The science fiction you are experiencing: environmentalism

A rogue, a rogue called "environmentalism", is delaying the economic development of the earth people, trying to lock in the science and technology of the earth people and push mankind to the end of the world at a speed visible to the naked eye.

- 1 -

The core of "environmentalism" is "violent intervention"

Besides loving nature, the concept of "environmentalism" can be summarized as follows:

1. The use of resources should be restricted. Because the total amount of resources is limited, we should try our best to slow down the consumption of resources and use renewable resources for the long-term benefit of mankind.

The damage to the environment should be limited. Due to the limited self-purification ability of the environment and the complexity of the system, destroying the environment may bring unpredictable disasters to mankind; For the long-term benefit of mankind, we should minimize the damage to the environment. Specifically, it includes reducing development, restoring natural ecology, reducing pollution, using clean energy, recycling waste, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting biodiversity.

3. The first two items should be enforced. Because people always pursue immediate interests and lack enthusiasm for the above two unprofitable things, we should objectively evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of human behavior, prohibit behaviors that are not conducive to human long-term interests, and encourage behaviors that are beneficial to human long-term interests.

This is not right.

If you understand and believe 1 and 2, why 3? Do you feel that others can't understand, or that you can't control yourself? "Environmentalism" is not only "reminding" people to save resources and prevent disasters caused by human behavior. It seems that without its "violent intervention", human beings will eat and play with the earth unscrupulously.

The core logic of "environmentalism" is easier said than done. Although we know that we should consider the long-term interests, we don't know why (maybe because we fell into the eyes of money? ), just don't consider the long-term interests, so we need some selfless visionary people to manage those who have no vision, and we have the ability to find such people or rely on the system to find such people.

This is not right.

In order to explain the mistakes of "environmentalism", a technique called "arithmetic" is needed. Yes, it means "counting".

- 2 -

Miscalculated "total resources"

Vaguely, you may have heard the prediction that oil will last for several years. Every time, environmentalists sincerely and seriously remind people that "human beings must control the population and reduce the consumption of natural resources, or they will face extinction (for example, in ten years)." Such a prediction has been hit in the face, and environmentalists can only keep pushing back the time when oil runs out (and when it is destroyed).

So, how do you think they miscalculated? If you just treat these stories as one of many jokes of experts-obviously they don't deserve the great name "environmentalist"-and don't care why they are wrong, then you will make the same mistake.

Available time of remaining resources = total amount of remaining resources ÷ resource consumption speed (although experts use a formula that is not so simple, you can understand it this way. )

The answer is simple, because the "total amount of surplus resources" has increased, and the more it is used, the more it is used. (there is also an improvement in resource utilization, but it is not the main one. )

How is that possible? Oh, I see, because some resources have not been proved before. If you count the oil that has not been "proved", the total amount of oil in the world will definitely be less and less. Yes, that's right, so this is a word game.

No, no, no!

The total amount of resources in the world (including known and unknown, oil and other resources) may indeed be used less and less, but ah, that is from God's point of view, where technology is the peak. Without the progress of science and technology and the illumination of maps, human beings will never live to be "God".

How many resources are available in this world depends not only on the gift of nature, but also on science and technology. It is extremely difficult to "discover" those undiscovered resources. And where does the technology come from? The progress of science and technology needs the accumulation and renewal of knowledge and assets, which consume resources. Technology is a very expensive thing. If you cross with knowledge, you don't need oil. We can't cut the speed of resource consumption by force, and we still expect the scientific and technological strength of mankind to continue its original speed or even faster progress. It is a miracle not to go backwards.

The reality you think: the total amount of available resources is limited, extravagant and unsustainable.

How to treat environmental protection: Although the total amount of available resources is limited, we advocate renewable clean energy and sustainable development, while saving use.

Reality: With the progress of science and technology, the total amount of "proven" resources is increasing and sustainable.

What if it is really environmentally friendly? Science and technology are stagnant or even retrogressive, the total amount of "proven" resources will not increase or even decrease (yes, the total amount, not only the remaining total amount will decrease), there is no renewable clean energy available at all, it is unsustainable, and it will return to the primitive society where poverty, disease, ignorance and barbarism are combined, and eventually the people of the earth will perish.

When we choose whether to protect the environment, we are not faced with the question of whether to save resources or what technology to use after we have God's technology and God's resources. This is a question of whether people on earth can get technology and resources if they are "environment-friendly".

As early as a long time ago, when the earth people didn't know about oil, they had the idea of "environmentalism". These ancient earthlings are worried that they are not gentle enough to eat the earth. Today, the resources they consume seem to be only 9 Niu Yi cents. They are really wasteful and not environmentally friendly. If the earth people carry out "environmentalism" to the end, they will only stay at the level of science and technology with only a little resources and super environmental protection forever. Well, it won't stay, it will go backwards. The earth will not be eaten poor by them, and there are still a lot of resources left for them after the death of the three.

- 3 -

Misestimate "Disaster" and Coping Ability

The so-called "destruction" of the environment can only be decided by "changing" the environment. If you don't know what is good for human beings, you don't know what is "destruction".

"Environmentalism" imagines a perfect world. In this Eden, you don't have to do anything. As long as you make the environment different from before, or ugly, or commit the crime of killing, you will break the dogma and be punished by nature, resulting in you having no food, suffering from plague, rising sea level or entering the ice age. And if you don't change the environment, you will still have good food, good clothes and a good house to live in. When you are sick, you can usually be cured, your mobile phone can be brushed, you can watch the ball game on the other side of the world or even watch it in person, and even the climate of the earth can last forever. Even a little earthquake, tsunami and volcanic eruption are disasters, and comets will never happen.

This is of course an illusion. People on earth are confident to face hunger, disease, war, harsh climate, deadly geological problems and even threats from outer space, relying on economic development and scientific and technological progress, not good forests.

In the normal economic development, with the accumulation and renewal of knowledge and assets, the technology of obtaining energy and coping with various challenges such as natural disasters is naturally improving. The accumulation of these scientific and technological forces will consume resources and change the environment.

Nature is not a friend of human beings at all, and the earth is a threatening gravel. Turning this broken stone into your familiar home, road, hospital, supermarket, car and wifi is called "protecting" the environment. It is called "destroying" the environment to tear down all the houses in Shanghai and restore the nature and let Shanghainese go to Into the Wild.

If we really want to reduce the environmental changes caused by human activities, it will limit the acquisition of various resources and the use of various production technologies, which will inevitably limit the acquisition of products and the progress of science and technology, and then limit the depletion of available resources and the retrogression of the level of science and technology. When disaster really comes, people on earth who lack scientific and technological strength will be unable to cope. Even without those large-scale natural disasters, the lack of products and the stagnation and retrogression of scientific and technological strength will lead to huge problems.

Environmentalists don't believe that human beings can cope with disasters through technology. But somehow, they are particularly confident in the weather forecast. Although they haven't thought about whether it will be "global cooling" or "global warming" in a few years, they think they have thoroughly studied the causes of this climate change.

- 4 -

"Long-term benefits" of miscalculation

You may think that some of the above statements are a little extreme. "Environmentalists" have never said anything about survival in the wild. There is a limit to everything. "Environmentalism" does not oppose scientific and technological progress, but hopes that scientific and technological progress will lead to better clean and renewable resources. The goal of "environmentalism" is to encourage scientific and technological progress while saving resources and reducing the negative impact on the environment.

However, in the absence of "environmentalism" and "violent intervention", economic development itself is to "encourage scientific and technological progress, save resources and reduce the negative impact on the environment."

I don't think it is necessary to discuss whether people have foresight. The important thing is that even a visionary, "I don't know why (maybe because I fell into the eyes of money?" ), that is, it will not consider long-term interests.

This view is wrong. "Environmentalists" only think about the money that can be brought by "consumption" and "destruction" (let's use the concept of "destruction" by environmentalists), but ignore the money that can be brought by "conservation" and "protection". Vulgar money seems not to be associated with such noble words, but only as a noble "environmentalist" to drive others' sticks and carrots.

All resources are assets themselves, and they all have prices, even if these assets are a piece of land with oil below and forest above. When people use resources for their own use or to make money, their "consumption" and "destruction" of resources will be reflected in the price, resulting in increased costs or reduced income; His "conservation" and "protection" of resources will also be reflected in the price, leading to lower costs or increased income. Therefore, every choice he makes can be judged according to his expectation of price, which is greater, "consumption" or "destruction" compared with other benefits he gets from it; Similarly, he should judge whether "saving" or "protecting" is greater than other interests sacrificed for this purpose; In a word, he should judge whether each use of resources brings more benefits.

What is the price? The price reflects people's evaluation of various uses of resources all over the world. The more important things are, the more expensive they are. For example, the same flour, you can choose to make steamed bread, make flower rolls, or you can choose to do nothing and keep it. If you don't cook by yourself, but misjudge others' preferences for steamed bread and rolls, you will lose; If others anticipate that flour will become increasingly scarce and decide to save it, and you make all the flour into steamed bread rolls, you will also lose money, because flour (probably the future steamed bread rolls) is more expensive than (now) steamed bread rolls.

If you waste resources and produce things that are useless compared with the consumed resources, or the utilization rate of resources is too low, you will lose money. If you "explore" new resources and find ways to create more benefits for mankind with less resources, you will make a profit. The cheaper things, the less resources are consumed, and the more environmentally friendly they are. The more money a thing earns, the more benefits it creates than the resources it consumes, and the greater the gap, the more environmentally friendly it is. If we stop people from buying cheap things and making money, we will have to consume more resources and get less benefits in a less environmentally friendly way.

If you are a "moderate environmentalist" and think that everyone should voluntarily choose some expensive things or lifestyles for environmental protection, I hope this section can answer you.

What if everyone else is wrong? What if the resources are not marked with the correct price? That means you think the value of a resource has not been discovered and the price will rise in the future. This is obviously an opportunity to make a fortune, and profit-seeking people will not miss this opportunity. Low-cost bargain-hunting, publishing information, and increasing prices for profit; Or concentrate on making a fortune, but because you buy too much or are imitated by competitors, it will still lead to price increases, and those who waste resources will lose.

Think about time, consider long-term and short-term, will there be a difference? Will people pay too much attention to immediate interests and ignore long-term interests? No, as mentioned above, such as flour. Price reflects people's evaluation of various uses of resources around the world, including short-term use and long-term use. Entrepreneurs can sell their companies, and the long-term interests of others are consistent with the short-term interests of individuals. If there are natural resources in the company's assets, will it be different? Of course, there is no difference. The long-term interests of mankind and the short-term interests of individuals are consistent.

To sum up, due to the great invention of money, people's short-term interests and long-term interests, personal interests and long-term interests of mankind can be consistent through profit-making activities and price signals, when everyone does not have enough professional knowledge. Although people are not omniscient and never make mistakes, this is the best way. Relying on money and market, human beings can make the best choice in the possible use of resources, accumulate knowledge and assets, and improve their ability to solve problems. Behaviors that are beneficial to the long-term interests of mankind are rewarded by the market, harmful behaviors are punished by the market, and important knowledge owned by individuals is also spread rapidly.

But we are still not satisfied. Is there no loophole?

What if the value of resources can't give the correct price? Is there that kind of resource? This is very important. We need it to exist quietly. Once destroyed, it will lead to disaster. But if no product is produced, or the output cannot be sold, the resources cannot be sold at a price. Really?

There is only one case, which is called "commons" in economics. This resource can be used, it is limited, and every use will cause visible "consumption" and "destruction", but it does not belong to anyone. Because it doesn't belong to anyone, no one can benefit from protecting resources. For such resources, when we make choices, many uses are locked, you can't point them out, and you don't have a chance to see those possible better choices that are both "saving" and "protecting" and benefiting.

So, can "environmentalism" be applied to "commons"? Still not right. The reason for the emergence of "commons" is exactly the same as the core of "environmentalism", that is, "violent intervention" without "violent intervention". Once people find that protecting resources can bring benefits to people, they will try their best to establish property rights for resources, and then bring benefits to themselves by protecting resources themselves, or trade profits to others by protecting resources. For air, tap water, sunlight and other resources that are difficult to occupy, people's rights can still be determined, and the most beneficial use can be realized through rights protection (damage to specific people) and trading.

I have seen a news before that a good young man from China risked his life and did many great and glorious things to protect African wildlife. Although his achievements are very limited, he is still very inspiring. But also in Africa and Tanzania, because Tanzania does not use "violent intervention" to prohibit people from owning wild animals, the survival of wild animals is not critical at all. Because it can be traded normally, things like ivory inevitably become cheaper, indirectly protecting wildlife in other places.

But "environmentalists" are ungrateful. They accused Tanzania's ivory trade of causing the price of ivory to rise. With such cheap and safe ivory, why should others smuggle expensive and dangerous ivory under your "environmentalist"? Wild animals suffer at the hands of your "environmentalists", obviously because you have artificially created "commons", resulting in no return for local people to protect wild animals. Then why should we protect them? Not to mention selling ivory, kill all the wild animals and make more resources to raise chickens. The more they want to "violently intervene" to protect wild animals, the more local people hate wild animals. People on earth eat it every day, but rice is not extinct. The wild animals that people on earth want to eat are somehow in danger.

So what's my mood when I see the news of young people with good environmental protection? I took great pains to do something meaningless or even the opposite. What a tragic wishful thinking. Many years ago, a group of patriotic youths across the street, after arduous struggles and successive sacrifices, finally destroyed their motherland, enjoyed the treatment of nuclear weapons, and also hurt us and provoked hatred. What's the point? It's a tragedy.

Please don't defile pure money with your vulgar three views.

- 5 -

The "Arithmetic" Problem of "Environmentalism"

People think that money is vulgar, probably because people want to change their hearts for this "thing outside". This is a complete misunderstanding. It seems that without money, there would be no thieves and robbers in this world. Through the trading market, human beings have the possibility to cooperate with strangers-we have a lot of choices that are beneficial to others and ourselves, not just those that harm others and benefit ourselves-otherwise we will fall into an endless threat of war from all to all. If you don't want to participate in such mutually beneficial cooperation activities, or some mutually beneficial cooperation activities, you don't have to participate. Your misunderstanding of money, price and market is just an unreasonable imagination.

However, "environmentalism" and other ideas that advocate "violent intervention" completely ignore this most important achievement of human development so far. In order to prevent mankind from becoming a mercenary, we need another set of methods to weigh the pros and cons to decide what to do. However, they don't calculate the pros and cons at all, ignoring the existence of real pros and cons.

In the idea of "environmental protection" and other ideas advocating "violent intervention", human economic activities seem to have nothing to do with solving hunger, disease, war and natural disasters. And the "destruction" of the environment by human beings seems to have nothing to do with solving hunger, disease, war and natural disasters. It seems that the market only provides negligible benefits, and for this little benefit, it is necessary to "destroy" the environment. So people think, can we sacrifice this little interest to "protect" the environment, keep some technologies and continue to enjoy prosperity, health and peace? I can't. Due to the lack of methods to calculate the pros and cons, "environmentalism" doesn't even have an objective method to distinguish between "destruction" and "protection".

People choose oil because it is cheaper, and oil is cheaper because coal, animal power and renewable energy "consume" more resources and cause more damage to the environment. Oil is already the cleanest energy source. When oil becomes more expensive, that is, consumption and destruction increase, if the consumption and destruction of non-renewable new energy is less than the development of renewable energy, people will continue to explore non-renewable new energy until the consumption and destruction of renewable energy is less. "Environmentalism" actually means that people have never considered clean and renewable energy, and somehow clean and renewable energy is so expensive that no one wants to do it, as if God had already given mankind the ideal clean and renewable energy. "Environmentalism" ignores the reason of price and price level. How can we weigh the pros and cons?

All the propositions and decisions of "environmentalism" are utopian arbitrariness.

- 6 -

If we defeat "environmentalism"

If the earth people finally overcome the great threat of "environmentalism" and can develop the economy normally, with the progress of science and technology, cities can finally be self-sufficient, and perhaps one day most of the earth people will live in a few cities, and the rest will be nature, which is the environmental protection goal that "environmentalism" will never reach. Maybe one day, the earth people will turn off the sun, the most wasteful thing in the solar system. Today, all slogans of saving energy are literally glory for the sun.

-End-

PS: I didn't see the movie. I saw the film review of @ Jingchengzi (Teacher Chen Xingjie). I can't stand it.

Reference:

Will the oil run out? Why is it predicted decades ago that it will be exhausted now, but there is still a lot of oil to be exploited? "chi tiger