Environmental Debate: Epstein vs McKibben

[darnoconrad 0]

Alex Epstein challenged Bill McKibben to a debate plus offered a $10,000 (ten thousand dollar) incentive. McKibben accepted, and the debate was held last night at Duke University. The video has been posted to YouTube.

McKibben was to argue that "fossil fuels are a risk to the planet"

Epstein was to argue that "fossil fuels improve the planet"

Bill McKibben is a globally known environmentalist who damns the fossil fuel industry as being "Public Enemy Number One" and has called for reducing fossil fuel consumption by 95%.

Here is a recent article of his published in Rolling Stone Mag: http://bit.ly/RHl9dr

Alex Epstein recently founded the Center for Industrial Progress:

http://industrialprogress.net/. He is a long time advocate of Objectivism and has given many talks in this respect: http://arc-tv.com/ca...g/alex-epstein/.

If you liked Alex's performance, please share the video and help give it attention.

[ewv 0]

I haven't seen the video, but the question is itself invalid as posed: good for the earth by what standard? The only possible way to address that properly is by the standard of use of the earth for what is good for human beings, otherwise 'good' has no objective meaning. But that is not McKibben's standard: the viros regard 'nature', i.e., the earth and everything on it (except for man) as an 'intrinsic' value superseding human values. I hope this distinction between viro misanthropy and human value is what Alex had in mind to bring out in the debate and expose. Otherwise it is pointless to try to argue that fossil fuels are better for the earth because technology and civilization do less damage in some sense. Technology and civilization for human benefit is what the viros are philosophically against and that is what the contention with them is about.

[darnoconrad 0]

I haven't seen the video, but the question is itself invalid as posed: good for the earth by what standard? The only possible way to address that properly is by the standard of use of the earth for what is good for human beings, otherwise 'good' has no objective meaning.

That's exactly what Alex means and argued for in the debate. McKibben tried to argue precisely the position he chose as well, that the earth has intrinsic value, and we must protect it for it's own sake apart from man. The fact that Alex keeps his argument framed as such, and clearly to McKibben no such concept is possible, the stark contrast, from an Objectivist's point of view, is interesting.

Also, it was not Alex's original choice of topic or format. It was negotiated in order to get McKibben on board.

Alex's Challenge:

@billmckibben Duke will host a debate between you+anyone and me+Dr.-Eric-Dennis on the morality of fossil fuels. You’ll get $10K. Deal?

McKibben's Response:

@Alexepstein happy to debate $10k to 350.org, you and me 1 on 1, “Resolved: Humans are causing risky warming,” neutral audience

Then Alex posted on his blog:

This is a complete switch in topic–and the topic he proposes is not a valid topic at all.

...Further, for me to accept such a debate would mean arguing the proposition “Humans are notcausing risky warming.” That is proving a negative, which is impossible–that’s Logical Fallacies 101.

...Dr. Dennis and I spent an hour and a half explaining why we wanted to debate McKibben and a scientist of his choice on the morality of fossil fuels and the associated scientific issues. If McKibben wants to just debate me (which would mean two non-scientists debating) I am happy to oblige.

Then Alex announced:

On November 5, I will be debating Bill McKibben, considered “world’s leading environmentalist” by some, on the proposition: “Fossil fuels are a risk to the planet.” I will be arguing that fossil fuels dramatically improve the planet for human beings.

P.S. Betsy: I hope that you can fix my ugly formatting in my initial post.