Oil Fuels the Engine of Freedom June 10th, 2008 by The Savage

8 Comments

• Steve,

  How do you propose that a finite amount of resources such as food and fresh water can support an ever-increasing population? How many humans will the Earth really support? You say you want wealth for everyone but how do you expect that to happen?

  I oppose drilling in sensitive area because it’s dangerous and because yes, I appreciate the natural environment and believe the wildlife should be supported also.

  We are not in harmony with the rest of the planet. I agree with your point on socialism but the human race is obviously not able to make intelligent choices with regard to it’s own survival.

  I normally agree with you but this post sounds like it was written by Bill O’Reilly!

  Comment by Gene June 11th, 2008 @ 7:33 am

• Gene,

  First let me say, respectful disagreement is a good thing. I was surprised you were the first to disagree on this.

  Let me address your questions.

  1. I disagree with the premise that resources are finite. They are only as finite as our understanding of the universe and reality at this present moment. That understanding is constantly changing and growing. That is how we have supported a growing population in the past and that is how we will support it in the future, if we keep all of out options open.

  2. I don’t think anyone knows how many humans the Earth can support. Paul Erlichman tried to predict that in the 60s and he was wrong on every prediction.

  3. I expect humans to create wealth indefinitely because humans are creative and innovative when allowed to be free. Human freedom will create our future not government forced environmentalism or population control. I’m not against population control if it is voluntary. Government or any authoritarian violent control creates poverty. Free markets create wealth.

  4. How do you we are not in harmony with the rest of the planet? If humans are obviously not able to make intelligent choices with regard to their own survival, why would governments (which are nothing more than humans) be better suited to make those decisions?

  Comment by The Savage June 11th, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

• I’ve been thinking about this and almost commenting for a while. Let me first say thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy of some environmentalists, but that in no way proves that environmentalism is a sham. Also kudos for not including biofuels in your solution. I don’t understand why nuclear is such a dirty word for environmentalists either. Now on to the discussion.

  1. It is meaningless to say ‘resources’ are finite or infinite. There are many types of resources of varying availability. We will of course expand the resources available to us, but there is no guarantee that we would ever have enough of all resources under any form of government.

  Humans have already caused the extinction of many species as the limited amount of land on the planet is taken for our uses.

  4. Governments making worse choices is often true in practice but is not a given. People very greatly in how intelligent their choices are. I know you are not opposed to parents making decisions for their children, by force if necessary. Sometimes there are no wrong or right decisions, but sometimes there are. What we should aim for is a system that sustainably makes the best choices (ie. It is possible for a wise dictator to make great decisions and improve life for many, but he will soon be replaced by a bad guy, so it is not sustainable). Liberty and capitalism play a huge part in this, but I don’t think they are the whole picture. Whatever such a system looks like it would require a population that holds leaders accountable for their decisions and motivations, be they government, social, or corporate leaders.

  Some new points:
  5. Peak oil theory is more than just running out of oil, it is also that the oil that is left is increasingly difficult and costly to extract.

  6. You didn’t say it, but I get the sense you don’t believe in global warming. There are still a lot of questions as to how much of an effect there will be, but consider a couple of points.
  a.) You may be familiar with a chart showing CO2 concentration over the last ~400,000 years. I looked at that and the current concentration and noticed that the concentration is higher now than at any time over those 400K years, and it’s increasing.
  b.) The fact that climate models give varying results is often cited, but the melting of polar ice is faster than any of the models have predicted.
  c.) Those combined with the fact that the greenhouse effect is a very simple and well known principle and greenhouse gasses are known makes it hard for me not to believe.
  d.) One does not need to agree with the solutions of the environmental movement to accept global warming, just as one can be a Christian and believe in evolution.

  Thanks for the discussion!

  Comment by Aric June 13th, 2008 @ 8:46 pm

• Aric,

  All your points are intelligent and clear.

  I have a problem with the label “Environmentalism.” It implies that only “environmentalists” care about clean air and water and safe food and basic cleanliness. Using that definition everyone is an “environmentalist.” I am too.

  Now ask this question to everyone… are you willing to give up your wealth and your freedom to support environmental causes? How much are you willing to pay? Your entire standard of living?

  Do I believe in man made global warming or climate change? I don’t know, but I do know all the solutions are big government intrusions in our lives. When the government chooses to quit flying helicopters, blasting rockets into space, and dropping bombs, then I am willing to talk, until then, I don’t believe they are serious about any of this. It is just one more play for control.

  Comment by The Savage June 16th, 2008 @ 6:42 pm

• Thank you. I think I came off more strongly against what you said than I really am. Maybe it’s a different idea of what environmentalism means.

  To me an environmentalist means someone like the guy I met last year who boils eggs in the morning and saves the hot water in a thermos to cook spaghetti with. Or the people who chain themselves to trees. To call the environmental movement a fraud or to say we are all environmentalists does not give them the respect they deserve. They have been sacrificing for the cause for decades, but they know that their efforts won’t amount to much unless the rest of us do the same. The only possibility they see for this is to force it on others through government. If that makes them socialists then they are socialists, but that is not their intention.

  I believe you were talking more of politicians who are using the banner of environmentalism for other motives. There are also ordinary people who oppose something about society like cars, suburbs, factory farming, etc. who see hope of establishing their ideal society through the global warming or peak oil hype.

  I guess my real beef with the whole global warming thing is that the reality of it and its likely effects should be a scientific debate, not a political one. What to do about it is political.

  Comment by Aric June 17th, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

• I don’t care if you want save your hot water or chain yourself to a tree. That’s you business, unless you do it on my property.

  The problem I have with environmentalism is it always seeks central power and control.

  I love nature. I spent the last few days in northern Minnesota camping. I hope the beauty will be there for future generations. But, this control the way me and most Americans live. The desire to destroy our options in the free market is insane. And is all based on dubious science.

  I read this from Gary Taubes today:

  After all that, I developed what I believe is a very good feel for who’s a good scientist, and who’s a bad scientist, just by talking to them. There are certain ways that good scientists describe their data, describe the caveats, and describe the conditions by which they may or may not be right.

  What did that scientist say that made you rank him so low?

  There are all kinds of signs. He told me there was no controversy, when there was obviously a controversy. His side might have been right, but to deny there as a controversy was ludicrous. He talked about the legitimacy of throwing out negative data. You measure salt consumption one way; you don’t see any effect on blood pressure, and so you decide that’s obviously the wrong way to measure it. The implication of everything he told me was that he knew what the answer was before he did his experiments, and then he adjusted his experimental techniques and methodology until he got the answer that he wanted. And he believed this was legitimate science. There are other signs. I’m a stickler about the use of words like “evidence” and “proof”. So if someone tells you there’s no evidence for some controversial belief, you can be fairly confident that they’re a bad scientist. There’s always evidence, or there wouldn’t be a controversy. If somebody says that “we proved that this was true” or “we set out to prove that this was true” that’s another bad sign. The point here, as Popper noted, among others, is that you can never prove anything is true; you can only refute it. So researchers who talk about proving a hypothesis is true rather than testing it make me worried.

  Global Warming IS a scientific controversy, and one side is trying to end all debate. Climate changes has become religious dogma and all proposed solutions are draconian governmental controls of energy and lifestyle.

  Comment by The Savage June 23rd, 2008 @ 6:24 pm

• I agree with the Taubes quote about what makes a good and bad scientist. I also agree that the environmentalist side has politicized the global warming debate and is trying to end the debate and solve it by government controls. I don’t think anyone could know the truth about global warming from the media, and I don’t claim to know the truth. I have a decided opinion on it however. I do not wish to continue the global warming, debate, and I doubt you do either.

  However, I was struck by you first three words: “I don’t care.” I care when I see my neighbor dumping recyclables in the trash. I do not wish that I or anyone else would force him not to, but I do not like that he does it. You say you love nature, and I don’t doubt it, but your and our kids ability to enjoy nature depends on what other people do, whether they be politicians or private land owners. Not caring what other people do is a sickness that libertarians are susceptible to. Not caring what other people do is in no way related to liberty, but by thinking too much in terms of individual freedom one can lose sight of a lot of other things that matter.

  Maybe you didn’t mean your words that literally, but it reveals an attitude and way of thinking that I am all too familiar with.

  Comment by Aric June 23rd, 2008 @ 7:39 pm

• Aric,

  I care about a lot of things. Like raiding peoples homes and killing them for no reason other than someone said they may have marijuana.

  I care if someone dumps radioactive waste in a pond.

  Yes yes I care.

  But I don’t care if you want to save your hot water in a thermos, it doesn’t interest me. I don’t care if you want to chain yourself to a tree. Go right ahead, but it isn’t something I’m going to get involved in. If you have some oddball sex fetish and find an adult to engage in it with you voluntarily, I don’t care. I don’t want to take part, I don’t want to read about it, or watch it, but in all honesty I don’t care, and I find it a waste of time and energy to make it a political or philosophical debate.

  Does that make sense? I don’t care if you want to be an artist, or an executive, an entrepreneur, or unemployed. It is your decision, not mine. I’m not in the business of trying to force you to be anything. You decide, not me. I do care if you’re happy, but I am not going to spend my time trying to make you happy, because I can’t. I leave it up to you.

  The Golden Rule is:
  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

  The Silver Rule is:
  Mind your own damn business

  Unfortunately as a society we have forgotten the Silver Rule and turned the Golden Rule into:
  Force others to live the way you think they should live, because it is best for them and everyone else.

  Comment by The Savage June 25th, 2008 @ 7:21 am

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail