If a manufacturer is convinced that his short term need for profits outweighs the long-term need to protect the environment, who should say to him no?

Both sides should have a seat at the table to discuss and debate but ultimately the will of the citizenry, as reflected in who wins elections and helps set national and local priorities on such issues, is the only way to do so.

To the extent that we allow things to reach a crisis stage, we create an invitation to the federal government to intercede, as was done with civil rights for example, which, had it been better managed locally, would have helped protect local prerogatives on certain issues unrelated to civil rights, say educational policy.

So my point is that building a consciousness about the damage we do to the planet we live on, and thereby to fellow citizens and human beings, is critical to ensuring that our individual rights long term are protected. That’s why I support strong local and state governmetn but weaker federal.

This is a big issue and I want to think and respond a bit more — but fatherhood duties call. thanks.

I am also enjoying this one-on-one with you, and appreciate the frank yet respectful tone you set.

I am not a capitalist, per se. If I were, I’d be a rather poor exemplar of capitalist success. I understand and appreciate the mechanics of economics, but am not particularly stimulated by or good at wealth creation. I am primarily a libertarian (though, also, decidedly conservative in my outlook). For me, it is (first, last and always) about preserving individual autonomy against encroachment (in all its guises). I defend capitalism, therefore, only as an expression of individual freedom that does not make of money a religion. There are instances where I take capitalism to task; just far less often than I do socialism. Capitalism (as an ideology) is much less dangerous than socialism and can, therefore, be allowed greater latitude. If you look closely at my writings, you will see I steer away from praising capitalism, capital and capitalists while exhorting free-markets, enterprise, and entrepreneurs. Capitalism and free-markets are not entirely synonymous, because capitalism is capable of cartels, monopolies, and price fixing (requiring some policing to prevent a concentration more powerful than government – though I do think the means adopted [anti-trust acts, FDA, FCC, ATF, copyright abuses, gun-control] go way too far) whereas free-markets can be damaged by these. It is not, therefore, that I am for capitalism; I am opposed to socialism. Unchecked capitalism maybe risky, but is not inherently hostile to freedom the way socialism is.

I am a social-conservative on most topics (e.g., abortion, right-to-bear, speech, conscience, patriotism) and a Constitutionalist. However, unlike personal-freedom, none of these rise to the level of ideology. Personal freedom, for me, is a core belief and matter of self-interest. The others are positions I have increasingly taken after long consideration and are, therefore, based more on reason than faith or feeling. For example, I was not always adamantly pro-life. It took a combination of personal involvement, research, and a singular inability to substantiate any of the pro-choice arguments to convince me abortion is 99.9% fraud and one of the greatest abuses of power in all human history. I believe in the Constitution because it is based on sound principles, it works, and tampering with it has proved more harmful than beneficial; not because it sounds good in theory.

I buy the conservationist-environmentalist’s argument there may be some things worth preserving/protecting. I simply disagree with the means adopted and how much of this is really worthwhile or even possible. For example, most of the measures used to preserve rare species or delicate ‘ecologies’ have, so far, proved more destructive to the things they sought to preserve than doing nothing. If, on the other hand, the object of conservationism is to just keep some small percentage of naturally occuring wonders as pristine, beautiful and thriving as possible for as long as is possible (without making of a cult of it), then okay because that much might, at least, be feasible. Right away, however, I see problems with even this much.

First, nature is not static and, if you try to force it to become static, you wind up damaging some part of it to favor another. We have seen this time and again in our parks where in, preserving one species, we wind up exterminating others. It is hubris, therefore, to think we can do better than nature itself. Second, if you decide to preserve some particularly delicate but lovely or interesting moss by declaring large areas off limits, just who is it you are preserving it for? Some squirrels who couldn’t care less? Some rare but superfluous gnat? This strikes me as similar to the “What is the sound of trees falling in a forest with no ears to hear it?” business. If no one is ever allowed to see, touch, smell, hear, or taste these things for fear of destroying them, then they are neither beautiful nor interesting and it is pointless preventing at least the present generation from getting something from them. The Grand Canyon is one such case. Conservationists and environmentalists have lobbied to protect the canyon from everything from nearby commercial development to high flying aircraft exhaust fumes to making it totally off limits to human contact in any form, with many of their arguments ignoring the impossibility of controlling such a vast area without causing more damage than good. Both of these points illustrate a basic flaw in conservationism – interaction; which is something you can alter in form but never prevent. You can change a particular outcome, but kid yourself thinking you can stop it from changing.

Thirdly, who decides what and how much is worth preserving and how much is just tying up needed resources to little point. This too is a usurpation of power if it does not accurately reflect the optimum interest of the people in having both. Moreover, what constitutes the optimum in one period and conditions soon becomes less than the optimum and need of reform. I see this as endlessly contentious.

Fourth, conservationism-environmentalism is costly; not just in money, but also in effort, energy, resources, and freedom. The movement began as a simple interest in preserving natural wonders for future generations, but soon turned into a morally driven mania enslaving whole generations to the dictum nature takes precedence. Our children are indoctrinated in it before we can have much say in to what or how much they must devote themselves. They then grow up spending countless hours sorting trash, respecting boundaries, deferring to authorities, donating time, and inculcating the next generation without questioning the efficacy of all they do in the name of holy nature. Without even looking into specifics, I can tell you that, because of the lack of connecting ideas to outcomes) at least half this effort must be wasted and is probably counterproductive of its objects. How can I say this? Call it Bob’s law of random execution. We rely on a bureaucracy of environmental workers all trained to do certain things a specific way while ignoring feedbacks, nor bother to check ourselves. That makes the effort random. If we ran commercial enterprises this way, almost all would fail. To the degree it is ineffective in attaining its objects; whatever fuel-energy used in its pursuit is lost to us. The same goes for other resources. Finally, as to freedom, every objective which becomes enshrined either in societal conditioning or in law becomes a limit on personal action, on personal freedom measurable as a cost. Unless there is some overriding reason for it and as we believe freedom takes precedence, any such objective as sets boundaries on freedom without sufficient cause represents usurpation.

But my concerns about “the environment” are not rooted purely in emotion. Yes, I do love the landscape, the trees, the remarkable array of animals we have been blessed with. And yes, I do lament that already we have wiped from the face of the earth creatues that would have been a wonder to behold. On the other hand, I am aware that nature does its own dirty work. My point is to advocate a thoughtful discussion — and I would ask those on your side — such as Rush — to address some of the issues I have raised and some of the problems we confront in a rational way. There are certain realities — finite resources being one — that demand an intelligent and thoughtful approach beyond develop and consume. I would point you again to the foundational work of conservatism in our nation — the conservative mind. It strikes me that you are more capitalist than conservative in the traditional sense, and that this disconnect is precisely the natural tension that drove me to write the article and to address this issue.

I can only conclude that utilitarianism is a perfectly justifiable philisophical approach to life, but I am not sure how it can be defended as conservative when conservatism as I understand it is very much about preserving and protecting traditions and values handed down from generation to generation. I am not against the use of nature, but I am against the reckless waste of nature and even worse the intentionsl destruction of nature for short term gain. Look forward to your response.

Usually you and I agree on things, but, as regards environmentalism and its relationship to conservatism, I disagree. Despite some conservative exegesis (i.e., conservationism), environmentalism is not at all conservative. It is as different from conservationism as multiculturalism is from pluralism; and for much the same reasons. Where conservationism is generally pragmatic, accommodating and supportive, environmentalism is entirely obsessed, inflexible and combative. Where the conservationist supports measures mutually satisfactory to nature and commerce, the environmentalist has no tolerance of compromise and insists nature trumps human need. But, lest you think I favor conservationism, I also have some reservations for it. I am all for good husbandry, just distrust it raised to a moral dogma; however pragmatic and flexible; and would not graft conservationism onto conservatism as though a like principle. Conservationism also made mistakes resulting in lost opportunities, and shaped the paradigm on which environmentalism is founded. Later conservationists and early environmentalists were often one and the same, evolving subtly yet swiftly from reasonable preservationist into screaming fanatic.

Every new industry and enterprise begins ignorant of some impacts, yet capable of and motivated toward husbandry. Feedback (from clients, competitors, and the public) serves to inform it where it needs to adjust operations. Often, a new industry is reluctant to accommodate from realizing its competitors will have the advantage. It, then, seeks to return the playing field to equal terms or, failing this, loose out as the enterprise having greater liabilities. This is the free-market paradigm; to which the environmentalist is opposed and impatient to suffer. The conservationist is more willing to accommodate enterprise because, to him/her, both nature and enterprise are equally worthwhile.

Your statement “Carson was no eco-freak or environmental wacko”, dismisses she was perfectly comfortable misrepresenting science and exaggerating a danger to abet a cause. Her mild-mannered demeanor and seemingly reasoned arguments fooled a great many people into banning DDT outright (there are still a lot of folks convinced there was/is no ban – technically true, but try getting funding for DDT or comply with the regulations governing its use). We have environmental advocates today who sound every bit as informed, reasonable and civil as Carson, yet fanatically insistent on getting their way. If not a wacko, then she has to have been unscrupulous. Looking at her entire story, I find it more believable she was a little wacko and more than a little deceitful and manipulative. Either way, she’s nothing to praise or emulate.

Similarly, your exemplars for ‘conservative-environmentalists’ are flawed, even by your own account of them. For example, James Buckley accused his brother Bill of “ignorance of elementary questions of biological cause and effect”, yet it was Bill Buckley who proved the less rash in his judgments. If Bill’s knowledge of questions ‘biological’ was weak, JB’s was no better (studied law and has no background in science). Yet, this did not keep him from staking his claim based on standing on the same side in a debate as those whose knowledge he merely regarded unassailable. Becoming overconfident, then, he stepped way out on a branch incapable of holding him. What was it JB accused Bill of? – of admitting ignorance and, therefore, [properly] reluctant to debate him. Worse, JB’s “too few conservatives … appreciate the extraordinary complexity and sensitivity of the interdependent ecological systems” is standard environmentalist bull, putting him squarely in the ‘willing to blow smoke to win an argument’ camp.

The Agrarians include some who were as radical and Luddite as modern environmentalists. Ransom, who was a pivotal character to the movement, appears more the exception who became disillusioned with it, with fellow Agrarians or with the direction it took (anti-industrial, radical?). I don’t have time to devote right now to researching the other people you catalogued, but I think these two to suffice to show the problem isn’t intelligence or creativity but of credo. Devoting ourselves to a particular worldview may be necessary, but dedication to irrational views can be our undoing.

Not being an environmentalist does not make me an enemy of nature. I like nature as much as the next guy – well, almost. I don’t claim to be a conservationist or Agrarian either, because I am city bred and not much of a nature-boy (between my allergies and neuralgia, don’t really go out much). What makes me a non-environmentalist is I do not confer on nature personhood or an unseemly reverence. Essentially, I am neutral on the environment (non-issue), but hostile to being bilked and vilified by pious frauds. If I revere anything, it is my and nature’s creator, without whom nature reduces to so much resource available for our use and enjoyment. We talk about ‘the environment’ as though a deified tangible than the man-made abstraction it is. I don’t ‘preserve the environment’, I husband resources. I don’t ‘worship Gaia’, I respect the need of my fellow men and descendents to a share in G*d’s abundance. But mainly, I don’t suffer my fellows to don shackles without an awfully darn good (and proven) reason. I trust my fellow humans won’t let things get too out of whack, as well evidenced by the decades of concern for the air I breathe and water I drink. Industry got a little out of hand, but, after some dummy-slapped soul-searching, fell in line with the public demand to keep things reasonably clean. So far so good, but, animated by success, some of these nanny-state enviro-Nazis turned into career high-priests of the public conscience. Success and power quickly begat lucrative evangelical enterprises built on keeping the movement going, a greed so huge it can only be satisfied by ever rising hysteria. Environmentalists have caused their share of damage, invalidating any claim they may have once had to moral superiority. If conservation was a pale shadow of this modern sickness, it was also a progenitor and model. Therefore, I see no reason to praise scoundrels (be they environmentalists or near cousins) stimulating fears more than I do industrialists (who at least provide us some useful wares).

The environment is a complex issue and you are right that sometimes, in trying to address one issue, others are created that are equally if not more difficult to manage. Gosh, sort of like the economy now that I think about it. In any case, readers can follow your leads where they will and reach their own conclusions.

I am just old enough to remember aerial-spraying and the public frenzy Carson stirred up. I also remember the the buzz and indignation among parents roused by her book, though personally unaware of Carson or her book. That came, for me, much later.

Carson took a genuine concern (eggshell thinning) and elevated it into a national crisis of moral proportions. In so doing, she unleashed far more than she may have intended, but should still have known demagoguery was inappropriate to the issue at hand. Her book, while narrowly accurate, was more broadly inaccurate (i.e., weakly supported, inconclusive, unbalanced), hasty and inflammatory. Her research was little more than a starting point for better funded research, which would have been the logical next step. Instead, Carson rationalized a crisis with no time to lose, and, so, enlisted popular (rather than industry or government) support in a fit of self-anointed demagoguery. Admittedly, she had only a couple of years left and may have rationalized a short window of opportunity; but, this only tells me she mistrusted others to carry on her cause and was somewhat frantic in her efforts to influence matters after her own demise (Imagine thinking: ‘If I can only stop such and such before I die, the future will be safe for all time!‘ – nonsense, none of us have such godlike influence). She was not the only one researching eggshell thinning, aware of the DDT connection, or dedicated to raptor preservation.

I understand perfectly why she might do this, because it is what I might do (assuming I didn’t think too hard [or care] about unintended consequences) knowing I had very little time left, a burning issue worrying me, and unlikely to make my case by other, more appropriate means. But, it doesn’t make me right that I am only partly right or that I won’t live long enough to demonstrate just how far I’d go in my passion. While, it may be accurate saying Carson never advocated an outright banning of DDT (and similar extremisms perpetrated in her name), she also did little to discourage bans; and the tenor of her works suggests she would have gone along with a ban as the course of action ‘least dangerous’ to raptors (precautionary principle).

As things turned out, Carson shamelessly overstated the other effects of DDT (dead birds, paralyzed birds, pigeons dropping from the sky, bird nests without eggs, eggs that would not hatch, dead fish, fish swimming in circles, cancers in humans, and buildup of DDT in the animal fat). While correct DDE thins eggshells and thinning has an effect on raptor numbers, she incorrectly attributed the observed decline in raptors to DDT only. Much worse was her attribution of cancer to DDT, something she may have picked up elsewhere and used to strengthen her case against DDT spraying. Had Carson been a science-writer instead of scientist, we could plead she meant well. However, Carson was writing to the public as an expert scientist regarding a public health-concern involving a beneficial and economical practice (in most eyes). Health authorities realized (at that time) that local dusting would be nearly as effective as aerial spraying, but more costly. Therefore, it would have been more appropriate had Carson made her case for raptors without the cancer hype she used with which to provoke public outrage. I have little doubt Carson calculated that after hearing her out, officialdom would more likely ignore her as representing the lesser interest, but may also have bowed to a well mounted campaign to save rare and noble birds. We know, however, Carson took no chances, and loaded her argument with every anti-DDT allegation she could find. At this point, she ceased to be either scientist or responsible citizen drawing attention to a problem – she crossed over to radical (ends justify means).

http://cei.org/articles/green-new-color-catastrophe

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html – Ronald Bailey (Reason science writer), “Silent Spring at 40”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34742.html – Ronald Bailey (Reason science writer), “DDT, Eggshells, and Me”, reminds us it is DDE (decomposition product) not DDT and aerial spraying that are the real culprits

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s165/s165.html – Lynn Scarlett, “A Consumer’s Guide to Environmental Myths and Realities”

http://www.rachelwaswrong.org/ecofreaksexcerpt.pdf – John Berlau, “Eco-freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health!”; DDT inventor probably exposed more than any other living human in 1943 lived another 60 years (died Oct. 2004, age 88), has saved tens of millions of lives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_carson#Research_and_writing – Carson’s research into DDT was a deliberate collaboration with the Audubon Society to find evidence against DDT, making hers’ ‘agenda science”; Carson was also a cancer patient, did that fuel her drive to find links between cancer and pesticides?