The ‘Anthropocene’ and Hatred of Man

A vigorous debate has been going on inside the world of geology science. The question is, are we in a new geologic age marked by human influence on the planet? The answer—No. According to a New York Times report, 

The highest governing body in geology has upheld a contested vote by scientists against adding the Anthropocene, or human age, to the official timeline of Earth’s history.

The vote, which a committee of around two dozen scholars held in February, brought an end to nearly 15 years of debate about whether to declare that our species had transformed the natural world so thoroughly since the 1950s as to have sent the planet into a new epoch of geologic time.

On the face of it, this seems like a rather ho-hum subject for most people outside the scientific community. But an article applauding the decision drew my interest because it highlighted something I’ve long believed and said—the Environmentalist movement is fundamentally anti-human. In Scientists Just Gave Humanity an Overdue Reality Check. The World Will Be Better for It, NYT guest essayist Stephen Lezak is quite blunt: 

The world’s leading institution on geology declined a proposal on Wednesday to confirm that the planet has entered a new geologic epoch, doubling down on its bombshell announcement earlier this month. The notion that we’re in the “Anthropocene” — the proposed name for a geologic period defined by extensive human disturbance — has become a common theme in environmental circles for the last 15 years. To many proponents, the term is an essential vindication, the planetary equivalent of a long-sought diagnosis of a mysterious illness. But geologists weren’t convinced.

The international geology commission’s decision this week to uphold its vote of 12 to 4 may seem confusing, since by some measures humans have already become the dominant geologic force on the earth’s surface. But setting the science aside for a moment, there’s a reason to celebrate, because the politics behind the Anthropocene label were rotten to begin with.

For starters, the word Anthropocene problematically implies that humans as a species are responsible for the sorry state of the earth’s environments. While technically true, only a fraction of humanity, driven by greed and rapacious capitalism, is responsible for burning through the planet’s resources at an unsustainable rate. Billions of humans still lead lives with relatively modest environmental footprints, yet the terminology of the Anthropocene wrongly lays blame at their feet. Responding to the vote, a group of outside scientists wisely noted in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution that “our impacts have less to do with being human and more to do with ways of being human.”

[My emphasis.]

"A mysterious illness," “the [rotten] politics behind the Anthropocene label,” "the sorry state of the earth’s environments," and "greed and rapacious capitalism" is how the author refers to the “fraction of humanity [that] is responsible for burning through the planet’s resources.”  

But what did that guilty fraction of humanity give us? The Great Enrichment is how historian Deirdre McCloskey describes the explosive, almost miraculous improvements in the living standards, over the past 250 years, of the fraction of humanity that Lezak blames for the “mysterious illness” that gave us “the sorry state of Earth’s environment.” But that “mysterious illness” was Capitalism, which McCloskey believes is more accurately labeled Innovism. And that political system, which Lezak labels “rotten,” is the system of rightful liberty that unchained ideas, individual productiveness, and commercialism to bless the large portion of the world with vastly enriched lives. "Lives with relatively modest environmental footprints" is how Lezak approvingly thinks of the large portion of the planet that still lives in devastating poverty—and the near stone-age state to which the author apparently dreams of reducing the rest of us. 

The rate of economic growth of The Great Enrichment, McCloskey argues, will “in a few generations—if the virus, pollution, war, and tyranny do not intervene—bring everyone on the planet to a level of prosperity well above that enjoyed now in Western Europe.” Lezak does not cheer that potential glorious development. He wants to prevent it—and roll it back. He wants to keep those “Billions of humans [who] still lead lives with relatively modest environmental footprints” in their current state of poverty and misery.

This is the definitive cold-blooded Environmentalist view of human progress, and all you need to know about the motives of anyone who speaks of "saving the planet.” It is from a flourishing human life that the planet-savers aim to save the planet. Lezak is not an aberration or outlier. Humans live, survive, and flourish by impacting the planet. The Great Enrichment could not have happened, and can never expand, on an ideology of modest environmental impact. It could not exist by limiting the “burning through the planet’s resources” to what Environmentalists call a sustainable rate.* Humans can’t live “in harmony with nature,” as animals do. Man’s primary means of survival is his reasoning mind. Man needs to apply his reason to his labor in order to vastly improve the planet to live and flourish. We either sustain the planet in its wild, dangerous, unimpacted state, or we sustain humanity and human progress. It’s either/or. The Environmentalists choose planet sustainability. Humanitarians choose human life.

Scientists Just Gave Humanity an Overdue Reality Check. The World Will Be Better for It goes well beyond the powerlust that politicians who use Environmentalism to gain power over our lives. At least they retain some respect for human progress, even though their policies would ultimately make progress impossible. What I sense when I read cold rubbish like Lezak’s article is pure hatred, and the resentment and envy of productive achievement that leads to it. 

* [Earth doesn’t actually give us resources. It gives us raw materials with potential. Turning those raw materials into actual resources comes from human thought and ingenuity.]

Related Reading:

Earth Day: a Pro-Human Perspective vs. the Anti-Industrial Revolutionaries

Greta Thunberg's Hatred of Man

Related Listening:

The Anti-Industrial Revolution, by Ayn Rand

FB Cancer Conspiracy Nonsense

Recently, an acquaintance shared article on Facebook, Cancer industry not looking for a cure; they’re too busy making money. It’s classic conspiracy theory nonsense. The points presented—no points are actually made—are so far-fetched that they’re not even worth commenting on. One example:

There is no real incentive to cure something that generates so much employment and profit; just imagine all of the cancer treatment specialists and their staff members who would be out of a job if this disease was ever cured.

As if cancer is some one single disease with one simplistic cure that eliminates all cancer from the entire human race! That’s the illusion created by Nixon’s “War on Cancer."

Of course, cancers do get cured. Some get managed to extend lives. Some cancers are not cured. Some don’t yet have effective treatments. But there is no one disease called “cancer.” It is many, many diseases that require many, many paths of research. But plenty of progress has been made against cancer, nonetheless. It’s a long and torturous progress; but progress nonetheless.

Anyway, I left this Facebook comment:

There's no such thing as a "cancer industry." There are companies that make money creating products that reduce suffering and extend life. That's what "making money" means--to make stuff people value and willingly pay for. Someone close to me was diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease at age 11. If not for the medicines created by profit-seeking pharmaceutical/biotech companies, this person wouldn't have grown into the thriving young adult he is today. There wouldn't be millions saved by organ transplants if not for the medical device and pharma industries. Cancer treatments have steadily advanced over my lifetime. I know plenty of cancer survivors among friends and family members. People and companies don't profit from cancer. They profit from extending lives. What a noble way to make money. This article would have us believe in some grand conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people, hundreds of companies, and who knows how many doctors. But that's all it is--dangerous conspiracy-theory quackery. It's sad to think of how many people might forgo valuable treatment because of this line of thinking.

These anti-science, anti-profit conspiracy theory peddlers are not just fringe nut cases. They do real damage by discouraging people from getting treatment that can help them. They consition people from getting not only cancer treatment, but vaccines as well. They are dangerous frauds.

Related Reading:

Promising trends and advances in the fight against cancer

Basic Cancer Research Funding: Don’t Forget Pharma

NJ Researchers Achieve Cancer Breakthrough

Gene Therapy Scientists Play God, Attack Cancer, Win by me for The Objective Standard

Heroic Scientists Achieve Major Advancement in Battle Against Cancer by me for The Objective Standard

Reason Delivers Again by Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard

The (Often Overlooked) Value of Doctors and Nurses

My wife Kathleen shared a short video on Facebook that portrayed a young man asking, “Help me find the nurse who saved my life!” I posted the following comment on my Kathy’s page:

Medical science is incredible. So is medical technology (devices, tools, medicines, etc.) But without someone to learn and master the science and the technology, and deliver these marvels to the patient, they are of little value. The doctors and nurses are those someones. They are the transmission belts between the knowledge of the medical scientist and the inventions of the medical technologists (and their companies), and the patient. My recent surgery/recovery proves the point.

Related Reading:

In the Healthcare Debate, Remember the Doctors

The Forgotten Man of Socialized Medicine--Ayn Rand

Prosthetics Violinist--Thanks to Courage and Capitalism

From the Washington Post: A 10-year-old Virginia girl without a hand wanted to play violin. Now she can:

Dressed for the occasion in a red dress and a headband with a white, glittery flower, 10-year-old Isabella Nicola picked up her violin.

But this was no recital. And Isabella is no ordinary violin player. The fifth grader from Alexandria, Va., was born without a left hand and part of her forearm.

That hasn’t stopped her. Her mother, Andrea Cabrera, always instructed her not to say “I can’t,” but to say “I can’t yet.”

Now, thanks to five George Mason University bioengineering seniors — Yasser Alhindi, Mona Elkholy, Abdelrahman Gouda, Ella Novoselsky and Racha Salha — who used 3-D printing technology to create a prosthetic bow arm for her, she’s begun training on an instrument that challenges even the most adroit musicians.

They call it the VioArm.

Kudos to Isabella for her determination and courage. And Kudos to the scientists, engineers, businessmen, and investors of the hi tech industry for giving these entrepreneuring George Mason University students the tools to turn their idea for the VioArm into reality. Determination, courage, reason, and capitalism is an unstoppable combination.

Related Reading:

Serviceman Who Lost Leg Carries Woman Across Finish Line—Thanks to Prosthetics Industry

Koni Dole: Loses a Leg, Shines in Football Anyway

Is Science Catching Up to the Objectivist Ethics?

An interesting article appeared in the Washington Post. In Being empathetic is good, but it can hurt your health, Jennifer Breheny Wallace reports:

Empathy — the ability to tune into and share another person’s emotion from their perspective — plays a crucial role in bringing people together. It’s the joy you feel at a friend’s wedding or the pain you experience when you see someone suffering.

It’s an essential ingredient for building intimacy in relationships, says Robin Stern, associate director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. “When someone feels seen and heard by you,” she says, “they begin to trust you.”

But this seemly positive emotion can also have a downside, particularly if someone gets so consumed by another’s feelings that they neglect their own feelings and needs. Stern says those who regularly prioritize others’ emotions over their own are more susceptible to experiencing anxiety or low-level depression. [emphasis added]

Another researcher quoted in the article, Jamil Zaki, offers, “Being supportive of those we care about is among our most cherished and important roles, but it’s also one that’s fraught: We want to be there for someone but not lose ourselves.” [emphasis added]

If this sounds like a [partial] plug for rational selfishness, you’d be right in my view. I think what these people have in mind is rational selfishness, although not necessarily consciously. Also not mentioned is the term altruism. But that’s what Wallace has in mind—again, probably not consciously—when she talks about when “someone gets so consumed by another’s feelings that they neglect their own feelings and needs.” Self-neglect is exactly what altruism demands. And rational selfishness is what Zaki has in mind when he urges us “not to lose ourselves.”

Of course, altruism saps one’s self-esteem, as well. In fact, lack of self-esteem is probably a deeper, “root” cause of the anxiety and depression.

But the point here is that empathy does not and should not require putting other’s well-being above one’s own. Yet that’s precisely what altruism demands—not mere concern for others, but self-neglect and ultimately, if unchecked, self-destruction. Checked altruism—you believe in it but can’t practice it consistently—leads to another bad psychological outcome, unearned guilt.

Another researcher, Anneke Buffone, states:

“People assume that any kind of empathy is associated with positive health benefits and behaviors, but for the first time we have physical evidence that not all empathy is alike, that its positive or negative effects depend on the perspective you take.” [emphasis added]

Two perspectives offered are,

• Emotional empathy, you actually put yourself in someone else’s shoes and feel their emotion. This is the type of response that, left unchecked, can lead to caretaker burnout, says Zaki. 
• And then there’s compassionate empathy, where you feel concern about another’s suffering, but from more of a distance and with a desire to help the person in need. 

I would label the alternative perspectives self-sacrificial ‘empathy’ vs. selfish empathy, or altruism vs. rational selfishness. There’s more to this interesting article. It’s worth a read.

Objectivists know that altruism is self-destructive, and that rational selfishness is the only basis not only for achieving personal happiness but also for healthy, respectful, human relationships, including relationships that involve helping others (all of which is, actually, the same thing). Is science catching up to the Objectivist ethics? If so, it’s a positive moral sign for the future. Altering the conventional understanding of what moral action entails—replacing self-sacrificial service to others with prioritizing one’s own selfish flourishing—is key to reversing the political trend toward some manifestation of totalitarian socialism.

I’m not saying that these researchers are full-blown advocates of the Objectivist Ethics. Whatever the moral conclusions, if any, of the authors, this research is a good sign because it provides—“for the first time,” according to the authors—physical evidence of altruism’s self-destructiveness.

Related Reading:

Books to Aid in Understanding Rational Selfishness

In Defense of Selfishness: Why the Code of Self-Sacrifice is Unjust and Destructive—Peter Schwartz

Related Viewing:

ACHIEVING HAPPINESS: AN INTERVIEW WITH TARA SMITH—Yaron Brook

Prager U’s ‘4 New Arguments’ for God: The Same Old Arguments from Ignorance

I like Dennis Prager and his Prager U. They have many informative and easy-to-understand videos. I find much convincing and easy to agree with. But this video, Does God Exist? 4 New Arguments, is puzzling. It purports to “prove” the existence of God—but forgets the rules of proof, which starts with providing actual evidence. It even mentions Aristotle—while forgetting Aristotle, the father of modern science.

Frank Pastore poses this question:

Science tells us that the universe came into being via The Big Bang. But how do you get from energy and matter to a self-aware human being? That takes three additional Big Bangs that science can't explain.

Pastore then presents four “Big Bang” arguments for God: the origin of the universe, the rise of life from inanimate matter, the diversity of life on Earth and the igniting of evolution, and the rise of intelligent life (the cosmological, the biological, the anthropological, and the psychological).

What this amounts to is nothing new: There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a supernatural God who created existence. Hence, many religionists trot out science’s inability (to date) to explain certain existential phenomena as proof that therefore the only logical explanation for such phenomena is that God did it.

The idea of proving the existence of God is the ultimate contradiction. The Christian God is believed to exist outside of nature; that is, in a supernatural realm. He is thought to be unknowable through mere reason. Man’s reason is “limited.” If that is so, then proof of God is logically impossible, for if God’s existence can be proved, it would by definition disprove the very existence of God, as conceived by Christianity. It would mean God is knowable and subject to the same laws of nature that everything existing in nature is subject to. He would not exist in a realm above nature—a supernatural realm. “Supernatural” implies beyond the laws of nature, and thus unprovable by definition.

The four “Big Bangs” may be arguments for God. Anybody can argue anything for any reason. But they don’t constitute proof. So, what’s the point? Pastore concludes, We must take God on faith—or, the only rational explanation for existence is faith in God!.

Religionists should give up trying to appeal to rationality in a vain attempt to prove the irrational—the existence of God. This video boils down to the argument from ignorance: we don’t know something yet, so God must have done it. But ignorance—we don’t know yet—does not prove God. It simply proves we don’t know everything yet (and probably never will). The four “Big Bangs” of “proof” in this video fail to prove anything but that there is more for science to discover and explain. Religionists could stick to faith if they want to. But forget proving God. The argument from ignorance is not an argument for God, new or otherwise.

Related Reading:

The Role of Religion in the Scientific Revolution—Frederick Seiler  for The Objective Standard

God’s “Miraculous” Achievement--or Justice?…It’s Either-Or.

Dennis Prager’s False Alternative and Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Life—Craig Biddle for The Objective Standard

Who is the Real ‘Science Denier’?

Another New Jersey Star-Ledger editorial (This man hopes you'd vote for a candidate who believes climate change is fake), plus an article by Andrew Bernstein published in Capitalism Magazine (The Truth About Climate Change) got me thinking in a new direction.

In a section of his excellent article, Bernstein addresses “The Necessity to Affirm, Not Deny Climate Change.” Bernstein documents the dynamic history of Earth’s climate, including several episodes of catastrophic climate change, and contrasts this history with the current warming period, which is mild and much less disruptive than past episodes. After documenting Earth’s climate history, Bernstein writes:

It is precisely this context, an appropriate timescale, that many (if not all) AGW [anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming) theorists ignore. A stockbroker, who tried to convince investors to buy a stock based on its performance in the last sixty seconds, while blanking out decades of data, would be ignoring vastly less relevant information than do the majority of today’s supporters of man-made global warming.

The accusation of “climate change denier” is, consequently, egregiously inaccurate when hurled at persons who examine this context and recognize the reality of natural, cyclical, and likely incessant climate change.

The accusation is accurate, however, when leveled against some leading supporters of the AGW hypothesis. Dr. Michael Mann, for example,  a respected climate scientist and lead author for the IPCC, developed the infamous “hockey stick” graph, purporting to show that, for roughly 1,000 years prior to the 20th century, Northern Hemisphere temperatures had been relatively stable, perhaps even declining slightly, then sharply rising after 1900 (hence the hockey stick shape of the graph). In effect, Mann’s methodology “air-brushed” out of existence the Medieval Warm Period; if accurate, Mann’s findings would show a strong and unique correlation between human emissions of carbon dioxide and rising temperatures. However, Mann’s methodology was seriously flawed and exposed as such by Dr. Edward Wegman, a leading statistician. The hockey stick graph, a featured aspect of the IPCC’s 2001 report, was subsequently dropped by the IPCC. The Medieval Warm Period had to be acknowledged as real.[37]

But Mann, some of his IPCC colleagues, and the environmentalist movement more broadly continue to support the hockey stick hypothesis.

According to Mann and his supporters, Northern Hemisphere temperatures were relatively flat for roughly 1,000 years, and the natural climate cycles from the Dark Age Cold Period to the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age were non-existent (or, at most, greatly over-exaggerated).

Who, then, is actually guilty of denying climate change?[38] [my emphasis]

Keeping Bernstein’s perspective in mind, the Star-Ledger Editorial Board opens its editorial hit piece on a NJ Republican politician:

Hurricane Harvey is another wake-up call, a reminder that we can no longer ignore man's contribution to the warming of the planet and how it increases our vulnerability to devastating weather events. To deny that only that invites more catastrophes like the one that has ravaged our nation's fourth largest city.

It is also a reminder that we need leaders who tell the truth, not people whose careers were advanced on fossil fuel money and climate denialism - yet right on cue, here comes Steve Lonegan, pursuing another office that should make New Jersey's collective gut seize.

The former Bogota mayor is running for the 5th District congressional seat currently held by Rep. Josh Gottheimer. Lonegan has the intellect, geniality and name recognition he'll need to compete, not to mention the money: For six years, he was the New Jersey director for Americans for Prosperity, which means his depraved indifference toward climate change echoes that of fossil fuel barons Charles and David Koch, who have given $100 million to 84 groups that deny climate science since 1997.

And in the wake of Harvey, it needs to be asked:

Would New Jerseyans vote for a candidate who believes that "the science stating that humans are responsible for climate change is highly questionable - there's also a massive amount of science that refutes that," and that this will all be followed by a cooling trend?

I left these comments:

The Star-Ledger states that Lonegan is in with “84 groups that deny climate science.” There's that simple-minded smear again; “science denier”. But in the very next paragraph, the S-L quotes Lonegan as stating that “there’s also a massive amount of science that refutes” anthropogenic climate change. What are these 84 groups saying? What science is Lonegan citing? A lot of important work regarding climate change history by a lot of knowledgable people has been done by people outside the alleged “consensus.” This well-documented work considers natural causes like the overlapping long-term, medium-term, and short-term climate trends, and multiple interlocking causes. The weight of the evidence indicates mild and manageable climate change. Much of this work tackles head-on the case for climate catastrophe. Do the climate catastrophists meet the dissenters head-on? No. The Star-Ledger brushes this science off. Who is the real science denier? Who is the real climate denier?

The Star-Ledger accuses Lonegan of “depraved indifference toward climate change.” But the “practical” solutions proposed to “combat climate change” could have devastating consequences for human well-being in the U.S. and globally. Reliable energy drives industrial and agricultural progress, and effects the cost of everything. Drastically raising the cost of energy, not to mention making energy unreliable through “renewables,” would drastically lower our standard of living, especially for the lower income folks. Given the vital importance of reliable energy to human well-being and survival, the vital importance of economic freedom, and the depraved indifference to human well-being of climate catastrophists’, shouldn’t we at least give a hearing to the other side of the climate debate?

In truth, there’s a lot more to climate change than is simplistically indicated here, or that can be addressed in a comment. There are pros and cons over federal flood insurance, sea level rise, storm intensity, the effects of climate change, economics, energy science, the actual greenhouse effect of co2, and political science, to name a few. But let me say this: It does not follow that, because humans may be contributing to climate change, drastic life-altering political (i.e., coercive) steps, like outlawing fossil fuels, must be immediately implemented to curb it. In truth, the climate catastrophists like the Star-Ledger are objectivity deniers. Their views and conclusions are biased and one-sided in favor of the Left’s agenda to increase government control of private life and industry in the name of fighting climate change. But the alternative view calls for adaptation to climate change coupled with continued freedom and human progress, a much less disruptive “solution” and fundamentally better for human flourishing.

I think Lonegan deserves to be respected and taken seriously, not smeared and dismissed out-of-hand by fear-mongering statists. He has something important to contribute to the debate. In any event, I wish he were running in my district. He’d have my vote.

-----------------------------------------------------

Maybe the Star-Ledger is an energy denier, freedom denier, and industrial progress denier.

What about the federal flood insurance program? The S-L states that “there is little evidence that the private market has the capacity to underwrite the growing risk[.]” That’s the point! No private insurer would be stupid enough to provide broad flood insurance coverage for areas that are certain to flood. Federal underwriting with tax dollars overrode the private market, leading to decades of massive development that wouldn’t have taken place, massively inflating damage from readily predictable storms like Sandy and Harvey. Maybe we should label the Star-Ledger and “basic economics denier”.

The Star-Ledger labels Harvey “another wake-up call.” To what? To the fact that devastating storms have always occurred? To climate change, which has always occurred on our meteorologically dynamic planet? It’s pretty certain that humans are contributing also. Climate catastrophists argue that consequences for humans of not eliminating those contributions will be devastating. But what are the costs to human well-being of eliminating the human contributions, such as by outlawing fossil fuels? Where’s the cost-benefit analysis of the “practical solutions” advocated by the political Left. Should we trade human well-being for marginally less severe Harveys and Sandys (both of which had more to do with unusual weather patterns than slightly warmer oceans)? Maybe we should label the Star-Ledger a “consequence denier”.

The Star-Ledger cites a prediction by the Union of Concerned Scientists, “which states that sea level rise over the next two decades will bring ‘chronic disruptive inundation to Seaside Park and 14 more towns along the Jersey Shore that today rarely feel the effects of tidal flooding’." Well, what about the long line of failed environmentalist catastrophe predictions going back decades? Shouldn’t the UCS prediction be at least taken with a grain of salt, given the uniformly exaggerated historical record of such predictions. And what about the fact that sea level rise has been going on all throughout the current interglacial period of about 15,000 or so years, to the tune of about 400 feet? Why panic over the two inches hypothesized to have been caused by AGW? Maybe the Star-Ledger should be labeled a “history denier”.

Denier, denier, denier. I’ve been ridiculing that childish, false smear for years. Maybe, though, there’s some validity to the charge—but the opposite of how the climate catastrophists mean it.

‘Ghost Barrens’ Versus Human Energy Needs: Where’s the Choice?

Excerpts from Why sections of the Pine Barrens are turning into 'ghost forests' By Michael Sol Warren of NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

The storied New Jersey Pine Barrens sprawl across seven counties and more than a million acres -- an undulant expanse of verdant forest that remains one of the state's great treasures.

But along numerous sections of the Pine Barrens' waterways, "ghost forests" are taking hold. Stands of Atlantic white-cedar are dying off, giving way to saltwater marshes and leaving thousands of acres of dead trees in their wake.

It's a natural phenomenon that has happened in the past, but traditionally the dead patches recover over time. Now, however, scientists believe that sea level rise, caused by climate change driven by human activity, has worsened the situation beyond repair.

And,

George Zimmermann, a Stockton University professor who is an expert on Atlantic white-cedar, said that while the forests lost to saltwater are gone for the foreseeable future, other parts of the range can still be restored to compensate.

"The question is now, how much do people want to invest in this resource?" Zimmermann said.

"It all comes back to the bigger question of climate change," Walker added. "The best thing that everyone could be doing is cutting carbon emissions and switching to alternative energy."

I left these comments, edited for clarity:

“[S]cientists believe that sea level rise, caused by climate change driven by human activity, has worsened the situation beyond repair.”

There they are again. Those God-like, mysterious “scientists” who “believe”—never challenged by context or dissenting views. No mention of the fact that sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years; and that, after a 400 foot rise, the natural trend continues. Yet, we are supposed to be thrown into a panic because human activity may have contributed the last couple of inches!

“’The best thing that everyone could be doing is cutting carbon emissions and switching to alternative energy.’”

And how does it follow that what is going on in the Pine Barrens means we humans have to give up our vital, reliable carbon fuels, in favor of the expensive, crappy, so-called “alternative”—that is, unreliable—energy? (Is nuclear considered an “alternative” fuel?) Why are trees more important than human well-being? Reliable energy drives our industrial standard of living. And we’re supposed to give it up? Why? For the sake of trees that are destined to be swamped by rising sea levels anyway, albeit at a little slower rate if not for human energy production? Even if giving up reliable energy can, by some unforeseen miracle, stop the 20,000 year sea level trend, aren’t a few dead trees preferable to the devastation of energy poverty?

Not to environmentalists. I’ll tell you why. Environmentalists don’t have human flourishing in mind. They value any “natural” activity—that is, nature unaltered by human ingenuity—over humans. Seas rise 400 feet? Fine—it’s “natural.” Humans add a few extra inches per century? Catastrophic—it’s “unnatural.”

I'll  tell you what. “Scientists believe” is not enough. Context is crucial. Climate is changing, and humans are contributing. So what? Sea level rise is accelerating, and humans are contributing. So what? Human life is better and safer than ever, and getting more so even as fossil fuel use and co2 levels grow, because human need industrial-scale improvement of the Earth more than they need an imperceptably cooler Earth. There may be problems to deal with. But unimproved nature is economic paralysis and collapse, followed by wholesale death for humans. Give me fossil fuels, industrial progress, and human flourishing, problems and all. The alternative is unthinkably cruel.

Related Reading:

How Earth Day Anti-Industrialists Hijack ‘Science’ to Deny Humans the Benefits of Science

“Peoples Climate March” is No Friend of Humanity

The Environmentalists’ War on People—Ari Armstrong for The Objective Standard

"Citizens Climate Lobby" Turns to Force to Protect Nature at Human Expense