Jump to content
alixmath12

Rights Malthus Question

Recommended Posts

Cause authoritarians keep a close watch over environmental degradation- checks famine, over consumption, prolif?, etc

 

Like these allegedly end all be all authoritarians know how to best avoid all conflicts

Edited by NativeWarlock
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument is that humans are shit and can't take care of the environment without coercion.

Specifically, that coercion would be an "eco-authoritarian" government which would coerce its citizens to be environmentally friendly ie recycle and shit. This eco-authoritarian government can obviously only solve extinction that is caused by human environmental degradation, not all nuclear war extinction advantages.

Edited by johncho0214

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at Northwestern and Michigan's wikis, they run it pretty often.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with any pro-authoritarianism position is, even if you have control over who gets to be the current boss, and they actually do what you want them to and don't turn out to be totally different than you thought, the next boss could be totally different.  The whole point of government limited by checks and balances is to make it hard for government to do things, because even if you like what it wants to do today, you never know about tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with any pro-authoritarianism position is, even if you have control over who gets to be the current boss, and they actually do what you want them to and don't turn out to be totally different than you thought, the next boss could be totally different.  The whole point of government limited by checks and balances is to make it hard for government to do things, because even if you like what it wants to do today, you never know about tomorrow.

More fundamental than that is Hayek's knowledge problem. Even the smartest experts can't know enough about everyone's preferences, abilities, interests, etc. to manage a society competently. Thomas Sowell explains this as the difference between special knowledge and mundane knowledge. One of the best treatments of the subject is Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More fundamental than that is Hayek's knowledge problem. Even the smartest experts can't know enough about everyone's preferences, abilities, interests, etc. to manage a society competently. Thomas Sowell explains this as the difference between special knowledge and mundane knowledge. One of the best treatments of the subject is Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society."

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that strict environmental regulations don't work. You don't need to know everyone's preferences to set up taxation regimes or cap and trade. The reason that Hayek's argument is persuasive is that it's contextualize to economic growth. It's hard to have a completely centrally planned economy for the reasons you outlined above, but setting a demand curve is a different ball game than crafting environmental policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great example of Environmental Authoritarianism working well is Singapore. Very strict laws, and very little pollution. It also is a good response to Authoritarianism leading to human rights abuses and stuff like that, because Singapore is doing fine in that respect. I'm sure you could finds some cards to back this up pretty easily.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that strict environmental regulations don't work. You don't need to know everyone's preferences to set up taxation regimes or cap and trade. The reason that Hayek's argument is persuasive is that it's contextualize to economic growth. It's hard to have a completely centrally planned economy for the reasons you outlined above, but setting a demand curve is a different ball game than crafting environmental policy.

 

If you think the environment is easier to plan than an economy, you need to learn more biology.  Any decisions humans make are going to favor some organisms at the expense of other organisms.  There is no 'pre-human' condition we can accurately ascertain, much less achieve.  (This is a problem with the entire environmentalist movement - and their goals are generally very human-centric aesthetic concerns rather than actual 'nature' concerns.  No one cares if a nematode goes extinct, after all.  Which just proves how easy it is for such a movement to get coopted by interests that have little to do with the natural environment).  So, instead of an economy, with tons of local information possessed by actors you can at least talk to, you've got an environment, with tons of local information possessed by actors and environments that you can't communicate with at all.  If anything, it's orders of magnitude *more complicated*.

 

For a particularly amusing example, check out the paper that came out earlier this year about anthropogenic warming preventing the next ice age.  (You know, that environmental doomsday scenario from the 60s and 70s).  Maybe some warming wasn't so bad after all.  The environment is not some static thing that can be optimized!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that this is a necropost, but I think that a very good response to Rights Malthus would be an epistemology K against their conception of what 'nature' and what 'the environment' are -- it's a movement away from the fundamental way that humans had lived for 200,000 years (within 'nature', so they had no conception that 'nature' was a distinct entity), which is p. bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that this is a necropost, but I think that a very good response to Rights Malthus would be an epistemology K against their conception of what 'nature' and what 'the environment' are -- it's a movement away from the fundamental way that humans had lived for 200,000 years (within 'nature', so they had no conception that 'nature' was a distinct entity), which is p. bad

How would this not link back into the Aff? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...