The American Spectator

Appleby| 4.23.09 @ 7:01AM

I am very tired of hearing the word Green -- and Sustainable -- from people whose path to and from the subway (and within it) is scattered with garbage that they apparently believe will recycle itself as soon as they drop it from their binkie-twiddling hands.

On Earth Day, which I have never participated in since its beginning, between my house and my office, on the subway and to and from it, I picked up after fourteen of these Sustainable Greenies, fourteen newspapers, four styrofoam cups, five Starbucks $5.00 Grandissimo cups (three of them still containing product) and numerous pieces of paper including napkins, receipts and straw papers. In many cases I made eye contact with the perps, who rolled their eyes and flounced their hair at the very idea that the world is not their personal garbage can -- did I not realize there was Tweeting to be done???????

Save the planet. Teach your kids to pick up their own trash and put it in the basket.

Michael Dooley| 4.23.09 @ 9:52AM

On behalf of our modern tea parties, the best question I've ever heard was: "At what point...at what percentage in taxatation does liberty give way to slavery?"

Marc Jeric| 4.23.09 @ 1:09PM

Just a few random thoughts to join here other philosophers.
1) Abu Hussein spoke to Iowans yesterday - about wind power. That reminded me of my trip through Castilla Vieja where Don Quijote attacked those windmills in order to impress his Dulcinea. Their successes will be similar.
2) Inventor of the Earth Day is a murderer sentenced to life in prison, after extradition from France where he tried to hide. How was he able to escape? Well, his lawyer was Senator Spector who obtained a bail for the murderer of only $2,000 (10% of $20,000).
3) Imagine arguing that a burp of a lonely wolf in Alaska will change the Florida climate to that of Sahara. That is briefly the argument of our marxists-cum-climatologists for nationalizing everything. I know - I calculated that effect.

Russ Hugi| 4.23.09 @ 10:45PM

Am I missing something here? Bush administration officials are being brought to justice because they used enhanced interrogation techniques on people to save the lives of hundreds.
Obama, on the other hand, gave orders to kill three people without trial or interrogation, to save the life of one person.

Guisepi| 4.24.09 @ 3:28AM

I hate to say it, but political economists (including Smith, et al) agree that a market economy requires an ever expanding market. Without growth, the free market just doesn't work. For any growth to occur, there is a need for more people to buy more goods and services. In turn, more resources need to be extracted from both the people and planet. This ever-expanding economic system at this point begins to exploit those people and planet out of necessity to keep expanding - otherwise is would run short of resources. This problem is also exacerbated with the ridiculous amount of interest that springs out of lednign and credit. The tragedies that come from this mess include sweatshop labor, deforestation for farming, "adding value" to foods by highly processing them, exploitation of indigenous peoples, etc. This, obviously is not sustainable. Capitalism in our current fashion will never work, as there will NEVER be enough resources on this planet for continual growing exploitation. (Remember Newton's Law that matter cannot be created or destroyed).

Therefore, Ira M. Kessel it is not in capitalism that we will protect the environment.

I believe that it is true that we tend to take better care of things that we own. But the way the system works right now is that we don't feel like we own the planet, or the place where our garbage get's put (is one big pile hidden from view any better than several small pieces on our sidewalk?), or the forest that gets cut down for our beef. In fact, we are so disconnected from our planet and the resources, that people don't even know what part of the world their avocado came from, or when apple season is, or how rubber is made. How can we feel a sense of ownership, and thus take care of our planet, if we don't even know our relationship to it? How are we supposed to understand our effect on the planet if we don't even know where all of the things we consume come from or go to? (This unfortunately is only a tragic portion of our cradle to grave method of consumption, which recycling bottles and cans is only the tip of the iceberg of a solution for).

As far responsibility goes for our house, it is easy to see the repercussions of not taking care of it. Yet, the planet is so big and there are so many people doing things, that it is hard to see what our personal effect is, especially since we are so disconnected. We need to get our hands dirty. Plant a garden. Go see a swath of oldgrowth forsest that's being logged. Climb a tree. Travel to far off lands and learn how indigenous peoples survive in harmony with the earth. Sleep outside. Go bird-watching. Identify, gather, and eat a wild edible plant.

With this you will know your home. You will know your Mother. And you will respect her.

It is not a course of pitting one man's self-interest against another (capitalism), it is a course of consciously shifting our view into the realm where we can purposefully act both in selfish and selfless ways (too much of either is bad for other or bad for self). Try it sometime. Act out of compassion for people on a regular basis. Try out the 'gift economy,' which, simply stated, is giving without anything expected in return. You know what happens when you do this? The people you give to start giving to other people, and that goes on and on, and people gift to you and you gift to more poeple, etc.

We have evolved with the mental capacity to overcome issues such as this. We can overcome the innate fear of scarcity and our desire to have more and more and more (both for security and pleasure). We have a frontal lobe! Let's use it. Let us consciously decide to both be responsible for our planet, and to take care of one another (and I don't just mean our friends and families). We all deserve compassion. We can build relationships with one another and with the plant and its natural systems, and thus can learn to live in harmony with each other and the planet!

IMKessel| 4.24.09 @ 2:03PM

Guisepi,

Well met. Unlike some posters who only throw trash, you offer suggestions. Reading over your piece, we have more agreement than disagreement.

The market is capable of ever expanding because man has an infinite imagination. Today, and maybe for the next fifty or hundred years, we may have only this planet for our resources, but man has always, in time, learned to expand his capacity past the restrictions of his environment. Maybe the master of science fiction, Robert Heinlein, has influenced me beyond the point of being rational, but the stars are also our home. I may not live to see the day, but I have every expectation that my grandchildren will live off planet.

Prophets of doom have said that man will exploit Mother Earth and die off for quiet some time. Malthus and company so far have been discredited. Newton’s law of conservation of matter still holds true, but man has expanded the manner and methods by which we do transform and use matter and engery.

If capitalism will protect the environment, what system do you propose?

Your argument regarding man’s disconnect from the planet is a cogent one, and I thank you for your thoughtfulness, but the disconnectedness does not arise from capitalism; it is an ontological problem. Capitalism can people connect locally to the world, and through this connection, create an opportunity to connect globally. Further connections will need, as you suggest, other methodologies.

In your discourse, you argue against acting in one’s self-interest. “It is not a course of pitting one man's self-interest against another (capitalism), it is a course of consciously shifting our view into the realm where we can purposefully act both in selfish and selfless ways (too much of either is bad for other or bad for self).”

Acting “selfishly” is never a wise choice; it is counter to one’s long term interests. Acting selfishly, pursuing a short term gain over long term interests, has been shown to be illogical by greater minds than mine. (Aristotle, Freud and Rand are but a few who make highly intelligent arguments for pursuing self-interest.) Further, acting against self-interest is also highly illogical, but one has to be able to understand self-interest before one acts with intelligence on pursuing said interests.

You write, “Act out of compassion for people on a regular basis. Try out the 'gift economy,' which, simply stated, is giving without anything expected in return.” Kant wrote that man’s highest interest in entering heaven, even if he denies a belief in God. As the good book states in red letters, “As you have done to the least of men, you have done unto me.” Therefore, any kindness done is in my own self-interest. If one wishes to put aside heavenly gains and acknowledge only a material world (be one a communist or Objectivist), doing kindness still would have a positive effect on me, either directly, in that I enjoy doing kindness, or indirectly, as you suggest, “Try out the 'gift economy,' which, simply stated, is giving without anything expected in return. You know what happens when you do this? The people you give to start giving to other people, and that goes on and on, and people gift to you and you gift to more poeple, [sic] etc.”

Again, we agree more than not, but as stated this problem is not one of scarcity or capitalism. Mother Earth has been good to us; being kind in return is moral, ethical and in our own self-interest.

Richard Baker| 4.25.09 @ 10:35AM

I love to hear these lefties say that capitalism can't solve any problems while they live in a society which, while possessing flaws, allows these self-same lefties to exist in a world of material abundance that they seem to think is bad. Reminds me of something a farmer once said to me in Missouri in the '80s and that was that all these folks bitching about food prices and farming shouldn't complain with their mouths full.

Ray| 4.25.09 @ 10:54AM

Guisepi, Capitalism has brought more knowledge to the "common" people than any other economical system ever devised. How many farmers, under an egalitarian system for example, know or understand the things which exists OUTSIDE their immediate environment? The answer is: none. The very system the utilize prevent them for experiencing anything that isn't directly related to their economy, their livelihood.
In contrast, how many people in, say, Minnesota (where I live), knows that Rubber exists , even though we have NO "rubber trees" here? The answer is EVERYONE as we can buy rubber products, thanks to the Capitalism we utilize. The very existence of Rubber would be unknown to us here, if it wasn't for the Capitalism that allows those rubber products to be widely available to everyone. By utilizing Capitalism, those "products" are available to just about everyone. That alone has expanded our knowledge of the world.

And for understanding? Well, we can always buy a book which covers just about ANY topic imaginable All it takes it a little capital (for trade) and a bit of curiosity. How many people that don't utilize Capitalism can say the same? The answer to that is: Very few.

So, once again, Capitalism has lead to the greatest expansion of "common" (read, widely available) knowledge Mankind has every experienced. No longer is knowledge available to only a select few, like scholars and the sons and daughters of civil 'leaders." Thanks to Capitalism, that knowledge is available to EVERYONE who desires it.