The Human Flourishing Project with Alex Epstein

[@CB-hk7hy]

I usually enjoy Alex Epstein's talks, but imo he rambled on a bit too much at this speaking engagement. Hard to stay focused. Also I just don't think it was necessary for him to talk about getting paid for speaking about things like this. It really served no purpose. First time I was a bit bored with what he was talking about. Still like his ideas, just not the way he shared them here.

[@TheAutoChannel]

Earlier this year, I published a rebuttal to Alex Epstein's book titled "The Immorality of Arguing That There's a Moral Case for Fossil Fuels." At the same time it also rebuts a book by Kathleen Hartnett White of a similar title and proposition. It is preposterous to claim that there is anything moral about fossil fuels, and to claim that we owe any debt of gratitude to gasoline/diesel/coal for enhancing our lives. If a debt of gratitude is owed, it is owed to the inventions that utilize various fuels...regardless of what those fuels are. The inventions were all created without consideration to any specific fossil fuel. Internal combustion engines, for example, were created before the invention of either gasoline or diesel petroleum fuel. The steam engine was not created because coal was available. The fact is that fossil fuels have been the cause of wars, disease, and ecological and environmental disasters. Every significant war in the past 104 years has been caused by petroleum oil. Tens of millions of people; no, make that hundreds of millions of people have been killed in these wars. To the war dead-toll we have to add the people who have died as a result of the illnesses caused by the use of petroleum oil fuels. Then there's the life-long injuries and disabilities suffered by untold millions more. There's nothing moral about any of this. Previous attempts to rebuke Mr. Epstein and Ms. White, such as the one written by Jody Freeman, have failed because the writers have as little understanding of history, fuels, energy, and real solutions as Epstein and White do. You can read my complete rebuttal at www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/02/19/511177-immorality-arguing-that-there-s-moral-case-for-fossil-fuels.html. Marc J. Rauch Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher THE AUTO CHANNEL

[@SmartPlugs]

Just curious, many wars were fought over access and control of vital resources, such a salt. or water or arable land or prime hunting or fishing locations. Why does fighting over petroleum resources make the resource itself immoral? Is not the resource being fought over neutral?

[@TheAutoChannel]

@@SmartPlugs I think your question is a thoughtful one, but not a particularly learn-ed question. I'll start my answer by saying that a study of the wars will tell you if they are moral. For example, in Japan's decision to attack its Asian neighbors in the 1930s and '40s, they didn't do so to free themselves or their neighbors from oppression (which would be moral), they did it to take the neighbors' oil and to oppress the people of the neighboring countries. Look up "The Rape of Nanking." Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union created the same type of immoral acts when they attacked their neighbors in the 1930s. They used excuses that they were rescuing former countrymen, but in the prosecution of the war, it quickly became evident that the reasons weren't moral. If a nation (or group of people) are truly being kept from feeding or caring for their people because of unfair restrictions (they can't fish in adjacent waters off their coast, or they get cut off from naturally flowing waters), and they commence warfare to remove the obstructions and restrictions, then that's a moral war. It can turn immoral if the war takes on additional aspects. When Saddam Hussein (Iraq) decided to attack Kuwait, they did so for the specific purpose of taking control of Kuwait's oil, with the intention of then attacking Saudi Arabia if the outside world didn't object to Iraq's attack on Kuwait. I think the original intent to stop Iraq and remove them from Kuwait was moral, but the continued action in Iraq turned the actions just as immoral as Iraq's aggression. There are instances where resources are in a neutral area, and reasonable claims can be made by multiple parties (nations) to those resources. Wars aren't inevitable, and trade deals can be worked out. An example is the North Sea Oil fields. Britain and Norway didn't go to war, they made a deal that benefitted them both. If it was 200 years ago, Britain would have probably tried to take it all, but Britain isn't what it once was. I think the Vietnam War and the Korean War are examples of immoral wars. The excuse was given that the wars were to stop the spread of communism. This would have been a moral decision, and that's how it was sold to the people of the U.S. and most other UN-member nations. But two things made these wars immoral: First, if the object was to stop the spread of communism, then why didn't the U.S. and other nations interfere with Russia's attack on Hungary and other countries in the same time period. The answer is that Hungary didn't have any oil. Second, both wars were instigated by oil companies in order to capture the oil off the coast of Korea and Vietnam. This wasn't public knowledge at the time, but it has become fairly well known since then. I think the Union's decision to fight the Confederacy was a moral decision, and that the outcome of the Civil War proves the morality. The South specifically objected to what they believed would be a disruption to their primary economic industry. The disruption would be the end of slavery (I don't feel that slavery is ever moral). At the conclusion of hostilities, the North didn't simply take over the fields and administer control over the slave-driven industry. If they did this, it would have made the North's actions immoral, even if they prettied up the situation by calling the continuation something else and paid the workers (slaves) for their efforts. The South did attempt, and succeed to some degree, in inventing new laws and regulations designed to keep black people in servitude. However, it did largely end slavery in America, and it set the tone for most of the rest of the world. I hope this reply provides some insight. If not, feel free to ask more questions, or pose counter-arguments. The problem with Alex Epstein's position is that says that because petroleum oil fuels and coal were used to make peoples' lives better that they are moral. However, as I have stated, it wasn't the fuels that did this, it was the devices that made people's lives better. Even if there was no alternative to petroleum oil and coal fuels, that wouldn't make the fuels moral, they would simply be incidental considerations. After all, the oil and the coal just inanimately sat in/on the ground for all of human existence until a device was constructed that could utilize the inanimate materials. As it happens, the use of petroleum oil could have been avoided with another cleaner and safer substance(s) that could be produced by anyone, anywhere, from a wide variety of raw materials. Alex claims that he will debate anyone, at any time. I heard him repeat this recently while he was a guest on the Dennis Prager radio show. I've tried to get Alex to debate me on several occasions, but since his first email exchange with me, he avoids me I happened to be listening to the show, called in, and repeated my challenge to Alex. Alex knew who I am, and acknowledged me. Even though Dennis offered his show as the forum for the debate, Alex ducks debating me.

[@SmartPlugs]

@@TheAutoChannel Thank you for your reply. It seems to me that Alex is pro-human, pro-energy, regardless of the source of the energy. For humans to flourish, energy (whatever the source) needs to be Available, Abundant, and Affordable - and reliable. For example, I have heard Alex say that he is pro-nuclear since it emits no CO2 and with modern technology, all the negative impacts can be effectively dealt with. Relative to the topic of the morality of war, that is too complex an issue to address in this forum. My main point, regardless of wars fought over access to natural resources, the source of energy should be amoral or neutral. If the energy can be made Affordable, Abundant and Available, the source of the energy for human flourishing should not have an intrinsic morality - but rather it should be neutral. All energy and the Prime Movers that convert that energy from one form to another should be neutral relative to morality. But like with any technology, it can be used for evil or for good. So the morality comes into play with the way Humans choose to use said technology or energy source. Nuclear is a poster child example of the effect moral agents have on how nuclear energy can be used for good or for evil.

[@TheAutoChannel]

@@SmartPlugs Alex latched onto an idea that may not have been his own (I know that people do have concurrent original thoughts without copying from someone else), and he was able to make a career from it. It stands to reason (even if the reasoning is faulty) that he would want to protect the position. But, if he can't defend the position against all challenges, as he boasts, then ultimately it will hurt him. He ties in the issue of climate change too much, to the point that he was blindsided by my disagreement with him because I share his opposition to the AGW theory. He seems to like to debate people when he can bring in his opposition to climate change alarmism. My argument with petroleum oil fuels and coal is that the emissions are flat-out poison, and the emissions from petroleum fuels have caused serious permanent mental and respiratory illnesses (that are genetically passed on). A large part of the world's population is mentally fucked up because of the use of tetraethyl lead, benzene, and other aromatics. I'm not an advocate of alt energy and ethanol because I was raised on a farm, etc., but because I did research, I conducted lots of experiments on my own, and I've had a good amount of hands-on automotive experience. I then connected some very obvious dots and arrived at my position on fuels, engines, climate change, etc. I have no problem with nuclear energy, although I would like to see Thorium used instead of Uranium if Thorium is as touted. However, I'm not sure that all negative issues of nuclear can yet be dealt with.

[@SmartPlugs]

@@TheAutoChannel I have done a ton of research and testing engines with alternative fuels using Catalytic Ignition. So are you pro or con on alternative fuels?