TOS Blog: Daily Commentary from an Objectivist Perspective

Saturday, April 21, 2012

On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day

Posted by Craig Biddle at 6:30 pm ET

Exploit the Earth or Die™

Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.

Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may. Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Under capitalism, people are fully free to choose their goals, to identify the means of attaining them, and to act on their best judgment. Accordingly, those who recognize that in order to live well they and their loved ones need abundant energy, clean air, clean water, and the like tend to use the available resources rationally, with an eye to the distant future. Further, under capitalism, if a person (or corporation) spews toxins onto someone’s land, or poisons his water supply, or in any other way violates his property rights, the offender is held accountable in a court of law. But, so long as a person does not violate anyone’s rights, he is free to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind.

Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature into the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature.

In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.

Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, fruits, and vegetables. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.

It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?

There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.

On April 22, make clear where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why: Exploit the Earth or die. It’s not a threat. It’s a fact.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

Posted in: Environmentalism

Comments are welcome so long as they are civil.
  • Lisbet Rattenborg

    The best way to reduce environmental destruction is to human consumption of natural resources and energy. One way to meet this end is to reduce human population, which many people disagree with. The alternative is to stop buying stuff. Many ‘green’ products are just a continuation of the pattern of consuming unnecessary natural resources for the purpose of instant gratification or temporary satisfaction. Anyone who’s ever moved from one house to another ends up asking themselves the question, “Where’d all this stuff come from?” and trashes a bunch of the unnecessary products we buy just to continue an unnecessary cycle of consumption. Reduce. Re-use. Recycle. The recycling should be a last ditch effort after we’ve done everything possible to Reduce.

  • Charles Douglas

    Or, instead of laying waste to the population and reducing our comforts, we could reduce economic controls and allow business to develop naturally in such a way that they will reduce their “carbon foot print” all on their own. Without subsidization it would only be practical to “Recycle, Reduce, and Reuse”…but why bother when tax dollars cover the company losses?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dale-Graessle/1639676074 Dale Graessle

    There IS NO environmental destruction! Wake up, will ya? If all we do is reduce our economy and our “consumption” for sake of reducing it, we only suffer more an more poverty, overwork, and loss of the enjoyment of life. You can always cut back your own spending, if that is what you prefer, and live more efficiently, if that will relieve you of your unearned guilt. But use of the planet is not destruction of it. Remember: The whole premise of the enviro-wack-jobs is that human beings should just be less: Less important, less alive, less active, and less present. And if that is the cost of “environmentalism” then I reject it openly as just another false death-worshiping misanthropic religion. Man is here to stay, and His industry is here to stay. And the world a much better, brighter, and happier place for it.

  • Anonymous

    I tried to share this story with a non-Objectivist.  It didn’t go well. I read the first two paragraphs aloud and waited for a reaction. The response I got went something like this.
    “You should plant trees instead otherwise you’ll run out of them.”
    I didn’t have the quickness to realize that I should have asked this person what it was in the two paragraphs that gave them the impression that all the trees should be used up and not replanted.  I believe they were associating the word “exploit” used prominently in the article with a negative or destructive meaning.  It struck me that this word is typically used in negative settings.  However, one dictionary describes the meaning as “to utilize, especially for profit”.  Assuming you don’t ascribe negative meaning to the word profit there is nothing negative about the word exploit. The definition I found and the definition that came to mind while reading the article fits well into Biddle’s use of it. What might not seem obvious to some is that there may be cases when I might be exploiting in the act of planting a tree.  For instance, I may plan to cut it down in 15 years when I need lumber, or I may need its shade or something nice to look at on my property.  I wouldn’t have planted it for the sake of the tree and therefore I would most certainly have exploited it and the earth.    

  • Anonymous

    Instead of preaching to the choir, maybe this article should be posted at the Huffington Post.  You’d certainly get a log more comments…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Keith-Sketchley/732092025 Keith Sketchley

    A much better slogan would be “Exploit the earth to live”, which is positive and not nearly as easily misunderstood.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Keith-Sketchley/732092025 Keith Sketchley

    Lisbet and Charles: the fallacy is in “fixed-pie” thinking, whereas in reality humans create.
    A related fallacy is that humans are untrustworthy so will not act for the good.
    Ayn Rand showed how honest productivity supports life.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Keith-Sketchley/732092025 Keith Sketchley

    Alfred
    They simply fail to recognize what is outside their window – gardens and trees that people planted and nuture.
    A modest drive out of the city would pass by replanted forests such as http://www.keithsketchley.com/treegrow.gif.
    And people don’t realize the incentive to property owners to replant harvested forests (value of land).

    There are animals who don’t replant – beavers, who log trees to build dams and residences. (I once lived in a valley with a stream running through it. The upper half was apartments, the lower half wild. Some beavers started to damn just below the apartments, but were running out of trees that were easy to harvest and transport, a failure to plan ahead. Somehow they then ended up downstream in the broad area where the creek met a big lake – problem there was they had to make their dam very wide, but  succeeded at least in the short term.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/colin.gallagher.98 Colin Gallagher

    I understand where the frustrations in this article come from, but I believe that it is far from objective. The argument against capitalism comes from a place that has seen how our interpreted capitalism works within the U.S. This is a system that protects large corporations that are essentially free to harm the environment and pollute the resources that we all use, without many repercussions. I think it is also narrow to try and generalize all environmentalists within the scope that this article describes. Especially in regard to the arguments against global warming, many try and argue that if we continue upon this course, droughts, famine and disaster will follow. Sure man must use resources to survive, but they strive to use them in a more sustainable way. I was disappointed by this article.

  • Guest

    The problem with this article is that although you might have some salient criticisms of environmentalism, you’ve buried them under hyperbole about how much you love capitalism, and titled it in the most provocative way possible. Accordingly, this is no better than the kind of “having a pet dog is like being an evil slave master” polemics one gets at the other extreme of this debate.

  • http://twitter.com/jonrobinson91 Jon Robinson

    “Or will I accept that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?”

    This line is patently false. It is entirely possible for two conflicting aims to have intrinsic value. Freedom and security, for example, could both be said to have intrinsic value. However, it is possible for us to have things, like a police force and/or judicial system, which are a compromise between both.

    It is possible for nature to have intrinsic value, and for human existence to have intrinsic value, and for us to find a middle ground. it is simply incorrect to say that we have to chose one or the other.

    NB: It is possible that the error here is stemming from a conflation of “intrinsic value” with “complete value”. They are entirely different concepts.