Currency: Incommensurate Valuation
The Earth's Resources are Finite post was a failure in that I completely failed to communicate my position and rather created what seemed to be an unintelligible mess. So rather than ignore the mistake or attempt to salvage its wreckage I would like to try again by utilizing this picture as a starting point:
The above picture portrays a particular mindset which sets Earth, its resources, the processes which occur upon it, and the entirety of known human existence equivalent to or in proportion with the dollar or, in a more general sense, currency. It is the mindset which says that we can, nay, must discuss a loaf of bread in terms of currency, petroleum in terms of currency, animals, vegetables, and minerals in terms of currency, labor in terms of currency, life in terms of currency. It is the mindset which utilizes currency to dictate and assess actions and policies, which utilizes currency as the basis for decisions.
It is a flawed mindset.
My grandparents own around 40 acres of land which is currently used for farming. When they die my mother and aunt will inherit the land. My aunt wants to sell the land. I have, for the time being, convinced my mother that we ought to keep it. Why?
Some, my aunt included, would argue that the currency we could receive in exchange for the land has more utility, value, worth than the land itself. Some would argue that we must discuss the land's utility, value in terms of housing, food production, resources, currency. But that mindset is flawed; it is mistaken; it is fundamentally wrong. Land has value in its being land. Land has value in its being part of the whole of Earth, the planet upon which humanity exists. To assess the value, the utility, the quality, the anything of land in terms of anything else fundamentally misunderstands the nature of humanity. Humanity does not exist apart from The Earth, apart from Nature, apart from that fundamental facticity of its being which is its reliance upon The Earth on which it survives.
From that realization we can extrapolate the point I attempted to make in Earth's Resources are Finite: Currency is an inadequate means of true valuation.
Currency has no value apart from the social context in which it has value. Yet petroleum, trees, food, The Planet Earth all have an existential, True Value which can never be captured numerically on a spreadsheet; True Value exist independent of our stupid little system. A Dollar, a Euro, a Franc, a Confederate Dollar only have value within social contexts. Yet a loaf of bread has value in its being a loaf of bread, land has value in its being land, petroleum has value in its being petroleum, Earth has value in its being Earth, The Moon has value in its being The Moon, Nature has value in its being Nature, Reality has value in its being Reality.
We cannot and must not talk about the value of a gallon of petroleum in terms of currency. We cannot and must not talk about the value of homes, land, puppies, electricity, water, anything in terms of currency. Currency is a minute, social, moronically simplified means by which faux, inert value can be shoddily constructed. The True Value of anything within reality, its existential and actual value is far greater than, far more complex than, anything our stupid little currency system could ever hope to convey.
When we attempt to assign value in terms of currency we exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of reality. We cannot assess the True Value of petroleum by merely employing a short-sighted grasping at its use for humanity in the immediate future; we cannot honestly think that a gallon of gas and $4 are in any way equal, related, or discernibly similar. We cannot talk about the True Value of anything be it land or food or clean air or fresh water in terms of currency, in terms of dollars and cents.
We can pretend that currency is a true representation of value, worth, utility, what-have-you. We can pretend that currency is meaningful or useful. We can continually focus upon currency as an end, ignore reality and fabricate our own structures and systems. But to do so is short-sighted, foolish. To employ currency as a means of valuation indicates a fundamental failure to understand reality. One cannot discuss Earth in terms of some dollar value, in terms of currency. So stop pretending that the components which comprise Earth, the various phenomena within reality, are somehow estranged from this fundamental, existential Truth and rather are merely items upon a shelf whose value is signified by numbers in a database and cotton paper.
That's what I was trying to say before.
38 comments:
So, you are basically arguing that nothing contains a value comparable to anything else, and we should therefore stop all forms of trade?
I am saying many other things in addition to that. But, yes, that is one of the things I am saying.
Can you really extrapolate from shoes a value, extrapolate from a loaf of bread a value, and then find some common system within which those values can be compared? How many loaves of bread equal a pair of shoes? That question is nonsense!
Despite its being nonsense, though, we've devised a complete system by which we can do just that! We've embraced the illusion that there is some X commonality to homes, bread, shoes, etc. by which we can assess value and so trade items.
Do you really think that everyone who earns $6 an hour is doing the same thing, that there is some quality which $6 signifies which is universal to all beings making that amount of money per hour? Do you really think that someone who makes $12 an hour is doing twice the whatever of those $6 an hour workers? Of course not. But that is what our system of currency is based upon, the philosophy with which it operates.
Regardless of whether or not it functions for the time being? It is incorrect, inaccurate, problematic, faulty, and WRONG!
The larger issue I wanted to address, though, was that if we think about things in terms of currency we begin to understand things in terms of currency. If a gallon of gas costs $4 then we start to think of a gallon of gas as $4, the two become interchangeable.
But if you think about the nature of currency and the nature of gasoline you'll realize that not only are the two not interchangeable but the two are fundamentally different.
The biggest difference is availability. If one considers the notion that as long as they have a job they can continue to make money, and gasoline is valued in terms of money, then as long as one has a job one can continue to purchase gasoline.
The problem, as I said before, is that there is a finite amount of gasoline on the planet. Yet the availability of currency is maintained by society and the social system by which it occurs, is processed, and its value is determined.
So society can keep churning along and our economic system can continue on. But when we run out of gasoline it doesn't matter how much currency you have, there is no more gasoline to buy.
That is one of the many problems of discerning value in terms of currency. Currency does not reflect the nature of the items purchased with currency. It is a flawed relation.
Whoa slow down there trigger. I never once mentioned that I thought anything in today's market is valued at it's true worth. But I don't see how human societies can continue to operate if some sort of common value isn't applied to goods and services.
How would the shoemaker eat if he can not trade the goods of his service to the farmers who grew the wheat? Respectively, how can the farmers do their jobs if they can't go to the fields due to infections from lacerations to their feet since they could not trade the goods of their service for shoes?
Money has no value if not backed by some form of goods. US dollars, for example, are backed by millions of pounds of gold in Fort Knox. Money just simplifies the process by which we trade. It would be difficult for the quarry owner, for example, to buy his smokes, were he to have to drop a thousand pound chunk of granite on the kwik-e-mart's counter top.
Of course it is difficult to apply an exact value to anything in relation to anything else. That is why the free market exists. The market decides what a good or service is worth following the laws of supply and demand. The worth of any good or service can change at any time, and it is reflected as such in our market.
I really don't see the problem here.
The crazy thing about the free market, is that as supply diminishes, demand and therefore price increases.
So what you associate with a gallon of gas changes. Today it is $4. 25 years from now, it may be something closer to $100. As the last barrel of crude is extracted from the earth, then the price will have sky rocketed to such astronomical levels that to the common person, it may as well be priceless.
"US dollars, for example, are backed by millions of pounds of gold in Fort Knox. "
Nope nope nope. We went off the gold standard years ago and rather now utilize our Fiat Currency which in which money (currency) "has value because the society that created the system has assigned it value".
Two related issues:
"That is why the free market exists. The market decides what a good or service is worth following the laws of supply and demand."
"As the last barrel of crude is extracted from the earth, then the price will have sky rocketed to such astronomical levels that to the common person, it may as well be priceless."
That is part of the problem.
Talk about Crude Oil in terms of supply and demand is incredibly short-sighted and moronic.
There is a finite amount of Crude Oil on Earth. To discern its value in terms of dollars? We must assign a dollar value to the sum total of crude oil and then divide that value by however many gallons exist.
To assign dollar values in our current way? We look at how much crude oil we have today, tomorrow, next week, and apply supply and demand mechanics to that supply to arrive at the roughly $4 total. That is the very definition of short-sighted.
We're acting as if this commodity only has value in the immediate future and its value must therefore only be assessed within that short-sighted future. We're either ignoring the inevitable end of the supply or pretending that there is no end. Both of which are problematic views.
But even leaving all that aside, we cannot and must not assign a currency value to resources on The Earth; it makes no sense. It treats these components of the Earth as mere items on an assembly line which have no quality other than their use to the machinery of Industry. It treats the Earth as a quarry from which we can continually mine, drill, and thieve resources for our own short-sighted ends.
It's the very foundation of Agent Smith's "Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague."
And there is no way to argue against that.
"But I don't see how human societies can continue to operate if some sort of common value isn't applied to goods and services."
I'm currently trying to figure out how to articulate my answer to this question.
So exactly what value does oil have if we don't use it? if we just leave it siting in the earth slowly deepening in the crust until it comes into contact with the mantle disappear completely? I see nothing wrong with equating a value in relation to its supply and the demand for it.
It seems that we compare the worth of things by estimating values for an aspect which they happen to have in common, the difficulty of obtaining the item most typically, and ignore the fact of their otherwise inherent and incalculable worths.
And how ignorant a statement to say "We're either ignoring the inevitable end of the supply or pretending that there is no end."
Is that why Honda has invested billions of dollars in research of a hydrogen car? Is that why governments across the world are working towards incandescent light bulbs into extinction? These are just two examples of things companies and governments to prolong and efficiently use energy.
The price of oil is constantly rising because those who own the oil companies know the product will run out.
Sure humans can be considered a plague to the planet, I won't deny the parallels. But by the same standard, any species introduced into a new ecosystem will cause it irreparable harm. Unfortunately, we as a species have found a way to expand and industrialize faster than the world could possibly reach equilibrium around us.
"So exactly what value does oil have if we don't use it?"
That question is the problem, that mindset is the fundamental flaw. "What use is this to me?" "What benefit is this to me?" Viewing reality from that perspective is incorrect.
(I'm going to use an example that seems like a personal attack on you but it is not. It's just a good example for an academic argument.)
It's like your talking about building a house. You want house X. You want to spend dollar amount Y. So when you can't find a house which meets those specifications on the market you just build a new one. That way you can get the house you want at the price you want. Your desires are met.
But that ignores the impact that house has on the environment, the resources consumed to build the house. Certainly we can rationalize the situation and argue that someone, sometime, will build a new house on that lot so it might as well be you. But that misses the point.
To talk about reality in terms of its use to humanity is a flawed, biased, hubristic position to maintain. It makes the comparatively small microcosm of reality, humanity, the primary focus. It ignores reality, the environment, other species.
Rather than utilize the perspective of an uninvolved third party viewing the Earth we each adopt our own first person views of reality and make decisions based upon that. As a whole, humanity does the same thing. We view reality from humanity's perspective and assess any given thing (oil, water, trees, land) with regard to its use, utility, merit, what-have-you to humanity.
It's like caleb said, we "ignore the fact of their otherwise inherent and incalculable worths" and rather devise some stupid little system that completely ignores the larger issues (reality) and instead focuses primarily on humanity and humanity's wants.
Even hybrid cars and new lightbulbs do the same thing. Sure, we're trying to lessen their impact on the environment, but the ONLY REASON we have for doing this is that if we don't lessen their impact then we'll all die.
The entire conversation is US, our primary focus is US. We want to drive cars, we want light bulbs, we want to survive. We want to go on a vacation, we want to go to grad school, we want a dog, we want a child, we want a house, we want to play a game, we want to buy a car. We we we we us us us us I I I I.
That is a flawed perspective, an obviously biased perspective.
If we only ever discuss value in those terms we've missed the point. When we create a value system based upon that perspective the value system is fundamentally flawed.
The we'll all die if we don't stop using resources argument is tenuous at best and needs to stop being made.
You are starting down the path of a higher purpose, which I, obviously, do not believe in. The cold hard truth of the world is that species the world over go extinct on a regular basis with or without our involvement. It is a simple game of survival of the fittest, and currently, we are the fittest in greater sense of survival.
Would you blame a new rodent species introduced into an alien environment for reproducing and bringing the local ecosystem to shambles as it consumes the flora that sustains it? We are no different. Resources exist to be used. If you believe differently, you should crawl in a hole to die to reflect your tenets.
Note: Were it the case that we as a species were to consume ourselves out of existence, the world will recover, that much is certain. It would take but a moment in time relative to the Earth's lifespan to do so, and we as a species would be nothing but archaeological evidence to the next intelligent species to walk to the planet.
J, the problem with what you're espousing is that is the same case that right to life folks make, with regards to fetuses.
Essentially, you're saying there is an inherent worth to an object in it's simply existing.
Which is seems reasonable, except that it leads to the idea that because it's got worth, in it's existing, and because that can't be valued, it becomes priceless, that is sacrosanct. It must be valued for what it is..
That line of logic leads to a kind of static fallacy, where in the best way to protect and preserve everything is to freeze it all in place.
If there is a worth in a thing's existence, and I'm not saying there isn't, then that worth is on a seperate level, cognitively, than the one in which you want to discuss, the one in which, the one in where a thing is weighed against what others need and value.
That could be the greatest source of your disconnection/strife here.
Also don't take the crawl in a hole to die argument as a command, but a rhetorical statement, noting that everything we do consumes resources. Be it driving to work, building buildings, eating, or even breathing oxygen, resources are being consumed. To argue that resources shouldn't be used is lunacy, and to implement the belief would be a quick death idling by in an empty space.
A follow up to that comment...
The very terms of discussion are telling in how the reveal what you're TRYING to get at and how inextricably linked it is with what you want to dismiss.
You use the word value as both an economic term, and as a ideological term. There's a reason that word fills both roles, and I suspect getting at the root of that might explain why you can't quite articulate this, and as well, I suspect that the whole issue is a couple steps removed from where you're waging it.
I'm not arguing for a higher purpose. I'm arguing for an accurate assessment of the situation which is based upon not personal desires but rather objective observation. I'm not trying to craft some ideological structure by which humanity can survive. I'm trying to describe the situation.
"Resources exist to be used."
We can declare a thing to be a resource and construct an argument to support its use. But that is not an accurate portrayal of the situation. There is no "to be", no intentionality to oil as fuel or trees as paper. Intentionality is something humanity does.
The example I use in these arguments is Pedophilia, slavery, any of a plethora of "beings as resources" arguments with which most people take issue. You say "Resources exist to be used", I declare children or certain people to be resources, and off we go. Then you say that children or certain people are not resources, and I ask "why?"
Because that's all just people saying things.
"It is a simple game of survival of the fittest" does not accurately describe the situation. I think the issue I take with that idea is "survival". You're obviously not concerned with survival. Your argument is primarily focused upon consumption.
When you say "Were it the case that we as a species were to consume ourselves out of existence, the world will recover, that much is certain" you're obviously not setting humanity up as a species with any longevity. We exist, we consume things, and then something happens. But the primary issue is consumption, the use of "resources".
Sure, hydrogen cars and new light bulbs can provide some survival, but, again, primarily these items are created to feed humanity's consumption. The longevity of the species is an afterthought.
"Also don't take the crawl in a hole to die argument as a command"
We're not having a personal argument. We're arguing about ideas and concepts. So I'm not going to take things anyone says personally because to do so would be silly. My expectations is that others would follow in kind.
I don't believe I ever stated that people were not resources. To the contrary they are resources. Our society is built upon the hard work of human resources.
And, no, I'm not setting humanity up for any sort of longevity. Factors far out of our control will bring about the fall of humanity long before a drought of resources does. We as a species have much more to fear from random events such as changes in the sun's life cycle or other astronomical catastrophe, than we do the effects of using up all of the planet's oil.
"We as a species have much more to fear from random events such as changes in the sun's life cycle or other astronomical catastrophe, than we do the effects of using up all of the planet's oil."
But don't you see how that creates a fallacious mentality? It excuses our wasteful consumption of oil by placing the focus on something outside of our control.
Regardless of our thoughts of resource consumption or humanity or anything can't we at least agree that saying "Something else will kill us first" is just stupid, sophomoric, logic 101 bullshit that has no foundation, use, or intellectual merit?
Let's at least discuss the issue at hand rather than simply dismiss it.
I don't think that's what Kyle's doing, nor do I think you're right in dismissing it as out of hand.
It certainly seems rational and logical to realize that those things which are out of our hands will have a greater impact upon our end.
Can I pose a question that might illuminate the two divergent attitudes here?
Is there value in burning up our resources at a faster rate, if by doing so, we can find a better solution? In other words, is it justifiable to utilize all of the world's X, if by doing so, we achieve a state wherein at the endpoint, we no longer NEED X?
Okay. It finally clicked for me. What is at the crux of J's fallacy.
Value is a social construct.
He's dismissing one measurement as invalid, on the grounds that it only has value within a social construct, but what he's attempting to claim is that things have value outside that construct.
Which is fine, except that in order to have any value, they still must be measured within some social construct. And he offers nothing to replace that.
Until you can find a way to break away from value entirely to discuss this, you're trapped there, Jay.
So let me get this straight. If an object exists that can provide some use to us, but will only exist for a period of time. Rather than use said item, we should instead observe it to try to find in it some abstract value that it may or may not have, while it disappears of its own accord to never be used by anyone?
Fact: We are the only species on Earth that has access to oil, let alone any uses for it.
Fact: Eventually the earth will cease to exist as we know it, outside of any possible control we may have, whether we are around or not to experience it.
Fact: Using oil greatly increases the technological advances we make as a species. Technological advances that may someday allow us to expand ourselves to other planets or generated ecosystems, that we may survive as a species after the nullification of our own world.
Woo splits in conversation.
Value:
When I talked about the Euthyphro I explained the "Is X Y because it is Y, or is X Y because we say it is Y?" question. That, I think, is applicable to our discussing of value.
I think it would be very odd to say that reality independent of humanity has no "value". "Value" is probably the wrong word to use, but it touches on what I mean. Remove humanity from existence. Does that existence still merit continuation, still function, still exist? If humanity dies squirrels still exist, romp around, horde nuts. Do not nuts have a value to squirrels in that human-less existence?
That touches on another point you raised, "In other words, is it justifiable to utilize all of the world's X, if by doing so, we achieve a state wherein at the endpoint, we no longer NEED X?"
Is it justifiable if our only concern is for humanity? Maybe. Is it justifiable if we consider the great many other beings in existence? Probably less so.
That leads to a conversation of the bias of ethnocentrism. The position I'm advocating states that ethnocentrism is unfounded and biased, that squirrels matter too.
Which goes to Kyle's question:
"If an object exists that can provide some use to us, but will only exist for a period of time. Rather than use said item, we should instead observe it to try to find in it some abstract value that it may or may not have, while it disappears of its own accord to never be used by anyone?"
That question begins and ends with the idea of use, consumption.
Rather than assess a given thing in terms of its use, value, utility, whatever for humanity a given thing could be assessed in terms of itself.
Instead of looking at a squirrel and thinking "How can I eat that" one could instead look at a squirrel...for the sake of looking at a squirrel. Assess the squirrel on its own merits.
Every fact you provided was couched in ethocentric, species-centric terms. We We We. Us Us Us.
How can that possibly be the correct point of view?
Observing reality from the perspective of a human being is just as ethnocentric, species-centric, hubristic as observing reality from the perspective of a squirrel, of a fish, of a dolphin.
How about we observe reality from the perspective of everything and go from there?
Since when is the ceasing of the planet Earth's existence ethnocentric?
And what exactly does the Earth have to gain by retaining it's oil supplies hundreds of feet below the surface? The logical end point of your argument is pure lunacy. It forces us into a position of stasis, in which nothing can be done, not even survival. So for the good of the world, the human species should just lie down and die?
Which puts back into the first question - Are you advocating a changeless society, a changeless world?
If not, then you are refining the value system you want to describe, as one that wants the cost of something prioritized in it's valuation.
Which is equally a social construct, and puts the lie to your money question. Which is really where the crux of this issue is.
You claim the baseless valuation upon money distracts people from recognizing the cost of their actions. What I'm trying to ask you now, as a result of all of this is, what replaces that, and how is it not the same thing, how does it not fall prey to the same problems?
Would not any replacement still be a social construct of humans, one that would place certain aspects or criteria of judgment above others? Isn't that what a value system does?
Today was a good day, François. But, we must take care not to deplete the stock. We don't want to make the same mistake we made with the beaver.
Oh, the beaver! What were we thinking? Where were our heads? We've got to learn to think long term.
"Are you advocating a changeless society, a changeless world?"
With regard to consumption of resources I'm advocating equilibrium between humanity and The Earth rather than rampant, unrestrained consumption of Earth's resources.
"how is it not the same thing, how does it not fall prey to the same problems?"
Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.
Oil hundreds of feet below the surface of the earth is not a social construct. That is simply how it is. Change to that state, the drilling for that oil, is the social construct, the exertion of an outside force.
That's the fundamental difference. My argument for leaving that oil where it is and Kyle's argument for drilling that oil are not two equal, opposing sides to some socially construct argument.
That oil is hundreds of feet under ground. That is where its inertia keeps it. That is where it exists within the state of nature.
CHANGE is the argument, the social construct, the outside force, the position that must be justified and defended.
"Would not any replacement still be a social construct of humans, one that would place certain aspects or criteria of judgment above others?"
That's the mistake. You're thinking of my position as a replacement, a substitution of one social construct for another. But leaving oil under the ground, leaving the Earth as it is, is not some sort of socially constructed argumentative position; Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare!
Exerting our will is the social construct, exerting our will places certain aspects or criteria of judgment above others.
We don't have to argue for the Earth to remain as it is, that is not a social construct which requires rhetorical justification. Earth's existing as it exists is the way things are.
Changing that is what has to be justified. And that change can never be truly justified as its basis is our ethnocentric, species-centric, hubristic, self-aggrandizing desire to not simply lay dying in a pool of our own placenta.
The world exists in a constantly changing state. Why should the changes we make be unjustifiable, but those made by termites destroying a forest or a super predator over hunting its territory be justifiable?
"but those made by termites destroying a forest or a super predator over hunting its territory be justifiable?"
Those actions are not justifiable, either.
Well, the actions of ants are justifiable to ants...if ants have some notion of justification. And the super predator (which could be what humanity is considered) can be justified by that super predator.
But that justification is only a social, societal, contextual justification within a given set of parameters. The argument of the ants is, "We ants want to survive so we ants shall do that which is required to survive."
Which is what humanity does.
But since the foundation of the argument is that compulsion to stay alive it's not a compelling or reasonable argument outside of that mentality.
It's like how Galactus has to eat planets which sustain life in order for the universe to continually exist. The beings on those planets want to exist and from their perspective their destruction sucks. But from the perspective of Galactus and the universe as a whole? Their destruction is necessary for the entirety of existence to function.
And, sure, we can come up with some nice convoluted system by which Humanity takes advantage of Earth, drains its resources, dies off, and then Earth somehow rights itself. But I'm of the opinion that it would be keen if humanity just didn't fuck things up in the first place.
Because, you know, big picture.
Your argument just doesn't make any sense. According to your points, Galactus is not justified in destroying the planet nor are the people justified in not wanting their planet destroyed, then all of a sudden the greater good of the universe is invoked or something, and Galactus is all of a sudden justified.
What exactly defines this "greater good"?
I'm not talking about a "greater good". I'm talking about an objective assessment of the situation from the perspective of an uninvolved third party.
Let's talk about oil. Human beings are the only species who can access it. Human beings can utilize oil to create products, provide a source of fuel, etc.
But is there any justification for the extraction of oil from the Earth other than humanity's use for it? Of course there isn't.
My point is that "humanity wants oil" is not a good enough reason to drill for oil any more than "baby wants ice cream" is a good enough reason to provide ice cream to baby.
I'm not arguing for an ideal or some "great good". I'm arguing against the accepted notion that "we want oil so we ought to go get oil" is sensible, fine, and dandy. Because the justification for the action and that mentality's foundation is hardly substantial or rational. It's just based upon the desire to consume.
It's like currency. Currency doesn't make any sense. But we really want a system by which we can do stuff, amass something, and utilize that something to obtain goods and services. So we construct a stupid little system that mostly works and run with it.
But it's only sensible to, founded upon, and useful to humanity.
And that isn't enough. Because if we only ever talk about things in terms of humanity, make decisions in terms of humanity, and act in terms of humanity we're ignoring 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999% of reality.
Nigh-infinite universe. A bunch of stupid half-monkeys. The stupid half-monkeys are not the end-all-be-all of reality.
Which is not to say that everyone needs to hang their self.
Rather, I think the mentality that "humanity needs it so it ought be obtained" is hardly sensible; it is a very short-sighted, ethnocentric view. So to combat that one presents an accurate portrayal of the degree to which humanity matters and then we work back to a sensible middle ground.
Which is the currency discussion. "How much it costs" is only part of the question, the least important and most socially constructed part. The larger issue is "what is the impact?"
To drill for oil just because we want it completely ignores the entire situation. To buy a whatever completely ignores the situation. When one utilizes that "consumer" mentality they've completely missed the fucking point.
So when we talk about gas in terms of $ that's completely asinine. There is more to the discussion than just how much it costs within our stupid little economic system. We have to talk about its cost, value, within the scope of existence as a whole because we live within existence as a whole and not just our stupid little system.
So what exactly is the value of oil's "cost, value, within the scope of existence as a whole"? I would really love to see the answer.
My contention is that fossil fuels in general have absolutely no value, in any form of the word, to anything other than humans, and therefore we are completely justified in using Them as we please. The only counter argument I can see, one which you have completely ignored by the way, are the side effects of using fossil fuels. And since, fossil fuels are of no value to anything but humans, why exactly can't we assign a money value to them?
If we determine the value of fossil fuels in terms of their utility to humanity then that value is contextual, subjective. We're not assessing the value of the thing but rather are assessing the value of the thing in terms of humanity.
To determine the Value of oil independent of any particular context we have to assess its noumenal value, its value in and of itself. That value will be determined based upon the value of existence as a whole, the entirety of reality.
Reality's inherent, intrinsic, intangible value is in its being. One cannot argue that reality as a whole has no Value; to do so would be to argue that any other value, any contextual value "within" reality, is itself fundamentally meaningless and valueless, which is nonsense. One cannot argue that oil has value to humanity, but humanity has no value. Oil's value within the context of humanity is based upon the value of humanity within the context of reality. If reality has no value, then humanity has no value, oil has no value.
Reality, existence, has to have value in and of itself; reality has to have a noumenal value in its very being, in its existing. This value is not contextual, it is not subjective or based upon, say, the thoughts or feelings of beings within reality. Rather, reality in and of itself has value in its being reality, in its existing.
From this point we can argue that oil, humanity, pandas, all have value in and of themselves, in their being.
That is why we cannot selfishly evaluate value within only the human context, within only the context of a thing's utility for humanity. To do so is to miss the larger picture, to ignore how value fundamentally functions.
Think about bamboo. What is the utility of bamboo to human beings? We can cook with it, hold up plants with stalks of it, make walls and floors with it. Now, what of the utility of bamboo to pandas? A panda's diet is 99% bamboo; pandas cannot survive without bamboo.
So how do we assess the Value of bamboo? We could talk about it in terms of human beings and ignore pandas. We could talk about it in terms of pandas and ignore human beings. We could even talk about it in terms of pandas and then discuss the value of pandas to humanity.
But each of those values is contextual, subjective. What of the last example? The value of bamboo is based upon the value of bamboo to pandas which is based upon the value of pandas to humanity.
Follow that line of reasoning on. The ultimate value is that non-contextual, inherent, intrinsic, intangible value of reality itself.
"So what exactly is the value of oil's 'cost, value, within the scope of existence as a whole'?"
Oil's value within the scope of existence as a whole is found in its being a part of reality's fundamental, inherent, noumenal value.
Note: noumenal and nominal are not the same word.
You are judging the value of things only in constant state reality, which obviously does not exist. To assess that everything has value in simply being, and as a result should protected from consuption as a result, then nothing can ever be done. The planet itself completely ignores your laws, so why should we restrict ourselves to your same inane laws?
When an earthquake takes place, tectonic plates shift. If during that shift an oil reserve were to leak out and empty itself in the Earth's mantle, what value then did the fossil fuels have before they disappeared?
"You are judging the value of things only in constant state reality, which obviously does not exist."
I'm not arguing for stasis. I'm saying that to determine "value" one has to look beyond merely humanity and its needs; to make a decision one needs to look beyond merely one's self. One has to look at the whole picture to determine value.
"To assess that everything has value in simply being, and as a result should protected from consuption as a result, then nothing can ever be done."
Things can be done. But the justifications for those actions need to go beyond "I wants it". A tree has far greater value than merely its ability to be turned into paper. Crude Oil has far greater value than merely its ability to be burned or turned into plastic. Land has far greater value than merely its utility to humanity.
So the decision to consume a resources needs to go far beyond that base "I wants it" level. One needs to think about the resource in a larger sense than merely its ability to appease any given singular desire.
"The planet itself completely ignores your laws, so why should we restrict ourselves to your same inane laws?"
I don't really understand this part of the criticism. Planets do not "ignore". And I'm not advocating any laws or imposing any rules. I'm describing the situation as it exists.
I'm not arguing that we oughtn't drill for oil. Not drilling for oil is simply the result of a full appreciation of my position. What I've been trying to describe is how value works and how discussions in terms of currency miss the full, real value of things. I've been trying to describe the context in which decisions need to be made. One cannot justify buying a Hummer through "I want a Hummer." There is a greater context to consider. Not a larger purpose; a greater context.
You did not adopt Kirby from an animal shelter to appease a greater purpose. Rather, you considered a larger context. You went beyond "I want a dog" and considered how that decision could impact reality. So rather than go to a breeder you adopted an animal which already existed and needed a home lest it be killed.
That's what I'm saying. Do that. But keep going, look at even larger contexts.
"If during that shift an oil reserve were to leak out and empty itself in the Earth's mantle, what value then did the fossil fuels have before they disappeared?"
Oil's value within the scope of existence as a whole is found in its being a part of reality's fundamental, inherent, noumenal value. Oil's value does not only exist within the context of humanity's use for it.
(If you were setting me up for some sort of oil spill argument i'm just going to ignore that because we really don't need to digress any further.)
Post a Comment