Guest Post: Canada Oil Sands And The Precautionary Principle

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by James Miller from the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada

Canada Oil Sands And The Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle is typically defined as “if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific evidence that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.”  In practice, the principle is utilized by government policy makers to ensure technological advances don’t pose too dire of an effect on the surrounding environment.  This may appear a noble goal if one accepts the premise that the prime function of government is the protection of life and property.  History proves otherwise as easily corruptible politicians have tended to grant exceptions to wealthy business interests which look to dump their waste in public-owned natural resources such as waterways.  It is also clear judging by historical cases that socialization often results in environmental degradation.  One look at the pollution in once-communist nations such as China or the former Soviet Union reveals that a lack of private property results in a type of moral hazard en masse as there is little incentive to preserve what you don’t officially own.

Rather than enforce property rights, the state systematically violates them in order to buttress its dominating hold over society and reward its supporters.  What the precautionary principle has resulted in is further discretion over economic affairs given over to those public officials who take great delight in micro-managing the lives of others.  The stifled progression in technology and industrialization that is a consequence of the precautionary practice is the insidious but sincere goal of its enthusiasts.

Presently, there exists no greater threat to the green movement than that of cheap fossil fuels.  Drilling for oil is demonized in Western media.  The prospect of extracting massive amounts of natural gas in North America has ignited numerous environmental protests.  In Canada, the mining of oil sands has become a target of the federal government.  During a recent trip to survey the ongoing mining operation taking place in Alberta, Leader of the Official Opposition (the New Democratic Party) Thomas Mulcair admitted that while he was impressed by the “awe-inspiring” scale though which human-made machines and ingenuity were extracting this unconventional petroleum deposit, he was still wary of the potential environmental damage such an industrial breakthrough could present.  From the Globe and Mail:

Precisely one thing surprised Thomas Mulcair on his visit to Alberta: the scale of the oil sands.

During his first visit, including a helicopter flight over several oil sands mines, to a region he has criticized, Mr. Mulcair was overwhelmed by the “awe-inspiring” display.

“These are extraordinary undertakings on a human scale. I mean, they’re massive,” Mr. Mulcair said. “It’s extraordinarily impressive, but it also brings with it real challenges. Real challenges that if we don’t assume in this generation, we’re going to bear in future generations.”

Admittedly, environmental damage can be devastating to those private property owners affected.  This is why tort law and criminal charges are brought to assaulters and those who trespass or willingly destroy private property.  No amount of general prosperity that could develop through industrialization is an excuse to waive the blatant destruction of privately owned property.  When Professor Ludwig von Mises spoke to private property being “inextricably linked with civilization,” he referred to the conservation tendency property owners tend to develop.  In order for man to be forward-looking, he has to have some expectation of improving his current lot.  This generally means control over that land and material goods he possesses.  There is little incentive to invest time and capital without full ownership as any other interested party could come along and consume whatever resources are readily available.  The “tragedy of the commons” principle is why shared ownership of land or worker communes never last for significant periods of time.

The respect to private property is what ultimately drives capital accumulation and the employing of factors of production for more intricate or grand-in-scale industrial undertakings.  Just as people are limited by their ability to economically calculate and profit off of the unknowable future, it can be difficult to account for engineering mistakes.  Humans are imperfect; accidents happen.  What the precautionary principle does in practice is put government-enforced barriers in front of what could be great advances in industrialization.

And this is precisely what many environmentalists want.

Man develops machinery to raise his standard of living.  He takes risk in search of reward.  If success were assured, we would all be industrialists.  The broad use of the precautionary principle necessarily prevents innovation.  If more politicians like Mulcair were around in the 19th century, it is likely that the first rail road tracks would have never been laid.  The same goes for the growth in the widespread use of cars and airplanes.  Even fire, which can cause great harm if left uncontrolled, would have never been allowed extensive usage if the precautionary principle were adhered to in caveman times.  As investor Doug Casey observers in regard to the principle:

If our ancestors had even been stupid enough to adopt such an absolutely paralyzing idea, we’d still be shivering in caves, ravaged by dread diseases and hunted by animals larger and more powerful than we. No, I misspeak; most likely, we’d have gone extinct.

What the green movement hates is not pollution but humanity itself.  Its followers would rather see humans beholden to nature than conquer the deprivation the complete natural world holds for mankind.  It is communal authoritarianism disguised as moral sustainability.  The greens don’t look forward to a life of ease but only backwards to the days when man eked out a day to day existence while always on the verge of death.  They want humans to devolve to the state of irrational apes and eventually die out.  As Rothbardian philosopher David Gordon puts it:

Some environmentalists are outright enemies of humanity, who favor a drastic reduction in human population, if not the elimination altogether of our species.

According to a recent study conducted by economists Robert P. Murphy and Brian Lee Crowley, the petroleum industry in Canada “showers benefits across the provinces, and provides outlets for manufactured goods.”  The extraction of petroleum deposits from the oil sands promises to both create employment and boost economic output across the nation.  As long as the companies which engage in extraction are held liable for whatever damage they cause to private lands not under their contractual ownership, Canadians should welcome this technological innovation.

In the end, the raising of living standards is only made possible by industrial advances that require a preference of future betterment over present bliss.  Private property is the only means to aid in such endeavors.  This is why the green movement never lobbies for abolition of “public” property or stricter enforcement of property protection.  Its efforts are aimed at building up the nanny state along with stalling real progress.

Environmentalists who look to the state to enforce their visions of paradise are really just admirers of slavery.  Freedom of human will means risk taking and pioneering better methods to improve life on Earth.  It means creating a future of ease and contentment.

There is a stark difference between defending private property and environmentalism which advocates for little to no actual developments in industrial production.  Proponents of the former are grateful to sleep on a mattress instead of a dirt floor.  Proponents of the latter, especially politicians like Thomas Mulcair, want to see mankind emaciated, bowed down before them, and entirely submissive like a back alley mutt that has been kicked hard in gut all too many times.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Earl of Chiswick's picture

agenda 21

 

notwithstanding the photographic art of Burtynsky is worthy of contmeplation

 

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/Introduction/Works_Intro/Oil_Intro/Oil_In...

WhackoWarner's picture

This article is nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

 

This oil sand will be there. There need be no rush to destroy our country. There is no reason to consider us as out-dated and simpletons if we do not sell out our fish; our lands; our natural forests; AND FAR more important; the idiot that is Prime Idiot here publicly apologized for the worngs done to the native North American cultures last year...and now presumes to arrogantly run all over the lands and heritage for the sake of a "corporate appoinment" after he is run out of town on a rail.

Harper should be tried and convicted in A Canadian court for the damage he is doing. This article that supports the dismantling of numerous years of protection for the sake of milking a destructive source of energy is nonsense. What price to pay when all the fish are gone? What price to pay when a pipeline runs over some of the most pristine areas left in the world?

 

WHAT PRICE TO PAY WHEN THE HABITAT OF THE ONLY LIVING EXAMPLE ON THE PLANET OF THE KORMODE BREAR IS DESTROYED.  Who guaranteess any spill? Who benefits? Can you tell me that the will of the Canadian people in terms of preserving unpolllutied land is contrary to the Mises principle? Give your head a shake sir.

WhackoWarner's picture

I just re-read your article. I am normally a fan of the Mises view on economics but this is not that. This is a political comment on a national discussion.  I canno disagree with you more. This is not about economy. This is about what we leave and what we preserve. NOT everything is about money sir.

 

I suppose that you live in some southern part of Ontario? I suppose you commute. I suppose your bank balance and comfort is your primary yard-stick of thought. Ypu perhaps would benefit from seeing first-hand what you wish to destroy for the sake of an economic theory.

WhackoWarner's picture

Ludwig would run you out of town on a rail. But you would be in good (sic) company. You an Harper.  This is a thinly disguised piece of political activism in disguise.  You sir have lost your mind (or your morals or both)

 

Short gold are we? Long Endbridge are we? A card-carrying Harper bumfucker?

WhackoWarner's picture

I live in an area where the Harper govt is holding "hearings" on the piplines to take this crap to the pristine shores. They are ignoring and publically denying any real input. EVERYONE, just about. is saying no no no no no.

 

Hang them high and all their shills. This article is just that. Shill.

Pure Evil's picture

So, exactly what type of energy are you using to heat your living quarters during the Canadian winters?

WhackoWarner's picture

I cut and chop wood. As far as my car goes it runs on oil product like all the world. What about you?

 

I have personally cut my hydro usage by 45% in the last year and am very busy looking at any way I can to cut out oil and gas. This is not the point sir. The world runs on oil. That is true.  I am of the belief that we do not sacrifice everyting to continue it. The oil sands ain't going anywhere; certainly not fast enough so that we cannot have an inelligent conversation regarding the furture.

 

Where is the population when the pipelines destroy the fish?; the habitats of numerouss species and the lifestyles of the native populations? The only real beneficiiaries are the oil companies.  China has bought into these companies as much as Canadian law allows. I see it. I am not stupid.

 

This is not right.

bretondog's picture

 

The only real beneficiiaries are the oil companies.  China has bought into these companies as much as Canadian law allows

Yup

Harper is bought and paid for.

More Corporo Fascistic madness!

 

Breton

CPL's picture

Unfortunately nothing to be done about it.  IT's nice of the Canadian media though to inform the population on the heavy gates being installed on all 401 ramps and the monitoring stations for our safety.

 

Too bad Ottawa doesn't understand anyone outside of the city knows that the back roads are faster than the highways.

CPL's picture

Unfortunately nothing to be done about it.  It's nice of the Canadian media though to inform the population on the heavy gates being installed on all 401 ramps and the monitoring stations for our safety.

 

Too bad Ottawa doesn't understand anyone outside of the city knows that the back roads are faster than the highways.

For the oil sands...lol, between the lousy as fuck EROIE and the poisoning/emptying water resevoirs, we in Canada will reap what is sown.  No children will be left in the shit show coming up.  Not one.

 

Wait until a couple of these companies go tits up and nobody is watching the toxic overflow containers, instead of a tiny amount of toxic refuse trickling into the water supply, it'll be the Peter North Money shot.  But what's going to fuck with your mind isn't that, it's the fact you'll never be told.  Ever.  We'll just simply get sick and die en masse.

darkpool2's picture

Have to agree. Whacko is a great handle.

nmewn's picture

He's hugging a tree...that he just killed ;-)

Lore's picture

If you want to see a panoply of shills for the Lobbyist Industrial Complex, just visit the Northern Gateway public website where Letters of Comment are posted. Talk about squeaky wheels. It's disgusting and hardly reflects the wishes or interests of ordinary Canadians.

STAMP OUT AGENDA 21.

CrashisOptimistic's picture

I read it.  

Waste of time.

Not relevant in a world of oil scarcity.

WhackoWarner's picture

I agree. Waste of time. This is ot Mises. This is a slanted political shill writing. Waste of space. And ignorant. And not becauseI disagree but because it is a piece of propoganda.

WhackoWarner's picture

For the edification of the masses. We had a guy named Mulroney here who sold out Canada on the first tier. He was taken to task about his bribes from

German contractors. He also retired from the PM place to ber given a board appoinment to "guess what?" Barrick?  Then when the heat came down he went senile right quick.

 

Now we got this idiot Harper. 

WhackoWarner's picture

Snd it would seem this author as well.

midtowng's picture

What's more, not everything can be private property. The air, for instance, cannot be private property. Nor can the oceans.

The fact is that communal lands existed for tens of thousands of years. The idea of everything being private only arose a couple hundred years ago.

This article is all about ideology, not science or even facts.

Caviar Emptor's picture

What the green movement hates is not pollution but humanity itself

Yeah, we need more oil to feed guzzling air craft carriers on humanitarian missions. We also need oil so that suburban families can drive to Taco Bell in Hummers....or maybe mining trucks with 18-foot wheels. 

Humans as far back as the cave dwellers also figured out not to shit where they eat. Clean environment means survival. 

Stuck on Zero's picture

Yeeeaah.  The best example of the application of the "Precautionary Principle" I have ever seen is that exercised by the big energy companies telling us that we must not develop alternative clean energies because: they won't work, they'll destroy your lifestyle, they're too expensive, and they will take to long to develop.  The true luddites in this gang are the oil and coal majors.

 

Oh regional Indian's picture

bingo SOZ. +6

It's called regulatory capture. With a twist of mind-numbing propaganda.

ori

disabledvet's picture

yeah, not shit. WTF was this article about again? I mean "private property rights are the be all and end all of economic growth"? Really? You ARE drilling on Public Lands mofo! And if you read your legal history "building a dam on a river" meant impinging on someone ELSE's property right you moron. That's why a functioning COURT SYSTEM is absolutely fundamental to the smooth functioning of a capitalistic system. The Judge must weigh the "rights of the owner to the needs of society as a whole." And in so doing create a body of law...of "precedent for social good"...which hopefully other Judges will follow. Needless to say the exact opposite has been going on for decades in the USA. And "now we see the inevitable result." Cities are bankrupt, people are enraged not engaged. Corruption rules the roost and "pay me up front before i'll run your company into the ground" is what defines success. It's amazing this system still functions at all actually. the only good news i see is "the bad news is coming more quickly than expected."

Gully Foyle's picture

Caviar Emptor

CARLIN: Let me tell you about endangered species, all right? Saving
endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control
nature. It's arrogant meddling. It's what got us in trouble in the first
place. Doesn't anybody understand that? Interfering with nature. Over
90%, way over 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet,
ever lived, are gone. They're extinct. We didn't kill them all. They
just disappeared. That's what nature does. We're so self-important, so
self-important. Everybody is going to save something now. Save the
trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the
greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What?

I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white
bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is
there aren't enough bicycle paths, people trying to make the world safe
for their Volvos. There is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong
with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are (bleep) --
difference, difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the
planet is doing great. It's been here four and a half billion years. Did
you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a
half billion years. We've only been engaged in heavy industry for a
little more than 200 years.

Two hundred years versus four and a half billion, and we have the
conceit to think that somehow we're a threat, that somehow we're going to
put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just
a-floatin' around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than
us, been through all kinds of things worse than us, been through
earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares,
sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of
thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors,
worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays,
recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans
are going to make a difference? The planet isn't going anywhere. We are!
We're going away.

...

“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!

We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Plastic…asshole.”
? George Carlin
...
“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.
...

Caviar Emptor's picture

 

From today's mainstream media: Global warming already making an impact on humans: 


-Stay or go? Some towns eyeing retreat from sea

-http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/story/2012-06-02/cities...

 

 

- Oh and wait, there's more!:

Global warming having an impact on strategic geopolitics (aka officialdom is no longer denying that the climate HAS changed, and they're not waiting to grab what they can)

 

-OSLO, May 31 (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will assert U.S. interest in the Arctic, where the prospects for abundant oil, gas and new trade routes has been likened to a modern-day gold rush, when she visits the region on Saturday.

 

As the sea ice recedes with climate change, huge oil and gas fields are adding vast amounts to global reserves, while sea passages are opening for longer periods each year and cutting thousands of miles off trade routes between Europe and Asia.

 

Clinton will visit Tromsoe, a Norwegian town in the Arctic Circle, as part of an 8-day trip to Scandinavia, the Caucasus and Turkey.

 

She follows a host of high-profile international visitors as the region enjoys unprecedented political and economic power.

 

Norway has moved its military operational headquarters into the Arctic Circle, China has development plans for Iceland and countries, including Russia, are laying claim to exploration rights in the once pristine Barents Sea.  ..."All the major powers are positioning themselves for this development,....Continued...


http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL4E8GU44J20120531

 

WhackoWarner's picture

That's all well and good. However when active stuoidity and greed destroy nature I think it somewhat less amusingl.

nmewn's picture

How many trees did you kill today? 

Ok...this was fun...nite ;-)

Gully Foyle's picture

WhackoWarner

Nature is fine, always has been always will be.

You are speaking of the limited perspective of today.

Species die off, new species arise.

The universe gets that.

Why can't you?

Marco's picture

Your kids won't be able to enjoy the millenium range averaged natural beauty ... they'll have to live in what you leave them.

chistletoe's picture

I, too, could wax polemic about this article.

I could take the time, on this beautiful, crisp sunday, this rare day in June, to thoroughly, carefully and logically destroy this little piece of propaganda.

I might start with this statement:

"Presently, there exists no greater threat to the green movement than that of cheap fossil fuels. "

Excuse me?  Did you say that black is white?  Did you say that peace is war?  Did you say that up is down?

Exactly when did the green movement begin?  Exactly what activity concerns them the most, and brings the most contributions into their coffers to fight?  And whose side are you on, here?

 

I'm going back to weeding my garden.  With all of the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere these days, all of the extra warmth,

its becoming incredibly GREEN this year ....

Marginal Call's picture

This author is a hack.  Cheap fossil fuels shuts down the oil sands, and the Gulf oil spill never happens.

 

Because there's no reason to go after the most destructive, risky, and expensive oil extraction projects if oil is cheap and readily available elswhere.   But it's not, and we're scraping the bottom of the barrel.  And idiots like this author cheering along the way as we destroy our life support system trying to squeeze another drop from the tube.

midtowng's picture

When did conservatism transform into putting profits above the good of humanity?

Atomizer's picture

Farting in a mason jar to capture renewable energy will require a government permit. This is why we are collecting DNA on everyone worldwide. Some peeps will find out why soon enough.

FieldingMellish's picture

A member of the Official Opposition is not part of the government.

Matt's picture

Where does his paychecks come from?

You can say he isn't part of the executive, but the executive in Canada is the Prime Minister and whoever he appoints to the Prime Minister's Office. By that reasoning, even members of the Prime Minister's party are not 'Government'.

FieldingMellish's picture

" By that reasoning, even members of the Prime Minister's party are not 'Government'."

 

Correct. Only cabinet makes the decisions, ultimately coming from the PMs Office. The article was implying that the a member of the government was impeding progress:

"What the precautionary principle does in practice is put government-enforced barriers in front of what could be great advances in industrialization."

Global Hunter's picture

Interview with Thomas Mulclair from early 2011 live on CBC tv, doubting pics of binLaden exists.  I am not so sure he's a typical establishment politician who wants people to bow down to him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxM3p0AgTck

lolmao500's picture

Try explaining that to the average moron canadian who's brainwashed that socialism and government control of everything is godly... Not to mention, most of them WORK for the government in one way or the other so they think if you criticize the government, you are criticizing them personally...

You're gonna have a very tough time...they'll just call you crazy or say yeah yeah...

I'm a libertarian in socialist land and I'm quite sick of the control freaks all around me.

lolmao500's picture

Arrow down? Really? You people don't know any canadians do you?? Or is it me who's surrounded by pro-government control freaks?? Not all of them are like that but a lot are.

Pure Evil's picture

Don't worry, you've stepped on the toes of a couple of Luddites.

nmewn's picture

Wow...the windmill/solar crowd jumped on this thread pretty quick.

Apparently they are saying the oil & nat gas under the ground belongs to them and them alone just as the wind & sky above does.

Property rights, interesting.

The death of thousands of birds of prey from windmills or the strip mining of rare earths for solar panels and covering & suffocating the desert with gleaming panels of glass...is meaningless and is not to be thought of as the equivalent of mining coal or drilling a damned hole in the ground for an oil well.

Mmmkay.

Can we just build some nuke plants so the elitists can drive one hundred thousand dollar Fisker Karma's to the bar and I can post on ZH...or will GW & Terry the Tuna have a collective heart attack over even that? ;-)

Pure Evil's picture

Try not to make too much sense with your counter-arguments. You'll get all the tree-huggers in a tizzy and sufferin' from 'The Vapors'.

nmewn's picture

Gawd I can't stand it sometimes PE..."they" get us arguing amongst ourselves over some of the most banal bullshit as they slip out the backdoor with the friggin silverware.

It's amazing, it really is.

LetThemEatRand's picture

"'they' get us arguing amongst ourselves"

Go Asshole Team!

nmewn's picture

A florist, carrying a bouquet of noxius weeds, cheering for the wrong team, is what I always expect from you LTER.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Good point.  Glad to know you have so much substance behind your position.  ^^l^

Element's picture

AMEN!

Like were going to do anything except that which we generally do and have done.

If there is need, we will do, and we will also adjust what we do as a result of this.

At some point people have to accept that living means 'changing' the environment in many ways (in some minds this equates to negative 'degrading')

Recently I said to someone here that cyclones, that had temporarily created destruction and environmental calamity, have now also produced tremendous regrowth, full rivers and dams, tremendous blooms of wildlife, bumper crops and healthy fat livestock, healthy abundant fisheries, massive new investments in infrastructure repairs and replacements, private investment as businesses ramped production and employment in the recovery, to meet construction needs, and this has bolstered flagging regional economies in numerous ways,a nd opened up a million new oportunities for humans, and for nature's regrowth ... etc.

There's two sides to this coin, and one of them is a blessing.

But some really don't want to admit to that side of the equation, that creative-destruction is intrinsic to nature and existence. That every storm of catastrophe brings an explosion of new life and opportunity.  Even the mass-extinctions in the fossil record always lead to spectacular speciation diversity and profusion of life.

What makes you think now will be different?

If people don't like the fact of human-associated environmental change, then please, do kill yourselves.  Show us your tremendous passion and commitment to saving nature and all that good-stuff.  The maggots would really appreciate such a meaningless, pointless and yummy philosophical gesture.

AnAnonymous's picture

Even better, produce the disasters, they will provide such platforms for new diversity, new life opportunities etc

Oh, wait, that would be keynesianism...

The magic of US citizenism and wish for the best of every world possible while discarding the junk onto a third party.

nmewn's picture

AnAnus says, in part:

"produce the disasters...Oh, wait, that would be keynesianism...The magic of US citizenism..."

Keynes was born & raised a Fabian Socialist and a British citizen...in fact, in the blobbing up, welfare system known as the Oligarchical Crown Circle, he was called Lord Keynes.

Because that's what royalty is...welfare and a soft life for the few, at the expense of all.

The only destruction capitalism needs to thrive & flourish is the destruction of malinvestment (even then, through free movement of capital, re-allocation, profit is made on the short side) not actual buildings, homes and lives.

We leave that to committed socialists & communists like you who seem quite good at it.

AnAnonymous's picture

Made me laugh.

Nobody beats US citizens when it comes to certain stuff.

US citizen keynes held british citizenship. How does british citizenship exclude US citizenism?