Earth Hour: Did it help?

03/30/09

I’ll show you my reflection-critique on this issue: Environmentalism. It’s not that I’m against it but there are some points I think that are irrelevant and non-parallel with the “real” Environmental Scene.

A Reflection-Critique on the Philosophy of Privation by Peter Schwartz

 

            Peter Schwartz, founder of the Intellectual Activist, chairman of the Board of the Ayn Rand Institute, editor of Return of the Primitive and the author of Philosophy of Privation, tackled about rare and critical issues about Environmentalism. In this critique, we will look at Environmentalism – its heart and soul. What is it really about? We know that we have totally embraced the environmental movement and upon reading the essay of Peter Schwartz; it shown up many of the silly contradictions and outright lies put forward by Environmentalists. On the course of this paperwork, I warn you, you may be in for a shock. If you ever thought the planet was in trouble because of what’s happening to its environment then get ready to find out what the trouble really is. Because, what the Environmentalists are doing to your life, your liberty, property, and future is unbelievable. It’s stranger than fiction. It’s a nightmare.

            The Philosophy of Privation, as the title suggests, tackles about the irrationalism of today’s culture. Environmentalism, the vital part discussed in his essay, was considered a dogma and has crucial aspects common in religion. But this is not how it starts, because most people have the view of Environmentalism as being scientifically based. Environmentalists present themselves on the surface as being concerned with evidence, science, and logic, telling people what the factual consequences of certain actions or technologies are. But in reality it’s exactly the opposite. They don’t really care about scientific evidence. They are motivated not by science but by certain MORAL PREMISE and that premise is something that ties them very much to a dogma and accounts to their views on technology.

            Scientists nowadays are often drawn to a viewpoint that reflects the dominant philosophy – the philosophy they’ve been taught from grade one and to what they have reinforced in their books, movies, and on television. They have destroyed the foundation of Science; not just corrupting it. Their main goal was to destroy the Scientific Method and the premise that: your conclusions need to be based upon rational evidence. That is what they disavow. Environmentalism, a movement, needs to start at the foundation. And the question one should ask about Environmentalism is – when they declare that something is bad, and harmful, certain technologies needed to be stopped, that we have too much material wealth, that these things are harming people, et cetera. The question is: By what standard do they make these claims?

            Delving deeper, Environmentalists are not concerned with benefiting man or with human welfare. Their standard of value is that which makes human life IMPOSSIBLE. Their standard of good is: if something preserves nature – which means it keeps nature intact from human encroachment; that is good. That explains all of the anti-technology, and anti- industrialization. Not because these things actually harm people, rather their goal is to keep mankind PROHIBITED from re-shaping nature to fit his needs.

            It might sound very unhealthy but it’s far from being healthy. Man exists only by taking what’s out there in nature and re-making it. Every step by which man has risen from the prehistoric caveman has involved taking something in nature and re-shaping it: making tools, making medicine, growing crops, building cars, and inventing the wheel. Every single step forward that man took involved re-shaping the nature so that it enhanced human life. That’s what they’re against. If you’re against changing nature, you’re against advancing from the level of the caveman.

            The root of it is the notion – morally at least – that it is wrong, that it is evil for man to pursue his own interests. Self-interest is BAD, whereas self-sacrifice is good. This doctrine is commonly known by people as ALTRUISM. The view that you don’t have the right to live for your own sake; you don’t have a right to pursue your own values. Environmentalists changed ‘others’ from people to Nature.

            Upon understanding Peter Schwartz’s essay, I understood how Environmentalism and its fundamental ideas rest on. I grasped the whole idea that these hysterical, scare-mongering stories that come out regularly about the planet – that it will disintegrate if we allow technology to continue at its current pace. We’re running out of this – out of that – all these scare stories rest upon a false philosophic view about human nature – particularly about how man engages in the activities his life requires, namely PRODUCTION.

            For us, the youth, technology has given us the ability to spend money to buy a packaged meal and not to spend hours cooking, farming, or hunting just to keep us alive each day. Technology is a time saver. For us, that is life or death. We, who are starting out, will be the worst victims of Environmentalism because it will take away this precious asset of time from our lives. Objectivism, on the other hand, is our only means of knowledge and guide to action. Defined as the philosophy that says reason is absolute. This says that we have a moral right to live for our own happiness; it is the antithesis of Environmentalism.

            Knowing all of these facts and stands about Environmentalism, it would really help us, the youth, in investing more time into inquiry about certain things introduced to us. We might look at things but not check inside for errors. This is the point wherein we have the utmost right to look deeper into the surface: looking deeper to learn.

 

That’s the end of my reflection: my whole point: Why do some sort of environmental concern be done if at the first place you want advancement and industrial burst?

This Earth Hour for me is useless. Even though you stop the whole flow of current, minimizeng heat radiation caused by heat-emitting components, it will not stop or help the denatured/ deprived form of nature. Nature itself is given by God to be used and be formed to things; it is our task to replenish what we have taken not to preserve things for the de-advancement of technology. It is different. Guys, i’m not telling you that I’m a great genius about this..a piece of advice: Read, Research, Reflect…

 

Thanks for reading!