Global Warming: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Mr. Tucker's post below about human-hating environmentalists leads me to ask: If environmentalists think overpopulation is such a threat to the Earth, why don't they all take an important first step in solving this problem, and reduce the Earth's population by one -- namely themselves?
The fact that they are still here, complaining bitterly of too many people utilizing too few resources, shows that they do not take their own views seriously. If they don't, then why should we?
These people might argue that they reduce the population more by sticking around and persuading others not to have children, etc. But if that were the case, then when they were no longer able to convince people of the merits of their position (say, due to old age or infirmity), they would commit suicide. They might well do so publicly, in order to better promote the overpopulationist movement. To my knowledge, this hasn't happened.
Actions speak louder than words.
(Walter Block and I make this point, among many others, in our new law review article on the environmentalists' efforts to keep humans from "defiling" outer space with our presence.)
Comments (16)
John Payne
Also, if a person really believes that Earth would be better off with fewer--or no--humans, it would make sense for them to go on a murderous rampage. Clearly, it would be wrong for a person to do that, but that's where the logic of some radical enviromentalists points. Hopefully, none of them start taking their own rhetoric seriously.
Published: May 8, 2007 12:26 PM
Brainpolice
"If environmentalists think overpopulation is such a threat to the Earth, why don't they all take an important first step in solving this problem, and reduce the Earth's population by one -- namely themselves?"
I asked this very question on my blog recently: http://individualist-journal.blogspot.com/2007/04/thoughts-on-overpopulation-hysteria.html - "Thoughts on Overpopulation Hysteria and Murder". Those who advocate population control should be consistant and commit suicide. Or at least go celibate. As John Payne mentions above, I also suggest that the only alternative to suicide is for them to deliberately murder people. I hope that if they are going to be consistant in their actions, they choose suicide so I don't have to deal with them any longer.
Published: May 8, 2007 1:05 PM
Keith
Population control is the only logical long-term solution to any and all environmantal "problems".
Published: May 8, 2007 1:13 PM
brad
What people don't seem to understands is that he is of the superior folk, the one calling for change, therefore the rules don't apply to him. It's the very root of the Statist mentality - define the hell on earth, state that you have the key to paradise if only allowed to make the rules, and in the process not be bound by those rules.
Get passed the veneer, and you can't have a good Statist without an inherent double standard. Good God, you couldn't have an Al Gore admonishing the unwashed to go green while using 20 times the energy (and the resultant pollution) than the average person, without a double standard. How do have a Babs Streisand telling us huddled masses to hang our wershin' on the clothes lines while her mansions have to be maintained at an even temperature upon pain of death? You can't get a good State off the ground without a coterie of prime movers espousing what is good for the goose is in no way good for the gander.
Published: May 8, 2007 1:33 PM
justakim
Someone's stuck in the 80's
It's as fair to say that all environmentalists see population as a problem to the point that they should go kill themselves as it would be to say all libertarians would like government-free anarchy.
Published: May 8, 2007 3:38 PM
Axel Riemer
however, I would call it fair to say that anyone who calls for a population reduction should start with themselves. Don't call for my death unless I can call for yours.
Published: May 8, 2007 5:28 PM
Walt D.
Most religions promise devotees something in the afterlife - heaven (or hell), reincarnation, 72 virgins, or a state of perfect bliss.
Now we know what the Envronmentalist Religion promises - hell on Earth and a state of perfect ignorance!
Published: May 8, 2007 7:52 PM
Brent
Speaking of crazy things, Yahoo! doesn't have Rep. Ron Paul, MD,
listed as a presidential candidate and they keep deleting all
questions about
it.
digg!
Published: May 8, 2007 9:40 PM
TokyoTom
You're bright, Mr. Huebert, but why waste it on juvenile posts like this?
Aren't the key Austrian insights on environmental issues that (1) humans cannot harm the environment, but "can change the environment in such a way that it harms others who might be planning to use it for conflicting purposes" and (2) as a result, pollution and other environmental problems are "not about the environment per se but about the resolution of human conflict" over the use of physical resources?
See, e.g., Roy Cordato, in "An Austrian Theory of Environmental Economics", http://mises.org/daily/1760.
Cordato and others go to the patient effort of explaining how non-Austrian approaches such as the "social cost" approach to environmental economics have led to the "dehumanization" of issues related to the environment - where pollution or "tragedy of the commons" problems are seen not as "problems because of the damage that some people may or may not be inflicting on others, but because they create what amounts to disembodied harms. ... In its more extreme form this has led to a separation of the concepts of costs and harm from human beings completely, substituting notions such as 'costs to the environment,' and damage to the ecosystem" instead of a focus on the conflict over certain resources or the benefits that may flow from them. {Cordato]
You, on the other hand, throw all this away, and suggest that those who have different views on the uses of natural resources and the environment should simply drop dead - and therefore spare you the trouble about thinking about how to best resolve the conflicts that arise when institutional defects associated with the lack of clearly defined or well enforced property rights, transaction costs or the like frustrate the workings of the market process with respect to such resources.
Is the best way to resolve conflicts to tell the parties to them to die? For shame, as you should know better.
Please grow up, or go away.
Published: May 9, 2007 8:35 AM
TWLP Sam
This reminds of a Reader's Digest anecdote about an old woman's view about environmentalism, 'things were much simpler in my day, we didn't have environments'.
Published: May 9, 2007 8:45 AM
TokyoTom
My sincere apologies to JH Huebert and the blog for the final intemperate sentence in the comment above.
Just as I am sure Mr. Huebert did not literally intend that environmentalists who think overpopulation is a threat to the Earth should all "take an important first step in solving this problem, and reduce the Earth's population by one -- namely themselves", so I hope that Mr. Huebert should other bloggers and readers will understand that I was not literally suggesting that he should either "grow up, or go away".
I sincerely hope for further and more constructive engagement with Mr. Huebert and others here.
Published: May 10, 2007 2:00 AM
Michael A. Clem
See, e.g., Roy Cordato, in "An Austrian Theory of Environmental Economics", http://mises.org/daily/1760.
Wow. With so many blog entries coming through the pipeline, it's easy to forget the really good ones like this one. My apologies to TokyoTom about recent comments I made.
In attempting to apply this to global warming (forgive me if I make any mistakes), the problem then, is that global warming can only be considered from the subjective valuations of specific actors, and not harm to the environment or society in general. There is no such thing as an "optimal" global temperature, as it has been pointed out that global warming could have beneficial effects as well as harmful effects, depending upon what individual actors may desire.
Thus, Coasian and Pigovian solutions are unreliable because they depend upon some optimal outcome that doesn't exist (or cannot be determined) and wouldn't resolve the conflicts of the actors involved (Somebody tell the people over at Reason the problem with carbon taxes, okay?)
As Cordato says, "the solution to pollution problems, defined as a conflict over the use of resources, is to be found in either clearly defining or more diligently enforcing property rights." Likewise, the global warming "problem" is based upon the idea of pollution, that the expulsion of certain gases by manufacturing processes contributes to global warming. Therefore, the solution to man-made global warming is also to be found in clearly defining or diligently enforcing property rights.
This requires considering not just the causes of global warming, such as CO2 and methane, but also the results that affect the various actors. Farmers might well benefit by global warming, whereas people living at low-level coastland areas may lose their homes to rising water levels.
Unlike conventional pollution, though, it is the secondary effects of global warming that concerns us, not the direct effect of polluted water or air. So there still remains the problems of determining cause and effect--how much CO2 affects water levels or plant growth, for example--and the question of what property rights are being violated. How is one's property rights being violated if one is merely experiencing milder winters and hotter summers, for example? Praxeologically-speaking, it depends upon what one is doing with the property, and how the change affects the property.
The other remaining problem, of course, is how much of global warming are humans actually contributing to. It simply cannot be said that a person's rights are being violated by naturally-occurring causes--you can't sue Mother Nature--only humans can violate human rights. Thus, dealing with global warming requires considering not only the property rights of the individual actors and what they value, but also the extent that humans are contributing to the problem.
So what we need is someone to try and pick up where Cordato left off and apply these ideas to the global climate issue.
Published: May 15, 2007 12:58 AM
TWLP Sam
I'm a bit confused about the concept of 'externalities', especially the negative ones. Especially if there is a way in which an externality can be deemed 'definitely negative'. To see a smokestack belching smoke to a greenie would be negative because he see it as pollution whereas to people involved with the factory it would be considered positive because it is a visual sign of production. Similarly someone who smells smoke from a neighbour burning leaves and twigs might like the smell because it reminds him of the freedom his town has as opposed to others towns which don't allow fires or require going through some convoluted fire-permit system.
I mean are externalities really subjective? Or can a factory create more positive externalities (employment, local economic growth) to outweigh the negatives. Or should people not have to be compensated for negative externalities because positive externalities don't accrue any external rewards? Or why should factories be liable just because some people (e.g. asthmatics) are more vulnerable than most?
Published: May 15, 2007 1:37 AM
TLWP Sam
Here's a link to an article by a professor looking at both sides of the global warming debates. Such as man-made vs natural CO2, global warming vs global cooling, weather prediction vs climate prediction, reseach and conspiracies, etc.
Might inject a bit of new bits to the debate:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM
Published: May 15, 2007 8:13 AM
Dave
Any argument carried to the extreme is impractical. That does not mean it is wrong.
I drive a car, which consumes a huge amount of resources. Does that mean that I should never bother to conserve resources in any other manner?
I occasionally recycle aluminum, carpool to work, and eat veggies even though I like meat better. Should I discontinue these activities simply because I continue to drive, eat, and breathe?
Apply the same arguement to any law. Have you ever driven over the speed limit? If so, then clearly you believe there should be no laws to protect public safety. Have you ever taken a pen home from work that you didn't return? Then clearly you are a communist who does not believe in private property.
Do you have any real-world reason why it is impossible to simply cut down a little? If not, then your argument is lost.
Published: May 15, 2007 1:28 PM
Michael A. Clem
Interesting link, Sam. He makes a good case that global warming is occurring, but he doesn't make such a good case for human contribution, nor for appropriate political or economic responses to the issue. Good start--bad finish.
Published: May 15, 2007 1:56 PM