).
dcstrike 2 years ago
i'd also like to know... environmentalists always talk about the beauty of nature... is it? i mean does a flower smell good if no humans are around to smell it? is yosemite or the grand canyon beautiful without any humans or evaluate as being beautiful. for what reason are trees or dirt or rock or animals more important than humans? i totally agree with this man, and my dream is to see environmentalism completely collapse in my life time it is the most immoral philosophy i have ever heard of.
jackieblum14 2 years ago 3
You'll have to settle for Ayn Rand's lungs collapsing. BURN!
kidscalledcrazy 2 years ago
The rational man will understand that it is proper to his health and virtue to exploit every oxygen atom, every protein filled animal, every useful plant in dedicated furtherance to his own life. Environmentalism is anti life, anti capitalism, anti freedom, and ironically anti nature if only because you are one of its products which due to its chosen stagnation became determined to act in discordance with its own very nature of being.
LegalizeCapitalism 2 years ago 2
*oxygen molecule, excuse me
LegalizeCapitalism 2 years ago
By the way organisms and natural processes like volcanoes expel more greenhouse gasses, like carbon and methane, than do all human activity combined. This is how the natural process works, and man faces the alternative of acting in support of his life or not. To say that he may only exert effort corresponding to the virtue of the collective is to restrain him. Nature "values" you and your activity in terms only of your own nutritive content in unnoticed furtherance of its activity.
LegalizeCapitalism 2 years ago
EXPLOIT THE EARTH!!!
Don't spit "intrinsic value" or try to regulate at what length anyone decides to further their own happiness. If you feel things of value to you are being rapidly privatized, what have you done to earn them as your possession? Beg for the conceding hand-out of the person next to you? You want better technology then begin your work to make it, don't advocate a stop on the process we have because it doesn't meet your standard.
LegalizeCapitalism 2 years ago
Pollution is, and has always been, a pure technicality. It is "solved" with technological advance and requires no _government intervention_. People will always choose the better product. Whether it's durability, functions, color, design OR less energy consumption/recyclability.
Environmentalism is crap and the step between "green supporter" and the human hating ideologists is _not_ very far.
mrtvi46 2 years ago
I don't understand why we can only have one or the other. All I want is a balance between the two. If we continue doing business as usual, we'll forever lose much of the natural world (species will go extinct, rain forests will disappear, the oceans will become more and more depleted, and corral reefs will continue to die). That isn't trading value for value, that's taking away from me something I value. Green technology trades value for value: technology for less impact.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
I have been fortunate enough to see much of the natural world. I've seen the rain forests in Africa and New Zealand and saw Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe. I saw lions, elephants, giraffes, zebras and many more in Africa. I've explored the American West and it's national parks and went scuba diving in the gulf of Thailand. It's a shame that so much of sea life and the natural world is dieing off. I *value* the natural world just as much as I value civilization and human culture....
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
I think it's good that every solution is criticized. Without that, we wont see progress in improving our technology. Switching over to green technology is very new and has only really caught on in the past 2 or 3 years. That isn't a very long time compared to how long our current Industrialization has had time to grow and fully integrate into or lives. It will take a long time to completely replace it with better alternatives.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
This is a straw man if I ever heard one: Taking the worst examples of environmentalism (the extremist anti-civilization, anti-humanity) and classifying ALL environmentalism like that. The moderate environmentalist wants a world where we have a balance between civilization and civilization's impact on the natural world. We *value* the natural world and don't think it's worth sacrificing it all to human production. That's why we want better solutions to our problems.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy forgot to mention the interesting fact that while No Environmental Footprint = No Life, it is also true that being an Objectivist = No Life. This is what happens when you spend too long listening to Rush in your mom's basement.
kidscalledcrazy 2 years ago
i guarantee you this man disagrees with rush just as much as he does with an environmentalist. you are obviously uneducated about either objectivism or rush limbaugh. oh also i'd like to point out that when somebody can't refute facts they stoop to poking fun.
jackieblum14 2 years ago
I'd like to point out that when somebody can't have a sense of humor they stoop to being an objectivist.
Also, I was talking about the band Rush. You are obviously uneducated about 70's prog rock epics based on Atlas Shrugged.
kidscalledcrazy 2 years ago
we missed that episode of jeopardy
btw i grew up on rush
LegalizeCapitalism 2 years ago 2
It shows, trust me.
kidscalledcrazy 2 years ago
chill out i never knew about objectivism till a few years ago. and stop commenting on this video if you just came here to be a little bitch to everyone. its boring.
LegalizeCapitalism 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You started it...when you fucked with my ecosystem, SUCKA!!!
kidscalledcrazy 2 years ago
seeing as how youre healthy to sit here and type, enjoy the luxury of a computer w internet and most likely a home around it, im thinking your 'ecosystem' is doing just fine. besides humans put less greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere than do all other plants animals, volcanoes, etc.
LegalizeCapitalism 2 years ago 3
"A big environmental footprint is a great thing. This is why people in India and China are doing everything they can to increase their footprint."
And they have horrible HEALTH consequences. POLLUTION is a VERY REAL PROBLEM.
watch?v=RU2bfYzPZTQ
It's not just about the SCOPE of the environmental changes, but the "NATURE" of those changes -- are they BAD for US?
Libertarian ideals are ridiculously naive. Your childish black-and-white ideology is akin to creationist and neocon bullshit.
directedchaos 2 years ago
what you are forgetting is that even though pollution does have health consequences, the result of industrialization increases the standard of living and life expectancy.
11mc22 2 years ago
overall
11mc22 2 years ago
"what you are forgetting is that even though pollution does have health consequences, the result of industrialization increases the standard of living and life expectancy."
Uhm, no, I'm not forgetting that. What you're doing is a FALSE DICHOTOMY, it's a fallacy.
We can BOTH industrialize AND regulate pollution! The US manages better than China at least, thanks to regulatory agencies like the EPA that conservatives try to gut!
directedchaos 2 years ago
watch?v=xta4c731F-Y&feature=channel_page
11mc22 2 years ago
I'm not too big on environmentalism myself but I can see a lot of problems with this way of thinking. For example, China and india are putting so much crap in the air because that's all they have.
juliaisafilmbuff123 2 years ago
A couple of months ago I found a website online for children. It asked the kids question about actions that would contribute to their carbon footprint. At the end it showed what their carbon footprint was and WHAT YEAR THEY SHOULD DIE with the given amount of carbon output.....
And the commenter below says objectivists have a psychosis?
ColemanMulkerin 2 years ago 2
Environmentalists are impurifying our precious bodily fluids!
Mein President we should not allow a mineshaft gap to develop, only the best & brightest, not one objectivist must be left behind! lmao
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
This is just fucking ridiculous. Objectivism is a psychosis. The siege mentality of the immorally priviliged....
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
The powers that be love to feed us fear & guilt to make us weak. I love this video's message, however I do think that the way we treat the earth is extremely disrespectful, for example, using paper towels instead of rags made from unwanted items. Much of the disrespect comes from laziness. While my heart tells me that we're not treating our home, the earth, kindly, I know that the science we're sold by mainstream media is paid for by those who certainly don't have our best interests at heart.
brit2125 2 years ago
...not sacrificing it. Environmentalism is also a branch of science, which does not seek to feed guilt into people as one of it's purposes. It seems obvious to me that if humans continue to produce by the same means it does today, we won't a world to live in. So why not replace the old system for a more efficient one. The oil is going to run out, that is a fact, and more, it is an inevitability.
mirwriter 2 years ago
Environmentalism is not a science. Ecology is, perhaps you're thinking of that. But environmentalism is simply an ideology bent on making human life impossible.
And yes, the oil is going to run out. Big deal. Let's use it up! The earth certainly isn't using it.
paulk314 2 years ago 3
When the term "environment footprint" is used, it's not used as a condemnation of guilt on humanity. Environmentalism seeks to decrease humanities burden on nature FOR our own benefit. And certainly it does not preach that humans should be killed to achieve that goal. Ayn Rand advocated for reason right? Then why is developing renewable energy a bad thing if the alternative will lead to the destruction of nature and of us? Logically, this is promoting humanity...(cont.)
mirwriter 2 years ago
Good point. We have to go to higher, cleaner technologies through try & error procedure but on the way if we have better solutions we can apply them. High levels of living will be achieved when we master the cooperation with nature. There is no doubt that industrialists thought just profits thus created hard line environmentalists. Just learn to share resources and do not let a single being (At least human and animal) to receive harm needlessly; that will be good start.
originalhome 2 years ago
This is a great video
aweiss 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Equating green philosophy with the tennets of spiritual religion is disgusting. Green philosophy is an objective philosophy. Don't try to tie it in to some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo belief system that deals with anything but the future ecological status of the planet.
KajiCarson 3 years ago
environmentalism is based on doomsday prophecies that never come true and blind faith in the belief that nature has intrinsic value and that man shouldn't touch it. The status of the planet is a mass of resources for man to exploit for his survival. That is the method of man's survival; using nature to shape into his values.
shovelcharge 3 years ago 9
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Absolute horseshit. I can't believe what I'm reading. "Doomsday prophesies"? As if reducing the pollution in the atmosphere for the sake of future generations would be something that'd be AGAINST Man's self-interest. Get your mug out of Atlas Shrugged and take a look at the damage we, a tiny species out of millions, have been doing for a tiny spectrum of the planet's remaining lifetime. "Doomsday prophesies"! You should be ashamed of yourself.
KajiCarson 3 years ago
Isn't our "planet's remaining lifetime" a statement that implies that at some point the earth as we know it will come to some end?
bmech775 3 years ago
KajiCarson, there was more pollution and dirty inhuman 3rd world living conditions before large scale capitalism. We are much more greener and cleaner today and will be much more in the future thanks less polluting and efficient technology created through profit motivated competition of private companies.
Forcing smaller footprints guarantees all the catastrophes of exponential growth in a world of finite resources.
kaziqbal 3 years ago 4
@shovelcharge But Rand champions notions of intrinsic value, in that an individual's value, according to her, is self-determined, and need not serve a purpose external to itself. This is itself an article of faith. Why is it superior to the belief that nature has intrinsic value?
nobodady1 1 year ago
The error you make is, that you assume that environmentalists want everyone to have a zero foot-print. That is not the case.
They want to reach a state of homeostasis, so that human life can go on on this earth. To reach that the footprint has to be limited, but not zero.
Ayn Rand said, that government is there to protect the individual from force. If my neighbour burns plastic and I get cancer from the dioxins that is a form of violence and should therefore be prohibited through the government.
arnisni777 3 years ago
No. Man must have unlimited growth in order to live. There cannot be any limits or plateaus. Man must always improve and become more advanced, or he dies. He either makes more and more scientific and technological innovations, or we return to the middle ages and die from starvation, plagues, witch-hunts, dictatorship.
shovelcharge 3 years ago 2
You sound like you have a dictator pointing a gun at your head right now, buddy. Why the zealousness? You think if mankind would cut back on the flames for his barbecue you would end up trimming Hitler II's moustage? Give me a break, you fucking priest.
KajiCarson 3 years ago
"Original Sin" = "Carbon Foot Print".
BRILLIANT!!!!!!!
papeluso 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy is retarded
he makes an example of mistakes made by the environmental movement and then says therefore it's worthless
this is blatantly a straw man fallacy
then ad hominem circumstantial fallacy saying the enviromental movement has a stake in it, this might be true but it doesn't mean the core point is right or wrong
no environmentalist should say you should be guilty just to exist, it's a basic case of CLEANING UP YOUR OWN MESS
it's a very
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
Think of the actual human side of most concerns environmentalists have and more often than not there's a market solution. People would probably be less wasteful if sanitation were private and they had to pay the real cost of the land and the shipping of their garbage. The same goes for many private companies that extract possibly sustainable natural resources more recklessly than they probably would if they owned the propery and had a vested interest in future use or reselling it.
thinkingisawesome 3 years ago
Don't listen to this guy; he's got several copies of several books in his shelf. I know you love Ayn Rand mister, but eight copies of Introduction To Objectivst Epistemology? What a nut.
Seriously, there's no ad hominen attacks here. Anyone following the environmentalist movement knows what he's refering to. And what exactly is a "logical but absurd" arguement?
thinkingisawesome 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This 'video op-ed' is nothing more than narrow sophistry for irresponsible behavior and willful ignorance. Keith resorts to the ad hominem implicitly and explicitly and follows a logical, yet absurd argument to its inevitable point.
RevAlex 3 years ago
Most environmentalest, liberials, and mystics live by creating problems where none exist.
cochisestronghold 3 years ago 4
I've always wondered about those people who believe that the planet would be a better place without humans. What are they still doing here?
g0ssage 3 years ago 11
Brilliant video
Drillinstructor179 3 years ago 2
yeah i know
rueisl8423 3 years ago
I like the Yaron Brook quote,
"If you really love trees, you should be out there consuming as many as you can!"
The less wood we use, the less trees there will be. Economics 101 the less a supply of goods is desired, the less of that supply there will be.
Twiggy269 3 years ago
Yes. I love the way my hair looks, but I think it makes a pretty color when it burns, so I will pull as much of it out as possible.
Nature doesn't work like economics. You use too much of something and the system collapses, species go extinct, CONSUMERS go extinct.
gypsyfish300 2 years ago
wrong my friend.
"The only resource that is limited, is human ingenuity"
Twiggy269 2 years ago
tell that to a bald man
and the crops that yield less every year with diminishing quality
and every species that's now extinct (plants and animals).
gypsyfish300 2 years ago
Just a quick question, for the sake of argument, if you will. Why do I care about species going extinct?
I will grant you that the extinction of a species is undesirable and should not be actively sought, but if it happens as a result of our existence and the use of our inventiveness and industriousness, how is it any different than if it came about by natural selection?
It is always said that man is a part of nature, yet if we behave according to OUR nature, how can you condemn the outcome?
KeyserX 2 years ago
Other aspects of OUR nature?
Foresight, mercy, and self control.
How can you condemn their outcome?
gypsyfish300 2 years ago
Ah yes - I don't, but you're picking and choosing. If you want to minimize your impact on nature, I'm not going to stop you, if that's what you want to do.
The point is, if I value scientific and industrial progress over environmental concerns and would choose to live accordingly (as I do), I'm pretty sure that people of convictions not dissimilar to yours would condemn me.
You think the values you stated are more desirable than mine, well - I disagree.
KeyserX 2 years ago
Just to be clear though. When I talk about human nature, I mean things like intellectual inventiveness and industriousness. It seems that the assumption is that I'm talking about reckless, self-destructing hedonism - that is not the case.
Whatever comes of these qualities I mentioned should not be considered bad, since they are unquestionably qualities that we were endowed with by nature. Their application can therefore not go against nature.
Or would you disagree?
KeyserX 2 years ago
I don't disagree that they are in our nature.
I do disagree that they can and sometimes do contradict our nature, depending on how its used. That brings me back to my original point.
People can also use their inventiveness to, however unconsciously, destroy themselves.
Pretending your environment doesn't affect you is your right. However, it's also evasive.
gypsyfish300 2 years ago
Also, understand that, industrious people in charge of large scale polluting machines are not always simply polluting their own environment. In many cases, the mercury, carbon dioxide, methane, etc. float around and directly affect people who have no other relationship to this entrepreneur. Then it isn't just a rhetorical disagreement. In this case, even if this machine made cement (a real situation happening near me), then the health impact outweighs the need for the product.
gypsyfish300 2 years ago
A point with which you could easily SAY that you disagree, but, would you rather eat mercury-laced fish, or drive on an dirt road?
The neglect of reality has created a real dilemma.
If you're going to value inventiveness, you should be working to actually enhance life. I'm not saying throw away your iphone, or stop making roads. I'm saying recycle your iphone when you're done and figure out either a better way to make concrete or a cleaner substance with which to make roads.
gypsyfish300 2 years ago
What i meant to say is in that second line is
"I do disagree that their application can go against nature."
gypsyfish300 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And this is fucking hilarious. Is he really a Doctorate? LOL
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
wtf is wrong with this guy
Young05stang 3 years ago
Environmentalists are human hating motherfuckers.
RadicalForLiberty 3 years ago 6