Did Ayn Rand Call for a Deliberate ‘Destruction of Society’ in Atlas Shrugged?

WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS PLOT SPOILERS. ANYONE WHO HAS NOT READ ATLAS SHRUGGED BUT THINKS THEY MAY SOME DAY SHOULD TAKE NOTE.

This post deals with a question that I think is somewhat controversial. A while back I came across this hit piece against Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged on Facebook, since deleted:

Only the philosophers whose entire learning comes from books can be naive and arrogant enough to believe that all the political and cultural institutions have to be destroyed before a better society can be built. But once the institutions are destroyed  there will be chaos and massive violence. I admire Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged but I am against John Galt’s idea of “stopping the motor of the world”, because I know that once the motor is stopped millions of lives will be lost and the rebuilding of society will take several generations.

I think the writer—who will go unnamed—is completely misreading the meaning of Atlas Shrugged. As Ayn Rand explicitly explained, the theme of Atlas Shrugged is “the role of the mind in human existence.” She considered the human mind and those who use it to address the challenges of human existence to be “the motor of the world.”  She referred to the thinkers as “the men of the mind.” And the leading, most talented, most motivated, most productive  men of the mind she called the “prime movers.” It is the prime movers, the pinnacle of all who think and thus the most highly productive, who mostly go on strike, initially. The strike eventually spreads, with workers leaving their jobs in droves even though they have not officially joined Galt’s strikers.

The strike is not intended to be taken as a literal call for “a strike of the men of the mind.” In fact, of Atlas Shrugged, she wrote in her journals, “I start with the fantastic premise of the prime movers going on strike.” The italics are hers. Rand herself described Galt’s strike as “a fantastic premise.” Mirriam -Webster defines fantastic as “based on fantasy” and “so extreme as to challenge belief.” Rand goes on:

This is the actual heart and center of the novel. A distinction carefully to be observed here: I do not set out to glorify the prime mover (that was The Fountainhead). I set out to show how desperately the world needs prime movers, and how viciously it treats them. And I show it on a hypothetical case—what happens to the world without them. [again, italics are hers.]

The strike is “a hypothetical case.” She herself did not call for any kind of organized strike, or even believe it possible. (She did, however, call on America’s businessmen to fight back, first and foremost by not sanctioning their exploiters and destroyers.) The strike is intended to dramatize, in fiction form, what happens when the human mind is not free to function. It may be “naive and arrogant” to think such a literal organized strike is realistic or desirable. But I don’t see anything “naive and arrogant” about the message. I take Atlas Shrugged to be a warning, not in any way a cruel call to destroy society in order to rebuild it. In Atlas Shrugged, society is already on its way to destruction. “John Galt’s idea of ‘stopping the motor of the world’” is misleading, I think. The motor of the world is already grinding to a halt. Galt’s mission is to rescue as many victims of the altruist/collectivist assault as he can.

This is important. The strike is a work of fiction. It could never happen in real life, in that way. In real life, an increasingly dictatorial government makes it progressively harder for people to act on their own judgment. At some point, the government’s controls reach a tipping point and the economy and society collapse into poverty, brutality, and tyranny, as every fully socialist country has demonstrated. In Atlas Shrugged, the U.S. is deteriorating toward the inevitable “tipping point.” Galt’s strike accelerates the deterioration, but does not change the inevitable collapse. 

But again, this is a work of fiction intended to dramatize the results of what happens when the motor of the world, the human mind, can no longer freely function. 

Yes, in Atlas Shrugged, the collapse is being given a deliberate push. But that is the mystery part of the story. The fact that “chaos and massive violence” will ensue and “millions of lives will be lost and the rebuilding of society will take several generations” is not the fault of the strikers or of John Galt and his allies. In the novel, it is already happening all over the world and America is next if the villains aren’t driven from power. Galt’s strikers are victims too, destined for destruction, except that they learn that it is not good to sanction their own destroyers--what Ayn Rand called “the sanction of the victims”--and thus meekly accept inevitable destruction. The strikers are heroes fighting evil by not sanctioning and thus helping evil to triumph. They are not villains who want to destroy society. They are heroes who want to save it. In reality, Ayn Rand spent more than two decades after Atlas Shrugged on non-fiction writing and lecturing on how people, especially businessmen, can fight back rather than quit.

Of course, if any particular prime mover -- a businessman, investor, inventor, entrepreneur, scientist chooses to stop working and retire, or simply leave that society rather than deal with draconian taxes and regulation, it is her moral right. There is a limit to how much a productive individual will tolerate exploitation. 

And, in fact, producers have been silently “going on strike” against altruistic/collectivistic societies throughout history. The Dark ages was a massive “strike” of intelligence. In Britain’s flirtation with full-blown socialism in the 1960s, this phenomenon of talented people giving up and/or leaving came to be called a “brain drain”. The same goes for any productive individual on any level of ability. A prime contemporary example -- no pun intended -- is Venezuela, which began descending into hell when Hugo Chavez and his socialist thugs were voted into office about a quarter century ago. As AP reports:

It’s a frequent scene across the U.S.-Mexico border at a time of swelling migration. But these aren’t farmers and low-wage workers from Mexico or Central America, who make up the bulk of those crossing. They’re bankers, doctors and engineers from Venezuela, and they’re arriving in record numbers as they flee turmoil in the country with the world’s largest oil reserves and pandemic-induced pain across South America. 

Hunger, poverty, and unnecessary deaths have spread across Venezuela. Are these bankers, doctors, and engineers the villains -- the cause of Venezuelans’ misery? Or is it the socialist regime and the majority that voted them into power?  

AP goes on to say “The surprise increase has drawn comparisons to the midcentury influx of Cubans fleeing Fidel Castro’s communist rule.” These are examples of Atlas Shrugging in real life.

I think the writer is all wet. Rand never advocated nor desired the destruction of society. Her whole life in America was a crusade to save it. She did not believe that “all the political and cultural institutions have to be destroyed before a better society can be built.” She advocated standing and fighting. “So long as there isn’t censorship,” Rand said in answer to a question, “one doesn’t have to leave society the way the characters did in Atlas Shrugged.” The quote at the start of this post is a classic example of blaming the victims, not the villains.

Related reading:

Ayn Rand: Tea Party Voice of the Founding Fathers

Golden Anniversary of an Inspiration

Why is a "Liberal" Promoting Atlas Shrugged?

Is Atlas Shrugging?

Atlas Shrugged; Heros or Villains?

Paul Hsieh's Tribute to Steve Jobs

On this Labor Day, Celebrate Intellectual Labor

The United States Department of Labor, speaking on The History of Labor Day, had this to say on its website:

Some records show that Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and a cofounder of the American Federation of Labor, was first in suggesting a day to honor those “who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold.”

Really? There is no doubt about what is meant here. McGuire was referring to people who “work with their hands”. Is that what built America? Physical labor has existed since time immemorial. What changed in the last two hundred + years that suddenly endowed the American worker with the means to produce “all the grandeur we behold” out of raw, “rude” nature? (Note the word “all”).

The American worker has, indeed, contributed significantly to the American Economic juggernaut. But, it was not because of his labor, as such. It was because of his intellectual mastery of the theoretical and material tools of production provided to him, that vastly increased the value of his labor.

Physical labor, as such, has very little value. Slaves can perform it. So can mules pulling hand plows.

Consider my trade, plumbing. If my job is fundamentally physical labor, then any able-bodied person off of the street can wander onto any construction job site and robotically perform the task of installing plumbing systems. He can simply be told: “Run this pipe from here to there”, and it will get done. He has the same muscles and bones, nerves and guts that I have, after all.

That, of course, could never be the case. Performing my task (or any construction trade) requires reliance on previously acquired theoretical knowledge, on-the-job apprenticeship training, the mastery of the tools, materials, and procedures of the trade, and years of learning experience. This is to say nothing of the continuing education that new materials and technologies require of me.

My job is knowledge-based. All modern jobs are, to varying extent. How did that knowledge become imbued in my brain? - by my choice to expend the intellectual effort to acquire it. Even the muscular physical motions my job requires had to be learned by a conscious mental effort that led to the appropriate neurological connections.

Do you still think mere labor built this country?

The idea that a laborer “works with his hands” is only superficially true. What directs the motions of his hands? It is his focussed, reasoning mind – if he is a motivated worker who strives to be the best that he can be at his chosen occupation. If not, then that worker is a mere drone.

And that gets directly to the point. The celebration of “labor” as a holiday implies that mindless worker. Labor Day ignores the intellectual root of modern, productive labor. It ignores the intellectual labor of the inventor and entrepreneur that created the worker’s job to begin with, and the intellectual labor that the competent worker must expend to learn to perform his job.

Human knowledge is fleeting, but for the grace of those who came before us and chose to acquire it and pass it on. Knowledge can not be passed on from person to person or generation to generation innately. No one is born with previously discovered knowledge, but rather with a mind that is tabula rasa – a blank slate. To celebrate “all the grandeur we behold”, it is to the discoverer and the acquirers of knowledge that we must pay initial gratitude to. The worker, by learning the skills he needs to perform his job, plays his role in keeping that knowledge train going.

This does not, however, mean that labor is inconsequential. Theoretical knowledge in and of itself has little value, unless and until it is placed into the service of man’s living requirements. The process of turning knowledge into the material values humans need to live and to flourish is dependent upon the contributions of many economic players. The value of each player’s contribution to this productive process varies and is dependent upon many factors. But all through that process – from the discoverer of new knowledge to the final material product put together by the worker – the value added represents, at root, the application of the mind.

“[W]hen you live in a rational society, where men are free to trade, you receive an incalculable bonus: the material value of your work is determined not only by your effort, but by the effort of the best productive minds who exist in the world around you.

“When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think…” (Page 1064)

Labor Day, according to the DOL, was created in 1882. That was the heyday of Karl Marx’s rise to prominence among the American intellectual elite. Marx was the theoretician of “Dialectical Materialism”, the idea that man’s consciousness – his spirit, his intellect, ability, and logic – plays at best a minimal role in the production process. Human beings, according to Marx, are conditioned by the physical world around them, including the means of production like tools and factories, which just happened into existence. Our modern, complex, and advanced industrial society is the product of mindless, conditioned muscular movements, according to Marx (and others). It is owing to the Marxist theory of the mind – i.e., spiritual values - as of little consequence that gave rise to the myth that labor and those that perform it are the primary engines of economic progress.

Labor Day, whether one knows or wants to admit it or not, is an outgrowth of Marxism and the “labor theory of economic value” that so enamored late 19th century American intellectuals.

The DOL concludes its Labor Day salute as follows:

"It is appropriate … that the nation pay tribute on Labor Day to the creator of so much of the nation's strength, freedom, and leadership — the American worker."

Not quite. Instead, we should pay tribute to the creator of the American worker.

This Labor Day, we should celebrate not workers, but those who made our jobs and prosperity possible. This country was not built by physical labor. It was built by intellectual labor applied to physical labor under a system of individual rights that allowed everyone the freedom to think and, above all, to act on his thinking. Instead of patting ourselves on the back for our labor, we “workers” should reflect on the mental efforts that we had to expend in order to acquire the previously discovered knowledge that makes it possible to perform our jobs. We should stop selling ourselves short. Labor Day is an insult to the American Worker.

More importantly, we should give silent thanks to all of those intellectual “laborers” who came before us – the discoverers, the inventors, the investors, the businessmen - who made our well-paying jobs possible.

Instead of Labor Day, we should celebrate Intellectual Labor Day.

Or, better yet, we should celebrate political and economic freedom—i.e., Capitalism – the social system of the United States of America. Capitalism unleashed the individual human mind. It is Capitalism that liberated the inventor, entrepreneur, businessman, and industrialist, who in turn made it possible for the American worker to have acquired the means to rise to middle class status and prosper. The labor movement fought for better working condiditions, shorter work weeks, and the like. But those victories couldn't have been possible without the tools of increased worker productivity and consumer products created by the inventor/entrepreneur/businessman/industrialist, who wouldn't have been possible without capitalism. The labor movement could not have been possible in any other era in human history. Capitalism made the labor movement possible.

It is Capitalism’s liberated human mind that from rude nature has delved and carved all the grandeur we behold.

Capitalism is what I will be quietly rejoicing as I enjoy my long weekend.

Happy Labor Day!!

Related Reading:

Atlas Shrugged—Ayn Rand

To Whom Does the American Worker Owe His Prowess?

Did Unions Create the Middle Class?

QUORA: 'How is becoming a billionaire even possible, chronologically?'

Conservatism, the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment’s Enemies

Jonah Goldberg has a book titled 'Suicide of the West'. I haven't yet read it. But I probably will, in view of how much I liked his book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change. Given that Goldberg labels the rise of the modern West “The Enlightenment Miracle,” I assume Goldberg is defending the Enlightenment. 

That view is confirmed by a critical review of the book, posted on The Federalist, that caught my attention. It’s an amazing review. Written By John Daniel Davidson, here is an excerpt from the review, The West Isn’t Committing Suicide, It’s Dying Of Natural Causes.

Jonah Goldberg’s 'Suicide of the West' fails to acknowledge that the threat to liberal democratic capitalism is far deeper than tribalism or nationalism gone awry.

"If Goldberg wants to preserve the Miracle, he’s going to have to do a better job of explaining how it happened. To do that, he’s going to have to look back further than 300 years and rediscover the old morals and virtues that informed the pursuit of happiness, that gave shape to human flourishing and gave people something greater than themselves to belong to. Western civilization depends on sturdier stuff than material wealth, or individualism, or even democracy."

Davidson asserts that The Enlightenment gave us “hyper-individualism,” but also communism!

This is shocking. But then, maybe not. Given that Davidson’s work has appeared in National Review, and he has condemned Ireland’s recent popular vote to repeal that nation’s constitutional ban on abortion as “a reminder that without Christianity, liberalism descends into brutality,” we can assume that he is a conservative. 

The pursuit of happiness? Looking back further than 300 years, a time of “the old morals and virtues,” don’t we rediscover a time of perpetual economic stagnation, uncontained infectious diseases, vulnerability to climate danger, 30-year life expectancies, regularly occurring famines, and so on--a life that was poor, nasty, brutish, and short? Wasn’t that the time of tribalism, superstition, and perpetual religious warfare and strife? Wasn’t that a time before businessmen started turning the knowledge of the scientific revolution into material goods that began enriching the lives of “the masses”? Old morals? I think, as we witness the slow deterioration, if not suicide, of the West, Ayn Rand’s warning should be heeded by conservatives of Davidson’s ilk: 

“Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil. But it is not man who is now on trial and it is not human nature that will take the blame. It is your moral code that’s through, this time. Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality—you who have never known any—but to discover it.”

Robert Tracinski responds brilliantly to Davidson. In Dear Conservatives: The Enlightenment Is Not The Enemy, also published at The Federalist, Tracinski writes:

It’s quite a trick for the Enlightenment to bring us both hyper-individualism and communism. . .

Well, thanks, guys. You just took the entire moral and intellectual authority of the Enlightenment and handed it over to the commies, a feat they could never have managed on their own.

This is the big mistake of American conservatism, its original sin. In an attempt to reassert the role of religion in American society, they grant to the Left the status of defenders of reason and freedom and describe them as the inheritors of the Enlightenment.

It’s instructive to read Davidson’s review of Goldberg’s book. As an antidote to your nausea—assuming you’re a person of reason—read Tracinski’s rebuttal.

Related Reading:

Atlas Shrugged--Ayn Rand

Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress--Steven Pinker [I don’t agree with much of Pinker’s analysis. But the main value of his book is his irrefutable account of the unimaginable benefits that the Enlightenment made possible.]

Liberal vs. ‘Liberal’, or Enlightenment vs. Dis-Enlightenment

Related Viewing:

Yaron Brook Show: Brook discusses with Onkar Ghate & Greg Salmieri Prager U’s Video on the Enlightenment

Atlas Shrugged; Heros or Villains?

WARNING: ATLAS SHRUGGED  PLOT SPOILER. 

Back in 2018, Anoop Verma posted an excerpt from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged in which the strikers are discussing the withdrawal of their services and talents from a society they concluded was ruled by a looting government motivated by a corrupt moral code. Here is the excerpt:

Midas Mulligan: “The time is approaching when all of us will have to be called to live here—because the world is falling apart so fast that it will soon be starving. But we will be able to support ourselves in this valley [Galt’s Gulch].”

"The world is crashing faster than we expected," said Hugh Akston. "Men are stopping and giving up. Your frozen trains, the gangs of raiders, the deserters, they're men who've never heard of us, and they're not part of our strike, they are acting on their own—it's the natural response of whatever rationality is still left in them—it's the same kind of protest as ours."

"We started with no time limit in view," said Galt. "We did not know whether we'd live to see the liberation of the world or whether we'd have to leave our battle and our secret to the next generations. We knew only that this was the only way we cared to live. But now we think that we will see, and soon, the day of our victory and of our return."

"When?" she whispered.

"When the code of the looters has collapsed."

He saw her looking at him, her glance half-question, half-hope, and he added, "When the creed of self-immolation has run, for once, its undisguised course—when men find no victims ready to obstruct the path of justice and to deflect the fall of retribution on themselves—when the preachers of self-sacrifice discover that those who are willing to practice it, have nothing to sacrifice, and those who have, are not willing any longer—when men see that neither their hearts nor their muscles can save them, but the mind they damned is not there to answer then: screams for help [SIC]—when they collapse as they must, as men without mind—when they have no pretense of authority left, no remnant of law, no trace of morality, no hope, no food and no way to obtain it—when they collapse and the road is clear—then we'll come back to rebuild the world." [SIC]

Verma then posed a moral question, in the form of an observation: “[They] are discussing with satisfaction the collapse of the collectivist system. They do not seem to care about the tens of thousands of innocent (but intellectually and morally incompetent) people who are perishing in the lawlessness and chaos that has now engulfed the world.”

I took this statement to be a condemnation of the strikers when I posted this comment:

So, [the collapse of the collectivist system and the resulting humanitarian crisis] is all the fault of the victims for daring to withdraw their services—and thus support, at great personal cost and risk—a rebellion against a social system that they morally opposed? 

I see the spirit of the Founding Fathers, who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause of a free and just society.

But Verma gave my comment a thumbs up. So I guess he was merely challenging his readers to see where they stand. For more on my equation of Galt’s strikers with the Founding Fathers, see my post Ayn Rand: Tea Party Voice of the Founding Fathers.

Related Reading:

Ayn Rand: Tea Party Voice of the Founding Fathers

Golden Anniversary of an Inspiration

Why is a "Liberal" Promoting Atlas Shrugged?

Why the Flag Belongs in the New Neil Armstrong Movie

Why the Flag Belongs in the New Neil Armstrong Movie

Homer Hickam writes in the Washington Post about a new movie celebrating Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the Moon. In  The new Neil Armstrong movie is about more than the lunar flag-planting, In his positive review of the movie, Hickam focuses on the fact that the planting of the American Flag by Neil Armstrong and fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon was omitted from the film:

More than a few Americans are fed up with Hollywood and want no part of what the industry produces. For a while now, once-unifying entertainment awards shows have become minefields of woke declarations and Trump-bashing, which are perceived by many Americans who voted for the president as insults directed not just at him but also at them.

This has now thrown “First Man,” a major new movie about one of America’s greatest heroes, into the path of some hard cultural head winds. Back in 1969, in the real world, Neil Armstrong and fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin spent some 10 minutes raising the American flag on the lunar surface. But in the film version the flag scene is nowhere to be found. When the question of why came up last month at the Venice Film Festival, Ryan Gosling, the actor who plays Armstrong in “First Man,” stumbled with his answer, explaining that the landing was a “human achievement” and that Armstrong didn’t view himself as an “American hero.”

The result was outrage, especially from many of the folks who’ve felt insulted by Hollywood’s recent history. Although I count myself among those who think Hollywood should stay out of politics, I think the folks railing against “First Man” are wrong.

The history here is instructive. Although the lunar flag-planting may seem like a given in hindsight, for months before the flight of Apollo 11 there was a debate within the federal government and in the press as to the wisdom of doing it. The argument for the flag was that the voyage was an entirely American effort that was paid for by American taxpayers, who deserved to see their flag planted in the lunar regolith. The argument against was that it could cast the landing in the eyes of the world as a nationalistic exercise, diminishing what was otherwise indisputably a triumph of American values and ideals, not to mention a demonstration of our technical superiority over our great adversary, the Soviet Union.

My emphasis. But aren’t those ideals universal? Aren’t those ideals exactly what the flag stands for? Aren’t all men, not just Americans, equal in their rights to their life and liberty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.? Don’t all men have the right to pursue their own happiness under a government designed not to rule but to “secure these rights?” Shouldn’t all men be free to live by their own conscientious beliefs; to express themselves through speech and press without fear of governmental retribution; to associate freely and be free to criticize his government; to work and keep property earned through his own efforts; to be considered innocent until proven guilty?

What is it about American ideals that do not apply equally to all people everywhere? The Declaration of Independence says “all men.” Those words have been an inspiration the world over, for good reason. Neil Diamond said it best in his song “America”: “Every time that flag’s unfurled, they’re coming to America”--any time, anywhere, people can be American.

America is unique. It is more than a country. Count me among those who believe the flag-raising should be included. Not because of collectivistic nationalism. And not because American taxpayers footed the bill--although that is certainly important. But because the economic political, and intellectual freedom represented by the flag made it possible for government to fund the moon venture: Without free enterprise--free minds and free markets--to draw on, the moon landing would never have happened. The argument for the flag is precisely that it is “indisputably a triumph of American values and ideals.” Americanism is universal. It stands for freedom everywhere.

Hickam says he “personally would have included the flag-raising,” but that if First Man the movie is true to the book of the same title it is supposedly based on, “It is not the story of the moon-landing but of the world-famous astronaut himself.” Maybe. Maybe the flag was omitted for innocent reasons. But Hickam himself “personally would have included the flag-raising.”

Hickam observes many Americans’ disgust at Hollywood’s blatant politicizing, and he himself acknowledges that “I count myself among those who think Hollywood should stay out of politics.” I haven’t read the book. But if I have time to go see the movie, maybe I’ll come away with a different take. But given Hollywood’s overt one-sidedness, I strongly suspect that the flag was kept out of the movie precisely because Hollywood stands against American ideals--ideals rooted in individualism. Hollywood is predominantly collectivist/socialist/Marxist in its political leanings in direct opposition to the Declaration of Independence. It wants to push the myth that the moon landing was a collectivistic “human achievement.” It was not. It was an achievement of the cooperative efforts of free individuals united by choice to a common purpose and goal. The only sense in which the moon landing was a human achievement is that it shows what individual humans are capable of when left free--when they are individually treated equally before the law, based on their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Related Reading:

MassMutual’s Vile Trivialization of Americanism

Democracy Fundamentalism vs. Americanism

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

Collectivized 'Rights' versus Individual Rights—Ayn Rand

Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People--Randy E. Barnett

Ad Hominem No Substitute for Reasoned Criticism

Before I leave the Quora question, What do people think about Alex Epstein's new book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, I want to revisit the answer submitted by Mike Barnard, which I alluded to in my 4/1/15 post.

Barnard employs classic ad hominem tactics. But he only damages his own credibility. For example, he writes:

First, I think Epstein is a climate-change denier:

The temperature has increased very mildly and leveled off completely in recent years. The climate-prediction models are failures, especially models based on CO2 as the major climate driver, reflecting a failed attempt to sufficiently comprehend and predict an enormously complex system.

Apparently, Barnard didn’t comprehend the very quote he references. Clearly, Epstein acknowledges that climate change is real. Barnard goes on:

These are both such widely falsified statements that it's literally incredible to me that anyone would consider putting them in a book. Epstein is selling to deniers, not to the people who actually accept the science.

The temperature record for the past 135 years is widely available. This graph clearly validates Epstein’s first sentence. This graph shows the recent warming to be well within the 800,000 year temperature range; which was flat, lending statistical credence to the view that natural fluctuations are at least one significant cause of the current warming cycle. These graphs are readily available, so there’s no excuse for Barnard’s intellectual sloppiness or his use of the Nazi smear implicit in the term “climate change denier.” And Epstein presents plenty of evidence to back up his failed-model claims. Barnard breezily asserts the “widely falsified statements” claim, but doesn’t present a single example of Epstein’s evidence being wrong. (There are no word limits imposed by Quora, so there’s no excuse for Barnard’s negligence.) Barnard continues:

Two, I think Epstein is attacking scientists for being right because ... I'm not sure, maybe he's an idiot:

But many professional organizations, scientists, and journalists have deliberately tried to manipulate us into equating the greenhouse effect with the predictions of invalid computer models based on their demonstrably faulty understanding of how CO2 actually affects climate.

Once again, this is a such a ludicrous conspiracy theory that it's remarkable to me that anyone would take seriously someone who printed it.

Nowhere does Epstein charge a conspiracy theory. He challenges the credibility of “many professional organizations, scientists, and journalists,” to be sure—and again, backed by plenty of evidence. But that doesn’t equate to “conspiracy theory.”

Barnard goes on to acknowledge that “His premise is correct up to a point”:

Fossil fuels have allowed billions to be raised out of poverty, and they have made it possible for sciences and arts to flourish by giving people freedom to explore things other than hunting for enough calories or shelter.

But then Barnard writes:

However, his ignorance and willful denial of the significance of the downsides of fossil fuel consumption, along side his refusal to accept that there are viable alternatives that are replacing fossil fuels which have none of those downsides makes his case absurd.

On the one hand, he massively understates the negative impacts of fossil fuels. On the other hand, he refuses to accept that there are alternatives without those downsides. He publishes complete crap about renewables, material which is so false that it amounts to propaganda, and pretends it is reality.

The moral argument is that we should respect how far fossil fuel consumption has helped us get, and we should replace it now that we have better alternatives.

When you compare the immense good of fossil fuels—raising billions out of poverty and into flourishing—with “the negative impacts of fossil fuels,” it’s obvious who is “massively understating,” and overstating, what. That said, Barnard and his ilk are free to “replace it now” with “better alternatives”—except that as yet, there really aren’t any better alternatives to fossil fuels as civilization’s primary energy source. Barnard’s close befits his ad hominem style, with snide references to Ayn Rand and “Randian Objectivists”:

Everyone else can happily ignore this useless addition to the discussion and keep focusing on more productive efforts, except for those dealing with countering the pernicious intellectual impacts of that cult-leader and failed philosopher's reaction to Stalinism.

I submit that a conclusion like that indicates a cowardly lack of confidence in one’s viewpoints. I left these comments:

If Epstein’s argument is so “useless,” why the ad hominem hysterics? Why urge people to “ignore” the book? It seems you should urge people to read The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Then they will know first hand how right you are. Or, will they? Perhaps you’re afraid to find out.

If there really are “better alternatives,” why are newly industrializing nations choosing fossils rather than these “better alternatives?” Why did “green” leader Japan turn to fossil fuels rather than so-called “renewables” to replace its shut down nuclear reactors after the the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Why is Germany, the heralded leader in “renewables,” once again building coal-fired electricity plants? Why do the world’s people still rely on fossils for 87% of their energy? Why haven’t the “better alternatives” won out, especially after decades of untold $billions in solar and wind subsidies? Why the concerted effort to use government to force a transition away from fossils? Why do the champions of “alternatives” feel it necessary to force out fossils through government policies rather than market persuasion? Nobody is trying to shut down wind or solar energy (except other environmentalists).

Better ideas and better ways of doing things will always win out over time, no matter how entrenched existing technologies. Ask John D. Rockefeller, whose dominance in nighttime illumination via kerosene gave way to electric lighting. Ask Eastman Kodak, the former film photography king bankrupted by digital photography. Ask IBM, whose mainframe dominance of the computer industry gave way to the personal computer makers. If solar and wind can replace fossils, they will.

Let the market decide. If you’re right “that there are viable alternatives that are replacing fossil fuels,” then fossils will go the way of kerosene lamps, film photography, and mainframe computers. But if you’re wrong, and fossils are forced out without some energy equivalent of personal computers to replace them, the result will be future generations facing an energy-starved world of impoverishment that would make our current “polluted” fossil fueled world of plenty look like a Garden of Eden. Risking such a bleak existence on future generations would be the ultimate cruelty.  

----

Barnard gave me a chance to deepen my case, with this reply:

As for the market deciding, the market requires some regulation in order to operate effectively. And it needs some guidance to avoid obvious known problems such as global warming. Revenue neutral carbon taxes would provide the right signals to the market, but as global warming and pollution are unpriced negative externalities right now, the market ignores them to the detriment of all.

Here is my response:

Translation: “I don’t like the voluntary choices of others, so I get to force my choices on them, with government as my hired gun.”

The fact is, fossil fuel use already pays substantially for its pollution side-effects in the form of anti-pollution laws (as it should). Steadily advancing anti-pollution technologies—and objective laws requiring anti-pollution technologies as they become available—is the right way to deal with the so-called “negative externality” of pollution. This approach works, as actual fossil fuel-generated air pollution has been cut in half in America over the past 40 years, even as fossil fuel use has increased substantially. Carbon taxes would only skew the market, and punish energy consumers for enjoying the far more extensive “positive externalities” of fossil fuels.

Another fact: global warming is far from an “obvious known problem.” By all known indications, the average global temperature has increased by 1.4 degrees F. since 1880, with half of the increase coming before widespread use of fossil fuels. In my lifetime (66 years), average temps have increased less than a degree—a change perceptible only through precise scientific measurement techniques. Global warming is only a “problem” when viewed from the premise that any human-caused change in the environment is ipso facto bad—a fundamentally anti-life perspective.

Related Reading:

Global Warming Brings 'Record' U.S. Crop Yields

Why I Don't Trust the "Climate Consensus"

Call for "Carbon Fee" is a Call for a Tax on Human Well-Being

The Secret History of Fossil Fuels—Alex Epstein