Why I am not a Socialist
…and other things “sceptics” should bear in mind!
In responding to the amazingly erudite blogger who is Patrice Ayme, on the subject of how we should treat all other life-forms with which we currently share this planet, I recently found myself explaining some very basic stuff regarding what makes me tick:
I also think you are right to point out the job creation potential of finally beginning to live in harmony with nature (i.e. being good stewards of it) rather considering ourselves to be superior to it (i.e. going forth, multiplying, and ‘subduing’ it). We have indeed lost our way, but were we led astray; or are we all equally guilty? Personally, I believe the blame lies within each and every one of us. In essence, this is why I cannot be a socialist. Socialists (and liberals) believe that humans are essentially good and capable of creating Utopia if the right conditions are provided for it to emerge. Conservatives accept that humans are essentially imperfect; and therefore rely upon received wisdom and tradition to optimise reality. By embracing moral relativism, socialists and liberals have made the fallacy of the marketplace of ideas – and the cynical rejection of all authority figures – a very powerful and corrosive aspect to modernity itself. It is the reason climate change scepticism is proving so hard to dismantle.
Given that I am not a socialist, and do not seek worldwide authoritarian government via the UN, I cannot be a Watermelon. On the contrary, I believe in David Cameron’s Big Society; and I believe in small government and generally low taxes. However, I believe that the cost of everything should reflect the damage done to the environment if we buy it or use it. I therefore believe, for example, that flying should be expensive.
————-
Are you really tying to tell me you think everyone who says that climate change is a serious problem is foolish? If so, I should really like to know what logical, historical, and/or scientific evidence you have to defend that argument. To me, such a position is only sustainable by dismissing what I presume you consider to be climate change “alarmism” as political and scientific conspiracy: One that would make those invoked by people who doubt the reality of 9/11 and the Moon Landings seem small by comparison.
————-
I will conclude by repeating the 3 questions I never got to ask Professor Richard Lindzen (because I first tried to address his failure to present relevant information to an already-prejudiced audience) when he came to London earlier this year peddling his conspiracy theory nonsense (i.e. he accused just about every climate scientist on the planet of being deceitful [or stupid and/or incompetent - but just how likely is that?]):
1. Concern over anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) is based on the study of palaeoclimatology, not on computer modelling. However, models have helped to predict the atmospheric response to greenhouse gas emissions; and any uncertainties in model predictions have been due to uncertainties in emissions projections. Therefore, when reviewed retrospectively (choosing the most appropriate emissions scenario that reflects what actually happened to emissions), the models are demonstrably very accurate (if they include all climate forcings). Given all of this, why is it that you maintain that we have no reason to be concerned?
2. What is your answer to Utah-based Professor of Geological Sciences, Barry Bickmore, who recently suggested that today’s so-called climate “sceptics” are not like Galileo because, rather than fighting against one, they are fighting for an obscurantist and anti-intellectual Establishment, in an attempt to perpetuate the burning of fossil fuels for as long as possible?
3. Given the findings documented in Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s book, Merchants of Doubt, can you please tell me why, having fought for so long on behalf of the tobacco industry to prevent legislation to minimise the harmful effects of smoking, you have apparently focused instead on helping the fossil fuel lobby deny that anthropogenic climate disruption is happening?
For the record, even after emailing these questions (and many others) to Lindzen, he still did not answer. No doubt, he would claim I was rude to him but, even after I apologised for any offence caused by my bluntness, he still did not answer any of my questions. This is because he could not answer them without making it very clear that he has been prejudiced against taking any and all environmental problems seriously – if addressing those problems would limit the freedom of business to put profit before sustainable development. Unfair criticism? I don’t think so. With my thanks to Lionel A Smith (for some of these links), here is the evidence:
If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it!
Is Richard S. Lindzen deliberately lying, or just deluded?
Why does tobacco keep cropping up in discussion of Lindzen’s history of prejudice?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen_Illusions.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-london-illusions.html
Written by Martin Lack
25 June 2012 at 00:02
13 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
Hello Martin,
You and I seem to have very differing views of socialism. I do not know who is right and who is wrong – it’s just different.
To start, I must note that I consider myself a socialist. I have no problem with high taxes when that money is used to improve the lives of my countryman. I believe that a country should be judged by how it treats its poorest and weakest and socialist countries seem to do that best. In my opinion.
Second, I do not “believe that humans are essentially good and capable of creating Utopia”. That is why I believe it is important to have a government that will create the safety net and the regulations that will protect us from the less good among us.
Finally, despite my socialism, I do not wish to see “worldwide authoritarian government via the UN”. I may be ignorant, or naïve (or both), but I see the UN as an opportunity to make countries work together while still maintaining their sovereignty. And work together we must in order to deal with global problems such as climate change.
Finally, I completely agree that “the cost of everything should reflect the damage done to the environment if we buy it or use it”.
So, what does that make me, I wonder? Well, if you asked me what “makes me tick”, I would say that it is a balance of different ideas. For example, I believe in capitalism and the free market, but within the boundaries of intelligent regulations. Having said that, I do not think that everything should be done through the free market. Healthcare and the military are two example of services that should not be open to the free market as it is in the US.
jpgreenword
25 June 2012 at 19:05
Thanks for all of those comments, JP. I do hope you appreciate that I was not attacking anyone other than climate change “sceptics”…
1. Right and wrong do not come into it. I am not saying socialism is wrong; merely why I am not a socialist.
2. Secondly, it would probably have been better if I had given this post the title, “Why I am not a Marxist”; but I am not going to change it now.
3. In essence, all I have done here is say that I am socially conservative (rather than progresive or liberal). I guess it is perfectly possible to be a socialist and yet be neither progressive nor liberal.
4. The only people who think there is a plot to install worldwide authoritarian government via the UN are believers in Watermelon fantasy promoted by the likes of James Delingpole and Senator James Inhoffe (R-OK).
5 As I will explain tomorrow, Capitalism was an equally utopian project, so I am no longer a fan of it either.
Martin Lack
25 June 2012 at 19:59
I did not feel attacked in any way. Actually, I find these types of discussions rather interesting!
jpgreenword
25 June 2012 at 22:10
That’s good. Only one problem with my previous response: A socialist that is neither progressive or liberal is probably a Marxist!
I therefore must be true to myself and admit that I am a traditionally-minded conservative; but that does not stop me being very critical of modern ideologically-minded Conservatives and those who are simply inconsistent and/or hypocritical such as Roger Scruton:
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-ecological-challenge-for-conservatism/
Martin Lack
26 June 2012 at 11:38
Don’t get me wrong: I completely respect your political position. And I find it interesting because in North America, being socially conservative seems to be completely incompatible with environmental protection. The idea that climate change is not a “left” or “right” issue does not apply here. If you look hard enough, you can find “conservatives” that want to protect the air we breath and want to address climate change, but they are no longer in the mainstream. And they certainly don’t get elected!
jpgreenword
26 June 2012 at 12:31
JP, I think we are agreed that, in Canada, the conservatives have elected to sell their environment to the highest bidder. I think we would also agree that, in the USA, the Republican Party has gone down an intellectual blind alley: For the way in which Republican POTUS candidates have repudiated any previous concern for the environment, if for nothing else, they deserve to be soundly beaten. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear that their intellectual blind alley will yet turn into an electoral blind alley…
There are a number of issues on which I do not agree with Barrack Obama but, if I lived in the US, I would most definitely vote for him (and keep doing so until the Republican Party engages with reality). However, none of this alters the fact that, outside of North America and Australia, the Watemelon fallacy does not hold sway: Green politics can and should transcend outdated concepts such as Left and Right. More on this tomorrow…
Martin Lack
26 June 2012 at 14:11
I look forward to it!
jpgreenword
26 June 2012 at 21:39
[...] other things, I explained why I am not a Socialist yesterday. Therefore, it seems only fair that I should also explain why I am not a Capitalist either. [...]
Why I am not a Capitalist « Lack of Environment
26 June 2012 at 00:10
[...] the last two days, I have explained why I am not a Socialist (despite dabbling with it in the past); and why I have lost my faith in Capitalism (despite being [...]
Nature is not your enemy (but it may bite if you are unkind to it) « Lack of Environment
27 June 2012 at 00:08
“Conservatives accept that humans are essentially imperfect; and therefore rely upon received wisdom and tradition to optimise reality.”
Received wisdom is fine — if it is actually wise, and not just marketed with the presumption that it is such. Tradition is all well and good, until it prevents us from accepting reality.
Like JP, I disagree with aspects of what you consider to be socialism.
pendantry
27 June 2012 at 12:13
I find that whether left or right of center, society as a whole has a really hard time learning from past experience. The example that stands out for me is the “trickle-down” economic theory – that if the rich get richer, we’ll all be better off.
I don’t know how well that fits into the ongoing discussion, but I had to say it. So there : )
jpgreenword
27 June 2012 at 12:29
‘Trickle-down’, yes, what a sad joke that is. Economics? ‘Economics’ is just a theory — or rather, several theories (Isn’t that an argument ‘sceptics’ use to pooh-pooh climate change?). That we base our entire existence on the stuff seems nonsensical to me.
Money is a belief system. And when belief in money fails, oh boy, does it fail…
pendantry
27 June 2012 at 12:46
I think I have explained myself already but, cannot resist responding to this by saying that, I disagree with some aspects of what you consider to be conservatism.
Martin Lack
27 June 2012 at 13:44