[pp.int.general] Environmentalists and pirates, free information perspective

[Eric Priezkalns]

> That is certainly not what I meant to say -- quite the contrary.  I
> think protecting the environment from global warming must be a
> priority for everyone.

Forgive me, but I don't agree with this statement and I find it  
troubling.  You've implied similar things already in this thread, but  
perhaps you are not fully conscious of the implications.  The use of  
the word 'must' implies either a person prioritizes survival or there  
is something wrong with them.  If you said that you believe protecting  
the environment is a priority, then fair enough.  But you can't decide  
what other people should prioritize.  Being free to decide your own  
priorities is part of what it means to be free.

Many of the noblest examples of humanity are people who sacrifice  
their lives for a higher cause, whether it be their beliefs, their  
nation, or their loved ones.  I would rather that people continue to  
have their freedom, including the right to commit suicide if they  
decide.  I don't expect everyone to share my priorities, but I think  
there are many problems with calls to sacrifice freedom for a higher  
cause, even one like survival of the species.  Life is not always the  
top priority for all people at all times.

The reason I make this point is that it is not unusual, throughout  
history, for elites to argue that survival must override other  
priorities, like freedom.  I would rather talk about a balance, than  
which is more important.  Without emphasizing balance, you could end  
up concluding that every national security law is good because it  
helps to keep people alive, that abortion must be banned because it  
destroys life, and that women who don't want to reproduce are  
dysfunctional and that gays commit an offense against nature.  I'm not  
saying that you believe that, rms, but the point is that if I was  
going to assert a single universal priority, it would be freedom.  I  
can deduce that survival is necessary for my freedom - I am not able  
to do things if I don't exist, but I can't deduce freedom is necessary  
for my survival.  That is why I would prefer to make freedom a  
priority over even survival.

Saying all this, I recognize that you never stated protecting the  
environment is THE priority, just a priority.  It's just that by  
asserting what other people should believe you're opening a door for  
sanctioning the imposition of this priority against the wishes of  
people.  Freedom in society requires compromise, and the changes to  
the environment demonstrates a global commonality that previously  
eluded the human psyche.  As you are somebody who is notoriously  
precise around language like 'IPR' I hope you can understand why I  
would prefer more care around the choice of words like these too, and  
that we're hearing a lot of opinions that suggest reconciling care for  
the environment with liberty is straightforward, when that is far from  
true.

To offer some extreme examples, North Korea doesn't emit much CO2 per  
capita, and the Khmer Rouge's policies were very effective at closing  
industry in order to pursue an agrarian dream.  I find Orwell's vision  
of a future where a boot stamps on a human face forever to be more  
troubling than the idea of the extinction of the species.  Instead of  
imposing a point of view, I'd rather Pirates focused on freedoms and  
set a positive agenda for how sharing information will help us better  
protect the environment.  We can save the environment and be free, and  
it would be better if we favour the language of positive solutions  
through freedom, and avoid any language that could sound like imposing  
answers and negating freedoms to satisfy a higher priority.  We're the  
opposite of those people who want to impose their view of right and  
wrong.  Let's always be proud of that, and clear about it.

Regards,

Eric