Saving the Earth
Dale Netherton
April 03, 2006
If the earth is to be saved for future generations the first consideration is saving the component that will generate the ideas, methods and technology to turn resources efficiently and effectively into human benefits. This means the answer cannot lie in the laws and restrictions that stifle innovation, restrict human freedom and encourages endeavors that discourage technology. If we are to have clean air and clean water we must have the technology to reuse, refine, recycle and tap into the resources our future generations are going to need.
This means the first priority is to not stifle creative thinking by censorship, regulation and political expediency. Mankind did not rise to the level of civilization he has attained by simply setting aside the wilderness. Future generations must have more to look forward to than pristine thickets where they travel by foot and pick wild berries. They must have human conveniences that allows them to be as productive as they can and to enjoy their lives from the productive efforts of artists, educators and businessmen.
Current politics that professes to address the future is not our best hope. Today's politics are necessarily aimed at the expedient ( witness the recent disagreement about the future of Social Security ). It is freedom and innovation that will solve the environmental problems of the future and it is freedom and innovation that must integrate the human needs with the wastes generated. It is too simplistic to set aside without utilization as is done with wilderness areas and expect that without access, without facilities, without utilization the preserved will someday be able to be opened for future generations (to do what?). Will the future generations simply be content to know there is someplace they are saving for yet another generation who will have to be content with the same non utilized area? Had the ancient Greeks saved a portion of their island based on the population they had for all posterity, can we in good conscience believe today that area would not be utilized? Think of the island of Japan. This population density requires the careful utilization that future generations in less populated countries of today must work to achieve. Think of the densely populated areas that are faced with starvation and disease and the degree of freedom associated with these countries. Think of the repression that caused starvation in the world power of the Soviet Union. These are examples of the crucial importance of freedom, innovation and technology if humans of the future are to have a healthy life span, the enjoyment of mobility, recreation and enough to eat.
The present day approach of restricting industry as a means to protect the environment has a definite downside. The more the governments restrict and legislate, the more they become the decision makers for the industry and we all know they are not able to manage their own affairs without amassing huge debt, becoming more and more restrictive and eventually shutting down the industries that supply us with goods and services. This approach will leave the civilized world teetering on the edge of third world subsistence. The argument that is used to promote this governmental restrictive approach is that incremental movement toward statism doesn't seem to be a concern. But the end result however slowly it is reached is still the end result.
There is another problem that needs to be addressed and that is the premise that a world united will save the earth. With nations in various stages of development it is incumbent for the nations individually to recognize the need for technology and freedom. Trying to get all nations together in these various stages of development is to expect a hodge podge agreement that satisfies no one. To enforce such an agreement opens up another dilemma that could lead to nothing less than war. Just as the Renaissance brought realization to the world that freedom and innovation would make the world better for man so must the New Renaissance alert the world to the dangers of the past that led out ancestors into the abyss of the dark ages. When people ask how will we save the earth they are asking the mind of man for the answer. It is this resource, the mind of man, that must be protected above all. For it is the means to a better life and a safe environment. And what must it be protected from? From those who want to shackle thoughts ,ideas and actions by laws, taxes and restrictions. It is not the unfettered mind we have to fear. It is the darkening of the horizons of productive thought that will extinguish civilization and the beauty of the earth that we can now enjoy and promise to those yet to come.
This means the first priority is to not stifle creative thinking by censorship, regulation and political expediency. Mankind did not rise to the level of civilization he has attained by simply setting aside the wilderness. Future generations must have more to look forward to than pristine thickets where they travel by foot and pick wild berries. They must have human conveniences that allows them to be as productive as they can and to enjoy their lives from the productive efforts of artists, educators and businessmen.
Current politics that professes to address the future is not our best hope. Today's politics are necessarily aimed at the expedient ( witness the recent disagreement about the future of Social Security ). It is freedom and innovation that will solve the environmental problems of the future and it is freedom and innovation that must integrate the human needs with the wastes generated. It is too simplistic to set aside without utilization as is done with wilderness areas and expect that without access, without facilities, without utilization the preserved will someday be able to be opened for future generations (to do what?). Will the future generations simply be content to know there is someplace they are saving for yet another generation who will have to be content with the same non utilized area? Had the ancient Greeks saved a portion of their island based on the population they had for all posterity, can we in good conscience believe today that area would not be utilized? Think of the island of Japan. This population density requires the careful utilization that future generations in less populated countries of today must work to achieve. Think of the densely populated areas that are faced with starvation and disease and the degree of freedom associated with these countries. Think of the repression that caused starvation in the world power of the Soviet Union. These are examples of the crucial importance of freedom, innovation and technology if humans of the future are to have a healthy life span, the enjoyment of mobility, recreation and enough to eat.
The present day approach of restricting industry as a means to protect the environment has a definite downside. The more the governments restrict and legislate, the more they become the decision makers for the industry and we all know they are not able to manage their own affairs without amassing huge debt, becoming more and more restrictive and eventually shutting down the industries that supply us with goods and services. This approach will leave the civilized world teetering on the edge of third world subsistence. The argument that is used to promote this governmental restrictive approach is that incremental movement toward statism doesn't seem to be a concern. But the end result however slowly it is reached is still the end result.
There is another problem that needs to be addressed and that is the premise that a world united will save the earth. With nations in various stages of development it is incumbent for the nations individually to recognize the need for technology and freedom. Trying to get all nations together in these various stages of development is to expect a hodge podge agreement that satisfies no one. To enforce such an agreement opens up another dilemma that could lead to nothing less than war. Just as the Renaissance brought realization to the world that freedom and innovation would make the world better for man so must the New Renaissance alert the world to the dangers of the past that led out ancestors into the abyss of the dark ages. When people ask how will we save the earth they are asking the mind of man for the answer. It is this resource, the mind of man, that must be protected above all. For it is the means to a better life and a safe environment. And what must it be protected from? From those who want to shackle thoughts ,ideas and actions by laws, taxes and restrictions. It is not the unfettered mind we have to fear. It is the darkening of the horizons of productive thought that will extinguish civilization and the beauty of the earth that we can now enjoy and promise to those yet to come.
Print
Email
