Is Pollution Aggression?

[TheSchoolofAthens]

This topic came up between me and my girlfriend. I don't think pollution is aggression, it's nature. My girlfriend says she thinks that pollution is aggression and that it is an exception to the NAP and that the NAP therefore is flawed and must be changed. I said that she would then have to be follow the MAP, a term I made up because she kept saying that "we have to accept that minimal aggression via pollution is a reality." 

I don't see how the consequences of nature can possibly be considered aggression in the sense of breathing the air. She says that everyone who drives a car pollutes the air and when we talked about how that is unavoidable she says "we just have to accept the minimal aggression is unavoidable." 

I didn't get the whole "minimal" thing so I just said to call it aggression. So really she is saying that aggression is a fact of reality because we pollute. I said that if that is aggression, then nature is committing acts of aggression upon itself all the time with volcanoes, lightning strikes, forest fires, etc. She replied "well nature doesn't have a conscience, mankind knows that its products create pollution." Bullshit, it doesn't matter that nature isn't a conscience being, the point is that pollution is a fact of reality, something that happens naturally through nature, and something that occurs as a consequence of man made inventions.

Man doesn't control natural principles, but he must obey them whether he wants to or not. If man is guilty of aggression because of his polluting, then he is no more guilty than nature itself. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1S0Oz0fpWQ

[J. D. Stembal]

Did your girlfriend try to make the argument that since all people pollute a little bit (minimal aggression), it's acceptable for the government to steal from people a little bit in order to clean it up while completely ignoring the fact that the U.S. government does the exact opposite and is the biggest offender in the world when it comes to pollution?

 

I have heard the above argument before. Pollution is not a form of aggression. It can't be. It is categorized under aesthetic preferences such as "I like chocolate."

 

Does your neighbor sometimes play his stereo very loudly on the weekends? Mine does. Can I knock on the door, kill him when he answers it, and turn off the music? No, I can't. His music, while pollution, is not aggression.

 

Likewise, if I see a smoker throw a cigarette filter on the ground, can I kill him for littering and if he refuses to pick it up and put it in the ash tray? No, because littering is not aggression.

 

However, if I see a man getting beaten in a parking lot, I am justified in engaging the aggressor(s) with deadly force, if necessary.

 

Ask your girlfriend how she is logically able to determine that pollution is aggression. What is her definition of pollution and aggression? She is likely misunderstanding the scope of the non-aggression principle. Has she read Universally Preferable Behavior?

[DaVinci]

Did your girlfriend try to make the argument that since all people pollute a little bit (minimal aggression), it's acceptable for the government to steal from people a little bit in order to clean it up while completely ignoring the fact that the U.S. government does the exact opposite and is the biggest offender in the world when it comes to pollution?

 

I have heard the above argument before. Pollution is not a form of aggression. It can't be. It is categorized under aesthetic preferences such as "I like chocolate."

 

Does your neighbor sometimes play his stereo very loudly on the weekends? Mine does. Can I knock on the door, kill him when he answers it, and turn off the music? No, I can't. His music, while pollution, is not aggression.

 

Likewise, if I see a smoker throw a cigarette filter on the ground, can I kill him for littering and if he refuses to pick it up and put it in the ash tray? No, because littering is not aggression.

 

However, if I see a man getting beaten in a parking lot, I am justified in engaging the aggressor(s) with deadly force, if necessary.

 

Ask your girlfriend how she is logically able to determine that pollution is aggression. What is her definition of pollution and aggression? She is likely misunderstanding the scope of the non-aggression principle. Has she read Universally Preferable Behavior?

So what is the difference between someone who pollutes by, let's say, starting a fire in their backyard and the smoke blows over into your house, and someone who slips you little doses of poison in your food?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

What was her argument? Saying she "thinks..." is meaningless. Tired of wasting time on people who "think..." stuff.

So what is the difference between someone who pollutes by, let's say, starting a fire in their backyard and the smoke blows over into your house, and someone who slips you little doses of poison in your food?

The second person is trying to poison you. 

[J. D. Stembal]

So what is the difference between someone who pollutes by, let's say, starting a fire in their backyard and the smoke blows over into your house, and someone who slips you little doses of poison in your food?

 

The latter is a violation of the NAP and the former isn't. Poisoning food is not called "pollution" either.

[DaVinci]

What was her argument? Saying she "thinks..." is meaningless. Tired of wasting time on people who "think..." stuff.

 

The second person is trying to poison you.

 

 

So then the issue is intent?

The latter is a violation of the NAP and the former isn't. Poisoning food is not called "pollution" either.

But why is the latter violating NAP and the former isn't? What if I don't want to breathe in their smoke?

[J. D. Stembal]

But why is the latter violating NAP and the former isn't? What if I don't want to breathe in their smoke?

 

You have a right to defend yourself from someone trying to kill you. If you don't like smelling the smoke from your neighbor, that is an aesthetic preference. Do you have the right to take the life of your neighbor over a combustion reaction?

[andrew21594]

I don't think that pollution is necessarily aggression.

 

One of the requirements for something to qualify as aggression is that it has to act on somebody's property (bodily or non-bodily).

 

Then it is important to consider whether the air, water and other stuff being polluted is anybody's property. 

 

If you have your own private container of water or of air, then it could be aggression for somebody to pollute it; it is your property.

 

If somebody pollutes the air or water that belongs to nobody, then nobody's property is being acted upon so it couldn't be aggression.

[TheSchoolofAthens]

This is her logic:
-people drive cars that pollute the air

-people breathe in the polluted air

-the lungs of the people are damaged

-people own their lungs and bodies

-thus people are using aggression by driving

I was so incredibly frustrated with this because I can't see the logic in it.

[WasatchMan]

Pollution can be aggression if and when it can be demonstrated as aggression. Like anything else, if someone wants to claim they are being victimized by someones actions they have to have evidence of quantifiable damage, and that the damage was caused by the person they are accusing.

 

If I blow air towards someone across the room, they could say I changed the atmosphere around them and therefore polluted their breathing space. However they would have no way of quantifying any damage caused by me. Same would go for me driving a car fueled by oil.  It would be pretty hard to quantify any damages I caused you by driving my car. However, If I started an oil refinery in my back yard, and the smoke plume filled your house to the point you had to leave your house in order to survive, you would have the quantifiable damage of the loss of use of your property.

 

Furthermore it is important to remember the NAP is built on other principles and is not itself a first principle.  I find a lot of people throw out these other principles and act like the NAP is an axiom in and of it self.  One of the principles building the NAP framework is the law of non-contradiction.  This is one of the behavioral proofs of the NAP because it shows you cannot claim the ability to initiate force against people but not want force initiated against you at the same time.  Remembering this, we can throw out any of these arguments from self hating humans that want to argue that the act of living is itself an act of aggression, because the NAP is a behavioral principle for living people and not a law of nature.

[DaVinci]

You have a right to defend yourself from someone trying to kill you. If you don't like smelling the smoke from your neighbor, that is an aesthetic preference. Do you have the right to take the life of your neighbor over a combustion reaction?

I'm not arguing for killing anyone, and it is not about smelling smoke, it is about inhaling smoke that you don't want to inhale. If it is just aesthetic to not want smoke in your lungs then I would say that the topic needs to move to the science of what happens to the lungs when exposed to prolonged periods of inhailing smoke to show whether there is actual damage to the lungs or other bodily organs.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

This is her logic:

-people drive cars that pollute the air

-people breathe in the polluted air

-the lungs of the people are damaged

-people own their lungs and bodies

-thus people are using aggression by driving

 

I was so incredibly frustrated with this because I can't see the logic in it.

 

Okay, so what does she want to do about it?

 

If her answer is laws/government/regulations, then she is saying, "I want to lower pollution by polluting more."

 

If we can't help but violate the NAP with each other regarding pollution (that is, it is not a free will choice), then what logically follows is that the most effective method of reducing pollution is the logical (and moral) thing to do. If your girlfriend doesn't even make the effort to figure out what is ineffective at reducing pollution (see Exhibit "A": government), then she doesn't actually give a shit about pollution, so she should shut up.

[andkon]

I don't think pollution is aggression, it's nature.

 

If I dump a bag of trash on your lawn because it's more convenient for me than to pay a garbageman to pick it up, how is that 1) nature and 2) different from the convenience of dumping smoke into your lot (as opposed to finding more expensive ways on my part to minimize or eliminate the pollution)?

[TheSchoolofAthens]

Okay, so what does she want to do about it?

 

If her answer is laws/government/regulations, then she is saying, "I want to lower pollution by polluting more."

 

If we can't help but violate the NAP with each other regarding pollution (that is, it is not a free will choice), then what logically follows is that the most effective method of reducing pollution is the logical (and moral) thing to do. If your girlfriend doesn't even make the effort to figure out what is ineffective at reducing pollution (see Exhibit "A": government), then she doesn't actually give a shit about pollution, so she should shut up.

That is what initially frustrated me so much, I thought "so what?" I said that I don't think it is aggression, but if it aggression and you wont accept any exceptions to the NAP due to the fact that principles don't have exceptions, then what are you to do? Take the NAP, copy and paste the entire thing, add a section about how we all are using aggression as a result of having cars and factories and being civilized, and call it the minimal aggression principle (MAP)?! 

 

She is not for any government oversight, regulation, tax or anything. Good voluntaryist! But she was trying to convince me that air pollution is aggression, which I just don't see happening because I can't see any possible logical argument that all humans are using aggression simply for driving cars. I got into voluntaryism and philosophy years ahead of her, so she has some catching up to do in some areas, but overall she is very intelligent - besides we all got questions and ideas to clarify.

 

I was frustrated as hell and I really let myself lose control of my attitude. I was saying things like "So for the sake of the argument, lets say it is aggression, what next?!" It seemed to always lead into the fact that the free market handles pollution problems best due to a system of property rights, competition (Prius or Insight, wonderful cars to choose between), and technological innovations. 

 

I hope to watch one of Stefan's videos about this very topic, it's amazing that she brought up something that he has rebutted. I look forward to it! 

 

If I dump a bag of trash on your lawn because it's more convenient for me than to pay a garbageman to pick it up, how is that 1) nature and 2) different from the convenience of dumping smoke into your lot (as opposed to finding more expensive ways on my part to minimize or eliminate the pollution)?

Please excuse me I erred. I meant to say that I don't think car pollution is aggression, it is a consequence of nature, something that goes into the air. If a person were to deliberately put trash on your property, that is a direct violation of your property. But if someone drives a car, it is impossible to say that person is using aggression simply because of the pollutants. 

[andkon]

Please excuse me I erred. I meant to say that I don't think car pollution is aggression, it is a consequence of nature, something that goes into the air. If a person were to deliberately put trash on your property, that is a direct violation of your property. But if someone drives a car, it is impossible to say that person is using aggression simply because of the pollutants. 

 

And if I heave my garbage bag, it also goes into the air (and then lands in your yard). Look, I'm not twirling my mustache hoping that it lands on your head or breaks a window. I don't even know if it's going to land in your specific yard as it could land in other neighbors' yards. But it will impose a slight burden on someone else, as with car pollution. Also, it's cheaper for me to throw it in the air and have it impose a burden on someone else than for me to hire a garbageman (which costs more than my heave-and-don't-worry strategy). Same with car pollution: you could buy a cleaner engine (or whatever) that costs more for you to reduce the harm to someone.

 

Whether little pollution from you in particular violates the NAP because your small pollution doesn't give anyone cancer doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, lots of small harms do add up and might cause some extra cancer in some people. This is the tragedy of the commons/negative externality.

 

Also, how much is minimal? It may be cheaper to build a more polluting engine. If you spend an extra $10, that may take out 80% of the pollution, extra $100 may take out 90%, extra $1000 may take out 95%, and extra $10000 may take out 99%. Which do you choose?

[shirgall]

Pollution is about as aggressive as letting your dog wander off your property and poop on your neighbor's lawn. Others will expect you to take reasonable measure to contain your dog, and may ask you to clean up your dog's mess, but there's no cause to get into a violent confrontation about it. If you don't make good, you will be labeled a jerk and everyone in the neighborhood may start refusing to do business with you, etc. etc.

 

If your dog wanders over to the neighbor's house and eats a chicken, or endangers a child, then it starts escalating.

[Pepin]

Pollution does have negative externalities, though it is difficult to conceptualize as aggression. Though I am uncertain what a common definition is, a decent definition might look like: "human activity which causes disperse negative externalities to other individuals". I do get what she is saying with the "minimum level of aggression", though I don't think it would classify as aggression as the effects tend to be small.

 

Though in extreme cases it might be considered aggression. Let's say if someone was releasing so much smoke into the sky that the surrounding area was covered in a black cloud. If this was negatively affecting people's lives, as well as say the viability of crops, I would argue that the magnitude of its effect would warrant the use of force to shut down the plant.

 

A more realistic example might involve children working in an enclosed environment with tobacco smoke. The smoke pollutes the air and has a negative effect on the children. Children can't quite be assumed to understand the effects and risks of second hand smoke, making this a minor act of aggression. If say a parent smoked around their children often, and the child developed asthma as a result, the parent would be liable for causing the condition.

 

In general, pollution tends not to meet a criteria of any large magnitude, at least by any single entity, making adjudication difficult. The solution proposed to negative externalities by economists in the present day is to impose taxes and barriers onto the polluters so that they can pay the price. Though I don't believe in taxes, I do think DRO's would have a large incentive to reduce negative externalities, perhaps by raising rates in accordance with pollution.

 

Privatization would be the best solution to the vast majority of pollution. Air pollution is a difficult problem though, simply due to the issues of ownership and the complexity of weather systems. I could see this being a very easy to deal with issue on a space colony, but at least on earth, having people pay volunteer to clean up their externalities would be a better solution.

 

Really, I think best solution to the problem of pollution is to have moral people who will instinctively put in the work to counteract any externalities they create. If externalities are a net-negative on various aspects on the economy, then they will be reduced or eliminated. I certainly think there will be many issues, but that's why markets exist.

 

I didn't get the whole "minimal" thing so I just said to call it aggression. So really she is saying that aggression is a fact of reality because we pollute. I said that if that is aggression, then nature is committing acts of aggression upon itself all the time with volcanoes, lightning strikes, forest fires, etc. She replied "well nature doesn't have a conscience, mankind knows that its products create pollution." Bullshit, it doesn't matter that nature isn't a conscience being, the point is that pollution is a fact of reality, something that happens naturally through nature, and something that occurs as a consequence of man made invention

 

I would say she is right in this instance. If we are talking about ethics, then we are measuring the actions a person takes in relation to their will. Ethics does not apply to nature because nature has no will. We charge a man with murder because he took actions to cause the death of a man in conjunction with the preference to kill him. We do not charge a rock with murder not because the rock did not cause the man's death, but because the rock has no preference.

 

In relation to pollution, the argument she is making is that pollution is aggression because it imposes negative externalities and people are choosing to pollute. She does not propose ethical standards for volcano because they have no choice in the matter.

 

Whether it is aggression or not is another matter, but given that it is for sake of argument, then her statement is completely valid.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

So then the issue is intent?

Not just intent. What are the agreed conditions between the householders? Did the person accept some pollution when they moved in? Is there some violation of contract? Is the person conscious that you do not want the smoke? Is the fire accidental? All these questions arise. 

You should not reason in mid-stream but instead provide the necessary details required in order to answer the question. 

This is her logic:

-people drive cars that pollute the air

-people breathe in the polluted air

-the lungs of the people are damaged

-people own their lungs and bodies

-thus people are using aggression by driving

 

I was so incredibly frustrated with this because I can't see the logic in it.

The conclusion "Thus people are using aggression by driving " is a non sequitur. Damage to your body from human behavior is not sufficient to show aggression. Indirect damage to ones body by another human could be non-aggression and/or defensive. It's not possible for an act to be non-aggression and aggression at the same time. Therefore her assertion that pollution is aggression is false. 

[Pepin]

The conclusion "Thus people are using aggression by driving " is a non sequitur. Damage to your body from human behavior is not sufficient to show aggression. Indirect damage to ones body by another human could be non-aggression and/or defensive. It's not possible for an act to be non-aggression and aggression at the same time. Therefore her assertion that pollution is aggression is false. 

 

Though I do not think the issue of car pollution is very good, if car pollution did cause damage to a person's lungs, it would be considered a negative externality. Calling it aggression makes little sense to do, as the harm done by a single person driving a car is likely immeasurable. Where the negatives effects become measurable is when there are many actors involved.

 

Granted that a negative externality exists, even as minuscule as car pollution, a market driven society would likely go in the direction of putting the cost onto those who cause the externality. People who rode bikes instead of driving cars would receive some discount on their DRO cost. Those who created large externalities would have proportional rates. For some/most, the amount they pay to drive a car might be worth it.

 

As argued in my post above, there is a sliding scale as to when self-defense becomes legitimate in response to high levels of pollution. It doesn't particularly matter if an individual intended to do harm, but rather that they were causing a significant amount of harm.

 

A business which deals with high amounts of lead may create a negative externality if unsafe procedures are taken. Lead may be picked up in the air and cause health issues for the local population. Granted that the business didn't intend to cause these issues, the affected population did still suffer damages due their actions, and would likely receive restitution in any sort of settlement. 

[J. D. Stembal]

I'm not arguing for killing anyone, and it is not about smelling smoke, it is about inhaling smoke that you don't want to inhale. If it is just aesthetic to not want smoke in your lungs then I would say that the topic needs to move to the science of what happens to the lungs when exposed to prolonged periods of inhailing smoke to show whether there is actual damage to the lungs or other bodily organs.

 

You are assuming a lot that you did not disclose in the original life boat scenario. All you said is that a neighbor had a fire in their backyard. You asked how it differed from poisoning a person's food. If the smoke blows over, you will be able to smell it, but it will dissipate such that you aren't choking or suffocating. No, it won't damage your lungs, and you could close the window if you don't like the smell. Or you could ask the neighbor to not burn stuff in their back yard.

 

I brought up ethical self-defense up to and including lethal force to demonstrate that pollution cannot ever be a threat that justifies self-defense. Pollution is an aesthetic choice, not a form of aggression. Would you restrain or kill your neighbor over a fire in their back yard?

 

I've had the police called on me for having a bonfire. Someone in the 'hood thought it was acceptable to have men with guns sent over to tell me to put the fire out. Essentially, they felt justified in possibly having me killed over pollution. Do you think that my neighbor's response to my pollution was ethical?

[shirgall]

I've had the police called on me for having a bonfire. Someone in the 'hood thought it was acceptable to have men with guns sent over to tell me to put the fire out. Essentially, they felt justified in possibly having me killed over pollution. Do you think that my neighbor's response was appropriate?

 

I think this raises an important point. Once a law is made about a form of pollution, people abdicate their responsibility in determining whether or not their activity is damaging to others. "I'm following the law" is a lousy excuse, and a lousy lever to harass your neighbors. In the case above, I suspect your neighbors, rather than have a conversation with you, appreciated the ease in which others could force you to get what they wanted without negotiation, or even contact.

[packmule]

Pollution, by definition, is the introduction of a harmful chemical substance into the biosphere.  If property rights exist, then Not Polluting is Universally Preferable Behavior, because if polluting is acceptable, one has no right to defend one's property (which includes one's body) against the harm caused by a pollution event, and therefore the right to one's property and its maintenance (property rights) is violated.

 

During the Vietnam War, America sprayed Agent Orange defoliant on 10% of Vietnam, a primarily agricultural nation, destroying over 5 million acres of upland and mangrove forests, as well as 500,000 acres of crops. Nearly 5 million civilians lived on the lands sprayed, resulting in 150,000 birth defects, a million cancers, and in total 3 million who suffer from the adverse health effects of long term exposure to the dioxin component of Agent Orange which remains in the environment for hundreds of years. To say that the American Agent Orange spraying of Vietnam was not aggression is ridiculous. If someone sprayed your lawn and shrubbery with Agent Orange, you would have to let this action stand if you believe that "Pollution is not aggression"!

 

Aggression is any willful action which causes or seeks to cause harm (a reduction in the quality of life) to a conscious biological organism. Yes, animals included. If you know that your neighbor hates loud music and you aim a boom box at him while he is outdoors on his porch reading, you are aggressing against him, by lowering the quality of his life. 

 

Even non-willful acts which cause harm, should require compensation if the harm could easily have been foreseen.  Such negligent acts have been adjudicated by courts for hundreds of years.

 

The quality of conscious life on Earth is intimately connected with the quality of the biosphere.  Humans have the capacity for maintenance and improvement of the biosphere while enjoying the meaningful improvements that science and technology have brought.  Maintaining and striving to improve the biosphere is Universally Preferable Behavior.  The degradation and destruction of the wondrous living planet we inhabit day by day and year by year is suicide.

 

Keep in mind that most people worldwide think that Armageddon (choose your flavor) will occur within 50 years, and realize that such attitudes have existed for tens of thousands of years.  Won't human life exist in a thousand years? Ten thousand years? A hundred thousand years?  It should.  Our actions today determine the quality of life they will enjoy.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

 

Pollution, by definition, is the introduction of a harmful chemical substance into the biosphere. 

 

It's not. Farts could be consider harmful chemical substances. But farts are not necessarily pollution. Your definition is therefore wrong. 

 

"Aggression is any willful action which causes or seeks to cause harm (a reduction in the quality of life) to a conscious biological organism. "

 

It's not. Aggression is the initiation of force. If it was "any willful action that seeks to cause a reduction in the quality of life" then defensive force would also be aggression. Aggression cannot logical also be defensive. Therefore your definition is wrong.

 

" Maintaining and striving to improve the biosphere is Universally Preferable Behavior. "

 

You only read the title, right?

 

 Our actions today determine the quality of life they will enjoy."

 

Just as past polluters greatly improved our lives. 

[Donnadogsoth]

Wow, this is really odd, to find the majority of posters here supporting pollution as not in violation of the NAP.

 

Let's say you agree pollution is not aggression.  Then let's say I take a barrel of PCBs or nuclear waste and dump it in your back yard.  Are you cool with that or do you do something about it?  How about me burying my nuclear waste deep enough to let it leach into the water table?

[A Madman Person Guy]

Wow, this is really odd, to find the majority of posters here supporting pollution as not in violation of the NAP.

 

Let's say you agree pollution is not aggression.  Then let's say I take a barrel of PCBs or nuclear waste and dump it in your back yard.  Are you cool with that or do you do something about it?  How about me burying my nuclear waste deep enough to let it leach into the water table?

Take it easy, dude. All that straw could be a bitch to get out of your shirt.

 

There's just too much simplicity and proximate reasoning here. Take a look at the Heidelberg Appeal; I know a lot of people who'd consider a lot of the points there as direct invitations to pollution, disregarding the fact that it would be for the sake of progress entirely. Similarly, the aluminium industry generates a crapton of pollution, yet the materials produced by that same industry may allow us to spare the environment an equal amount of pollution in fuel costs, waste and energy expenses, though only over an extended time period. And as another example, Miljöpartiet here in Sweden, the staunch short-sighted environmentalists who have been pushing ever more for the dismantling of our nuclear energy industry are directly contributing to the nation's economic decline by increasing foreign energy-dependency and hurting their own cause by forcing Swedish energy providers to buy power from non-sustainable sources such as, most egregiously, German coal. And that is in addition to dealing incalculable damage to local science and engineering efforts, and poisoning the public opinion and rhetoric.

 

It's never as simple as just that. Even non-aggression is practically impossible, or at least unfeasible or unsustainable, if you're willing to hard-line the definitions enough. And that's what it sounds like to me; your girlfriend, driven by sentimentalist causes, is just going overboard and neither considering intent nor long-term benefits. But of course, I have to admit to being a ruthless technocrat and tree-burner myself. Hell, I think half-combusted diesel is the best smell ever. So you might want to take my advice with a pinch of salt as well.

[packmule]

Teabagger, you are using language to debate, but are not recognizing and adhering to traditional definitions.  Webster defines pollution as "the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment."

 

Farts could be pollution if the concentration of methane in the room became high enough to cause harm. Farts would be aggression if willfully emitted in the presence of someone who hated the smell. 

 

Aggression is an offensive action.  Protecting one's property and quality of life is defensive and fits under Universally Preferrable Behavior, even though it may involve the use of a violence.  One should never choose pollution as a means of self-defense, because pollution persists in the environment and could therefore cause harm to the innocent.

 

To equate pollution with progress is ridiculous.  All biological organisms operate at a certain level of efficiency.  Mammals convert about 25% of the energy in their food to mechanical work.  The percentages may be higher or lower for other organisms, but all living organisms produce waste.  The beautiful thing about biology, is that what is waste from one, is food for another.  In this way, ecosystems have existed for millions of years, without degradation.  Earth today is being degraded and depleted minute-by-minute, day-by-day, and year-by-year to satisfy the consumption lust of humans.  The pollutants that are waste products of fossil fuel combustion, manufacturing, and mining contain chemicals which our environment is not equipped to break down, and which harm biological organisms.  Reducing these harmful inorganic waste products to zero environmental impact should be a primary goal in the vital need to create a sustainable, and possibly even, improving planet. 

[A Madman Person Guy]

Teabagger, you are using language to debate, but are not recognizing and adhering to traditional definitions.  Webster defines pollution as "the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment."

 

Farts could be pollution if the concentration of methane in the room became high enough to cause harm. Farts would be aggression if willfully emitted in the presence of someone who hated the smell. 

 

Aggression is an offensive action.  Protecting one's property and quality of life is defensive and fits under Universally Preferrable Behavior, even though it may involve the use of a violence.  One should never choose pollution as a means of self-defense, because pollution persists in the environment and could therefore cause harm to the innocent.

 

To equate pollution with progress is ridiculous.  All biological organisms operate at a certain level of efficiency.  Mammals convert about 25% of the energy in their food to mechanical work.  The percentages may be higher or lower for other organisms, but all living organisms produce waste.  The beautiful thing about biology, is that what is waste from one, is food for another.  In this way, ecosystems have existed for millions of years, without degradation.  Earth today is being degraded and depleted minute-by-minute, day-by-day, and year-by-year to satisfy the consumption lust of humans.  The pollutants that are waste products of fossil fuel combustion, manufacturing, and mining contain chemicals which our environment is not equipped to break down, and which harm biological organisms.  Reducing these harmful inorganic waste products to zero environmental impact should be a primary goal in the vital need to create a sustainable, and possibly even, improving planet. 

 

I'm not equating pollution with progress, merely recognizing that sometimes it is necessitated for industry which may or may not produce progress. Progress that is required to achieve the higher order of understanding required for a higher level of tech efficiency required for actual sustainability without sacrificing all the comforts and capabilities already gained, and making all the resources expended up until that point having been for naught.

 

You know what the world is, when introduced to economy as generated by the human condition? With "rational actors" working within the constraints posed? It's a roguelike. Any decisions you make, stick. Any mistakes you make, stay made. You don't get to save scum or alter the conditions or the difficulty level; there's only one way, and that is forward. To be able to actually survive and reach an ostensible "winning" state, you have to manage things carefully and clear some significant hindrances in order to be able to "game" the system or the conditions enough to reach a state where you can go plus through your actions. And the trick is, that may be possible to achieve only as a net gain over a long sequence of steps and choices, rather than as a result of every single interaction. Like the point I made about the environmentalists; first you need the coal power to develop the industry to develop the technology for batteries and solar cells and appliances that will allow distributed power storage and household self-sufficiency, then you need to actually manufacture those technologies, and only once you've gone through all that maybe you can start phasing out coal and oil and uranium.

 

Though, as mentioned, I'm talking from a purely technocratic perspective. As in, my personal interpretation is that the definition of a civilization's achievement or "worth" is the amount of technological and scientific insight it has produced and is capable of imparting on its lowest denominator, its letzte mensch. Yes, I'm so horrible that I don't think even personal comfort or happiness of a society's denizens is a factor, only their capabilities. In my defense however, I'd have to conclude from all the evidence that the most sure-fire way to achieve happiness is to have the pure capability, presumably through technology, to control as much of your life as possible.

 

Of course, a big factor in this whole equation which adds to the "rogue-likeness" and Malthusian-trappiness is the assumption of continuous population inflation. But by comparison, that's fairly easy and straightforward a problem to solve; anyone else here up for a spot of genocide? We can throw a dice to decide who gets it? No? Didn't think so.

[Donnadogsoth]

Take it easy, dude. All that straw could be a bitch to get out of your shirt.

 

There's just too much simplicity and proximate reasoning here. Take a look at the Heidelberg Appeal; I know a lot of people who'd consider a lot of the points there as direct invitations to pollution, disregarding the fact that it would be for the sake of progress entirely. Similarly, the aluminium industry generates a crapton of pollution, yet the materials produced by that same industry may allow us to spare the environment an equal amount of pollution in fuel costs, waste and energy expenses, though only over an extended time period. And as another example, Miljöpartiet here in Sweden, the staunch short-sighted environmentalists who have been pushing ever more for the dismantling of our nuclear energy industry are directly contributing to the nation's economic decline by increasing foreign energy-dependency and hurting their own cause by forcing Swedish energy providers to buy power from non-sustainable sources such as, most egregiously, German coal. And that is in addition to dealing incalculable damage to local science and engineering efforts, and poisoning the public opinion and rhetoric.

 

It's never as simple as just that. Even non-aggression is practically impossible, or at least unfeasible or unsustainable, if you're willing to hard-line the definitions enough. And that's what it sounds like to me; your girlfriend, driven by sentimentalist causes, is just going overboard and neither considering intent nor long-term benefits. But of course, I have to admit to being a ruthless technocrat and tree-burner myself. Hell, I think half-combusted diesel is the best smell ever. So you might want to take my advice with a pinch of salt as well.

 

I'm guessing that's a "yes" to my questions?

[A Madman Person Guy]

I'm guessing that's a "yes" to my questions?

 

It's a "Use your best judgment; I'm aware that this is asking more of some than others, but I foreswear any responsibility for what happens when you decide to take action, and you should be repeating this 20 goto 10 style to the next man in the chain".

[J. D. Stembal]

Is it acceptable to kill someone over the pollution they are causing? Can I tackle you and rip the keys out of your hand if you get into your car? If you resist, can I kill you? Nobody, including Da Vinci, to whom it was originally posed in January, has attempted to answer this question, or offer a logical explanation or argument to prove this.

 

If pollution is a violation of the NAP (or UPB), then it would be justifiable to use the necessary level of ethical self-defense in order to prevent it, up to and including the killing of polluters. (Just like rape, theft, murder, and assault.)

 

Any takers? Please take a swing at it.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

Pollution isn't inherently aggression, it can violate property rights.

The atmosphere is not privately owned and so we see the tragedy of the commons phenomena. However when pollution falls onto my property, which includes my body, then that violates my property rights.

 

Killing people because they pollute seems disproportionate, getting recompense would be the more reasonable response. Historically both heavy industry and railroad industry have been sued for damages caused by smoke.

 

I would expect that if roads were fully privatized, vehicle emissions might be very restrictive, at least in some places.

[Sal9000]

If pollution is a violation of the NAP (or UPB), then it would be justifiable to use the necessary level of ethical self-defense in order to prevent it, up to and including the killing of polluters.

 

The problem with pollution is similar to the tragedy of the commons. Accumulated actions lead to the destruction of biospheres that may affect all. One way out of it is to claim that there is no destruction (phosphates don't harm amphibes, lead in gasoline does not cause physical harm). The other solution would be to price in externalities in a free market. 

[Donnadogsoth]

Is it acceptable to kill someone over the pollution they are causing? Can I tackle you and rip the keys out of your hand if you get into your car? If you resist, can I kill you? Nobody, including Da Vinci, to whom it was originally posed in January, has attempted to answer this question, or offer a logical explanation or argument to prove this.

 

If pollution is a violation of the NAP (or UPB), then it would be justifiable to use the necessary level of ethical self-defense in order to prevent it, up to and including the killing of polluters. (Just like rape, theft, murder, and assault.)

 

Any takers? Please take a swing at it.

 

In my previous posts I was trying to establish a baseline for viewing certain types of pollution as aggression.  If I dump nuclear waste in your backyard, or into your water table, that's an aggressive act.  Anyone can see that.  Less invidious polluting actions can be judged based on how close they come to that ultimate example.

[J. D. Stembal]

In my previous posts I was trying to establish a baseline for viewing certain types of pollution as aggression.  If I dump nuclear waste in your backyard, or into your water table, that's an aggressive act.  Anyone can see that.  Less invidious polluting actions can be judged based on how close they come to that ultimate example.

 

You have not answered the question, though. If I find you dumping waste (pouring your used motor oil on my lawn), can I use self-defense to prevent the crime by killing you as if you were raping, or murdering someone else?

[AncapFTW]

You have not answered the question, though. If I find you dumping waste (pouring your used motor oil on my lawn), can I use self-defense to prevent the crime by killing you as if you were raping, or murdering someone else?

Have you heard of a concept called "Proportional response"?  If he was dumping stuff down your well to try and poison you, then that might be allowable, but if he's just causing destruction of property with his actions, how can you justify killing him?  That's like saying "Hey, you just stole my watch." then blowing his head off with a shotgun.

 

Escalating the violence is the same as initiating violence.