Teaching Kids about the Environment, Government Style
Greena, Worrier Princess
To get a taste of the approved "environmental education" activities of government bureaucrats, writes Ben O'Neill, we can do little better than looking at a games website called "Planet Slayer," recommended for children by various Australian governments.
To assist in their "fun and games" and answer all their alleged enviro-dilemmas, children are guided by the protagonist cartoon character, "Greena, the Worrier Princess," who invites children to use the website's Greenhouse Calculator to "find out what age you should die at so you don't use more than your fair share of Earth's resources."
Comments (57)
Ben, I agree that what you have pointed to is an offensive waste of taxpayer dollars for a rather nonsensical program of environmentally conscious indoctrination. Clearly, governments shouldn't spend any money telling us or our children how to behave, so I'm rather surprised at what you've pointed to.
However, while you may be absolutely right about this conclusory statement, you certainly haven't shown it: "In Australia, governments have adopted environmental education programs that teach children that human intrusion into nature is to be condemned and that man's life must be subordinated to the preservation of nature, by government force if necessary. Under this view, nature is not to be preserved for the benefit of man, but rather, it is to be preserved for its own sake against the encroachments of man."
Rather, the website that you link to is obviously focussed primarily on "sharing" resources and the environment, that is, on some concept of comparative social justice based on the premise that use or consumption of some resources may adversely affect others.
Published: June 10, 2008 12:32 AM
It is still rather in poor taste, TT, no matter the intentions.
Published: June 10, 2008 2:36 AM
Also from Australia, but from Brisbane, I recall in primary school (more than fifteen years ago) going on a school outing to a national park, with educational activities. One involved answering questions on how you planned to live your life, then showing horrific posters if you didn't live 'green' enough. Reading Ben's post, I can't help but think the same people are still there, they've just upgraded the technology.
Published: June 10, 2008 6:48 AM
Quote from TokyoTom: "... on some concept of comparative social justice ..."
What does that mean?
Published: June 10, 2008 6:51 AM
Personally I find this "State-sponsored-religion" quite in poor taste. Also if they have to teach some kind of education, let it be about respecting other people's properties and not expecting the State to step in for everything.
Published: June 10, 2008 8:11 AM
For more environmentalist nonsense, check out this story on Yahoo's front page:
China consuming twice what its ecosystems can supply: WWF
"If China were to follow the lead of the United States, where each person demands nearly 10 hectares of productive area, China would demand the available capacity of the entire planet.
Published: June 10, 2008 8:20 AM
***Rather, the website that you link to is obviously focussed primarily on "sharing" resources and the environment, that is, on some concept of comparative social justice based on the premise that use or consumption of some resources may adversely affect others.***
And the part that says you should die at age 9.3? Perhaps there is a tenuous connection made between this site and other, more bold statements, that man is a scourge to be eliminated, but the sentiments are nearly the same.
I wonder what your attitude would be if the players involved were strict religious folk and the calculation was which circle of hell you would be assigned to for various sins (homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion) and it was part of the curriculum? Would your attitude be so nonchalant? I can't help but think about the hue and cry in Australia if it were the latter versus the former. As it stands here in the US, religion is rooted out from school at every chance (and rightfully so) but the Green Religion, all about behavioral control and indoctrination, can go on apace.
Published: June 10, 2008 8:38 AM
I hate to say this to my fellow lovers of liberty but this is all we have to work with. As bad as this is. (It is beyond propaganda into government sponsored religion.) It is still worse than the War Parties in the US, We call them Democrats and Republicans.
From Lt. Warf: "The cause of peace is a just cause."
Besides, the best way to help the environment is to stop the ongoing wars and shutdown those large portions of the US and Austrian militaries not defending the PHYSICAL borders of the countries.
I understand that the power of state is in violence and that power (Even if it has good intentions) will ultimately destroy the planet as they remove the incentive for individuals to maintain the world around them.
Published: June 10, 2008 9:30 AM
Make sure you play the "greenhouse calculator" if you follow the link to the website. It will tell you how long you're suposed to live... Aperently I should have been aborted since I should only live 1.5 years. Funny thing is I walk to work, live in a condo with my wife and generally don't do anything bad for the environment... EXCEPT, aperently I buy "Ordianry stuf" and for that I deserve to die.
Published: June 10, 2008 9:33 AM
I found the Planet Slayer website offensive as an adult. What are parents doing to stop this propaganda in the school system?
As for the environmentalist who feel that the Earth would be better off without humans, well, by all means, why are they still alive?
Published: June 10, 2008 9:35 AM
This is another example of education becoming devoid of factual, verifiable content. Everyday I am more confused as to why the masses allow our elected officials to continue to market their own self serving agendas to all of us at any age regardless of our individual views on the subject matter.
Published: June 10, 2008 9:51 AM
Why do the masses allow their elected officials to do such things? Who said that the officials have permission? None of my local officials campaigned on "we'll outlaw smoking in restaurants" or "we'll build a new stadium for private enterprise" - and, in fact, the voters voted that last one down as a referendum in the past election. The politicians passed a bill for it anyway.
The government is too entrenched to be controlled by the citizens.
Published: June 10, 2008 10:25 AM
TokyoTom: Did you see the blog post where Bob_Murphy says cap and trade is not a market solution? What did you think about the discussion?
Published: June 10, 2008 10:26 AM
Can anyone help me find out how the WWF (I assume it's World Wildlife Federation and not the World Wrestling Federation) calculates carbon footprint? I scanned their web site and didn't find anything on the calculations. It seems totally ridiculous to conclude that "China would demand the available capacity of the entire planet" if they lived at the same standard as Americans. Their calculations must be really twisted.
BTW, state propaganda didn't bother my children much as they went through public schools. When my kids were young, someone encouraged me to teach our kids to think for themselves. Unfortunately, some parents insist that the teacher is always right, so their kids absorb what ever the teacher tells them. We taught our kids that the teacher was no smarter than anyone else and to think for themselves. We often told them that the teacher was flat wrong on some matters and explained why.
Kids love to buck authority and play insurgent in school. I think parents can play to that natural urge and develop independent thinking adults. Teach your kids at an early age not to trust the state and its flunkies.
Published: June 10, 2008 10:30 AM
It was in Human Action, if not also elsewhere, that von Mises said that public education is incapable of delivering any value outside reading, writing, and arithmetic (and inferior value there, of course). In any and every other subject, the value of public education will inevitably be either zero or, much more frequently, negative as in the present example.
It is possible to view all "education" outside the Three Rs as indoctrination. In the case of public education, then, the question arises as to who the indoctrinators are, what it is they are indoctrinating and, more-deeply, why.
The why, of course, is statism. From there, the trip to evil and deception is short and straight.
Published: June 10, 2008 10:43 AM
That site goes far beyond "bad taste!" It is insulting to me, and it is insulting to mankind as a species, and it is hypocritical! It is horrible that kids are being exposed to this bullsh!t, but then again, can we expect anything better from government?
Oh, and if these people had even a shred of integrity, they would kill themsevles, to "lessen their impact on the environment. Ain't gonna happen, of course.
Published: June 10, 2008 10:44 AM
To Dan: "The government is too entrenched to be controlled by the citizens"
I could not agree with you more. However, I must maintain some sense of hope that at some point in our "democratic" societies (US/global) we will attain a level of dissatisfaction with our govenmental structures that we (masses) will begin to seek incremental change.
Published: June 10, 2008 11:01 AM
"Based on the emissions from your greenhouse usage, you used up your share of the planet by the time you were 9.3 years old! … You should die at age 9.3."
Yeah, as if child and teen suicide wasn't enough of a problem already! This would be enough to push a lonely, depressed 13-year-old over the edge.
Jesus save us.
Published: June 10, 2008 11:20 AM
Todd asked …why the masses allow our elected officials to continue to market their own self serving agendas to all of us at any age regardless of our individual views on the subject matter.
I believe that for the most part the masses do not possess individual views. They have been mass-indoctrinated by so-called teachers. Make no mistake, instruction in the U.S. is predominately driven by an education industry which caters to the needs of the political and social agenda of the day. Schooling, including pre-K through post-graduate, is a gigantic, government-subsized business which is calculated to produce a specific type of product. Generic, standardized training for the masses does not accommodate individuality or excellence, let alone independent thought.
Can you tell I’m a homeschooling mom??
Summer’s here, and this would make great reading while on vacation: The Underground History of American Education, by John Taylor Gatto. An eye-opener, guaranteed to make your blood boil, and give you the courage to stand up for what is right for your own children and family.
Published: June 10, 2008 11:31 AM
Thank you for the reference Betty. Excellent points.
Published: June 10, 2008 11:49 AM
Can anyone help me find out how the WWF (I assume it's World Wildlife Federation and not the World Wrestling Federation) calculates carbon footprint? I scanned their web site and didn't find anything on the calculations. It seems totally ridiculous to conclude that "China would demand the available capacity of the entire planet" if they lived at the same standard as Americans. Their calculations must be really twisted.
BTW, state propaganda didn't bother my children much as they went through public schools. When my kids were young, someone encouraged me to teach our kids to think for themselves. Unfortunately, some parents insist that the teacher is always right, so their kids absorb what ever the teacher tells them. We taught our kids that the teacher was no smarter than anyone else and to think for themselves. We often told them that the teacher was flat wrong on some matters and explained why.
Kids love to buck authority and play insurgent in school. I think parents can play to that natural urge and develop independent thinking adults. Teach your kids at an early age not to trust the state and its flunkies.
Published: June 10, 2008 12:10 PM
Like when we were taught that Columbus discovered that the world was round (lest we forget, Pythagoras, a 6th Century BC philosopher and mathematician, wrote about the Earth being spherical) or that beneviolent President Lincoln believed in the equality of all men ("I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race" - Abraham Lincoln, Forth Joint Debate at Charleston in 1897), this is another example of free governments using the public and regulated education systems as a tool to advance its own goals instead of enriching and invigorating free thought among it's citizenry. While I am glad to see that things have not gone so far in the United States, I am sure we will soon be taking quite similar programs.
Published: June 10, 2008 12:48 PM
Maybe the Ozzies should rename that website to www.watermelon.com(mie) ;-)
Published: June 10, 2008 12:56 PM
Maybe those Ozzies should consider renaming their website to www.watermelon.com(mie) :-)
Published: June 10, 2008 12:58 PM
Today's philosophy lesson:
"Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education. " Bertrand Russell
“We are faced with the paradoxical fact that education has become one of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought.” Bertrand Russell
Published: June 10, 2008 2:41 PM
I WIN!!! My greenhouse pig blew up at 1.3 years old.
Published: June 10, 2008 5:07 PM
Here's a sickening example of what indoctrination leads to.
The following is a direct quote from a letter to the editor of a national Canadian newspaper. The letter writer writes concerning what she has been "taught" by her religion: "As far as some draconian measures like chopping off the hand of a thief or punishment for adultery is concerned, as Muslims in Canada we are not in a position to pass judgement, it should be left to the authorities." Not sure whether she means government authorities or religious authorities, but clearly she has learned not to think or question such matters.
Published: June 10, 2008 5:35 PM
Holy dooly, Cessnock is on the map at last. As a resident of this little town I was pretty amazed at the behavioural modification espoused in the website and from our Council. Good to see our local taxes being used for worthwhile purposes.
The ironic part is that lots of residents of Cessnock still work in coal mines, up until the late 90's when wine tourism became really big, the town was a coal mining town. The Cessnock City motto is "Mines, Wines & People"!!!
Published: June 10, 2008 8:30 PM
for the benefit of non-australians, all state and territory governments are run by labor (progressive) governments. ditto for the federal government.
the centre-left labor parties stay in power thanks to preference votes they receive from green party candidates. (too radical to ever win more than a handful of seats outright, but high-profile and perceived as honest). the quid pro quo is this relentless green propaganda.
the federal liberal government resisted the gw craze for a long while, but ultimately capitulated. bad move! they lost credibility with their own voters, and won no green votes. there were turfed out in november's federal elections in a rout. now they spend their time in opposition dreaming up schemes to ban incandescent light-bulbs. fitting punishment.
as "cessnock" dean says, it's quite amusing to see the coal-mining unions threatened by the party which has always been theirs. what comes around, goes around, i guess.
Published: June 10, 2008 9:00 PM
Careful, Carny. You attributed the Lincoln quote above to 1897, which was the date the compilation of his debates was published, and 32 years after his death. The year of the debate you cited was actually 18 September 1858.
I'm sure you knew that, but it pays to be thorough when discussing touchy matters of politics and history!
Back to the fun with "watermelon" statism... I think Nock said it best: "Well, what do you expect?"
Published: June 10, 2008 9:21 PM
Not to mention for the benefit of non-Australians, all State and Territory Governments don't have the power the U.S. States have against the Federal Government as Australia wasn't founded as a Libertarian nation. After compare the power the 2nd Amendment gives the U.S. States to defend themselves against the encroachments of the Federal Government (if they actually chose to) with this part of the Australian Constitution:
Chapter V, Section 114 forbids "any State from raising a military force . . ."
So unlike the U.S. which there is legal capacity to form armed resistance against the Federal Government, Australians are even forbidden from forming any resistance at all (or do so illegally). :O
Published: June 10, 2008 10:02 PM
Keith, it's hard to know exactly what is the philosophy behind the "Planet Slayer" game site for children that various Australian governments have apparently funded, as none is explicitly described.
However, as I have observed - contrary to Ben O'Neill's assertion that various Australian government programs "teach children that human intrusion into nature is to be condemned and that man's life must be subordinated to the preservation of nature, by government force if necessary. Under this view, nature is not to be preserved for the benefit of man, but rather, it is to be preserved for its own sake against the encroachments of man" - the explicit message of this specific program is "don't use more than your fair share of Earth's resources."
While I do not support the state taxing us in order to serve up ideology or civics lessons, on its face, the above message of this particular game seems wholly consistent with the Lockean requirements that one should
• abstain from harming others, and
• leave enough and as good for others when taking from the commons.
These Lockean provisos, along with elaborations about the importance of property rights provided by von Mises, Rothbard, Blockand Cordato, would be a good start if the were going to advance a principled approach to environmental/commons issues - though I much prefer that such a task be left to private institutions like LvMI and PERC.
Still, it seems to me the focus here ought to be on providing clearer and more useful insights into the dynamics of such issues - including the frequently unhelpful involvement of the state - rather than slipping into exaggerated and unproductive attacks on the motives of those who have every right to be concerned about the effects of market demands on resources that are not effectively owned.
Published: June 11, 2008 12:42 AM
"Can anyone help me find out how the WWF (I assume it's World Wildlife Federation and not the World Wrestling Federation) calculates carbon footprint?"
Roger, a little Googling brought me to this by WWF HK: http://www.climateers.org/eng/about/calculatormethodology3.pdf,
and to thsi by the WBCSD and the WRI: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools
Regards,
TT
Published: June 11, 2008 1:46 AM
Person, no, I hadn't seen Bob Murphy's post or discussion thread. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
TT
Published: June 11, 2008 1:49 AM
Curran, surely you recognize that Austrian approaches to environmental issues provide a very simple and straightforward basis for analyzing your question: "As for the environmentalist who feel that the Earth would be better off without humans, well, by all means, why are they still alive?"
What those on this board like to denigrate as "enviros" are simply people who have a preference as to how certain resources are used, but the preference either cannot (or only with great difficulty) be expressed through market transactions due to a lack of clear or enforceable property rights. As an owner of my home, I have both a right and an ability to exclude others and can capture the benefits of investing in improving my home and property. But I can do very little - beyond raising my voice and expressing my opinion - when I comes to the destruction of resources that are not clearly own, or are owned by the government and thus mismanaged.
In my view, true Miseseans ARE environmentalists and conservationists, in the best sense of those words, and there is much to sympathize with (and much common cause to make with) even the worst enviro riff-raff. Even while we may strongly disagree about the role of government in resolving problems relating to , we ought to clearly understand:
- that it is natural for people to have preferences,
- acceptable for them to have frustrations when an absence of property rights makes it nigh-impossible for such preferences to be expressed through voluintary market transactions, and
- that it is common experience that open-access (or socialized-access) resources are destructively exploited.
TT
Published: June 11, 2008 2:10 AM
n joseph potts says:
"...public education is incapable of delivering any value outside reading, writing, and arithmetic... "
again, for the benefit of our american brethren, in australia we'd be so grateful if our public education system was able to acquit itself on the three r's.
for years, teachers' unions and governments have put the emphasis on their r's - republic, rights and reconciliation. that is, change from a constitutional monarchy to a republic, aboriginal land rights, and reconciliation between whites and blacks. throw in a little post-modernism for good measure, and singaporean school students give us a good run for our money on english, lapping us in numeracy.
Published: June 11, 2008 3:05 AM
Thanks for the link, TT. I'll try to find time to study WWF's methodology. I found this interesting quote on the calculator page: "CO2 is the main greenhouse gas responsible for global warming." That seems a little obtuse from an environmental web site. CO2 is actually third, behind methane and water vaper.
Published: June 11, 2008 6:50 AM
Asking for taxpayer financed education without political propaganda is like asking for water as long as it is not wet.
If one has government schools of course they are going to be political - and the way of looking at the world they teach will tend to be collectivist, even if the poltical party in office is (at least supposedly) anti collectivist.
This is because such an "education system" is going to be under the control of an administrative structure (the people who "educate" the teachers themselves, and the rest of it) and guess what sort of people are likely to gain control of such a structure.
Published: June 11, 2008 8:36 AM
Good thing the government is so inefficient, otherwise it would have executed me eight years ago, at age 15.5.
Published: June 11, 2008 10:13 AM
Wow what a *cough* *cough* strawman argument A.P. *cough* *cough*!
Published: June 11, 2008 10:25 AM
I'll second Newson's comment here, that if state education were to actually teach, even if it didn't restrict itself to only teaching, Reading, Writing and Mathematics, the world would be a far better place.
But they don't. Reading is far down on their list, well behind "Sitting Still". Numeracy? Only for those who still have some aptitude after being crushed for 8 years or so.
Writing, only for such small quantities and on such subjects as the bureaucrats can stand.
Published: June 11, 2008 10:37 AM
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your article, Teaching Kids about the Environment, Government Style. Quite insightful, particularly the references to environmentalist philosophers.
"Nature" is a euphemism that is amorphous. I think one needs to separate the physical universe from the non-physical, abstract universe of the mind. This is what I am trying to do in my own studies on Austrian capital theory. Otherwise the word is highjacked, as socialsim and capitalism were, and translated into something else. It places such individuals on the moral high ground (cf. Sowell's notion of "deep thinkers"). So, it does depend on your worldview -- ontology, epistemology and ethics.
That said, it is not a suprise this sort of stuff passes as normative, particularly in democratic-socialist Australia. State education is a propoganda vehicle for the state's end. This is classic anti-capitalist drivel (cf. Mises). The reminds me of an amusing entry in the student daily newssheet at LaTrobe Uni (Melbourne). It read something like: "the next time I hear a student complain about the evils of the capitalist system while listening to their Ipod, I will have a will have an ironic seizure"!
Troy Lynch
Melbourne
Published: June 11, 2008 4:26 PM
Roger, you're welcome.
Nice to see you acknowledging the greenhouse effect. I suspect that the WWF reference is to GHGs for which man is directly responsible, rather than to feedbacks, such as increased atmospheric water vapor that result as air and water temperatures rise. And yes, methane has a more potent GHG effect than CO2, but as a relative matter, to date CO2 has a greater effect due to greater emissions and increases in atmospheric levels. HCFCs are the most potent GHGs, but their emissions are much more modest.
Published: June 11, 2008 9:56 PM
Hi everyone,
Thanks for your comments on my article. I’m glad most of you enjoyed it.
Kakugo: Thanks for your comments. However you state that “…if they have to teach some kind of education, let it be about respecting other people’s properties and not expecting the State to step in for everything.” I would recommend against this for the same reason I criticise the Planet Slayer website — namely, that the function of primary school education is to teach facts which children are old enough to comprehend, not to inculcate them with allegedly desireable political behaviour that they cannot possibly understand. While I agree wholeheartedly that people should respect others’ property, teaching this in government primary schools would also involve government indoctrination, since children of this age are far too young to understand moral and political arguments about capitalism and socialism (and should not be pushed to take sides). The issue should not simply become a matter of who’s ox is gored.
Tokyo Tom: Thanks for your comments. Among other things, you state that I have failed to demonstrate the paragraph in which I assert that government environmental education programs teach children that man should be subordinated to nature. However, as I point out in the article, the Greenhouse Calculator explicitly recommends that a person should die rather than emit CO2 in excess of the prescribed amount. This is a clear manifestation of the environmentalist philosophy of nature over man, as discussed in the article. Moreover, the repeated and obviously intentional normative language of the calculator, coupled with the exploding cartoon pig, makes it clear that this message is intentional.
While the website does indeed refer to a person’s “share” of resources, you will also notice from the website that the recommended upper limit of CO2 emissions requires substantial deprivation (you can try some trial and error calculations to see what I mean). Moreover, experience teaches us that environmentalists and other statists commonly use a technique of ‘incrementalism’ to achieve their goals — once the prescribed limit of CO2 emissions is reached, they simply change the goal, never stating their ultimate goal (with rare and terrifying exceptions, as cited in the article).
With respect, since the “share of resources” referred to in the website is based upon egalitarian pronouncement rather than upon property rights and homesteading, your suggestion that the website’s message could be justified on Lockean grounds is, quite frankly, absurd.
I agree with your insightful observation that a large part of the problem is the absence of private property rights over environmental resources, and the resulting tragedy of the commons. However, I think you misconstrue the philosophy of environmentalism, which, as explained in the article, is a specific belief about the moral status of man versus the environment.
Despite my disagreement with much of what you have written, thanks anyway for your comments on the article.
Published: June 12, 2008 8:24 AM
Ben, nice try, but no dice.
I appreciate that there are some out there who express a preference that nature be given priority over man, but what you`ve presented here just doesn`t support the conclusion that the state is pushing a nature over man philosophy. Rather, it is (at least in what you`ve presented) clearly presenting an egalitarian view as to how MEN should SHARE what the government presumes to be a finite resource.
As the materials make very clear that it is almost impossible for Australian NOT to be carbon pigs, what`s the point? One supposes it must be to create a constituency in the young for doing something to address the pangs of conscience that may be stirred by apparent gluttony, by changing lifestyle and supporting govenment policy that may have the effect of causing Australians to bite a carbon bullet before poorer nations are expected to. Propaganda, to be sure, but not anti-human propaganda (unless you start from the assumption that it is anti-human to ever wish to regulate an open-access commons).
Presumably you are aware that the propaganda being advanced by the Australian government is quite consistent with what many believe and argue - that climate change due to climbing atmospheric GHG levels is a problem, and that since Western nations are largely responsible for the historical growth of such stocks, they should take the first steps in any belt-tightening.
In my view, the website`s message is that mankind should fairly share the armospheric commons; the website advances what seems to be an egalitarian, per captia view. I have suggested that on its face
on its face, such a message seems wholly consistent with the Lockean requirements that one should
• abstain from harming others, and
• leave enough and as good for others when taking from the commons.
You might consider actually engaging my points in favor of facilely dismissing them as absurd, at least to get some practice in talking to others outside your echo chanber.
TT
Published: June 12, 2008 10:09 AM
What does amy of this have to do with the state's stealing money from taxpayers in order to produce thoroughly offensive, albeit unintentionally funny, propaganda directed at the footsy-pyjama set?
No offense, TT.
Admittedly, Tokyo, you seem positively enthusiastic about gov. prop. if it's all in a cause you approve of.
We part company here, among other places.
Here's the deal Tokyo, if you want to live without electricity, or the fossil fuels that make it possible, we say, go for it! Less power to you!
On your view, you are burning way more electricity than your share. But of course, the beautiful propaganda you are producing somehow excuses.... whatever.
Published: June 12, 2008 9:07 PM
Philemon, thanks for your rather perfect display of the very lack of Reason that so many Austrians reassure themselves that only they possess, all while engaging others only on an emotional and reflexively partisan basis:
- you assert that I "seem positively enthusiastic about gov. prop. if it's all in a cause [I] approve of", even though I have made it very clear that I oppose any government teaching or propaganda, including the propaganda that Ben O'Neill has pointed to;
- you suggest without basis that I "want to live without electricity";
- you assert without basis that "On your view, you are burning way more electricity than your share"; and
- you claim without support that I am producing "beautiful propaganda";
all while ignoring my actual points that:
- the propaganda - that Ben rightly objects to - simply doesn't support his conclusion that the government is advancing an anti-human, pro-nature philosophy (a rather small side point that if Ben had a little more self-confidence he should be willing to acknowledge and move on from); and
- that parts of the propaganda message are consistent with the Lockean provisos about not harming others and to leave as well enough for others when sharing a commons.
Why is it that so many so-called Austrians like you seem so incapable of actually using their reason and addressing what they disagree with straight on, as opposed to throwing up obviously incomplete, unsupported, irrational or emotional BS?
By throwing away reason and picking up feces, you do little credit to von Mises or other Austrian stalwarts, do little to advance the agenda of freedom, and make it so much easier for those who do not understand Austrian insights to simply ignore you (and such insights, were you ever to get around to discussing them).
Austrian teachings do not simply ignore problems relating to open-access commons and externalities, much less demand that those who are concerned about such problems be condemned. Rather, Austrians recognize that the source of the problem lies in the inability of people - with perfectly understanble preferences - to express those preferences in market transactions due either to want of clear or enforceable property rights or to socialized, government ownership. Have you missed or somehow disagree with these principles?
I harp on them only because they are fundamental Austrian insights, and the most productive means of engagin with others. You can continue to chose to be unproductive, but I hope that while you are busy patting yourself on the back you see your choice as the shameful retreat from reason that it is.
Yours in that hateful von Mises (whose word on externalities and commons are linked to at my name above),
TT
Published: June 13, 2008 12:14 AM
Interesting logical fallacy for the day:
Sweeping assertion/generalisation (a.k.a. fallacy of accident, DICTO SIMPLICITER).
To find an occasional correlation between an A and B and presume that A and B automatically go hand-in-hand.
E.g. I have found a website about a group of environmentalists and are really Eviro-Nazis - therefore anyone who have concerns with the environment are really Eviro-Nazis (they just don't know it).
Published: June 13, 2008 1:27 AM
Why does the girl's sign say "make love, not war"? If you create more babies, then you're adding to humanity's carbon footprint, aren't you? Unless she's also advocating birth control. Sure, I realize it's just an old, hippy anti-war slogan, but it seems inconsistent with the modern environmentalist movement.
Published: June 13, 2008 10:41 AM
TT, thanks for your reply. You did write that, while of course, the government should not take taxpayers money to purvey the message in the website in question, that nonetheless, the message itself is not anti-human and perfectly consistent with Locke's theory of property.
Now, I'm no Locke scholar, however, I don't recall anything in Locke to the effect that people should not make use of natural resources unless they can leave just as much for everyone else to use. That would require that the resources in general be infinite in extent at any given time, which I don't think he would have been prepared to assert given the obvious counterexamples in nature. Of course, Locke was not thinking about air.
On the website in question, the view of how "MEN should share what the government presumes to be a finite resource" was that once a person had used up his energy ration, he should be forced to refrain from using any more. In fact, that he should not survive beyond that point.
There are at least a couple of ways in which such a message could be considered antihuman.
On the one hand, it might simply be taken to mean that nature is a good onto itself, and where people encroach beyond an acceptable point, people are expendable.
On the other hand it could be taken to mean that nature provides a finite resource necessary for human life, and only by rationing that resource can people survive, and anyone who exceeds their ration should be exterminated.
The first view is clearly antihuman because it places Nature with a capital N above people. Taken to its logical conclusion, this view implies that people should not exist at all. This view is clearly antihuman.
The second view is more along the lines of putting the State with a capital S, using Nature with a capital N as an excuse, above people. It regards people as costs or burdens, which is worse even than regarding them as means, as they are not even "resources" on such a view. Using Nature as an excuse is problematic because it leads to the first view. Moreover, considering people as mere burdens on natural resources is antihuman in itself.
When I suggested that you ration your energy use, I did indulge in a bit of a tu quoque, in implying that you should conduct yourself in a manner consistent with the message you were concerned to defend. Of course, on the statist interpretation above, there is in fact no reason to practice what you preach, the point being to force everybody else to do it. Not very Austrian.
Published: June 14, 2008 10:07 AM
Ben,
I am astonished that you seem to believe your own absurd caricaturisation of Environmentalism. You attempt to use the existence of this single website as well as a quotation from a Sustainability Programs Officer to support your eventual conclusions, that "The environmentalist's concept of intrinsic value is nothing but the desire to destroy human values."
Your argument is polemical and at no point even considers the potential validity of the Environmentalism movement, which you instead misrepresent, and your assualt is wholly against this straw-man. Generally environmentalists do not consider nature to be superior to man, and to suggest that they want to destroy human values demonstrates an unwillingness to even interact constructively with their point of view.
You resort to fallacious and deceptive argument against your adversary: using a quotation from an opponent of Environmentalism to suggest your own biased version of their 'standard viewpoint'; a false analogy between the instinctive and natural function of predatory animals and the unnatural, harmful and potentially irreversible human degradation of the nvironment; and inferring that a hesitation to confuse young children is also due to the (assumed) irrationality of 'the environmentalist paradigm'.
Your article could be a harmless example of manipulative and shallow writing, except for the untruths you proclaim in regard to the environment. The fact is, it is necessary for humans to work in harmony with the environment in order to secure their own wellbeing. Deforestation has already contributed to increases in breeding of malarial mosquitoes, the of CFCs has contributed to increases in cancers, and global warming (althought you might deny humanity's role in it) is increasingly threatening human existence as a consequence of humanity's unwillingness to think that looking after the environment could reciprocally work in our favour.
While some environmentalists may go too far in their thinking, your attempts to tar a whole body of people with the same brush, your deceptive techniques and false representations, and your implicit contempt for
environmentalists render your work little but unsubstantiated vitriol.
Published: June 16, 2008 1:36 AM
joe dignam says:
"Deforestation has already contributed to increases in breeding of malarial mosquitoes, the of CFCs has contributed to increases in cancers, and global warming..."
all unsubstantiated/disputed claims. this is the pot calling the kettle black.
Published: June 16, 2008 3:14 AM
Philemon, I suggest you re-read my last post to you and my previous ones. Why? Because you're not actually responding to what I've written, but instead to strawmen.
- I have NOT said that the government "message itself is not anti-human and perfectly consistent with Locke's theory of property". Rather, I've said that "on its face, the above message [one that finite commons should be shared] of this particular game seems wholly consistent with the Lockean requirements that one should
• abstain from harming others, and
• leave enough and as good for others when taking from the commons", and suggested that it would be productive if one were to review the website more critically with these concepts in mind."
To your credit, you have tried to address some arguments against the website, but you still use rather thin and offensive strawmen. Besides arguing agsinst the most offensive language - the hyperbolic suggestion that everyone who has used more than their fair share (practically everyone in Australia) should have died - why not question how one's fair share is determined, by whom, for what purpose or with what consequences, none of which are explicitly addressed?
- You suggest that I should "conduct [my]self in a manner consistent with the message [I was] concerned to defend", but I certainly was not defending a message that people should commit suicide - or the state should bump them off - when some "fair share" is surpassed.
The question of force is, of course, a perfectly legitimate one to raise.
- You suggest, without basis, that I am trying to get the state to compel others to do as I wish. One what basis do you derive that conclusion from any of my comments? None - just your fevered strawmen-mongering. Not very Austrian - though shamefully VERY representative of what passes for discourse on this blog.
All that I have been insisting on here is a little more reason and logic, and some good-faith engagement
with others - as the best way to actually influence them.
I guess that I may be asking too much.
TT
Published: June 16, 2008 6:34 AM
Hi Joel,
Thank you for your post. The allegedly ‘absurd characterisation’ of environmentalism that you refer to is in fact consistent with the ethics of environmentalism as interpreted by many of its supporters and critics. The notion that nature is to be evaluated as valuable for its own sake, rather than for its use to man is central to many theories of environmental ethics — this is often referred to as ‘deep ecology’. Contrary to your posting, it is not merely my own characterisation — rather, it is a viewpoint which has a wide scholarly literature, both from supporters and detracters of the theory. The paragraph I cite from Michael Berliner is merely a small example. For further information on this ethical paradigm see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology
This page lists at least thirty well known environmentalists and environmental theorists who adopt the deep ecology paradigm. The statement cited in my article that “the environmentalist's concept of intrinsic value is nothing but the desire to destroy human values”, aside from not being my eventual conclusion as you state (rather, it is a prepatory quotation made in the third paragraph of the article), is also supported by large numbers of critics of the deep ecology doctrine, including Ayn Rand, George Reisman and Michael Berliner. If you google search “environmentalism” and “anti-human” you will find plenty of articles on this topic from plenty of different people. Again, far from being my own ideosyncratic interpretation, this is a viewpoint for which there is a wide literature by many critics of environmentalism.
The quotation from Michael Berliner correctly represents the ethical paradigm underlying environmentalism. The fact that many people who call themselves ‘environmentalists’ are not aware of the ethical paradigm of deep ecology or the philosophical roots of the environmentalist paradigm (and may not support them) does not change the nature of environmentalism. It simply means that these people are not environmentalists in the proper sense of the word.
You are correct that in my article I do not consider the potential validity of the environmentalism movement. That is because my article is not about the validity or invalidity of the environmentalism movement. It is about the illegitimate use of public schools to indoctrinate children with allegedly desirable behaviours rather than giving them genuine education. As you can see from my above post (made before your post), I would have the same objection if children were indoctrinated with pro-capitalist ideals in primary school (despite the fact that I support these ideals).
You refer to “untruths [I] proclaim in regard to the environment”, however you fail to cite even one example. I presume that this is because my article makes no assertions about the environment at all. I do not discuss whether the factual assertions made in the Planet Slayer website are correct or incorrect, nor do I assert anything about deforestation, malaria mosquitos, CFCs or global warming. The topic of the article is the indoctrination of primary school children, not the truth or falsity of environmental propositions.
As far as the assertion that I use a single example to make sweeping claims, I have included an entire section of the article stating why we may make a more general inference from this example. I cite the fact that the website is funded, created and hosted by government agencies and the fact that at least four government education departments (that I am aware of) recommend the website for children. This means that a very large number of bureaucrats must have seen and approved of the content of the website. The Planet Slayer website is one example – the many bureaucrats involved are many more. Moreover, if you have a look at the various blogs on the internet discussing the website, you will find plenty of parents and others with substantial experience dealing with environmentalist indoctrination in public primary schools — the Planet Slayer website is the tip of the iceberg.
I hope that clears things up.
Cheers,
Ben.
Published: June 16, 2008 8:34 AM
TT: "Rather, the website that you link to is obviously focussed primarily on "sharing" resources and the environment, that is, on some concept of comparative social justice based on the premise that use or consumption of some resources may adversely affect others."
Let's review.
"Use our Greenhouse Calculator to find out when you should die."
This seems to be pretty clear-cut to me. Not "when you will exceed your fair share of emissions" or "when you should stop emitting CO2". Should. Die. "Should" is a normative word. If I steal from someone else, I "should" be made to pay back twice what I stole. The victim has a right to demand that of me. In this case, if I emit more CO2 than X amount, I should die.
Can you justify such a stance without resorting to intrinsic value? Only if it could be proven that my emitting of X amount of CO2 caused the death of one person. Anything less than that and suddenly we are putting people to death for property destruction, personal injury, or damage to a commons. Now that's hardly justice, is it?
You might argue that this one statement is an anomaly amongst other "good" messages on the site. If so, it's akin to a pro-war article being posted on the front page of Mises.org.
"...why not question how one's fair share is determined, by whom, for what purpose or with what consequences, none of which are explicitly addressed?"
That's another problem I had. How do they profess to know the "ideal" amount of CO2 to emit, per capita? Given the choices the site has for us, a long life means extreme poverty. (And maybe that's the real message. It seems to me that if people were "educated" to believe that such poverty is necessary to save the planet, they will be more amenable to repressive action by the government.)
Like you, I want the truth. The only difference is that I am not yet convinced of what you take for fact. In the spirit of promoting truth, I urge you to quit apologizing for those in the environmentalist movement who use fallacious arguments to advance their cause. Just as I believe that "Fahrenheit 9/11" actually had the opposite of its intended effect by straying too far from the facts (inviting plenty of justified criticism), hysterics from the environmental movement aren't going to win people over. Even the majority of people who rarely engage their critical thinking ability have developed a certain (healthy) cynicism. Until the environmental movement purges the alarmism and sticks to factual arguments, I'm going to resist taking anything from them at face value.
Published: June 16, 2008 10:46 AM
Scott, thanks for the even tone. However, you still seem to be affected by the reading skills impairment that often accompanies EDS (enviro derangement syndrome):
- Ben's quote (in his second paragraph of the summary intro) makes clear that the purpose of using the Greenhouse Calculator is not simply to "find out what age you should die at", but "so you don't use more than your fair share of Earth's resources." So yes, I would say that it seems pretty clear that this is about SHARING, which does not at all require a reference to "instrinsic value". Sorry, I'm merely stating the obvious here.
- You "urge [me] to quit apologizing for those in the environmentalist movement who use fallacious arguments to advance their cause", but of course I haven't apologized for anyone in the enviro movement here, much less those who clearly use fallacious arguments which are perfectly appropriate to contest. Rather, I have been suggesting that those who would disagree with government policy and stupid arguments by enviros will be better served if they are careful to avoid fallacies, unsupported arguments and emotional ad homs themselves.
Of course I agree with you that "hysterics from the environmental movement aren't going to win people over", and I applaud that you resist taking at face value what many enviros say. That said, however, Austrians still ought to understand and appreciate that the extensive Austrian literature that recognizes and explains why there ARE environmental problems, which stem from competing demands and preferences with respect to resources that are not clearly or effective owned (including externalities) or that are subject to socialistic, government control.
A little thinking about Austrian principles should also readily show that while arguments about "instrinsic value" are of course nonsense, they are readily understood as nothing more than the personal preferences of those who express such views that natural environments - which are under pressure in many places due to property rights problems - ought to be preserved.
In short, environmental fights are entirely predictible disputes over resources, preferences and to what extent private property rights or socialized control predominate - and, in the case of socialized rules, who captures the rents.
There are many free market environmentalists who urge that a focus on private rules - and privatization - is generally the most productive path towards resolving socialized mismanagement (although they throw their hands up on climate change), but Austrians seem to prefer to bash enviros while ignoring both the property rights and big-government dynamics that gave birth to enviros and the batches of wealthy elites who prosper under socialized managment.
Sorry if by simplifying I've made things too complex.
Tom
Published: June 17, 2008 12:04 AM
Thank you for your reply Ben,
I appreciate your clarification in regards to your portrayal of environmentalism. However, I still think you may be misleading your audience. Your article refers to a fundamental minority within the environmentalism movement, and while they may indeed be the onlytrue environmentalists, the many people who, while not seeking to 'destroy human values', consider themselves to be environmentalists, surely represent a sizeable majority, and your use of the extreme minority of environmentalists to characterise the whole is deceptive.
In regard to your opposition of teaching children concern for the environment by 'engaging the heart', you seem to contradict yourself. The process of enabling children to learn this way is hardly 'entirely antithetic to genuine education', indeed, children too young to necessarily be intellectually engaged may learn to love the environment in much the same way that children are taught other moral behaviours. It is clear that the purpose of such education is to instill moral values such that appropriate behaviour may be developed from a young age. This teaching focuses around moral instruction and is a essential to anybody's development as a human - your opposition to it is only valid if you think that we are morally exempt from environmental concern, a point you state to be irrelevant.
Published: June 24, 2008 2:57 AM