哪一個是科學，環保主義還是經濟學？

布爾費墨

環保主義，其名稱暗示，就是一種精神疾病（「環保主義」的英文名稱 Environmentalism裡麵包含了mental這個詞，意為「精神病的」）。它與你家門前乾淨的花園無關，亦與在你就餐的餐廳裡那個抽菸的失敗者無關。相反地，它主張，為了維持一個美麗的花園，你必須灌溉植物，所以對地球造成傷害，因為「水是好的並且是有限的」。那個抽菸的人是錯的因為他排放二氧化碳所以他壞，他該死。

讓我們看看他們還傳播些什麼：他們說你不應該開車，因為汽車「不可持續」。你不應該乘坐噴氣式飛機因為它排放二氧化碳，造成全球變暖使北極南極的冰融化導致海平面上升，所以荷蘭、馬爾地夫和諾魯（誰會在乎諾魯在哪裡？）會被海水淹沒。你不可吃肉因為肉的生長比較「碳密集」。你不可使用塑膠袋因為它會耗盡原油，使得人類文明重回黑暗年代。你不可讀報紙因為它就是樹木樹木是好的樹木捕捉二氧化碳釋放氧氣氧氣是好的二氧化碳是壞的。你不可生殖因為人類有罪植物是好的人類是壞的所以你必須經常使用保險套。你必須關心地球因為你用白熾燈而不是節能燈地球就會死。

一言以蔽之，環保主義與你的生活無關。它在乎地球。地球是重要的，而你不是。作為人類，你不能選擇你要的，你必須選擇他們要的因為他們要的對地球好。地球就是上帝，你必須在祂面前顫抖。

所有的人類知識，所有的人類，與地球相比都變得沒有意義。有時候地球就像一個上帝，但是有時候它就像一個嬰兒：你動一動它，它就會哭。人類是有力量的，人類是有罪的。人類開發了熱帶雨林所以物種滅絕。人類之前沒有物種滅絕。如果人類消失，所有的其他物種將會幸福地生活下去。

你是否仍然對這一切感到舒服？如果是，想一想他們要你做的事情：他們花你納稅的錢在「新能源」和「環境友好」的製造業上並且他們要你花費你的稅後收入去買這些你未曾想過或者太貴的新產品。他們要你的錢去保護那些早就應該滅絕的動物。順便說一句，如果恐龍仍然活著，他們願意去保護恐龍。他們來決定什麼是好的而且如果你不跟從，你就是政治不正確。他們在乎地球，而你需要從兜里掏錢。他們與上帝溝通，你只能聽他們的。

喔，你會說，你說得對！我不願意多花錢，可是我們必須節約資源，不是嗎？是的，我們必須節約資源或者說，有效利用它們。已經有一種科學的分支致力於研究有效配置資源了，那就是經濟學。經濟學是每年獲取炸彈發明者彩票的六個藉口之一。

只有一個科學。如果兩種科學理論相互矛盾，那麼至少有一種是錯的。所以請考慮：哪一種是錯的，環保主義還是經濟學？

經濟學，作為科學的一個分支，研究人們作為「經濟人」的行為，以及他們如何配置資源。「經濟人」的意思是當一個人做有關現實的決定，比如銷售，購買，上學或者找工作的時候，他或她將會在最小代價的基礎上獲取最大收益。換句話說，當他們對待資源的時候，他們總會有效利用，以獲取最大收益。

價格是重要的，因為資源可以被用在很多，很多的方面。經濟學裡有一個經典的例子，叫做「大炮與黃油」。看上去，大炮和黃油是不可比的並且不能互換。這是不對的，它們可以。它們都是為了滿足人們需要的產品。用來生產和分配它們的資源也是可以互換的。如果大炮比黃油被更多地需要，更多的大炮專家將被教育出來，工人也會把更多的鐵從鐵礦石中提煉出來。生產鐵礦石需要資本、管理、知識和勞動。這些資源都可以用來生產黃油。

但是為什麼大炮被製造出來，而不是黃油？因為有些人在大炮上花了足夠多的錢，所以製造大炮的公司可以去市場上購買那些本應可以用來製造黃油的資源。這就是市場如何配置資源：依靠價格信號，它將資源分配到它們該去的地方，從而達到最佳利用。

市場是人類歷史上發現的最好的東西。通過市場，資源總能找到實現它們價值的最好途徑。當說到環保主義者描述的「有限的並且不可再生的資源」，也是如此。

天下沒有免費的午餐，所有的東西都是有限的。環保主義者說：原油是有限的，水是有限的，樹木是有限的。但是他們可曾想到：艾爾•帕西諾、手絹和人工勞動，和所有東西一樣，都是有限的？因為在短期，所有的東西都有一個固定的數量，所以必然是有限的。樹木比人工勞動特別在哪裡呢？

環保主義者不知道，凡物要被人所用，才有價值。市場就是幫助這些資源找到它們價值的場所。沒有市場，資源將被浪費。

資源是有限的，但是僅在短期如此。長期來說，資源是無限的。喔，真的嗎？是的，因為：物質既不能被產生，也不能被消滅，它只能轉換為不同的形式，能量也是一樣。所以如果一種自然資源被用光，它並沒有消失。它必然還在世界的某一處，以另一種形式存在。人類使用過石頭、木頭、鐵、鋼、鉻和矽。未來的人類必然有使用更多材料的能力，比我們能想像的還要多。猜一猜木材、煤炭、石油和核能的下一個是什麼？

讓我用這個來結束這篇文章：所謂的環保主義不是為了環境。它就是個宗教。它不能幫你。它為了一個「更高級的存在」犧牲你和你的錢。如同其他後現代的瘋狂想法：反自由市場、反自由貿易、反大公司和動物福利一樣，它反自由，反人類。

另外，我不想討論「人類活動釋放二氧化碳造成全球變暖」這個假說。它就是個笑話。如果全球變暖真的存在，那必然是一個自然現象。

附錄

環保主義者語錄選：

如果讓我們和其他脊椎動物在一夜之間消失，剩下的世界將會變得非常好。
——David Attenborough; 在文章 ""Wolf spiders reveal their love secrets", Telegraph.co.uk, 2005年11月15日

我願意分享一個我在這裡得到的啟示：這來自於我曾試圖給你們的物種分類。我認識到你們人類不僅僅是哺乳動物。每一個在這個星球上的哺乳動物都本能地與周圍環境發展出一個自然的平衡，但是你們人類不是。你們搬到一個地方，然後你們繁殖又繁殖，直到每種自然資源耗盡。你們能活下去的唯一辦法就是分佈到另一片區域。這個星球上有另一種生物遵循同樣的方式。你知道是什麼嗎？病毒。人類是一種病，是這個星球的一種癌症。
——Agent 史密斯 在 The Matrix 1999年

我們必須貢獻出恐怖的場面，作簡單化的、戲劇性的陳述，而且儘量不要提起我們可能抱有的任何懷疑。我們每一個人必須決定，在有效和誠實之間的平衡在哪裡。
——Stephen Schneider 在 Discover magazine 1989年10月


Which One is Scientific, Environmentalism or Economics?

Written by 布爾費墨

Environmentalism, as the name suggests, is a mental problem. It has nothing to do with the clean garden in front of your house or the cigarette smoking loser in the restaurant you are dining in. On the contrary, it advocates that to keep a lovely garden, you must water the plants so it hurts the earth because 「water is good and limited」, and the cigarette smoker is wrong because he emits carbon dioxide so he is bad and damned to death.

Let’s see what else they are preaching: they say that you should not drive cars because cars are 「not sustainable」. You should not fly in jets because it produces CO2 that causes global warming to melt ice in both north & south poles to raise the sea level and Holland, Maldives and Nauru (who cares where Nauru is?) will be under water. You should not eat meat because meat growing is more carbon-condensed. You should not use plastic bags because it will drain the crude oil and drag human civilization into dark-age again. You should not read newspaper because it is wood and wood is good wood catches CO2 and emits O2 and O2 is good and CO2 is bad. You should not reproduce because human is criminal and plants are good and human is bad so you should use condoms often. You should care about the earth because when you use a light bulb instead of a low-energy bulb it will die.

In a word, Environmentalism has nothing about YOUR life. It cares more about THE EARTH. THE EARTH is important and YOU are not. As a human being, you cannot choose what you want but you should choose what they want because what they want is GOOD FOR THE EARTH. EARTH is God and YOU should tremble in front of HIM.

All human knowledge, all human lives are trivial compared to the earth. Sometimes the earth is like God but sometimes it’s like an infant: when you touch it, it cries. Human is powerful and sinful. Human exploited rain forests so spices become extinct. No spices EVER been extinct before human. If human disappeared, all other spices would live happily ever after.

Are you still comfortable with all these? If you are, think of what they want you to do: THEY spend YOUR tax money on 「new energy」 and 「environment-friendly」 manufacturing and THEY want YOU to spend you after-tax income on these new products that you never thought about or too expensive. THEY want YOUR money to protect animals that should have been extinct long ago. By the way if dinosaurs still live they would protect them too. THEY decide what’s good and if YOU don』t follow you are politically incorrect. THEY care about the earth and YOU should take money out of your pocket. THEY talk to God and you can only hear from THEM.

Wow, you may say, what you say is right, I don』t like to spend extra money, but we do have to save resources, don』t we? Yes, we have to save resources or we say, make good use of them. There’s already a science branch that aiming at effectively allocating the resources. That is called economics. Economics is one of the six excuses every year to receive the Bomb Inventor Lottery.

There is only one science. If two scientific theories contradict each other, at least one of them is wrong. So please consider which one is wrong, environmentalism or economics?

Economics, as a science branch, studies what people do as 「Economic Men」 and how they allocate resources. 「Economic Man」 (Economic Human may be more PC) means when an individual is dealing with realistic matters like selling, buying, going to school or finding a job, he or she will do it to earn the highest possible reward at the lowest possible cost. In another word, when they are dealing with resources, they always make good use of them to get the highest pay.

Price is important, because resources can be used in many, many ways. There’s a classical example in economics. It is called Guns Versus Butter. It seems guns and butter are not comparable or replaceable. It’s wrong, they are. They are both products, made to fulfill people’s desire. The resources needed in manufacturing and distributing them are replaceable too. If more guns are needed than butter, more gun specialists will be educated and more iron will be made by workers out of iron ore, which is also a product of capital, management, knowledge and labor. All these resources can be used to produce butter.

But why guns are made instead of butter? Because some people spend enough money on guns, so that gun-making companies can go to the market to buy some resources that could have been used in making butter. That’s how market allocates the resources: by the signal of price, it directs resources to their rightful places to make the best use of them.

Market is the best thing ever found in human history. Through market, resources can always find their best way to realize their value. When it comes to the 「limited and non-renewable resources」 the environmentalists describe, it is also the case.

Nothing is for nothing, everything is limited. Environmentalists say, crude oil is limited, water is limited, wood is limited. But have they ever thought about: Al Pacino, handkerchiefs and human labor, like everything, are also limited? Because in the short run, everything is at a constant number so it MUST be limited. What makes wood more special than human labor?

Environmentalists don』t know that everything should be used by human so it may have value. Market is the right place to help these resources to find their values. Without market, resources will be wasted.

The resources are limited but it’s only in the short-run. In the long-run resources are unlimited. Wow, really? Yes, because: mass cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed into different forms, so as energy. So if one natural resource or energy is used up, it does not disappear. It must be somewhere in the world, in another form. Human used stone, wood, iron, steel, chrome and silicon. People in the future must have the ability to utilize more materials, much more than what we can imagine. And guess what will be following wood, coal, petroleum and nuclear power?

Let me conclude the article with this: the so-called environmentalism is not for the environment. It’s a religion. It does not help you. It sacrifices you and your money for a 「greater being」. Like other post-modern crazy ideas of anti-free market, anti-free trade, anti-big companies and animal rights, it’s anti-freedom and anti-human.

P.S. I don』t wanna talk about the hypothesis of 「human activity emits CO2 causes global warming」. That’s a joke. If global warming does exist, it can only be a natural phenomenon.

Appendix

Selected Quotations of Environmentalists:

Were we and the rest of the back-boned animals to disappear overnight, the rest of the world would get on pretty well.
 David Attenborough; quoted in "Wolf spiders reveal their love secrets", Telegraph.co.uk, 15 November 2005

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
 Agent 史密斯 in The Matrix, 1999

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
 Stephen Schneider(Discover magazine, Oct 1989)