"I am fairly hostile to most of the environmental movement, finding it generally a modern tribal religion that justifies condemnation and control of others in the name of protecting the environment. I care nothing at all for the environment in isolation, only for how it positively impacts human life -- civilization is all about beating the environment into forms that suit us better. An "electric car" used to be a conspicuous sign of righteous sacrifice, but you won't get any self-flagellation points for driving a Tesla. Too much fun."
I suppose at its core, any value judgment treads into the religious. It's probably none too surprising that I disagree with this statement. But it's interesting seeing this judgment so completely distilled.
I'll ask HN. Do you care for the environment, only for the sentient beings (including animals) of which they are part, only the humans living inside it, or, largely, only for yourself?
I think his point was that he doesn't like the hairshirt-ism of the environmental movement. Essentially he is acusing them of being a bunch of party poopers for the sake of self-righteousness.
He is partly right, there have been a lot of holier-than-thou types. The problem also is it's a pretty selfish attitude to only care about the environment when it's convenient.
The right answer is of course somewhere in the middle. I feel that things like the Tesla will get us closer to the need not to compromise on fun for the sake of the planet. However until we reach that point we should also consider the impact we are having and look for ways we can reduce the burden we are.
I really do care for the environment in its own right, and I care for a host of reasons. There's the aesthetic argument against destroying anything beautiful and the argument that more sentient species may emerge if we don't stand in their way. There's also the argument that you cannot arbitrarily distinguish between protecting the environment to better humanity and protecting it in general.
Frankly, I find this third argument very compelling. The environment is a highly complicated system with many chaotic behaviors that make it unreasonable to point to some aspect of the environment as being uniquely critical to human life. Some things are more critical than others, sure, but I think it's unreasonable to completely ignore any aspect of the environment on that basis.
As per these arguments, I would also disagree with the quoted statement. Besides, the author makes a strawman out of environmentalism. It isn't about "self-flagellation," it's about engaging in a sustainable lifestyle.
Well there are environmentalists that practice a modern-day puritanism in that they deny themselves (and would deny others) comforts that they deem ostentatious because they feel that 'doing without' makes them stronger in some way. These people are generally not too helpful for the movement.
I personally am much more motivated by the idea of doing something more efficiently and with less (or zero) waste than I am by the notion of self-sacrifice. I think we should 'protect the environment' only because I find the less wasteful path more aesthetically appealing, and I have faith that man can be more efficient and less wasteful through his own ingenuity, without resorting to self-flagellation.
Oh, no doubt, there are the self-flagellating type, but I argue that holding them up as the standard is a gross mischaracterization of environmentalism. Just like there are with any movement, there are environmentalists who dreadfully miss the point.
His wife, Anna Kang, definitely is (started Fountainhead Entertainment). That practically guarantees that Carmack is, because it's highly unlikely an Objectivist would marry a non-Objectivist.
What baffles me is, how on earth do id and Fountainhead games exemplify Objectivist ideals?
Why can't an objectivist marry a non-objectivist? If Carmack were a socialist, it would be unlikely: to an objectivist, socialist views would suggest moral decay. That could hurt a marriage. But if Carmack's views are not too far off, she could simply view him as mistaken. Why not marry him under those circumstances?
(Note: I really don't know the social details of objectivism, e.g. how cultish it really is in practice. Just the basic philosophy.)
It's possible, but Objectivism's different from your average ideology in that who you take as your significant other must itself be determined by Objectivist ideals. (That's how Rand wrote it, at least.) In practice, there are probably Objectivists who don't take it that far, but I'm betting Anna Kang isn't one of them.
By the way, noticed you're at Courant. Do you know Adi, by any chance?
I realize that; Dagney's railroad skillz are what give Rand's fantasy men a boner, and vice versa for Galt. I totally understand that, and have similar tastes. John Galt is the ideal, but Carmack comes pretty close, I'd expect. Even if his reasoning isn't perfect, I suspect the rest of his resume would make up for that.
Really? I don't know what he's done aside from id and Armadillo, and he's obviously a mathematical genius, but I can't quite see Doom, Quake, etc. and their underlying technology as "prime mover" material. And I actually think it's kind of hilarious that Fountainhead Entertainment would make "Doom RPG", or even be an entertainment company to begin with. Rand, I'm sure, is rolling in her grave.
Of course, and I'm happy that he's having fun. My point is peripheral. But it's interesting to me that he so decisively states that he doesn't care at all for the environment except in consequence to human life. Is this a common view?
Enjoyment is one of those consequences. One might still feel that something has been lost or wasted when a species becomes extinct, if only because humans can no longer interact with them. This is aside from any more practical concerns of ecological health and unintended consequences.
So, while I largely share this viewpoint, I'm disappointed that there aren't at least a few dinosaurs around to observe. OTOH, what would we have given up if our ancestors were competing with even a few dinosaurs?
Notice, I'm not taking the position that nothing is lost when we change the environment. But, I do think that we should use the environment to further human goals, including the lesser goal of retaining some truly wild space for us to enjoy.
In part this is a reaction to the casually anti-human stance of some people who say things like "the environment would be better off without humans." We're part of the environment. We wouldn't be better off without humans.
Call me a "speciest", but for now, I see no reason why we shouldn't dominate other species (remaining aware of a sliding scale of intelligence and suffering), as long as it's not likely to be suicidal.
It's not something most people would be willing to admit to in public, but I do think that it's pretty common. The vast majority of people only care about things that either directly affect them, or fit into the tribe/team/us-not-them slot. The only way to have a mass movement is to directly appeal to self-interest, or to hijack the team slot.
Since environmental disaster due to global warming or species extinction is at least decades off, environmentalists who want environmentalist goals to be achieved have, as I see it, three choices:
They can say that disaster is nearly upon us in the next 3-10 years. This is likely to backfire in 3-10 years, of course.
They can try to hijack the team association by making environmentalism into a pseudo-religion. This has more potential, but more downside, since if it goes too far it could result in a cultural mood that discourages solutions civilization needs, like higher-density energy and high-yield agriculture.
Lastly, they can just try to build things that people would rather use, and which are better for the environment, such as the subject of this thread, the Tesla.
It seems to me that productive people who are worried about the environment would be best served by doing that last, since it has more leverage potential, and since there are already a lot of people working on the first two.
I think it's fairly common... most people don't care that dinosaurs were extinct. Most people also don't care if some currently existing species were to become extinct, unless it's a species that affects human life (food, or necessary predator). Of course the environment is really complicated and nobody really can predict how one species could affect another, but clearly the extinction of dinosaurs had no ill affect on human life.
I suppose at its core, any value judgment treads into the religious. It's probably none too surprising that I disagree with this statement. But it's interesting seeing this judgment so completely distilled.
I'll ask HN. Do you care for the environment, only for the sentient beings (including animals) of which they are part, only the humans living inside it, or, largely, only for yourself?