Environmentalism: Scourge of Rationality

[The_Q]

Right off the bat I'd like to point out that this is my 1000th post. I'm going to be making it in CT just because it's something that ought to be done. I will celebrate my quadruple digits with the ones who I've been with for the longest time. Thanks flypie, Guido, Tass, and Chardish. You're all wonderful people but my dedication goes elsewhere. Chrissi, this one's for you. Your vegetarianism post is what attracted me to CT in the first place. Although I didn't know then what I know now, I still haven't found a solution to the problem you placed in front of me. I hope this'll do the trick.

A New World Religion

I'm sure all of you, at least those of you who are somewhere near my age bracket, remember kindergarten pretty well. Kindergarten was the first year I was introduced to one of the greatest atrocities to rational thought that became popularized. I fell for it up until about a year or so ago. Environmentalism. It started out innocently enough. "Wash your Dixie cup so you can use it later," I was told. I remember thinking Ms. Hornbacher was crazy but I still did it.

Washing the cup was the first step I took into becoming a devout follower of a rather flawed religion. Yes, I'm referring to Environmentalism is as religion. Environmentalists do believe in a god: Earth. They believe in worshipping said god: doing our duty to keep Earth safe. They even have their own creed: "It is a privilege to live on Earth; it is a responsibility to take care of it." Environmentalists exploit children, weak of mind and still looking forward to impacting the world immensely, and use them as converted souls to further their cause. If you can't draw the parallels between Environmentalism and other organized religions by now you may as well stop reading.

I followed them. After all, it does seem like one of the most noble and great causes you could cook up. Let's save the world from ourselves. If we do that then our children and grandchildren will be able to live in a prettier, healthier, happier world. It's almost like my current religion: Evo-creationist Deism with a tad of Christianity/Islam mix (add a sprig of rosemary for extra flavor). Had I then the knowledge I have now I wouldn't have gone this path just yet, though. Experiencing it brings it to life in you: you've been lied to.

Just Make a Plane Instead

And this is the biggest reason why. Recycling renewable resources for the purpose of environmental safety is one of the greatest lies or slips of the religion itself. According to the followers, recycling paper helps cause fewer trees to be cut down which is good because the rainforest is dying and many monkeys of unknown species are dying with the rainforest and that's bad because (breath) we need to preserve all of creation. In reality trees are grown on tree farms, monkeys that we didn't know about don't affect our lives now (just like before, wow!) and recycling paper is only a commercial benefit: lowered paper prices.

Allow me to illustrate. Larry D. Logger cuts and sells trees for a living. The more he sells the more he makes. Unfortunately for Larry, his supply is limited so he can't cut down too many trees or he'll go out of business. If he sells to few he won't make enough revenue. Seeing as his only buyer is a paper company, all of his crop and revenue are hung on the demand of the paper company (Larry's no good at business). If paper is selling well, the paper company will want to make more paper to sell and therefore make more money. Larry's right on the boat with the paper company and he starts cutting and selling like a madman. Of course, Larry likes money as much as everyone else. With his earnings he'll buy saplings to plant, at least two for every one tree cut down. Larry's no good at business but he does know that he has to keep a crop growing in order to stay in business. Cutting more trees has ended with more trees being planted, therefore more trees being produced. That part of the theory is nixed.

Moving onward, how recycling companies get into the ordeal. Let's say that I decided that I needed more paper. I buy more paper from the store. I use the paper and I recycle it when I'm done. The paper goes to the recycling plant and is then sold back to the store. The paper mill and the logger are not involved initially. But because more paper is available at the store, the paper mill lowers its orders and fewer trees are cut. Fewer trees are planted and the ratio of trees cut to trees planted is smaller (still 1:2 but the number of trees planted is smaller, a bad thing).

Here's the rub, though. Recycling paper means that it goes through fewer companies and is therefore sold fewer times. For those of you who are pro-government, this is bad. Tex revenues from sale and resale diminish and the government suffers from fewer taxes collected. It's good for the consumer, though. The fact that it isn't sold as many times means that the price is going to be lower. Why? Everyone will want to make a profit off of the wood/paper. The logger will sell it at a price so that he can make enough to get saplings and still get a profit. The mill will sell it at a price so that they can buy more logs and still get a profit. The store will try to sell it so that they can buy more paper and still get a profit. Even the recycling company will try to scrounge up a profit. If two of those organization are dropped off the cycle completely the price would drop as well. This is what happens when someone recycles. Unfortunately, recycling is a costly procedure. It would cost maybe 1.5x the amount that the logger or mill would have (separately). Still, that's a lower price. Would you prefer a lower price? Sure! What's the other cost? Fewer trees! Crap.

I’d like to point out that I am not completely against recycling. No, in fact, I’d much rather have people recycle than not. I am, however, against recycling for he purpose of environmental safety. It is a rumor that should be stopped.

The Chrissi Fallacy

Way back when, during the times of Arch0wl (yes, kids, he really did exist on this site), I posted in a thread started by Chrissi about her beliefs as a vegetarian. In short, she became a vegetarian because she didn’t believe that humans as a whole no longer needed to eat meat. After all, there is plenty of alternative food available for consumption. EB pointed this out quite well.
[quote=”EB”] You know, one serving of meat takes about ten servings of grain to produce. [quote] This argument is very sensible but also very limited.

It is true that it takes quite a bit of grain to feed one cow into maturity and then slaughter it for meat. All the grain that went into that one cow could have easily fed many more people. There would be a greater food surplus, prices would drop, and hunger would end. Cows wouldn’t be slaughtered as much, either, because we wouldn’t eat as many. What part of that sounds wrong to you?

For one thing, just because there is a price drop from a surplus does not mean that more people get to eat. Just as many people get food and they get it in larger quantities now. The only difference is the amount they paid for each unit of the food. Although the price of the item has dropped it is still quite hard for a person who is hungry to obtain the item. Why? People who could have afforded it before will snatch it up as the price falls. In reality, it would make much more sense to raise the price of the grain that is being produced than lower it. Now the average consumer will seek lower prices but the poorer person would buy the most easily obtainable package possible. Go ahead and draw the indifference curves, this is true.

There’s another matter, a morally hazardous one, which goes with the issue. Are you more willing to lessen the number of bovine births or create more incentive for potential bovine abuse? If more meat is consumed it is more likely that the breeders will keep their livestock by using inhumane methods (running out of room in your farm therefore cramming the livestock together much too tightly). If less meat is consumed it is more likely that fewer livestock will be bred. This lessens the amount of births in the first place. I choose to cause potential abuse (I don’t have to endure the cost of lost opportunity, just the cost of loss of life. This is assuming that if the livestock were bred that they would be slaughtered and I am not only suffering the loss of the life but the lack of the meat provided).

The Future: Who Really Cares?

Ok, I admit it. I care about the future. My future, at least. I plan on getting rich and having a few children, then moving to a small cottage in Montana. I hope my kids will become as successful as they can be. I can only pray that I’ll never have to retire out of work. Other than that, the future is nothing more than a dream (except maybe World Conquest. That would be nice. Kinda). If we run out of oil supplies within the next generation (and we won’t run out all too soon. If it was going to run out anytime within forecast range why haven’t the oil companies picked up on this and started charging the crap out of the limited resource?) then I guess my kids are going to have a tough time. If we run out of rainforests and many undiscovered species of monkeys die and cannot fulfill their (minor) roles in the ecosystem and my children never get to experience their ugly and frantic tendencies that’s too bad. I don’t care about the little monkeys that we don’t know about. If I don’t know about them and they die would that affect my life too much? Would it affect the lives of my children?

Why should I care about a future in which I do not exist? I will reap no benefits from doing so, not even the benefit of feeling good. I’ll be dead and pleasant emotions are of no use to a cadaver (we’re leaving all religion except the one in question out of this discussion for the purposes of remaining rational).

Thanks for your time on my happy 1000th post. Look forward to a thank you post in Chit Chat if you care to read. You may be listed on there.

Q

[alainbryden]

A good post Q, in honour of it being your 1000th, and in spite of you not mentioning me , I have carefully read the whole thing.


A New World Religion and it’s Future

I'm tickled by your depiction of Environmentalism as a religion. In many ways you are correct, and there are extremists that would view it proudly just as such. You make good points about the falsities and misfeasors for such a depicted need for strong environmentalist policies, but still, you leave with too much of a bleak view on environmentalism. I truly believe that environmentalism is realism. I do not believe its foundation lies in a fundamental respect for all things nature and what we owe it. This depiction is bought by the shallow-minded and uneducated; the same types that are easily persuaded by mass religions. Oh no, there are much better reasons for today’s mass awareness about environmentalism.

As you have mildly pointed out, environmentalism, as a movement, very much has its basis in economics. The principle is entirely that of limited resources, and goes much further than the existence of trees. Many resources are easily replenished, such as the planting of new trees in greater abundance then their removal. Environmentalism, however, is a broader overview in the goal of preventing irreversible consumption of the state of the earth. It starts with the small, encouraging the individual to reuse disposable products, but it all builds towards a more encompassing comprehension of the need to conserve.

Economics has an evolution of its own, and does not seek to propagate only the well being of the individual in his lifetime, but has the effect of propagating its own success. This continuation is ensured by each new generation taking over the economy before the last is quite done with it. It makes sense for the individual to live for himself, but in doing so, the economy benefits from this will to live forever. Environmentalist policy, theory, manner of thinking, is the new need to accomplish further economic success on a very long term scale.

Further Food Fallacies

There are more reasons than the good ones you mentioned that the production of meat will never terminate. Hopefully, it is obvious to anyone that the producer benefit of making only meat and no grain is irrelevant. Sure, perhaps there is a comparative advantage in the production of grain for most producers, but this does not affect anything, because producers will always be demand driven. The only reason meat is produced over grain, even if more grain could be made, is because of opportunity costs. If a produce shift to grain production, at a point where the production of the two products is at equilibrium, the result will be a net loss for that producer. Let me describe in less economic terms as you do so well, Q.

Imagine a price of wheat as 5$ per unit, and the price of meat is 50$ per unit in the market. Assume the costs of producing both items as a percentage of their costs remain constant. This means that for the price of 10 wheat units, you can produce one meat unit. You can see simply here, that you are making the same amount of profit in either case. If a producer shifts to wheat production, there is now less meat in the economy, and more wheat. Because there is less meat, but the same demand, only people willing to pay the highest prices will get that last bit of meat everyone is scrounging for. Therefore, the price of meat will go up, say to 55$. At the same time, there is more wheat, and with more produces selling wheat at the same level of demand, they must sell their wheat for less so that it is all bought up. So the price would go down to, say, 4$. All of the sudden, the person who switched to wheat production is making less money then they would if they had been producing meat.

It is thus that the market will always return, in terms of production and demand, to the equilibrium at which it has been established over the long term. This alone is enough reason to show why, economically or otherwise, it is not feasible for meat to stop being made.


Thank you for the topic Q, congratulations on your 1000th post.

[Squeek]

Sorry, but I really couldn't finish reading it all without mentioning something.

Please tell me what is crazy with re-using something that isn't dirty? Please. I want to know.

Slightly odd question, but please also tell me if you flush for #1. If you do, I'd like to know why.

Yes, as you all may have guessed, I'm really annoyed at society's misuse of electricity, water, and material goods. Seems to me there's a growing trend of not turning off lights or other electrical devices when not in a room, running water for no real reason, and completely ignoring the ability to re-use something.

As for me, I save everything that is salvagable. When I go to Wendy's or Burger King, I keep the plastic cup they give me for my soda. Why? Well, I paid for it and there's nothing wrong with it to begin with. It's a nice clean cup and I have other purposes for it. I can use it for pouring my own soda into; saving the necessity to wash a glass and instead easily rinse the cup. Then I just put it back into the cupboard.

Now of course I admit there are things I don't keep. I have no use for an empty fry box (Can you tell what I'm eating at the time of this writing yet?) or a used napkin.

This is obviously the way I was raised. My parents actually keep tabs on the electricity payments and get angry at the rest of the family when it exceeds a certain amount per month. Water is free here; we have a well. Still, we don't sit in the shower for 15+ minutes or neglect the well usage.

I really have no idea what I was trying to accomplish with this post. I'm not an environmentalist; just a person angry about the misuse of materials in society.

~Squeek

[DracIV]

I think you missed an important distinction in your topic. There is a major difference between the extremist environmentalists and environmental concerns. The extremist environmentalist groups fit the descriptions you make, of absurd arguments and even a religion, but environmental concerns do matter. The arguments and tactics used by the extreme environmentalists actually do more harm than good overall, but environmental concerns are still important.

Environmentalism has a meaning; not theirs.

Environmental concerns means more than "save the trees." It means "keep our environmental systems working effectively enough that human health is not endangered and no irreversible damage is done (mass extinctions)." Recycling is good because it means there is less strain on the environmental systems and in actuality, the money flows through more companies. In normal woodcutting, it goes through the wood cutter, the papermill, and the store. With recycling it goes through the wodd cutter, the paper mill, the store, the recycling plant, the distributer, and the store again. The key point is that recycling keeps costs down, which makes an overall more efficient system and improves life for everyone, because the wood cutter doesn't have to pay $20 for his newspaper. So recycling is good, because it means both commercial gain and improvement, as well as less strain on the agricultural systems (the dirt, the seeds, etc. that the wood cutter uses).

However, even though some woodcutters do make tree farms, a fair number of them do not. It is much cheaper to cut down natural forests, and therefore the better choice for money hungry or impoverished wood cutters. This is where the environmental concern is key. Although it is better for commercialism to cut down those trees, it is better for the environmental stability that humans rely on for the wood cutter to have limited access to those trees. The kye here that environmental extremists miss is the fact that it is the human health that matters, not the environment itself. We arent saving the environment from ourselves, we are saving ourselves from any harm.

It's all about our own health.

A good analogy to the environment is a space ship: if we have a space ship where we are trying to live, and we cannabilize parts from the air ventilation to fix a gameboy, we are screwed when the air ventilation cuts out and we all die. This is our ship and we need to keep the environmental systems running properly for our own health. If we did permanent damage to the air ventilation, we are doomed. If we only knocked a piece loose, then we can put it back before any serious harm comes to us. So we must protect the environment to the point that our own health is preserved and no permanent damage is done that may threaten our health. That is the environmentalism that is completely true. However, commercialism also comes into play. Things are more pleasant for us when we make things look pleasing. Good landscaping (including trees and forests) earns more money on real estate, and national parks and forests earn large amounts of money. Environmentalism is about integrating the environment with our civilization, not about isolating us from our environment. Environmentalism does have a point, but not the one those extremists promote.

Edit: Titles put in to make it easier to read and to keep the thread mimick style going

[deltro300111]

Enviormentalism is a good thing, in some cases, I don't think we need to do anything too far, that will cost more then they are worth, recycling paper is nice, it's cheap, and produces fairly cheap, gov't mfg'd paper, win-win situation.

Glass- Uh... glass is just sand guys, calm down.

Aluminum- EXTREMELY ABUNDANT! I think if recycling aluminum isn't too expensive, It's worth keeping up with, how hard can it be to melt down fairly soft/low melting point...

I dunno, I don't approve of doing nothing to at least sort of help the enviornment, and I think if we could get cars that ran entirely off of hydrogen, it would be great. But if it costs more than it is worth, it's not worth doing anything about right now, chances are it will become less expensive in the future, and become worth doing, but for now, whatever.

[alainbryden]

Yes, I think there are some good things to fuel companies holding back the technology of hydrogen fuel. I know that they are infact just trying to milk us for everything we have, but the net result will probably be that the most cost-effective method possible to implement this cell will be arrived at more quickly.

[DracIV]

And how do you know that, alain? Do you have any sort of proof? Is it an unfounded accusation based on a previous suspicion of companies? Is it propaganda you've listen to?

Also, aluminum is great to recycle because it is MUCH cheaper. If I remember correctly, for the cost of making one aluminum can, you can recycle ten of them.

[blahblah18]

Ok, I'm going to go into a whole on this post a little later because I'm rushing out now, but I want to make a quick comment on the idea of costs that everyone is bringing up. Q, I'm kinda wondering why this wasn't mentioned already but the use of gasoline / water / meat is heavily subsidized by the US government. It is actually subsidized to just below the level so that it is actualyl cheaper to buy more resources then to use filtration plants to reuse these resources or what have you.

The argument of the environmentalist is that if these subsidies didn't exist, then people wouldn't drive SUV's because gas should normally cost $5 a gallon, while the government's argument is that people in America should be able to drive what they want, plus it adds a whole other layer of job production to the economy.

Q, also, I think you go to extremes when discussing the idea of people following Gaia as a religion. Yes, some probably do, but I don't think it adequately covers what an environmentalist thinks, just like saying a nonenvironmentalist gets a hardon by drowning baby seals in oil.

And I think we're supposed to be genetically inclined to in some fashion care about the future. Although this branches off of biology into philosophy, most would argue that we have a predisposition to want to procreate and then set up the world for our offspring...

Anyways, to be continued later.

[alainbryden]

No Drac, it's none of the above. Companies have very publicly stated that they came up with big hydrogen fuel technology, they get bought out for sums of money that you cannot imaginge, by the big guys, and they wait it out until the technology is necessary. No one has had the opportunity to outmarked the fuel companies, economically, it is unfeasable thus far. None of these statements are unfounded at all, and it's no scandal. You can read about it anywhere.

[DracIV]

Alain, you can read about anything anywhere if you look hard enough. That doesn't mean it is true. Have you also notice how the "big guys" are also developing hydrogen technology to beat their opponents. The fact that the "big guys" are competing against each other to make a profit, and if hydrogen cars make a bigger profit than the gas cars, the "big guys" will expand hydrogen car production and make a profit. There is no conspiracy type stuff here.

[alainbryden]

You're missing the point. I said nothing about conspiracy, only economic feasablility. I will restate again that everything I said it a fact, and in fact, not all that important. It is only the natural path of the economy. It happens with many things and the technology will be put into practice when the industry has constructed a demand for it.

[DracIV]

You are talking conspiracy. You are claiming that companies willingly hold something from the market that can make them a large profit solely because they are already making a profit. That is logically unsound. Capitalism makes it so that such technologies, if they are more profitable than the current products, will be implemented with great speed and promoted like crazy. That is the natural path of the economy. If the new tech makes money, the new tech is sold. If it doesn't sell, then it isn't manufactured. There is no conspiracy between companies to keep products off the market.

[alainbryden]

And what I'm arguing is that that technology is not more profitable to be implemented. The big corporations who buy out those technologies and suppress them are making greater profit by selling high priced gasoline. That is why it is happening. And your use of the word conspiracy annoys me yet. Perhaps it is immoral, to do such, but it's not illegal. Really now, in economics courses this debate is covered often. It is an accepted fact that the technology is out there, and that it is not being used because there is no economic feasability to it. Honesly, go look through some sources before you talk about what you assume is correct.

[DracIV]

And that is my point. You were claiming a conspiracy because you claimed that they were "suppressing" the technology. It is not suppression if the technology is not commercially feasible in the first place. Those products aren't on the market yet, not because the companies make more money from gas cars, but because they can not sell yet. Competition means that if they were cheaper or better in a way that made the demand higher then the companies would release the technology for the purpose of undercutting their opponents. There is no morality involved; if the market wants it, the market gets it. You are claiming that companies are conspiring to suppress technology, which they are not.

[alainbryden]

No I'm not. I think what we dissagree about here is the definition of a word, and we've both stated our opinions 4 times. Good argument, but it hasn't progressed much, so I'm done with it.