Thank goodness...I need a back massage!

You and me both brother!!!

I agree with that article. Organic food is a rip off. No health benefits unless you are fond of cow manure.

I am looking forward to this discussion.

Has anyone ever noticed that people who work in "health food" stores are the sickliest looking people...

Yeah they sure are. Usually overweight too - and the women all have curly hair and long flowy skirts. Here in OZ, they are typically pretty harsh - rarely smiling or going out of their way to deliver anything that remotley approaches good service.

And the prices in health food shops are insane too - its seemingly a lisence to charge like a wounded bull. There have surely been some records set by these types of outlets - like the worlds most expensive hydroponic tomato for instance. And dont even go near the nut section. They need to post armed guards there because the stock is so freaking valuable.

Joey & Pete,

I know the girls/people you speak of... GRANOLA's! They wreak of Patchouli(I think that's how you spell it), and are usually pretty mistempered(angry) about something. The largest herd errrr.... group I've seen was in Berkley. Not pretty bros, not pretty. I guess after spending all that money on organic foods, they don't have enough to buy razors.

This article (Collectivism, Climate Change ....) is total bs and a feeble attempt to justify the individual's will to serve but his own needs without taking any responsibility regarding his fellow (earth) citizens. This is what we should actually learn in our preteen years: take responsibility for your actions, be tolerant to people who think differently (after all you expect them to be tolerant as well!). If you look at nature - and we are, after all, a "product" of nature - there is no individualism there. I am not saying that everyone should stop using cars and go back to living in caves but take responsibility for you actions and try to make a change - do not accept defeat!

Awesome Dino and Ashley! Looks great.

Taking responsibility is for peons. If you got power, then you can say FU and do whatever you want. That's what everyone needs to strive for. Having power, driving a big gas bucket and if someone don't like it, kiss it where it stinks.

I've tried a few times to put into word how wrong that article was. In the end I just came to the conclusion that it was a (bad) joke.

juro I agree. Charlie sorry mate, couldn't dissagree with you more.

400m run
21-15-9 reps of;
95lb hang squat cleans
burpulls
400m run

time: 14.18

What are burpulls? They are not listed in the exercises. This is my first week doing Crossfit and I am hooked I thought I was in ok shape, I was wrong.

jim i would guess they are a combo move of burpees into pullups

That was a decent article, but a bit too polarized for my taste. I think the dichotomy he is attempting to draw is not as extreme in reality as he makes it seem. I do think that governments should be involved in some things, because I don't invariably trust profit-minded individuals with every aspect of my social life--and we obviously have social lives--and the question that interests me more is the objective question: is Anthropogenic Global Warming real? If so, I do think reasonable efforts should be made to reduce its effects, as we can't predict what might happen, but it also seems to me a good case was made within the last couple of weeks that the warming we are seeing is overwhelmingly likely just a natural trend, which has reoccurred repeatedly throughout natural history, and that free markets, on balance, are the best means of coping with it.

Jim,

sorry for delay. Burpulls are a burpee, but you replace the jump and clap at the top with a jump to a pull up bar and that would be one rep...(don't forget the press up as is CrossFit standard!)

Welcome to the madness mate! This is not a prescribed WOD btw, it was just some fun and games that i and Jason (BrandX) came up with...

Have fun!

As for the individualism argument: Here is an excerpt from the book 'Tribes' by Joel Kotkin,
a Senior Fellow at the Center for the New West and an International Fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Business and Management

"Kotkin argues that networks of global tribes are poised to play the essential role in fueling future prosperity in the world economy. Kotkin defines a modern tribe as a highly mobile, mostly urbanized people which still clings to its ethnic and religious roots. It exhibits what the philosopher Martin Buber called a "vocation of uniqueness," a shared historical memory that keeps a culture distinct.

Kotkin claims that the history of modern society and commerce is actually the history of these global tribes - nomad traders or imperialists who spread innovation, entrepreneurialism, and wealth across borders. Tribes have mastered the rules of the game, inculcating economic success among their members by providing a strong ethnic identity a tradition of cooperation in business, cosmopolitan savvy, and a belief in scientific and material progress. This trend will continue as modern communications and travel further interconnect the world and the imperatives for nation-state groupings weaken in a global marketplace without any ideological challenges to capitalism. Says Kotkin, "it is likely such dispersed peoples - and their worldwide business and cultural networks will increasingly shape the economic destiny of mankind" (p.4).

For the organic foods issue lets look at it from another vantage point from:http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32375

New Studies Back Benefits of Organic Diet
Stephen Leahy*

TORONTO, Canada, Mar 4 (Tierramérica) - Organic foods protect children from the toxins in pesticides, while foods grown using modern, intensive agricultural techniques contain fewer nutrients and minerals than they did 60 years ago, according to two new scientific studies.

Organic fruits and vegetables had significantly higher levels of cancer-fighting antioxidants, according to a 2003 study in Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

The organic plants produced these chemical compounds to help fight off insects and competing plants, researchers said.

A 2001 report by Britain's Soil Association looked at 400 nutritional research studies and came to similar conclusions: foods grown organically had more minerals and vitamins.

"Modern plant breeding for quick growth and high yields could also be affecting the nutritional quality," says Katherine Tucker, director of the nutritional epidemiology programme at Tufts University in the northeastern U.S. city of Boston, Massachusetts.

Lower levels of minerals in food we eat is cause for concern, she says, stressing that "magnesium, calcium and other minerals are very important for proper nutrition."

Good nutrition and exercise are the major factors that can make a difference in the incidence of many diseases, including cancer, according to Tucker.

Uh-oh...

Couldn't get past the first two paragraphs - is this what passes for journalism?

I agree with juro and Barry Cooper!

I disagree with the author. Maybe that means I'm not as "left" as I think I am, or maybe that means that he's using the leftest of the left to gather his examples from.
Like Chris #17, I couldn't get into depth after the first two paragraphs where the author went on at length about the "leftists" rehabilitating killers and punishing polluters. For all the sense that that generalization makes, we might as well accuse Coach of furthering Rhabdo by continuing to post the WoDs (please note the inherent sarcasm!).

article was just propoganda b.s., written for people that would rather feel correct than actually think. "Alleged" global warming??? 99.999% of climatologists say it's real, and it's here. Oh well, there's still idiots out there that think the moon landing was faked.

#14 - I think that the dichotomy is exactly what is most helpful in this article. Charlie (#9) makes the point, in a way. The problem with being an advocate of individualism (a la Ayn Rand's 'ethical positivism') is that it is inherently illogical if one truly believes in individualism, to "share its gospel." Far better to take Charlie's position and keep the secret to yourself to consolidate one'w own power.

The point most driven home to me by this article is that individual responsibility is king. The power of capitalism over bureauracy is as palpable as the changes humans are making to our planet. When we "undo" the dichotomy and embrace our individualism then turn that power toward charitable, humane action. . . Then we unlock positive change, both for ourselves and our 'collective' culture. I think he's quite right in his proposition about the importance of the individual and quite wrong in his appliation. Because we have power as individuals, we should use it for the benefit of each other.

Peace. Thank heaven for a rest day!

The author sets up a bunch of strawmen then shoots them down. Too much arm waving and "blood in the waters" in the first two paragraphs. Pandering to the faithful and already convinced. I'm unimpressed with this one.

After a little over two months of doing the daily www.crossfit.com exercises, I've gone from 172 to 160. My body fat is way down (I'm not sure exactly how much--it started at about 22% and now I actually have a decent "six-pack").

The last time I was in really good shape was 1996. That year I was in a semi-pro cycling team and won a pretty popular stage race plus took second in the Arkansas/Oklahoma state road race. It's hard to say whether I'm in as good a shape now as I was then. Of course, aerobically I was in superior shape then. However, my upper body and abs were in a pretty serious state of atrophy. (Legs were good!) At the end of the season I'd hit burnout and hung up the bike. Since then, I've ridden a little and I did "Body for Life" for several months. But mostly, I've been on the "rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell" program.

I'd have to say the most obvious benefit of crossfit has been its balance. It's definitely not a body-building program; but I've put on noticable mass--particularly in my back, lats and shoulders (I've never really had shoulders before). My resting heartrate it down to where it was during my cycling days, and my recovery time is awesome. Because I've been limiting my caloric intake (I have a waist circumference goal based on an evaluation that I'll be taking next week), my strength gains haven't been what they possibly could have been; however, they've still been great. I can actually see the handstand push-up on the horizon. This week, all of a sudden, it seems like my bod has really taken off.

Awesome (functional) program that works and is incredibly addictive. Sounds like just what the doctor ordered for this 42-year-old.

Hmm, I havent read the article yet, but a couple thoughts. The girls at the local healthfood store here are very nice, and cute as well. The local Butcher was about 250 lbs at 5'5" (she was Not my type). So, I think that some of the corellations being drawn are worthless. Now to read what was actually written...

The author of this article appears to be a recognized authority in economics, but appears to have a limited and biased knowledge of other fields including sociology, psychology, and atmospheric science. Certainly no one would argue that capitalism is not the best economic system for dealing with a wide range of problems, however the author's absolutist view ignores its short-comings.

A glaring example is the recent shortage of flu vaccine. Without bureaucratic (government) involvement, companies will be unwilling and unlikely to to make large bets on quantities and types of vaccines to produce in anticipation of future flu seasons. Obviously, if demand skyrockets due to an impending pandemic of a deadly strain of flu, the market will respond, but it will likely be too late. In this case, the individual does not have the power or choice to protect him or herself.

An example that is more germane to the author's argument is pollution of air and water by carbon dioxide, or more toxic or carcinogenic compounds. The individual or corporation polluting these collective resources cannot "own" a specific part, and thus does not bear the full cost of his or her actions, yet reaps a benefit at the expense of either the "collective" or other "individuals", take your choice. In the case of global warming, assuming it to be anthropogenically caused as the author postulated for sake of argument, the cost of the individual's carbon emissions is to be borne by individuals in the Netherlands, Florida, etc. at some future date.

Reisman erects a "straw man", either/or choice that is false. The choice is not whether to return to pre-industrialized conditions or to continue to burn fossil fuels with abandon. The choice is actually much more subtle. Build a nuclear power plant instead of a coal-fired plant. Use wind power versus gas turbines. Drive a passenger car instead of an SUV.

The vast majority of scientists believe that global warming is in progress. Receding glaciers and ice fields provide ample evidence for this. The effects of this warming are likely to be much more disruptive than posited by Reisman, possibly entailing relocations of 10's or 100's of millions of individuals and widespread changes in weather patterns that may render currently productive farming areas unusable. Whether "natural" or anthropogenically caused, both the individual and/or the collective will benefit by recognizing this fact early and by taking gradual steps, if determined to be necessary, to mitigate its effects. I have no doubt that capitalism can and will respond eventually and effectively, but probably not without significantly greater disruption and pain than Reisman contends, and not without significant bureaucratic interference, as seen with the recent debacle of Katrina and politicians of almost all stripes falling all over themselves to ensure that the "collective" bears the costs of the individuals who were impacted.

John M,

Congratulations!

You say, however, "Of course, aerobically, I was superior shape then." I would make the claim that you are likely in better aerobic shape now than then.

The aerobic benefit of cycling is largely limited to cycling. The transference of VO2 max to other training modalities is dramatically limited when developed in non-functional domains like cycling. The same cannot be said of CrossFit training.

To the Glassman's:

Superb article with a solid explanation for the differences in Collectivism vs. Individualism.

It's a shame that Capitalism is fading from the world "groupthink", especially after freeing the world from so many of it's problems. Many have subscribed to the twisted idealogy of blaming Capitalism and those proponents of it.

Well, I've got a case of "AFFLUENZA" and am not afraid to shout it (or in this case, post it!)

From reading the prior posts I can tell there are far too many "bedwetting liberals" who are reading (or not really reading but glancing over) the rest day articles.

Sometimes I think these folks are reading with only half of their brains!!

While I was filling up my new 9ft. Navistar (http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/08/Autos/monster_pickup/) monster truck at the gas station this morning I proceeded to backup slowly and heard a slight squealing/hissing sound. Sort of something you would expect from a gutless freak. I got out and realized I had backed over a Toyota prius and the environmental wacko who was pleading for me to save his life.

Well I did what any good red-blooded crossfitter should do...I hopped back in my truck and finshed backing over him completely!

My ridiculous exhortation is to point out that these "doom-and-gloom" folks obviously have never had the opportunity to fend for themselves as "Individuals".

If the world keeps heading their way, which I forsee it will, they will surely be calling on us "Capitalists" pigs to bail them out when the world crumbles.

Either way, stay strong you individualist capitalist devils...you are truly what makes the world function productively.

God I love this site!!!!!!!

I wish that I could get paid to write a horrendous article with absolutely no cited facts or sources. I love the use the phrase "the experts". Who are these experts? I can't believe I read that entire thing. The worst part about the weblog craze is that people who are pitifully inept at writing a decent argument can spew out their unsubtantiated garbage without actually having to defend a word of what they say. But hey, I love this country because even though the author is an overwhelming idiot...he still has the right to say those things... and I have the right to ignore him.

50-40-30-20-10
double unders
ring pushups

ring pushups w/feet elevated 16" rings at same height..
total=17.53.71

John M #23
That's an awesome testimonial! There are a lot of people on the message board who would like to hear your story. The subject of Crossfit success stories as inspiration has come up relatively recently. P.S. I've always heard that you start to see abs when your bodyfat is <10%, so that's an impressive gain. Keep it up!

Read as much as I could of that article before he lost me.

According to him are our bodies "just" 70 trillion individual cells? On one hand, each cell is only concerned with performing it's own functions. On the other, it responds to the stimuli around it (what other cells are doing). What separates us from corpses? It's the organization and synergistic interworkings of those living cells. The same is true of civilizations. Like it our not, we are a producet of our culture, and no civilization on Earth is any different.

This coming from someone who in no way would consider himself a liberal or leftist.

Another very weak article. Predictable responses from Charlie and Matt Hunt only illustrate what Einstein meant when he said "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

This article was so bad, it's not worth discussing. It professes a complete extreme point of view (complete individualism) I assume to make a point that we are too collective now. I can't believe the author literally believed what he wrote. He was at least intelligent enough to put sentences together, so I'm convinced he was using the whole article just to make his point. I learn something from most of the rest day articles and discussions, but this one is just a waste of cyber-memory.

In the 60's TV began to pollute the minds of people by "telling" them what to think.

In the 90's the Internet began to pollute the minds of people by "telling" them what to think.

I've heard both arguments, and I've come to surprise myself by taking the circuitous road to agreement.

When the challenge of gathering information is diminished, also diminished is the desire of the populace to form individual opinions. In other words, the populace becomes more susceptible to the power of suggestion.

I sincerely doubt that 95% of the "bleeding-heart, bed-wetting liberals" passionately believe in green earth and social issues they profess to be behinds. Rather, in today's world political correctness penalizes anyone who displays a lack of compassion.

Similar, polar opposite phenomena occurs at the opposite end of the spectrum. I honestly wonder how many have put serious introspective thought into what it really means to close borders and wage wars on foreign soil.

None of these issues are simple. If I could wave a magic wand, it would not "fix" any of them, but empower the populace with the insight and desire to truly form their own opinions.

Hitler’s Proletariat is the best parallel I can draw to what can happen when individuals within the populace fail to exert the necessary intellectual energy required to form a true opinion.

There's is no "I" in collective.

Oh wait...

For anyone that doesn't know, there are some power rings available for immediate shipment. These are the old steel kind rather than the new plastic elite rings. The link is on the bottom right side of the main page. Pwer Ring Training.

I'm baaaacccckkkkkkk...
Time to get back into the pain; get some! Interesting article, appeals to my game theory nature. It's good to be back ;)

The article: classic neo-con rantings. And in this context: tiresome, innnane, and divisive. In short: nothing of value here.

Tiresome, and based on what? Opinion and hot air. Yawn.....

While I enthusiastically agree with the author’s assessment that environmentalism is badly cloaked collectivism, and harmful to our Republic, I cannot support this article when it denies the “collective” any responsibility or activity yet claims that “free economies” are the answer. An “economy” is a form of “collective”!

Also, in the author’s view, a crime has occurred if a drunk driver crashed into your house, but the actions of millions of individuals who cause the Dutchman’s house to become flooded are not criminal, but “acts of nature”? If enough individuals are responsible for a wrong, does it cease to be a wrong?

In the end, both the Collectivism of the radical enviros and Marxists and the Individualism of Ayn Rand are extremes, with the reality of how mankind best lives in community lying somewhere between.

Agree or disagree with the author, shame on those of you who quit after two paragraphs. You cheated the exercise!

Nevertheless, I will be working hard this week, and looking forward to the next rest day in order to exercise the mind as well as the body! A million thanks Coach for all you do for the Crossfit community!

One of the more grandiose rationalizations for the decades of industrial growth and planning by (market driven 'individuals' without regard for environmental effect.
The tabbaco industry could give a flying f*** about our internal environment blind to the point of rationalizing it's negative effects.
Individual smokers then have to take the action of either saving their internal environment or not.
Individuals must also hopefully make choices concerning their external environment in their own life....unfortunately industrial heads like the tabacco (lunk)heads absolutely won't make significant admissions so guess what.... we then have a SOCIETAL/POLITICAL problem.
Free market driven capitalism is great...but profit drive warps responsible action from crime on the street to the much less evident crime to our environmental.
As with the health professionals who produce uncontestable evidence that smoking produces lung cancer, I will believe professional environmental scientists in a second (over 'capitalist protectionists') who say there are significant global warming as well as other environmental issues that I as an individual and we as a culture must prepare to face and sacrifice to remedy.
When industrial strategists don't do the same we have a 'collective' issue.
As when individuals choose to kill or sell drugs to kids,we have a 'collective' issue.
Nothing liberal about it... it's doing the right thing.

It seems like crossfit does too many political forums. Crossfit should be for workouts and fitness and not politics....

Ha ha, only joking( I am in favor of whatever the crossfit owners feel is appropriate as it is their site ), as I didn't see this typical post on rest day yet I thought I would add this one.

Attention Tim (Comment #16)

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=1677

In the report, published in the journal Food Additives and Contaminants, the researchers reviewed three pre-existing sets of pesticide residue data; one from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, one from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and one from limited testing conducted for Consumers Union in 1997. In total, the three sets of data covered over 94,000 produce samples, 1,300 of which were organic. However, less than 200 of the 1,300 organic food samples were subjected to comprehensive pesticide residue tests.

Yet even this tiny organic sample was sufficient to demonstrate a surprisingly high synthetic pesticide contamination rate. Of the 194 organic food samples comprehensively tested, 47 (24 percent) were found to contain synthetic pesticide residues. In all, organic foods had about one-third as much synthetic pesticide residue as conventional foods. But that’s still vastly more pesticides than the organic marketers want their customers to know about.

It gets even more depressing for chemophobic consumers: In addition to the residues of synthetic pesticides, organic fruits and vegetables may also have residues of toxic organic pesticides.

Organic pesticides? Yes. The biggest myth of all about the term organic is that it means pesticide-free. Far from it. Organic farmers are allowed to use numerous natural poisons as pesticides.

--------

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/organic.html

"Organic" Foods:
Certification Does Not Protect Consumers

USDA proposal itself noted that, "No distinctions should be made between organically and non-organically produced products in terms of quality, appearance, or safety." In other words, no claim should be made that the foods themselves are better -- or even different!

Life is cyclic and greed is constant...and there ain't enough spam in that damn can for whole family.

That would be " ...for the whole family."

I too found that article difficult to read. I did peruse it thoroughly enough to come up with this quote

"As a result, the problem would be solved in exactly the same way that tens and hundreds of millions of free individuals have solved much greater problems than global warming, such as redesigning the economic system to deal with the replacement of the horse by the automobile, the settlement of the American West"

The American West was settled through bloodshed. It was unjust how the natives were treated to make way for the "settlement of the American West".

I really don't see the divisive dichotomy between induvidualism and collectivism. What's bad for the group is bad for the induvidual and vise versa. I think it is a false dichotomy.

Oh and it's probably just the vegans that appear unhealthy at the health food stores. Some of those women are so fine...

I am a vegan. Most don't think so because I eat meat. But if you thinbk about it...cows eat grass. You are what you eat. So a cow is just a concentrated form of grass, with all the bad stuff in the grass removed.

So I can say I am a proud vegan!

I'd been having problems with my first couple of dips lately, so after yesterdays workout and the last 6 days I decided to get a massage. First one ever in 45 years. Well, today I nailed my first Muscle Up and also held a handstand for about 5 secs.

What a great day. I've been trying to get one since starting in late July.

Thanks crossfit, Thanks coach. Can't believe I'm this excited over a muscleup.

chew on this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/libby.ap/index.html

I just got up and havn't read the article but froom everyones comments it sounds like I'll argree w/ most of it. Some of you scare me ,no disrespect, but you sound like Marxists.

Jim D. (Comment #49)
Be excited! It's a big deal! Good job!

Now do 2.

Finished our challenge
mon - 20 pull-up 40 push-up 60 squat x 5
tue - 10 pull-up 20 push-up 30 squat x 10
wed - 5 pull-up 10 push-up 15 squat x 20

Brent 22:48, 19:11, 18:10
Dan 27:43, 21:51, 17:14
Jon 31:09, 23:31, 20:31
Krista 33:04, 27:43, 20:26

#43 Charles, what makes you think anything from the USDA is reliable after what we've all learned here (think about low-fat diets). Not to take anything away from your arguement because I know your weren't supporting the USDA.

The most frustrating thing for me is for the school lunch program to say, "We're having the children eat VERY healthy. We strictly follow the USDA guidelines."

Had to make up Fran from Tuesday - 6:27 as RXed.

Yet another article that challenges things people assume to be true and encourages us to be big boys and girls and solve problems ourselves rather than expecting the government to do it for us.

I notice the author assumes we came from apes living in caves, as do apparently quite a few fellow crossfitters. I would ike to offer a contrarian view to that. The Bible, plus many ancient witnesses - Herodotus, Josephus, the Gilgamesh Epic, and others, puts forth the view that mankind has lived in city-states since the second generation of human beings on the planet (they had a lot of kids and lived a long time, apparently). Far from being "incapable", te ancients are credited with far greater strength, longevity, and brainpower than we "advanced" humans.

I don't understand why we are all so afraid of climate trends.

Things change, we are more or less powerless to stop it so why not concentrate on adapting in the best possible way. Wasn't this the point of the article?

If we were going to change the climate it would take a global effort with all nations participating and this is unlikely to happen. In fact, I would say it will not happen. For example, Do you think China is willing to interrupt it's economic growth (and the global power that comes with it) for global climate experimenting?

Global climate change may be for the better, or it may be for the worse. Either way I'm up for it.

I just scanned the article so pardon me if misrepresent its content in my response. Radical individualism (ala Ayn Rand) doesn't work and neither does top-down collectivism (ala socialism). What does work is allowing, through voluntary freedom of assembly, for individuals to associate themselves with viable intermediary social institutions that add value to the individuals, make the individual better, leverage the individual into a healthy collective. The operative word here is "voluntary". For example, I know I am a better person for submitting myself to the "Crossfit" community; its mores, rules and expectations. I don't have to but I am (mostly) humble enough to realize and appreciate the collective wisdom in the Crossfit community. On my own, I couldn't possibly replicate the profound depth of fitness wisdom & insight gathered here. This approach can get extrapolated. Republics, as governing collectives, best exemplify the results of this extrapolation onto the common weal. Bottom-up social construction is the way to go.

Dino, nice to see your space shaping up! I'll be in touch soon about bringing some Parkour training to your new place, along with catching some workouts!

#7: What the heck is a "fellow (earth) citizen"? For the sake of argument, lets assume we're ALL talking about earthlings.

There is a decent Individualist argument to be made against capital E Environmentalism, but such points should be part of a larger non-ideological argument. The Author took some pretty good principles and tried to shove them into his individualistic vs. collectivism framework. It’s seems foolish of him to frame solid pragmatic points as Ideology: It’s much more effective to do the exact opposite.

The best definition of Conservatism I have ever heard is “the absence ideology”. Of course, that’s some high ground to take if you are trying to win an argument, but you can take it if you know your beans. This guy seems like a indivdualist/libertaian, which is fine, as far as ideologies go, but I can’t image he’ll persuade anyone.

um, err, um.. that should have said "the absence of ideology"

I'm somewhat new to the site...where can I find WODs from previous months? Thanks.

COLLECTIVISM, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

An individual kills someone—for money, out of jealousy, as an act of revenge, or because he doesn’t like his victim’s looks. A chorus of left-“liberals” rushes in to excuse his act, especially if he is poor. He is not responsible, they say. The real criminal is “Society,” for having allowed him to live in the conditions that led him to kill.

Another individual owns a refrigerator, an air conditioner, and an automobile or SUV. This time, a chorus of left-“liberals” rushes in and pronounces him guilty. He is allegedly guilty of causing “global warming,” by virtue of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of the fossil fuels required to produce and operate his goods.

The “innocent” killer is not to be punished but “rehabilitated.” The “guilty” owner of the appliances and automobile or SUV, however, is to be punished. He is to be prohibited from continuing with his evil ways. He is to be compelled by the force of law to do his part in reducing global carbon dioxide emissions, which means, he is ultimately to be deprived of his goods or, at best, to be made to accept radically smaller, less effective substitutes for them.

Clearly, there is something very wrong here. What is wrong is the influence of the philosophy of collectivism.

Collectivism considers the group—the collective—to be the primary unit of social reality. It views the collective as having real existence, separate from and superior to that of its members, and as thinking and acting, and as the source of value. At the same time, it regards the individual as an essentially inconsequential cell in the superior, living collective organism. It is on this basis that the loss of an individual’s life is considered to be of no great consequence, with the result that whatever the killer of an individual might be guilty of, it is viewed as not all that serious in the first place. And then, the killer’s actions, it is held, do not emanate from within himself but from the collectively determined circumstances in which he lives.

By the same token, if the collective, consisting of billions of individuals consuming fossil fuels over two centuries or more, is responsible for releasing enough carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere to raise the average surface temperature of the Earth, then each and every individual now alive and who consumes fossil fuels is held to be responsible for the phenomenon, because no distinction is made between the individual and the collective. This is the basis on which the owner of the appliances and vehicle is held to be “guilty.” His individual emissions of carbon dioxide are seen as part and parcel of the emissions of carbon dioxide by all the members of the carbon-dioxide emitting collective taken together and as responsible for their effect.

There is a different, diametrically opposed philosophy, which has all but been forgotten. It is rarely, if ever, taught in our “culturally diverse” educational system, whose diversity consists in the teaching of numerous varieties of collectivism and the employment of many varieties of collectivists, all the while almost totally excluding this fundamentally different point of view. The name of this different philosophy is individualism. Its most important advocates are Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand.

According to individualism, only individuals exist; collectives consist of nothing but individuals. Only the individual thinks; only the individual acts; only the life of the individual has value and is important. All rights are rights of individuals.

On the basis of individualism, the life taken by a killer is the worst possible loss to the victim and an enormous loss to anyone who loved him. Moreover, that loss of life is the result of action that the killer chose to perform and did not have to perform. He is therefore responsible for a terrible loss and deserves to be severely punished, even to the point of losing his own life.

In contrast, no individual, and no voluntary association of individuals acting for a common purpose, such as a business corporation, is responsible for any perceptible rise in the surface temperature of the world or for any harm that could result to anyone from such a rise. When it comes to global warming, the human individual is innocent! Nor is the human “race” guilty. There is no human race apart from the individuals who comprise it. Any attempt to punish an allegedly guilty human race reduces to the attempt to punish innocent individuals.

Thus everyone must stand back and keep his hands off our appliance and vehicle owner. He has done absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, the very existence of his possessions implies that he has done a considerable amount that is right and good. He has improved his own life and probably that of family members and friends by his acquisition and use of his goods. And he has had to do good to others, in order to be able to earn the money that enabled him to buy his goods. To earn that money, he had to produce goods and services that others judged to be of more value to them than the money they paid him.

The conclusion that follows from this is that we should wish this individual well and hope for his continued and even greater success and good fortune in the future, and wish the same for all other peaceful individuals. This is known as having good will toward one’s fellow man.

Having introduced the perspective of individualism, let us now concede for the sake of argument that there actually is global warming and that the currently prevailing estimates of its future extent and consequences for rising sea levels are all perfectly accurate. (In case anyone has forgotten, those estimates are a rise in average temperature of 4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, accompanied by a 1 to 3 feet rise in sea-levels by that time, culminating in a cumulative rise in sea-levels of 13 to 20 feet in following centuries.) Let us also concede that if the human race did not exist or existed in the much smaller numbers and abject poverty and misery characteristic of the pre-industrial era, there would be no global warming or at least significantly less of it.

We have shown that this global warming, and any damage it may do, is still not the product of any individual human being. Nor is it the product of any such actual entity as “the human race.” There is no such actual entity. At the very most, global warming is a cumulative, unintended byproduct of human behavior for which no one is responsible.

A phenomenon for which no human being is responsible is an act of nature. That is the category to which all global warming belongs. It is an act of nature. It is an act of nature whether it comes about, as it did more than once in geologic time, in the absence of human beings from the planet, or in the presence of human beings. To repeat, it is an act of nature even when it is the unintended cumulative byproduct of the actions of billions of human beings. None of those human beings is responsible as an individual and there is no human “race” that is responsible.

With the interfering cobwebs of collectivism out of the way, and seeing global warming now as a phenomenon of nature, we are in a position to consider the question of how human beings should deal with global warming and with the wider question of how they should deal with climate change in general. For someday, there certainly will be climate change. If not global warming in this century, then, certainly, in some other century. And if not global warming, then a new ice age, which, according to some accounts is already overdue, and which mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions may have served merely to postpone.

The question of how to deal with climate change, in turn, is subsumed by the broader question of how should human beings deal with physical reality in meeting their needs and wants. It is part of that question.

And that question has already been answered—by the science of economics—and answered beyond all honest dispute. The only way for human beings to meet their needs and wants in an efficient and progressively improving way is if they produce under a system of division of labor and monetary exchange, which in turn rests on a foundation of private ownership of the means of production and economic freedom. The name for this system, of course, is capitalism. (A much smaller number of human beings than are now alive could survive without this system, as our ancestors survived, namely, as essentially self-sufficient farmers. But they would live in the poverty and misery of our ancestors, and, as stated, their number would be relatively small—a billion or so versus our present six billion or more.) For the present number of human beings to survive and to be able to enjoy the comforts, conveniences, and luxuries now found throughout the modern, industrial economies of the world, capitalism and its economic freedom are essential.

Economic freedom is what is required to cope with global warming, global freezing, or any other form of large-scale environmental or social change. If global warming turns out to be a fact, the free citizens of an industrial civilization will have no great difficulty in coping with it—that is, of course, if their ability to use energy and to produce is not crippled by the environmental movement and by government controls otherwise inspired. (This applies even to responses to natural disasters, such as hurricanes and floods, that allegedly will occur in connection with global warming. The response of a free market would be typified by that of the Biloxi, Mississippi gambling casinos in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Within months of being freed of restriction to riverboats and being allowed for the first time to locate on land, they sprang into existence ready and eager for action, in the midst of otherwise unrelieved devastation and paralysis, as most property owners waited for government aid from FEMA. The casino owners were fortunate in being ineligible for such aid and so took immediate action on their own. On this subject, see my blog post of March 14, 2006.)

The seeming difficulties of coping with global warming, or any other large-scale change, arise only when the problem is viewed from the collectivist perspective of government central planners. It would be too great a problem for government bureaucrats to handle, as is the production even of an adequate supply of wheat or nails, as the experience of the whole socialist world has shown. But it would certainly not be too great a problem for tens and hundreds of millions of free, thinking individuals living under capitalism to solve. It would be solved by means of each individual being free to decide how best to cope with the particular aspects of global warming that affected him.

Individuals would decide, on the basis of profit-and-loss calculations, what changes they needed to make in their businesses and in their personal lives, in order best to adjust to the situation. They would decide where it was now relatively more desirable to own land, locate farms and businesses, and live and work, and where it was relatively less desirable, and what new comparative advantages each location had for the production of which goods. Factories, stores, and houses all need replacement sooner or later. In the face of a change in the relative desirability of different locations, the pattern of replacement would be different. Perhaps some replacements would have to be made sooner than otherwise. To be sure, some land values would fall and others would rise. Whatever happened, individuals would respond in a way that minimized their losses and maximized their possible gains. The essential thing they would require is the freedom to serve their self-interests by buying land and moving their businesses to the areas rendered relatively more attractive, and the freedom to seek employment and buy or rent housing in those areas.

Given this freedom, the totality of the problem would be overcome. This is because, under capitalism, the actions of the individuals, and the thinking and planning behind those actions, are coordinated and harmonized by the price system (as many former central planners of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have come to learn). As a result, the problem would be solved in exactly the same way that tens and hundreds of millions of free individuals have solved much greater problems than global warming, such as redesigning the economic system to deal with the replacement of the horse by the automobile, the settlement of the American West, and the release of the far greater part of the labor of the economic system from agriculture to industry.

This is not to deny that important problems of adjustment would exist if global warming did in fact come to pass. But whatever they would be, they would all have perfectly workable solutions. The most extreme case would be that of the Maldive Islanders, in the Indian Ocean, all of whose land might disappear under water. The population of the Maldive Islands is less than two hundred thousand people. In 1940, in a period of a few days, Great Britain was able to evacuate its army of more than three hundred thousand soldiers from the port of Dunkirk, under the threat of enemy gunfire. Surely, over a period of decades, the opportunity for comfortable resettlement could be arranged for the people of the Maldives.

Even the prospective destruction of much of Holland, if it could not be averted by the construction of greater sea walls, could be dealt with by the very simple means of the United States and Canada joining with the European Union in extending the freedom of immigration to Dutch citizens. If this were done, then in a relatively short time, the economic losses suffered as the result of physical destruction in Holland would hardly be noticed, and least of all by most of the former Dutchmen.

For densely populated, impoverished countries with low-lying coastal areas, like Bangladesh and Egypt, the obvious solution is for those countries to sweep away all of the government corruption and underlying irrational laws and customs that stand in the way of large-scale foreign investment and thus of industrialization. This is precisely what needs to be done in these countries in any case, with or without global warming, if their terrible poverty and enormous mortality rates are to be overcome. If they do this, then the physical loss of a portion of their territory need not entail the death of anyone, and, indeed, their standard of living will rapidly improve. If they refuse to do this, then nothing but their own irrationality should be blamed for their suffering. The threat of global warming, if there is really anything to it, should propel them into taking now the actions they should have taken long ago.

Indeed, it would probably turn out that if the necessary adjustments were allowed to be made, global warming, if it actually came, would prove highly beneficial to mankind on net balance. For example, there is evidence suggesting that it would postpone the onset of the next ice age by a thousand years or more and that the higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is supposed to cause the warming process, would be highly beneficial to agriculture by stimulating the growth of vegetation. Growing seasons too might be extended. Furthermore, any loss of agricultural land, such as that which is supposed to take place in low-lying areas as the result of higher sea levels, would be far more than compensated for by vast quantities of newly useable land in central Canada, Alaska, Siberia, and Greenland.

Whether global warming comes or not, it is certain that nature will sooner or later produce major changes in the climate. To deal with those changes and virtually all other changes arising from whatever cause, man absolutely requires individual freedom, science, and technology. In a word, he requires the industrial civilization constituted by capitalism. What he does not require is the throttling of his ability to act, by the environmental movement. If it really is the case that the average mean temperature of the world will rise a few degrees in the next century as the result of the burning of fossil fuels and of other modern industrial processes, the only appropriate response is along the lines of being sure that more and better air conditioners are available.

In absolutely no case would the appropriate response be that of the environmentalists, who seek to throttle and destroy industrial civilization by means of massive restrictions on the use of energy. The environmentalist solution to global warming is the diametric opposite of economic freedom and the pursuit of material self-interest that it allows and the economic success that that pursuit brings. The environmentalist solution is the massive violation of economic freedom and the imposition of massive economic sacrifice, in the insane belief that the way to cope with the destructive forces of nature is to deprive man of his means of coping with them, as though he, and not nature were the cause of those destructive forces, as though nature, left to itself, were benign.

Yes, man’s economic activity can sometimes have negative by-products, on the scale of droplets of harm compared with tank-car loads of good. There have been two centuries of the most rapid economic progress and improvement in the history of the world, elevating the lives of hundreds of millions of people above that of the kings and emperors of history, and holding out the potential for the whole population of the world to be similarly elevated. If the price of this scale of good is to be the existence of higher sea-levels and some very bad weather, that is a tiny price indeed. And the answer to the bizarre fears of such things is that under capitalism, man will deal with any such negative forces of nature resulting as by-products of his activity in precisely the same successful way that he regularly deals with the primary forces of nature.

Primitive man, the ideal of the environmentalists, was incapable of successfully coping with climate changes. Modern man, thanks to industrial civilization and capitalism, is capable of successfully coping with climate changes. To do so, it is essential that he ignore the environmentalists and not abandon the intellectual and material heritage that elevates him above primitive man. The grandchildren of those who endured World War II and its massive air raids and battles on land and sea, to preserve the freedom and way of life of the Western World from tyranny, should not now run away in terror from the threat of hurricanes and floods. Moreover, adopting the program of the environmentalists and throttling the production of energy, will not save the condos in South Florida or the Malibu beachfront, or any thing else of value. They will be useless without the energy production required for people to access them and enjoy them. And when hurricanes and floods come, as they inevitably do, those who have adopted the environmentalists’ program will simply be unable to cope with them.

Marxian “scientific socialism” was collectivism in its boisterous, arrogant youth. Environmentalism is collectivism in its demented old age. It will be much easier to overcome than was Marxism. Marxism, however falsely and dishonestly, at least promised major positives: the unlocking of human potential and the achievement of future material prosperity. Environmentalism is reduced to trying to find terrified people with less than the mentality of children, to whom it can offer the prospect of avoiding wind and rain. It is the intellectual death rattle of collectivism. When it has been overcome, a world-embracing capitalist economy will be able to come into existence and be capable in fact of achieving unprecedented economic progress and prosperity across the entire globe.

This article is copyright © 2006, by George Reisman

Oooops!
Sorry.

If anyone gets the chance, check out our gym in VA!!!! Great job Dino and Ashley!!! Can't wait for Jiu Jitsu tonight! Ciao...
-Javi

18:10 for Karl's madness after heavy Fran.

Good article. MOst of these countries that are going to get destroyed by global warming are junk countries filled with poor people infected with AIDs. Turn up the AC and buy yourself a pair of shorts. Nothing to worry about for the USA.

I hate articles that begin on obviously false premises. If the point of the article is "there are people on the left who are hypocrites" I don't need to read further. I've learned nothing new. If the article has some other point I'm annoyed that the author has left me in the dark for this long. Of course I did read the article or I wouldn't be commenting on it and agree with much of it. I've been concerned for a long time about the "problem" of dwindling resources and the necessity of continued economic growth. Both the doomsayers (growth will reach a peak and then steady state or decline) and the optimists (no peak in the forseeable future) have made some pretty compelling arguments to back up their positions and I don't think this particular piece settles the issue. I will say that the only position that conforms with the perception of humanity that we have in the west is the optimistic one.

Dave (# 61): Look in the yellow section on the right of the page, about 3/4 of the way down . . . below the "search" function, above the "Friends of CrossFit" section.

There you will find links to many, many months of past WODs.

did yesterdays angry woman
bw 270
dis power cleans and reg dips x 3
17:51
that was a lot of dips

Attention Charles #43

Scientific papers showing the advantages of organic food and farming

http://www.planorganic.com/organic%20attack.htm

Research Papers

Eating organics cuts kids' pesticides loads* See this research from Univ. of Washington, at the Pesticides Action Network site. Bottom line - children eating organic produce had six times less pesticides in their bodies than those consuming conventional food. Published Jan 2003, www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20030131.dv.html

Pesticide residues in conventional, IPM-grown* and organic foods; Insights from three U.S. data sets. by Brian P. Baker, Charles M. Benbrook, Edward Groth III, and Karen Lutz Benbrook. This landmark study shows organic produce has much less pesticide residues than conventional food.
Summary in, www.consumersunion.org/food/organicsumm.htm
Another summary of the study, as well as charts and tables that illustrate the results, can be found at www.omri.org/FAC.html
Published in: Food Additives and Contaminants, Volume 19, No. 5, May 2002,
pages 427-446. 10 tables, 39 references.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation report exposes anti-organic propaganda

While GM proponents continue to smear organic farming, a UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report in July of this year concluded that organic practices can actually reduce e-coli infection that causes food poisoning (the exact opposite of GM proponent claims) and also reduce the levels of contaminants in foods. The Food and Agriculture Organisation is the largest autonomous agency within the United Nations.

Here are some excerpts from the report "FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY AS AFFECTED BY ORGANIC FARMING"

The full FAO report is available for download as a Word document from: http://www.fao.org/organicag/frame2-e.htm

Organically produced foods have lower levels of pesticide and veterinary drug residues

"The "organic" label is not a health claim, it is a process claim. Nevertheless, in view of the reduced use of chemically synthesised inputs in organic farming, many studies have been carried out to investigate safety and quality implications of the production system. It has been demonstrated that organically produced foods have lower levels of pesticide and veterinary drug residues and, in many cases, lower nitrate contents. Animal feeding practices followed in organic
livestock production, also lead to a reduction in contamination of food products of animal origin. In addition, the "organic" label provides assurance to consumers that no food ingredient has been subject to irradiation and that GMOs have been excluded."

The article posted is so staggeringly wrong on so many fronts that it's difficult to even know where to begin. I don't think I can point out all the flaws (including things like setting up a straw man of supposed "liberals" that want to release all the murderers), but I gotta mention a few things.

His analysis seems to believe that the only possible measure of a human is "economic" . . . by his reckoning, if the Netherlands is totally consumed by the sea, but all the Dutch people are dispersed (alive) across the greater Western world (US, Canada, and Europe), there will be no noticeable "economic losses" that anyone should care about. Apparently, the actual loss of Dutch identity (which the Dutch themselves seem to care about, even if this chap does not) is of no consequence.

The staggering fallacy of the idea that there is no such thing as collective identity, or responsibility is laughable. The vast majority of wars we are waging now are entirely driven by "identity" issues . . . Shiite vs. Sunni, Muslim vs. Christian, "bleeding heart faggot liberals" vs. "redneck bigot conservatives".

I'm profoundly conscious of my American identity . . . go somewhere else in the world where people DON'T share the millions of basic assumptions about life that we hold in common, and you will discover something about what it means. In my limited experience, even our basic ideas of constitutional democracy are an inherently "collectivist" idea . . . one that is NOT shared by much of the rest of the world.

By his argument, his identity as an American, or Brit, or whatever he is, is irrelevant to him. I wonder if he's really ready to give up his citizenship so quickly. I guess as long as he's in the same space "economically" it wouldn't matter to him where or how he lives.

I also wonder if he stopped at a traffic light today during his driving to and fro. And if so, why? Isn't that a subjugation to the horrors of a "collectivist" mentality? Imagine, the ARROGANCE of the community demanding that he stop and wait while traffic flowed in the other direction. I wonder how he can stand his daily life. All those restrictions . . .

A lot of CrossFit folks are LEOs. Their basic job, every day, for which I am hugely grateful, is to enforce a part of our collectivist mentality, including everything from "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shalt wait your turn at a traffic light".

The hard-core individualist position surely has to resist this brutal oppression. Quick, kill all the cops (right after running over the Prius drivers)!

The reality is that ALL of the industrialized society that he (and I!) love so dearly is an inherently "collectivist" life. We participate in it with EVERY SINGLE move we make. The only people in North America not doing so are subsistence trappers and hunters on the northernmost edge of the continent . . . and even they are part of it if they trade pelts for bullets.

You drive a car? You drive on roads paid for by a collective decision. Trust me, it was a good one. No "individualism" built the infrastructure that gives us our standard of living.

His notion that there can be no such thing as collective responsibility is equally laughable. Consider the following example: a man is tied up by the side of the road. Clearly, someone tied him up, but that certainly didn't hurt him. For the next 10 days, every single passerby (hundreds of them) takes a swing at the guy, or nicks him with the pocketknife that was conveniently left hanging around his neck.

10 days later, he dies (after a great deal of suffering, I imagine).

By this author's standard, none of the hundreds of people who nicked him bears any responsibility for his death. None of them (individually) did anything to him that could have caused his death. It was "an act of nature".

What total tripe!

For the guys who somehow found in this article a reason to whine about not getting enough good-looking babes at the health food store . . . uh . . . is there a connection that I missed?

Why do you shop at stores that give you bad service? Are you a masochist? (oops, we're CrossFitters, maybe that was a dumb question.)

Seriously, dudes, shop somewhere else. My local health food store has some very attractive ladies working there, and the owner (a friend of mine) would be a total CrossFit monster if I ever get him to quit his powerlifting habit. He goes 5'7", 190, and squats 400 pounds for reps. I bet you can find an equivalent alternative where you live.

(If you can't, move here! We need more CrossFitters in this area.)

And for DJ, whose only memory of Berkeley seems to have been the 'granola' . . . man, did you miss the boat. I lived in Berkeley for more than 10 years, and, believe me, there are PLENTY of fine-looking women in that area. (I was fortunate enough to persuade one of them to marry me 20 years ago.) Gotta wonder if you had your eyes open when you were there, or maybe if you had a pre-conceived expectation and couldn't see anything else.

The problem with "global warming"

We are facing what might be the greatest threat ever to the future of mankind.

And yet no one is marching in the streets, the outrage is largely intellectual and action is slow. (If you want to argue about the science, please visit the link above, this is a post about the marketing!)

Is the lack of outrage because of the population's decision that this is bad science or perhaps a thoughtful reading of the existing data?

Actually, the vast majority of the population hasn't even thought about the issue. The muted reaction to our impending disaster comes down to two things:

1. the name.

Global is good.
Warm is good.
Even greenhouses are good places.

How can "global warming" be bad?

I'm not being facetious. If the problem were called "Atmosphere cancer" or "Pollution death" the entire conversation would be framed in a different way.

2. the pace and the images.

One degree every few years doesn't make good TV. Because activists have been unable to tell their story with vivid images about immediate actions, it's just human nature to avoid the issue. Why give up something we enjoy now to make an infintesimal change in something that is going to happen far in the future?

Lady Bird Johnson understood this when she invested her efforts into a campaign against litter and pollution. The problem was easy to see. The messaging was emotional and immediate. You could see how your contribution (or efforts) mattered.

Because you don't see your coal being burned (it accounts for more than 50% of US electricity) and because the stuff coming out of your car is invisible, and because you don't live near a glacier, it's all invisible.

Doesn't matter what you market. Human beings want:
totems and icons
meters (put a real-time mpg or co2 meter in every car and watch what happens)
fashion
stories
and
pictures

95% of the new ideas that don't spread--even though their founders and fans believe they should--fail because of the list above.

Seth said...
"We are facing what might be the greatest threat ever to the future of mankind...And yet no one is marching in the streets, the outrage is largely intellectual and action is slow."

There is something to be said for inertia. We do plenty of Chicken Littling with things like the Y2K bug.

Global Warming has entered the lexicon, and is penetrating the psyche. A steady parade of scientific articles are being written documenting proof of the globe warming. Be patient, keep chipping away.

One problem is that people have linked the two separate concepts of "global warming" and "human-caused global warming" into one thing. The first is well documented while the second is controversial. The ongoing argument about the second keeps people from recognizing the fact of the first.

Reisman sets up some strawmen early in his article by claiming that some people defend criminals by accusing society and at the same time suggesting that law abiding people operating vehicles and appliances are guilty of some enviromental crime. The balance of the article is chock full of isms-marxism, collectivism, enviromentalism and so forth. All of these terms, zooming around at 10,000 feet can be made to do almost anything the author wants them to do, but at the end of the day, many of these issues come down to local decisions; do you want this road to be built or not? Do you want a park or a condo development on these 20 acres? Should the state legislature tax fuel consumption for construction of bike paths (single gear users only!) and light commuter rail? Quite frankly, I don't know what a collectivist position is on this or an individualist position. That's why I can't stand labels and would prefer to look at specific actual problems rather than wacking vague terms across the net.

Response to COLLECTIVISM, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM

I found the initial presentation of the working definitions of ‘collectivism’ and ‘individualism’ very informative, effective, and accurate. The example of the murderer and the SUV was excellent in showing the error in approaching life from a purely ‘collective’ point of view. A view, in which I agree with the author, has unfortunately permeated our modern existence.

However, I disagree with Reisman in regards that the appropriate response to ‘collectivism’ is an unchecked embrace of ‘individualism’. I find many of Reisman’s basic assumptions, his either/or all in or all out approach, and conclusions to be wrong.

Personally I am not convinced one way or the other about global warming, but that is the example chosen by Reisman. His logic that we have no ‘individual’ responsibility to ‘collective’ choices is flawed. It is the same as if saying that if I lived in Germany, joined the Nazi party, drove a tank into France, I would have no individual responsibility for the collective atrocities committed by the 3rd Reich? I don’t buy that. Individual choice, whether in unison with the collective or not, demands individual responsibility.

Removing ‘right and wrong’ from the equations and simply looking at cause and effect: If you know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that driving an SUV will change the world climate, and you choose to drive one, you are individually responsible for doing your part in contributing to the global environmental change caused by the collective use of SUV’s If you are okay with that choice, then fine, so be it. But to say that you now have no in individual responsibility in the climate change is not true.

A better approach is to balance the awareness of collectivism with the rights of individualism.

Some of the statements I disagree with (and wish I had time to comment on more thoroughly):

“And he has had to do good to others, in order to be able to earn the money that enabled him to buy his goods.” – Some money is earned at the expense of others, at the harm of others (drug dealer), and with the only good going the person or people making the money.

“We have shown that this global warming, and any damage it may do, is still not the product of any individual human being.” – If an individual makes a choice to knowingly contribute to so called ‘global warning’, then that individual is in a small part, contributing to the product of global warming.

“…’the human race.’ There is no such actual entity.” – There is a human race, I just know it in my knower.

"The seeming difficulties of coping with …any other large-scale change, arise only when the problem is viewed from the collectivist perspective of government central planners.” – There are large-scale problems with complex and difficult challenges in the quest for solutions that may require collective activity. Example: Bird hunters will collectively have to stop shooting bald eagles to prevent extinction.

”Indeed…global warming…would prove highly beneficial to mankind on net balance.” – Along with the increased percentage of CO2 making it easier to breathe, no doubt.

“In absolutely no case would the appropriate response be that of the environmentalists, who seek to throttle and destroy industrial civilization by means of massive restrictions on the use of energy.” – Regulating wasteful consumption of energy, fuel, and many other consumer products is a viable answer to a creating a sustained economy. Unchecked, unbridled, uncontrolled industrialization of the planet is not an appropriate response to anything. The word choice is peculiar – do environmentalists really want to destroy civilization?

”Yes, man’s economic activity can sometimes have negative by-products, on the scale of droplets of harm compared with tank-car loads of good.” – Man’s economic activity has past examples of droplets of good for very few with tank-car loads harm for very many.

I am glad I read the article. I am proud of the American heritage of individualism that has shaped our country. A balanced approach of individual responsibility with collective action and awareness is the best course of action for the future of America and mankind.

Today's workout:

Run 4 miles: 27:59
50 Burpees with a pullup

Global warming is BS. Follow the $$$ and you can see that the nuclear power companies are behind this myth. There is no global warming!! Don't be naive kids. They gave Al Gore a ton of cash to yak about it.

Would it be possible to use the Comments area to discuss WOD's, fitness, nutrition, sport medicine, etc, and specificially avoid the topics of politics and religion?

Group Moffett

5 rounds for time

Run 400 meters
35lb dumbell Thrusters, 15 reps
15 Pullups

Total time: 33:65:08

Ken,

I believe that the site owner explicitly encourages and invites comments appropriate to the linked Rest Day article.

I'm trying to revamp my diet....any suggestions?

Ken #78, that's not what the rest day comment section is for, that's what the forums are for. There's some 40,000+ posts on those topics there. Have at it!

http://www.crossfit.com/discus/messages/board-topics.html

Tom (#81): Wow, that's a big question.

Couple of thoughts:

a) CrossFit generally endorses the Zone diet, with sub-ideas of "Paleo" and "Intermittent Fasting". Do a search for any or all of those terms within CrossFit and you'll come up with hundreds of threads discussing them.

b) Post your question over on the message board. Posting it here (especially on a rest day, which is the one time and place we allow "political" discussion) pretty much guarantees that it won't get answered.

Also, your question: "revamp my diet?" is a bit too general to help you (other than give you the general advice about the Zone, above). When you *do* post on the message board, make your question a whole lot more specific, and tell us about yourself and your goals . . . you'll get better answers.

Good Luck!

Dino and Ashley ROCK.

I need the next WOD !!!!!!

Davidjwood- I didn't say that all the girls in Berkley were Granola's. Nor did I say that there were no attractive girls up there. I've seen many and have gotten to know a few very well. Yes my eyes were open, were yours? Anyone who has been up there can't go w/out seeing the amount of people who fit the bill. Of course that's not all that Berkley has to offer. But it is a large part of what goes into making Berkley what it is.

Back Squat, A2A: 275x2, 295x2, 305x2, 305x2, 305x2, 305x3, 275x2, 275x2, 275x2, 275x2.

DJ: Fair enough. I spent 10 years there, both undergrad, and getting a PhD in engineering . . . most of what went on in town there just made me laugh. The daily life on the street provided vast entertainment value, if you had the right attitude about it.

After the first paragraph of this article I stopped reading. Ridiculous.

David,

I agree. Every time I've been there, I've taken the street seen w/a dose of salt. It's good quality entertainment. Where do you work at now?

David,
At the risk of looking like a suckup, excellent post (#71) - I admire anyone who works an ethical question/conundrum into a post - deserves bonus points.
Eagle Eye - you, too. See, people! Even if you disagree with the article (whatever it's slant), you can do so by using your "knower" rather than ranting like a baby. Same if you agree, eh?

Not a particularly compelling article. Some false assumptions, strawmen, etc., but others have already covered it. Still learned something from the responses, though. That's why we have days like this, Ken.

I live in NJ (sort of west/north/central, if there is such a place) . . . about 50 miles due west of NYC. Actually, a very nice place . . . semi-rural, suburbanizing.

I run part of a small consulting company in pharmaceutical marketing . . . i.e., I push drugs (more specifically, I help the pharma companies push their drugs on doctors). It's a "data-rich environment" . . . lots of data, lots of interesting analytical problems to solve. Also a job that makes you VERY cynical about pharma advertising, and the industry in general. I try very hard never to need my clients' products.

great day for rest! hey chad welcome to crossfit!

Science people! There is no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold, so he turned the sun up. Sheesh!

#71

Well done. I was thinking about this whole thing last night and reading your post today really crystalized things. Thanks.

There are a couple of parts of Mr Reisman's philosophy that I take issue with:

1) That industry taken to extreme is the expression of 'good' for the human race (or, if he prefers, the collection of individuals formerly known as the human race). Happiness stops increasing with industry after the GDP per capita reaches $10k US (according to the Rebel Sell (book) -- I forget the direct reference, sorry).

2) That leaving each person to compete for his or her own individual happiness will produce the most happiness possible.

I don't disagree with capitalism; but I do believe that the selfishness of a population is best corrected by a powerful body interested in the greatest good for the greatest number (ie, a strong, enlightened government).

Good grief, I had problems with this essay. These are big ideas poorly presented. I will grant that it got me thinking and researching so perhaps this article has achieved its rest day purpose.

I got off to a rocky start with the article by seeing it wrapped with the iconography of gold fetish on FMNN--I've got a visceral distaste for the gold bugs. Here's the original article from Reisman's website:

http://georgereisman.com/blog/2006/03/collectivism-climate-change-and.html

Reisman's oversimplifications of individualism and collectivism obscure as much as they reveal. These are important terms worth studying. The Wikipedia is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

I had particular difficulty with Reisman's use of the expression "act of nature":

"A phenomenon for which no human being is responsible is an act of nature. That is the category to which all global warming belongs. It is an act of nature. It is an act of nature whether it comes about, as it did more than once in geologic time, in the absence of human beings from the planet, or in the presence of human beings. To repeat, it is an act of nature even when it is the unintended cumulative byproduct of the actions of billions of human beings. None of those human beings is responsible as an individual and there is no human “race” that is responsible."

Sounds like Reisman is saying that in the absence of an ability to attribute causal factors to specific individuals when analyzing cause and effect relationships, we must necessarily forgo the possibility of seeking different, better outcomes. There may be a potent economic and philosophical argument hiding in there, but if so, I am missing it. Depicting anthropogenic global warming as an act of nature makes about as much sense to me as calling it an act of God, or for that matter, and act of the Easter Bunny. If it is a human caused problem then it is a human caused problem. I believe Reisman is making a case that the scale of the problem of global warming--with or without a human generated component--is such that our best response is to allow free men and free markets to directly adapt to the effects rather than to attempt to manage them with destructive government policies. That is a sound and principled position. Unfortunately it is one he does a lousy job of articulating.

No rest for the weary. Nice day so I ran...nothing spectacular.

228 (hmph)
Ran 12 minutes - 1.5 miles
3 miles total 25:55.

Accomplished 060411 (trying to hold 4-day lag)

Recently finished a graduate class on international economics so I will have to find the article and give it a read.

Cheers.

That article is total bullshit and crossfit should be embarrassed to put it on the web site. Pretty American view for living in the world. For such a progressive and awesome organization as Crossfit we shouldn't be polluting our pages with literary garbage. Don't call me left...call me thoughtful intelligent human.