Trust and the Level Playing Field: What Are the Commons?

I'm currently re-reading Rachel Carson. I think it's instructive reading.

How did this book spark what we now know of as the Environmental Movement?

If you've never read the book, I think the answer is in Chaper One, titled "A Fable for Tomorrow".

"There was once a town in the heart of America where all life seemed to live in harmony with its surroundings" (Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, Mariner Books, 20o2) the fable begins. And at the end of the fable?

"A grim specter has crept upon us almost unnoticed, and this imagined tragedy may easily become a stark reality we all shall know.

"What has already silenced the voices of spring in countless towns in America? This book is an attempt to explain." (ibid)

Whether or not Ms. Carson's criticism of the use of pesticides is accurate or not, the template was set. Argument cloaked as science.

Ms. Carson was not a hack. She had strongly held beliefs that she supported with research. Whether or not her research still stands isn't necessary for this argument. She, herself, has stated that her objective was not to end the use of pesticides. And whether or not you agree with all, some or none of her conclusions isn't necessary for this argument. She may, or may not have been, correct in all or some of her conclusions.

That isn't important.

What is important is the template that she set for discussions about issues about which most of us know nothing.

Allow me to briefly to digress.

I, like thousands of other Oregon State grads, had the chance to study under and know Frank Dost.

Professor Dost attempted, like other Oregon State professors--before and after his tenure--to teach the truth. When others in the institution were dedicating their lives to an agenda, Dr. Dost was dedicating his to understanding the role that chemicals played in improving our lives. Or, to look at the other side, how a lack of chemicals applied appropriately could damage our lives.

Imagine the work of Paul Ehrlich being stopped because his work relied upon the use chemical compounds to end disease. And yet, today, modern revanchism decries the use of chemicals. (One of the dopier examples of this is the battle against plastic bags at grocery stores.)

And, again I note, that even Ms. Carson's intent was not to end the use of chemical treatments against pests. Or silvaculture. Or medicine.

And, again, that's not the point. It was the template that resulted from her publication of "Silent Spring" and the resultant tempest it created between populist politicians and corporate America. Here, in the first chapter of what was otherwise an informative work, was a narrative that moved people to be afraid.

What was, and is, at stake? An ability to apply the knowledge we have gained as a race to win our battle over our environment. And that is a curious distinction to make when talking to environmentalists.

It seems to me that to the environmentalist, all of us would be better off if we spent more time emulating the lifestyle of the 13th century indigenous American. Or, Indian. There has sprung from modern--or post-modern--American political thought the strange belief that if we were "more in tune with Nature" our lives would be better. And yet nothing empirically could be further from the truth.

Whether you need to re-learn the word pasteurisation, re-examine the work of Dr. Salk, or make a shout-out to your best friend on your cell phone, the idea that your life would be better "if only" we were more like the gentle creatures imagined by the Left as husbands of the Earth of 13th century America, you are leading a delusional life. Trust me. You wouldn't be reading this if that were so.

But the rational mind was never meant to be the target of Ms. Carson's work. Before the work actually met the mainstream, it was carefully crafted into a series of magazine articles that teased the imagination. Or, more like viewing pictures of the results of myasthenia gravis, meant to tittilate the imagination. The horror! The horror!

So, who read, with comprehension, the major body of her opus? Well, next to nobody.

It has been suggested that fewer than 10 percent of the US population has any understanding of the fundamentals behind the science of chemistry. Not science. Or sciencey stuff.

Chemistry.

And yet here is a book, Silent Spring, which relies upon the readers ability to follow the narrative thread following Chapter One. What does this mean?

"It is now known that the mitochondra are tiny packets of enzymes, a varied assortment including all the enzymes necessary for the oxidative cycle, arranged in precise and orderly array on walls and partitions. The mitochondria are the 'powerhouses' in which most of the energy-producing reactions occur. After the first, preliminary steps of oxidation have been performed in the cytoplasm the fuel molecule is taken into the mitochondria. It is here that oxidation is completed; it is here that enormous amounts of energy are released." (ibid)

If the quote above makes sense and you disagree with my argument (that the whole basis of the environmental movement is based upon popular hysteria) then how can you find yourself in disagreement with the author of the work, Ms. Carson, who has clearly stated that it was never her intention to end the use of chemicals to control man's pests?

Instead, rather than lose the velocity behind the hysterical argument, you deny the truth of the value and use of chemicals in modern society. As your computer relies upon arsenium, lithium and what other chemicals, to read this missive? At what point will your own honesty stretch to make consonant the truth of your needs with the dishonesty of your politics?

So, what are the commons? And why is the definition of the commons important?

Because the use of chemicals is a private right. And the commons has been extended beyond the public square into the private rights of property.

Do you have the right to use penicillin?

Do you, if you live in Washington, South Dakota or Connecticut, have the right to limit the miners of arsenium?Is the use of arsenium a violation of the commons?

And would it matter if you knew that arsenium is just another name for arsenic oxide?

Do you have the right to use it?

After Silent Spring the template was set. It was never important after that point whether or not the science was good. What was important was the narrative. And Silent Spring resulted in the largest taking of private rights that we have experienced as a people.

In the rush to avoid waking up tomorrow dead, whole categories of useful chemicals were thrown into the drink. In an attempt to avoid some science fiction calamity, the usefullness of chemicals was distorted. All the while, we advanced, even through the prescience of The Graduate's introduction to "plastics". (And I am a fan of Frank's "plastic boots and plastic hats, and you think you know where it's at".)

Regardless of the contempt that we have felt towards the chemical industry, you couldn't live without it. No, not figuratively. Literally.

From the hypodermic syringes that your doctor uses to vaccinate your children, to the sensors that regulate your engine's performance, plastics, chemicals, compounds have improved your life, shortened the burdens of your work day, and improved the likelyhood that your child would survive serious injury. Changes in our understanding the of way the world works has increase our lives two-fold. If you are over the age of fifty, you are only living because of our understanding of chemicals and the role they play in our lives.

But the template set by Ms. Carson's work won't allow you to admit that truth.

Chemicals kill. We'll wake up tomorrow living in a silent spring.

Get real. Nature is out to kill you. Nature's ability to kill you is greater than your ability to kill it. Test it. Go outside and hit Nature with an axe. If Nature is still alive, try a gun.

We've been gifted with the ability to hold Nature at our doorstep. Not always successfully. Just ask me about the effects of the December 2nd storm. Or those who have lost their battle against flood or tornado.

But there are still those folks out there who view the 13th century in some type of weird reverence. Like totems and dream catchers are all you need for successful living. (These people, we call hippies.)

And these people are dangerous. These are the people who would restrict the use of the commons for their own religious ends. Rather than being concerned about your children and your children's health, they will deny you the use of the true commons to achieve a religious end; the recreation of the 13th century hogan, replete with running sores and diseases.

The worst misuse of the commons is as an impediment to its use at all.

In Hardin's essay, he talks about the fault of over-grazing. But today we're not talking about over-grazing or sustainable use. We're talking about denying the commons to any user that we disagree with. If a corporation asks to use the commons, we must deny the use of the commons because the corporation is only interested in profit.

Wha????

I've read and re-read Hardin and I find his criticism relies upon the use of the commons. How did we get to this pass?

It gets back to the hysteria generated by Silent Spring. One day we end up dead. Or, according to the former Vice-President, we have thirty foot waves enveloping New York City and dead polar bears floating in the flotsam. So, to avoid this pass, we must end resource utilization!

Carbon! Carbon! Everywhere, Carbon! And not a drop to drink. (There is no carbon in water, but there is in Coca-Cola!)

What are the Commons if the use of the commons is denied to those who find use there? They become the province of the religously motivated. Sure, it's the religion of Gaia, of Earth Worship, but a religion nonetheless.

And I, for one, want to assert my use of the commons. Whether individually or corporately. The Commons are for use. And whether it's the ANWR tract in Alaska, or off-shore drilling in Oregon, California or Florida I demand my right to the commons.

And the arguments in opposition have been full of worry and care, and short of consequence.

Perhaps it's time to take back the Commons.

Silly and Mis-Leading Anti-LNG Direct Mail Piece

I'm sure that the Great Thinkers behind the effort to stop an LNG terminal in Clatsop County have great hopes of influencing the electorate of the county with this jazzy direct mail piece.

And I suppose the next step is to tear-out the existing natural gas pipelines in the county. Which kinda screws me, since I heat my home with natural gas.

But what is it they really are doing? Letting people know that after completion of the pipeline construction, that the presence--like that of existing natural gas pipelines in the county--will be out of sight...and soon forgotten.

How do you get natural gas to heat your home if you live in Gearhart, Seaside or Cannon Beach? I just don't recall the hub-bub over the pipeline extension to south county. Or any hysteria over the pipeline that brings natural gas into Astoria, for that matter.

Perhaps the idea opponents are trying to "show" is that the construction will be left incomplete. It's not how I'd do it. But, mebbe, the Great Thinkers opposed to natural gas pipelines have an inside source of information, so I might, in my assumption (thinking they would backfill and plant) be wrong.

And one last thing...

This last line, "Don't let our laws be changed to open up all parks and open spaces throughout Clatsop County to LNG-related pipelines." Huh? You'd really have to be on the fringe to imagine some random pipeline construction taking place...because, and for the mere fact, of its being legal.

What would be cool? Adding another fiber-optic line in the trench. Adding a gasoline pipeline. Imagine the long-term benefits of having free gasoline transmission to our county. I don't know about you, but aren't gas prices high enough?

And remember the last big storm? Wouldn't another fiber-optic cable make sense?

There are people in this county who are letting a little hysteria color their thinking. When they should be asking about how this could, and will, benefit them.

Tim Howard...Now That's What I'm Talkin' About

If you have no clue to what I'm referring, sorry. If you do, remember, Tim is watching you.

A Funny Thing Happened (in re:Senator Smith)

Does anybody recognize the name Rachel Carson?

I don't think anybody, including Ms. Carson, had any idea of how her characterization of the use of pesticides would impact the commons. It has been a number of years since first reading Ms. Carson, but after following up on my recent previous posts on the develop of modern Leftyism, I thought it was only fair to go back and look at what many perceive as the seminal work of modern day environmentalism, and its effect on debate.

So I turned to my favorite authority: myself.

What I searched for on this website were my previous posts that included the word "thug". Thug politics, in sheeps clothing, is the best description that I can come up with to describe what has happened to our ability to engage in civil debate. If you, like I, have found that simply disagreeing with many of the notions of the Left leaves you with a certain form of social ostracism, well, welcome to my world. People you don't even know, upon hearing you speak your mind, will excuse themselves to your table to share their jaded obsession.

And nobody wins an argument with an iconoclast.

Which brought me to an amusing end to this idea for a post.

I found a previous post that I had entered on September 11, 2007. In it I had included a link to a speech that Senator Smith had made before the Senate. In it he said:

“The sad truth is that the surge cannot win the peace; only Iraqi leaders are capable of stopping the bloodshed. The United States should not hand over the keys of American military and foreign policy to an Iraqi government that will not govern. The stakes are too high. America’s mission is the war on terror. Our troops should be fighting Al Qaeda not another country’s civil war.” (Audio here.) Listen to Senator Smith. It's a short clip.

The link doesn't work anymore. How sad.

We accuse others of cleaning up their fingerprints. Need another reason to vote for Merkely?

When A Picture Is Not Worth A Thousand Words

In the last two posts, I have referred to the writings of one of the iconic figures of modern American Leftyism, a Professor Garrett Hardin. After reading--and re-reading--his opus, I have gleaned one statement of his that has resonance.

"In passing, it is worth noting that the morality of an act cannot be determined from a photograph. One does not know whether a man killing an elephant or setting fire to the grassland is harming others until one knows the total system in which his act appears. 'One picture is worth a thousand words,' said an ancient Chinese; but it may take 10,000 words to validate it. It is as tempting to ecologists as it is to reformers in general to try to persuade others by way of the photographic shortcut. But the essense of an argument cannot be photographed: it must be presented rationally--in words." (Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, "Science", December 13, 1968.)

I believe that it is best, when talking to Leftists, to refer to their icons and hold the Leftist to a standard of proof presented by said icon. The figure above is a case in point.

There are two falsehoods being presented above. One is explicit and the other is implicit. But before commenting here, please go to Russell Roberts' post at Cafe Hayek. Follow his rules here when posting comments.

It is important for us to learn how to talk to, or about, Leftists. Too much of what attempts to be political discussion in this state is nothing more than Leftists playing dress-up with dolls. If we are going to begin winning the debate over the value and importance of the individual, the value and importance of investment and capitalism, the value and importance of making our own decisions ourselves, we need to learn--and practise--how to point out that most values of Leftists are just attempts to dress-up their imposition of their beliefs on us, on the basis of flawed theory and analysis.

As we continue to heat our homes through August, continue to buy crappy gasoline as mandated by our state's government, and burn food, I suggest it's time to start pointing out that the dollies are cute, but that we should be putting our faith in those who value investment and growth (read change) than those who want to first, freeze us in time, and second, begin the retrogression to pre-Industrial levels.

It won't be easy. But this exercise is a good first step.

UPDATE: Pointed out by Classical Values, and responding to a criticism in previous comments...the "point" without being overladen by jargon.

The Mis-Leading LNG Direct Mail Piece

For those of you who clicked on the link to The Tragedy of the Commons in yesterday's post, perhaps you'll remember the author of that silly article writing the following words:

"In passing, it is worth noting that the morality of an act cannot be determined from a photograph. One does not know whether a man killing an elephant or setting fire to the grassland is harming others until one knows the total system in which his act appears. "One picture is worth a thousand words," said an ancient Chinese; but it may take 10,000 words to validate it. It is as tempting to ecologists as it is to reformers in general to try to persuade others by way of the photographic shortcut. But the essense of an argument cannot be photographed: it must be presented rationally--in words."

The attempt here, by opponents of the LNG pipeline, is to mis-direct you to a conclusion that you wouldn't make if you knew the facts surrounding their claims. Are you surprised that opponents to LNG would deliberately mis-lead you? I'm not. I've been in enough hearings in Salem to know that the rules that require utility companies to tell the truth and only the truth are not applied to those who attack them.

The promoters of LNG must--by law--tell the truth. The opponents are not required to do so.

This has been a source of frustration for utility spokesmen, again and again. Egregious error, deliberately mis-leading is a proven tactic of the Left. How is the LNG spokesman to respond?

Red-herrings. And the pro-LNG folks are put in a position of trying to overcome the falseness of their opponents declarations. So, there you are, a company shill, calling the opponents liars. It's okay to call corporate types liars. It's not okay to call "local, community activists" liars.

Even while their lips are moving.

My biggest frustration? This whole LNG thing is being fought in a tiny portion of the county. Have you even heard one of the pro-development ads on a south county radio station? Nope. All these guys are running around downtown Astoria. Because only Astoria counts. While Warrenton, Gearhart and Seaside continue to grow and develop. Does anybody even read that Astoria newspaper? I didn't think so. Otherwise, why would opponents of LNG have to put out misleading direct mail pieces like this?

The pro-LNG response? I can hear the crickets.

The Importance of Sustainability

(Click on pic for description.)

How important is Einstein's declaration that the speed of light is constant?

How important is Descartes' declaration that "I think, therefore I am"?

Is there a role for constants in scientific or moral/political inquiry? I believe there is. But, I cannot impose my beliefs upon you. Were you to study or work to understand the value of constants and the methods that can be used to determine constancy, perhaps you would agree with me that not only are these fairly widespread beliefs, but that there is sufficient reason to believe them to be self-evidently true. My strength of belief in these truths goes beyond that--the level of sufficiency--to a higher level of truth. Necessity.

The importance is one based upon a principle that I've written about before. If you're curious, just type in "apodictic" into the search window up on the upper left side of this page. I, like Husserl, et al. (pdf), believe that certain things are "necessary, indubitable, and infallible". ("Apodictic Truth: Husserl's Eidetic Reduction Versus Induction", James Palermo, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, January, 1978.)

I've also written about the importance of ontology and its use in determining apodictic truth. (Same routine...type "ontology" into the search thingy above. And no, it has nothing to do with cancer.)

Now, why would a fella--during this marvelous time of "Change" and "Hope" want to turn a discussion to the fundamental nature of truth and knowledge? Isn't it, after all, frivolous to worry about truth and knowledge when everybody knows the answers to all the important questions?

And what are the all important questions? These are the issues of sustainability*. The questions of how we survive as a genus.


There are important works on this subject. The one that I rely upon as a starting point is Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search For Meaning." ( Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning; an introduction to logotherapy, Beacon Press, 1963.) But this is too religiousy for most people. So, don't be surprised if you've never heard of it.

One of the more ludicrous works on this subject was written by a man by the name of Garrett Hardin. And yet, rather than speak in terms of derision, what Professor Hardin wrote, perhaps accidentally, was the seminal work on current environmental movement theory.

For those who have embraced the environmental movement, it is perhaps true that nothing that you read in this work will have any moral affect on you. Which is kind of ironic in its own way, since the major theme of Professor Hardin's work was the morality of behaviour and the types of restrictions that government may place on individuals as a result of his rules of moral behaviour.

There is a chance that you have heard of the Tragedy of the Commons. It is this tragedy that has motivated most, if not all, of the Democrat agenda since the 1960's. In my opinion.

How unlike Frankl is the Herr Doktor. In a post-modernist, yet absurdist way, Hardin becomes a new nation's Mengele. Remember Palermo's assertion: "essences are the objects of eidetic consciousness...i.e., are necessary, indubitable, and infallible." (ibid.) Not for Doctor Hardin. And yet, this monstrous work is at the core of new environmentalism, or, the Green Movement. Go ahead. Click on the link. This is the work that created a "scientific" rational for the Zero Population Growth (ZPG) of the '60's. Preceding Roe v. Wade by years, the eugenicist found in Margaret Sanger of the '30's has been revivified in Dr. Harding in the '60's.

Compare and contrast Frankl and Harding:

"We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."

" Perhaps the simplest summary of this analysis of man's population problems is this: the commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low-population density. As the human population has increased, the commons has had to be abandoned in one aspect after another."

Can you tell which writer,without refering to his works, wrote which of the phrases above? (Of course Hardin never spent any time in a concentration camp...so, maybe this isn't a fair example after all.)

You may consider my claims of equivalence between Hardin and Mengele unjust.

I offer two items. The first, the concluding paragraph of Dr. Hardin's thesis:

"The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon. 'Freedom is the recognition of necessity'--and it is the role of education to reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed. Only so, can we put an end to this aspect of the tragedy of the commons."

The second?

Scroll down to the bottom of his article and take a look at the other articles that have cited this monstrosity. It is frightening.

*Sustainability. Did you know that in 1973 this word didn't even show up in the New Collegiate Dictionary? Sustainability is a bogus word. Just out of curiousity, how would you define it?