The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Exploit the Earth Day

April 21st, 2010 by Mike N · 12 Comments · Environmentalism, Uncategorized

Tomorrow, April 22nd is Exploit the Earth Day. This year I plan to celebrate it, weather permitting, by burning some scrap wood in my burner. This will of course release valuable carbon dioxide into the atmosphere thus warming our planet. You see warming the Earth will make growing seasons longer and this will benefit almost all living organisms including us humans.

Warming the earth will also reduce the frequency and intensity of violent storms by shrinking the difference between the coldest temperatures at the poles and the warmest at the equator. What this does is narrow the extremes between which weather patterns oscillate.

I will say a thank you to all the explorers and pioneers who discovered the earth’s richness, and to the scientists who discovered the laws of nature which, once understood, allowed man to rearrange nature to serve his survival, and to the inventors who discovered ways to harness the forces of nature vastly raising man’s standard of living. One more salute will go to the businessmen and entrepreneurs who marketed their discoveries thus making them available to the rest of mankind.

Finally, a toast to the political system that made it all possible–capitalism, the social system where people are completely free to to make a buck by serving their own self-interest through voluntary trade to mutual benefit with everyone else. In fact,it’s the only system where one’s interests cannot be served by the forced privations of others. It is a just system. Just wish we were not losing it.

I’ll make a vow also: that any advertisements by merchants boasting how their products are green or eco-friendly will go straight into the trash.

(for more on Exploit the Earth Day see this essay at The Objective Standard)

12 Comments so far ↓

  • fardingmama

    and lets give a special thank you to scientists who have learned that ecosystems that support vital pollinating instects such as honeybees need to be protected so that we can survive long enough to exploit the resources that we can and should

  • Fareed

    I actually have a question regarding exploitation of the earth. Lets say you produce a chemical that reduces the incidence of disease among a population X but causes bio-concentration in particular bird species and eventually makes them go instinct. Is this a negative thing ?

  • Mike N

    mama: I agree. When left free, people will usually do the rational thing.

    Fareed: It would be a negative thing for the bird. But I don’t think it would be so cut and dried. You can be sure some people would try to find an anti-body for the bird or perhaps a less toxic version of the chemical or moving them to a different locale.

    It would be immoral to let humans die however, just to save the bird species. With all options exhausted, human life must take precedence.

  • Antacid

    As far as I’m concerned, the lives of every bird on the planet are less important than the life one person. (of course, this is ignoring the impacts that losing the birds would have on human life and prosperity).

  • Fareed

    which is my point exactly. perhaps some species are valuable to humans and so therefore their loss should be avoided. wouldn’t that also fall under exploitation of the earth for man’s good.

  • madmax

    It seems that Leftists/environmentalists have the view that the planet Earth is one big “Commons”. They also believe that every action taken by someone affects someone else so we are all “interconnected”. I can see why these positions are popular. There is a type of plausibility to them. But looking at the world from a non-communalist perspective would require a totally different epistemology than Leftists possess.

  • Fareed

    yep I’ve heard that one thrown around. The earth is one big commons and what one does affects the other. they seem to package deal their environmentalism with property rights and/or middle eastern oil never mind that I have not heard any of them advocated for well established property rights or removing environmental regulations that prevent domestic drilling and refining

  • Fareed

    actually I have a further question with respect to mining. The common arguments against it is that it leads to a loss of biodiversity/aquatic biodiversity and or endangered species.

    for example from this wiki page on mountain top removal mining:

    the extensive tracts of deciduous forests destroyed by mountaintop mining support several endangered species and some of the highest biodiversity in North America. There is a particular problem with burial of headwater streams by valley fills which causes permanent loss of ecosystems that play critical roles in ecological processes

    Is this a legitimate property rights concern or just aesthetic and/or “communal” environmental rights gibberish

  • fardingmama

    is high biodiversity something that is not valuable to humans? do you know this?

  • Fareed

    well i am the one asking the question. is it valuable and if so in what way?. So far it seems to be an excuse to not exploit nature/wilderness and not to tamper with or change it.

  • madmax

    That’s a good question Fareed. My guess is that environmentalists will assert that biodiversity is something that is necessary for human life and therefore it can be left to the property rights paradigm. I don’t have an answer but this line of argumentation has numerous different versions. It can be summed up as saying that the earth is one giant interdependent system and that human activity has to be regulated unless it destroys a fragile planet. Human freedom is therefore NOT an important value. By this way of thinking, collectivism is built right into nature.

    To me, environmentalism is the most formidable of the collectivist philosophies we have seen so far. This is made more so by the fact that environmentalism is built on the earth sciences which are in their infancy and outside the grasp of most people.

  • madmax

    The second sentence should read:

    My guess is that environmentalists will assert that biodiversity is something that is necessary for human life and therefore it can not be left to the property rights paradigm.