This is very insightful. Lately, I've been thinking about how large-scale industry is seen in the world of Tolkien versus Ayn Rand. Tolkien paints a bleak picture of the environmental destruction caused by large industry (Isengard and the destruction of the surrounding ancient forest, eventually neutralised by the revenge of the Ents - symbolic of nature's ability to win the long game). In contrast, Rand associates all good and noble attributes with industrial and financial success. Not surprisingly, Tolkien's work found favour within the hippy counterculture in the sixties and seventies, and Rand's work did not. Today though, both Tokien and Rand are admired by conservatives (albeit different kinds of conservatives). I happen to see Tolkien's ideal world as much more inviting than Rand's. What's your take?
I like how you frame the two different camps of "conservatives." There are those who genuinely wish to conserve, and the those who merely wish to conserve whatever structures are conducive to technological and economic growth.
I would fall more into Rand's camp. Though I love nature, I think that human industry serves human interests. Reveled preferences show that people would rather live in society than nature, and so we have to bear the costs of heavy industry. Ultimately, humanism dictates that humans, and not the natural world, are worthy objects of moral consideration. I can concede that there are many excesses of industry, especially the oil sands, that can be reined in without sacrificing human welfare. However, I think that there is still room for national parks and wildlife preservation--undoubtedly good things--within the framework of humanism.
The environmentalist movement as we see it today seems to be motivated simply by anti-humanism, rather than genuine conservation (which you rightly note is a conservative value) or any positive aim.
Clearly, humans have to alter the natural world in order to live in it. The question is how much altering is too much? One could compare the natural world to a house that we live in; it provides us with everything necessary for life. You can turn lights on and off, get food from the fridge, leave some dirty dishes by the sink (if you wash them later). You could even smash a chair and burn it for firewood, but if you make a habit of burning furniture, the house will soon begin to look bleak and shabby. If you abuse the house too much, it will become a less pleasant place to live, and eventually will stop providing for your needs. So, the question is not whether the person's needs are more important than the house's needs, but rather how can the person look after the house so that the house will look after the person? That's how I see it, anyway.
This is very insightful. Lately, I've been thinking about how large-scale industry is seen in the world of Tolkien versus Ayn Rand. Tolkien paints a bleak picture of the environmental destruction caused by large industry (Isengard and the destruction of the surrounding ancient forest, eventually neutralised by the revenge of the Ents - symbolic of nature's ability to win the long game). In contrast, Rand associates all good and noble attributes with industrial and financial success. Not surprisingly, Tolkien's work found favour within the hippy counterculture in the sixties and seventies, and Rand's work did not. Today though, both Tokien and Rand are admired by conservatives (albeit different kinds of conservatives). I happen to see Tolkien's ideal world as much more inviting than Rand's. What's your take?
Thank you very much for the comment.
I like how you frame the two different camps of "conservatives." There are those who genuinely wish to conserve, and the those who merely wish to conserve whatever structures are conducive to technological and economic growth.
I would fall more into Rand's camp. Though I love nature, I think that human industry serves human interests. Reveled preferences show that people would rather live in society than nature, and so we have to bear the costs of heavy industry. Ultimately, humanism dictates that humans, and not the natural world, are worthy objects of moral consideration. I can concede that there are many excesses of industry, especially the oil sands, that can be reined in without sacrificing human welfare. However, I think that there is still room for national parks and wildlife preservation--undoubtedly good things--within the framework of humanism.
I have many problems with the environmentalist movement, as I document in another article, "Environmentalism as Anti-Humanism" https://philosopheroftheoilsands.substack.com/p/environmentalism-as-anti-humanism
The environmentalist movement as we see it today seems to be motivated simply by anti-humanism, rather than genuine conservation (which you rightly note is a conservative value) or any positive aim.
Clearly, humans have to alter the natural world in order to live in it. The question is how much altering is too much? One could compare the natural world to a house that we live in; it provides us with everything necessary for life. You can turn lights on and off, get food from the fridge, leave some dirty dishes by the sink (if you wash them later). You could even smash a chair and burn it for firewood, but if you make a habit of burning furniture, the house will soon begin to look bleak and shabby. If you abuse the house too much, it will become a less pleasant place to live, and eventually will stop providing for your needs. So, the question is not whether the person's needs are more important than the house's needs, but rather how can the person look after the house so that the house will look after the person? That's how I see it, anyway.
I can agree with that. I just believe the preservation of the natural world is an instrumental, not an inherent, good.
Thank you for this thought provoking essay. The comments are solid gold as well.
Thank you very much!