Happy Exploit-The-Earth Day!

[mRx 16]

On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day

by Craig Biddle

Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.

Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may. Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature into the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.

In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.

Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, fruits, and vegetables. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.

It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?

There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.

On April 22, make clear where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.

***

Craig Biddle is the editor and publisher of The Objective Standard and the author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It.

[fozzie 41]

Theres no need to be wasteful with it though. If we can minimize how much of these non-reneable resources then they will last longer and the human race will last longer. Therefore your argument holds no water. We can also use or perfect renewable sources which will again give us all we need and maintain our environment. So your argument holds no water. We do not need many of the things we create from these resources, we want them, desire them but they are not necessary for survival. So agian your argument holds no water.

[Reba 2]

Here's the thing...if humans cause pollution, and pollution causes humans to get sick, then aren't we just killing ourselves by exploiting the earth? What the hell kind of sense does that make?

If we try to limit our use of pollution causing products, then we live healthier and longer lives. I dunno about any of you, but I'd prefer to be a healthier person, doctor visits are a waste of money And if that means driving a more fuel efficient car, and growing an organic vegetable garden in my backyard, well ok then.

[mRx 16]

Theres no need to be wasteful with it though. If we can minimize how much of these non-reneable resources then they will last longer and the human race will last longer. Therefore your argument holds no water. We can also use or perfect renewable sources which will again give us all we need and maintain our environment. So your argument holds no water. We do not need many of the things we create from these resources, we want them, desire them but they are not necessary for survival. So agian your argument holds no water.

Please explain to me a more efficient resource management system than capitalism; That's right, there isn't one. Your argument holds no water. Please give me just one quantitative example of how a resource-derived consumer good will be classified as a want rather a need. You can't, because your argument is emotive, and hollow. Again, no water there.

[fozzie 41]

Theres no need to be wasteful with it though. If we can minimize how much of these non-reneable resources then they will last longer and the human race will last longer. Therefore your argument holds no water. We can also use or perfect renewable sources which will again give us all we need and maintain our environment. So your argument holds no water. We do not need many of the things we create from these resources, we want them, desire them but they are not necessary for survival. So agian your argument holds no water.

Please explain to me a more efficient resource management system than capitalism; That's right, there isn't one. Your argument holds no water. Please give me just one quantitative example of how a resource-derived consumer good will be classified as a want rather a need. You can't, because your argument is emotive, and hollow. Again, no water there.

The ####### you posted has no quantitative examples so why should I provide one.

I don't see the problem with conserving resources or finding efficient renewable sources. Non renewable resources are finite and therefore the price will only increase over time. That is an unsustainable business model.

Edited April 19, 2009 by fozzie

[DeadPoolX 9]

Here's the thing...if humans cause pollution, and pollution causes humans to get sick, then aren't we just killing ourselves by exploiting the earth? What the hell kind of sense does that make?

If we try to limit our use of pollution causing products, then we live healthier and longer lives. I dunno about any of you, but I'd prefer to be a healthier person, doctor visits are a waste of money And if that means driving a more fuel efficient car, and growing an organic vegetable garden in my backyard, well ok then.

I wouldn't say doctor visits are a waste of money. However, modern medicine seems to be more concerned with treating the problem instead of preventing it. Treating a condition is a great idea if one already exists, but I like to think preventing it is a better idea.

The same is true with pollution itself. It's better to prevent it than treat it.

[Reba 2]

zackly!

Doctor visits around here in my neighbourhood are a waste of money. They can never figure out what's ailing anyone and repeated visits are always necessary. Usually until they finally give up and say "go to Asheville or Winston-Salem, we can't figure it out"

[mRx 16]

Theres no need to be wasteful with it though. If we can minimize how much of these non-reneable resources then they will last longer and the human race will last longer. Therefore your argument holds no water. We can also use or perfect renewable sources which will again give us all we need and maintain our environment. So your argument holds no water. We do not need many of the things we create from these resources, we want them, desire them but they are not necessary for survival. So agian your argument holds no water.

Please explain to me a more efficient resource management system than capitalism; That's right, there isn't one. Your argument holds no water. Please give me just one quantitative example of how a resource-derived consumer good will be classified as a want rather a need. You can't, because your argument is emotive, and hollow. Again, no water there.

The ####### you posted has no quantitative examples so why should I provide one.

I don't see the problem with conserving resources or finding efficient renewable sources. Non renewable resources are finite and therefore the price will only increase over time. That is an unsustainable business model.

Suggesting that man acts in accordance with what he values requires no quantitative proof, because it's axiomatic. Attempting to refute my article on the grounds that individuals utilize more resources than is necessary to survive, does require some sort of quantitative analysis. What is Necessary to survive? With the Earth's interest in mind, who would determine what is necessary for us to use? At what exact level would the resource consumption level be able to meet the definition of survival?

Capitalism is the only model that creates the main component necessary to ensure resource renewability; incentive. Rhetorical example:

What motivation does a farmer have to maintain the fertility of his land?

Conversely:

What motivation does a logging company have to replenish the trees in a Federally-owned forest?

[mRx 16]

Here's the thing...if humans cause pollution, and pollution causes humans to get sick, then aren't we just killing ourselves by exploiting the earth? What the hell kind of sense does that make?

If we try to limit our use of pollution causing products, then we live healthier and longer lives. I dunno about any of you, but I'd prefer to be a healthier person, doctor visits are a waste of money And if that means driving a more fuel efficient car, and growing an organic vegetable garden in my backyard, well ok then.

I wouldn't say doctor visits are a waste of money. However, modern medicine seems to be more concerned with treating the problem instead of preventing it. Treating a condition is a great idea if one already exists, but I like to think preventing it is a better idea.

The same is true with pollution itself. It's better to prevent it than treat it.

Prevention is not profitable to the pharmaceutical cronies of the FDA; therefore any substance that prevents an ailment is slandered as a fraud or quackery, and it's production outlawed.

Can you imagine how much money the Rx cartel would lose if a cure for cancer was introduced into the drug market?

[fozzie 41]

Theres no need to be wasteful with it though. If we can minimize how much of these non-reneable resources then they will last longer and the human race will last longer. Therefore your argument holds no water. We can also use or perfect renewable sources which will again give us all we need and maintain our environment. So your argument holds no water. We do not need many of the things we create from these resources, we want them, desire them but they are not necessary for survival. So agian your argument holds no water.

Please explain to me a more efficient resource management system than capitalism; That's right, there isn't one. Your argument holds no water. Please give me just one quantitative example of how a resource-derived consumer good will be classified as a want rather a need. You can't, because your argument is emotive, and hollow. Again, no water there.

The ####### you posted has no quantitative examples so why should I provide one.

I don't see the problem with conserving resources or finding efficient renewable sources. Non renewable resources are finite and therefore the price will only increase over time. That is an unsustainable business model.

Suggesting that man acts in accordance with what he values requires no quantitative proof, because it's axiomatic. Attempting to refute my article on the grounds that individuals utilize more resources than is necessary to survive, does require some sort of quantitative analysis. What is Necessary to survive? With the Earth's interest in mind, who would determine what is necessary for us to use? At what exact level would the resource consumption level be able to meet the definition of survival?

Capitalism is the only model that creates the main component necessary to ensure resource renewability; incentive. Rhetorical example:

What motivation does a farmer have to maintain the fertility of his land?

Conversely:

What motivation does a logging company have to replenish the trees in a Federally-owned forest?

Do they? IN either example? Not really. Logging takes trees faster than they can grow. Farmers short term financial difficulties mean they will sacrifice the land they will need later to survive now. Its human nature to look at the now.

Tha point remains that resource prices will spiral as they become more and more scarce (which they will) which is an unsustainable business model.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Here's the thing...if humans cause pollution, and pollution causes humans to get sick, then aren't we just killing ourselves by exploiting the earth? What the hell kind of sense does that make?

If we try to limit our use of pollution causing products, then we live healthier and longer lives. I dunno about any of you, but I'd prefer to be a healthier person, doctor visits are a waste of money And if that means driving a more fuel efficient car, and growing an organic vegetable garden in my backyard, well ok then.

I wouldn't say doctor visits are a waste of money. However, modern medicine seems to be more concerned with treating the problem instead of preventing it. Treating a condition is a great idea if one already exists, but I like to think preventing it is a better idea.

The same is true with pollution itself. It's better to prevent it than treat it.

Prevention is not profitable to the pharmaceutical cronies of the FDA; therefore any substance that prevents an ailment is slandered as a fraud or quackery, and it's production outlawed.

Can you imagine how much money the Rx cartel would lose if a cure for cancer was introduced into the drug market?

Maybe. Then again, I'm sure pharmaceutical companies could develop and promote medication that would "prevent certain diseases" and whatever else. Money would still flow in.

[mRx 16]

Theres no need to be wasteful with it though. If we can minimize how much of these non-reneable resources then they will last longer and the human race will last longer. Therefore your argument holds no water. We can also use or perfect renewable sources which will again give us all we need and maintain our environment. So your argument holds no water. We do not need many of the things we create from these resources, we want them, desire them but they are not necessary for survival. So agian your argument holds no water.

Please explain to me a more efficient resource management system than capitalism; That's right, there isn't one. Your argument holds no water. Please give me just one quantitative example of how a resource-derived consumer good will be classified as a want rather a need. You can't, because your argument is emotive, and hollow. Again, no water there.

The ####### you posted has no quantitative examples so why should I provide one.

I don't see the problem with conserving resources or finding efficient renewable sources. Non renewable resources are finite and therefore the price will only increase over time. That is an unsustainable business model.

Suggesting that man acts in accordance with what he values requires no quantitative proof, because it's axiomatic. Attempting to refute my article on the grounds that individuals utilize more resources than is necessary to survive, does require some sort of quantitative analysis. What is Necessary to survive? With the Earth's interest in mind, who would determine what is necessary for us to use? At what exact level would the resource consumption level be able to meet the definition of survival?

Capitalism is the only model that creates the main component necessary to ensure resource renewability; incentive. Rhetorical example:

What motivation does a farmer have to maintain the fertility of his land?

Conversely:

What motivation does a logging company have to replenish the trees in a Federally-owned forest?

Do they? IN either example? Not really. Logging takes trees faster than they can grow. Farmers short term financial difficulties mean they will sacrifice the land they will need later to survive now. Its human nature to look at the now.

Tha point remains that resource prices will spiral as they become more and more scarce (which they will) which is an unsustainable business model.

Every resource is scarce, and certain variables are less replenishable than others, while some are irreplenishable. This is irrelevant to the OP, and is NOT the point. The point is, and the point you were trying to say held no water, is that capitalism is the best and most efficient way to utilize said resources.

[mRx 16]

Here's the thing...if humans cause pollution, and pollution causes humans to get sick, then aren't we just killing ourselves by exploiting the earth? What the hell kind of sense does that make?

If we try to limit our use of pollution causing products, then we live healthier and longer lives. I dunno about any of you, but I'd prefer to be a healthier person, doctor visits are a waste of money And if that means driving a more fuel efficient car, and growing an organic vegetable garden in my backyard, well ok then.

I wouldn't say doctor visits are a waste of money. However, modern medicine seems to be more concerned with treating the problem instead of preventing it. Treating a condition is a great idea if one already exists, but I like to think preventing it is a better idea.

The same is true with pollution itself. It's better to prevent it than treat it.

Prevention is not profitable to the pharmaceutical cronies of the FDA; therefore any substance that prevents an ailment is slandered as a fraud or quackery, and it's production outlawed.

Can you imagine how much money the Rx cartel would lose if a cure for cancer was introduced into the drug market?

Maybe. Then again, I'm sure pharmaceutical companies could develop and promote medication that would "prevent certain diseases" and whatever else. Money would still flow in.

Not to the extent that the money flows in now. It's not nearly as profitable; that's why the FDA has so many pandering lobbyists and special interests. It's not our interests they care about.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Matt, this is nothing but a straw man argument...

According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may. Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come.

....

You find me anywhere, where environmental conservationists have said that. What a lousy presupposition.

[Ban Hammer 13,337]

here's a pro earth day demonstrator. get rid of them pesky human polluters!