• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Environmentalism or Individualism?

Not really...Ordinarily I would, but I'm getting burned out from all of these "Lets-gang-up-on-shanek" threads...I'll lurk awhile and maybe chime in later.
 
The essence of the environmentalist outlook is suggested in the title of Mr. Gore's book, and made clear in its pages. It's the view that everything in nature exists in a perfectly harmonious balance--a balance ever threatened by the activities of Man.

For many centuries, intellectuals have rejected as selfish the right of individuals to live for themselves. They have rejected as ethically bankrupt the pursuit of happiness. They have rejected as demeaning and unseemly the seeking of worldly profit, wealth, and material comfort.
Click to expand...

My take: I found numerous statements like those above - the author's interpretation of the "environmentalist" position. This looks a whole lot like the straw man debate method, and therefore makes me suspect the validity of the article. He holds up PETA and other fringe groups as representative of a larger group he labels as "environmentalists".

I think there are some ideas worthy of consideration in the article, but taken with a healthy dose of scepticism.
 
Well, it starts out fairly benign with the author's view of the background for environmentalism. At some point it arrives at the following "startling" revelation:
The ultimate goal of the mainstream environmentalist movement, therefore, is not conservation of natural resources for human use. It is preservation of nature as an end in itself.
Click to expand...
I'm personally fine with this and see nothing startling.

It then starts to degenerate and claims that rational thinking is the anethema of environmentalism:
Why? Because reason is the tool by which Man transforms his environment for his own benefit. Therefore, to environmentalists, rationality is the mark of Cain.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

The degeneration then becomes a veritable avalanche:
Their tactics always follow a familiar pattern. First, declarations of some new ecological "crisis," based upon the flimsiest of evidence and perversions of the scientific method.
Click to expand...
At this point (halfway through the article) I stopped reading.

Perhaps you could sum up the point of the article, MoeFaux?
 
The preservation of nature is a hopeless cause because if there is one thing that we can be sure of it is that someday, hopefully very far in the future rather than soon, everything on Earth will be destroyed.

It is easier for people to take one particular ethic (in this case "preserve nature") and extend it to the extreme rather than step back and look at the bigger picture, where things are more nuanced and less black and white. We're here and we're both cognizant of the ecology of the planet as a whole and also capable of having an effect on it and as a result we need to decide how to proceed. But deciding how to proceed is a lot more complicated and a lot less tidy than to just say "Always do X."
 
Number Six:
The preservation of nature is a hopeless cause because if there is one thing that we can be sure of it is that someday, hopefully very far in the future rather than soon, everything on Earth will be destroyed.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean. Are you thinking of the sun becoming a Red Giant (a few billion years) or the purported heat death of the Universe?
It is easier for people to take one particular ethic (in this case "preserve nature") and extend it to the extreme rather than step back and look at the bigger picture, where things are more nuanced and less black and white. We're here and we're both cognizant of the ecology of the planet as a whole and also capable of having an effect on it and as a result we need to decide how to proceed. But deciding how to proceed is a lot more complicated and a lot less tidy than to just say "Always do X."
Click to expand...
I agree (I think). Not sure of your point, though.
 
I have tried to debate exactly this kind of thinking before, with not much of a response.

For example, the concept of wilderness. That is, areas of the earth that are left just as they are, and are held to have no economic worth. No one goes there to live. Everything is left undisturbed. What goes in goes out. Only light foot traffic of humans.

His attack on 'hubris', for one thing, ignores those who have failed from this failing in human nature. History is littered with it's victims, or those who failed to understand what they were destroying.

One of the earliest civilisations, the ancient Indians, flourished then died away. They had cities with houses, baths, arts and crafts, then just died away. It has been conjectured that this was because they cut down the forests that they used to kiln fire their bricks for building their houses. With the forests gone, they died out.

The Meditteranean was once much more fertile. On bare, rocky Greek land, you can find the remains of the ancient forests that used to florish there before they were destroyed by man.

The 'econuts' may be the equivalent of a weird cult. However, that does not mean that all people who want to preserve and respect the environment are. I try to appreciate the good we can create with the good that is already given to us.
 
As a first step, we must challenge two false philosophical ideas at the root of environmentalism. The two fallacies are:

First, that untouched nature is valuable in itself--intrinsically valuable, apart from any benefit to human beings.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is a fallacy, but I can't help thinking what a shame it would be if the earth was concreted over by untrammelled capitalism and all that remained were three species... Man, rats and cockroaches.

Second, that self-interested human activities--any of the things we do for our own benefit, well-being, or personal profit--are morally tainted at best, and evil at worst.
Click to expand...

Definitely a straw-man there. Who would believe in that statement ?
 
I kind of flipped out and my attention flipped out with me after this particularly doozy:
Witness in our time the intellectual, economic, and political collapse of all forms of socialism, including fascism and communism
Click to expand...
I admit I was expecting a nature vs nurture debate, but the author seems to be trying to make a polar construct out of methodological individualism (which is sucky anyway) vs. environmental conservation, which is a bit... wacky.

Here's my favourite bit:
By what standards do you claim that the human use of a natural resource constitutes an illegitimate claim [...]?
Click to expand...
Well, by what standards do you claim that it isn't?
 
No, the cat isn't anywhere near my tongue, I just han't finished reading this yet. I'm halfway done, so I don't know what the closing idea is yet.
I'll chime in this afternoon.
 
"Environmentalism or Individualism?"

About the essay at www.ecoNOT.com/page4.html:

Some folks here are criticizing the essay for exaggeration and misrepresentation of environmentalism. But its author provides an awful lot of source material--drawn directly from mainstream environmental groups, plus quotations from major spokesmen and leaders--elsewhere on his ecoNOT.com Web site, at www.ecoNOT.com/page3.html and also in his site's news archives. You can find even more on the author's separate blog, located at http://bidinotto.journalspace.com.

Hmmm. I wonder if critics of the essay have actually bothered to check out his references and citations, to see if he's truly exaggerating and misrepresenting what mainstream environmentalists really advocate and are doing? That ought to put the matter to rest one way or the other, right?
 
Maybe this is a fallacy, but I can't help thinking what a shame it would be if the earth was concreted over by untrammelled capitalism and all that remained were three species... Man, rats and cockroaches.
Click to expand...

I would say capitalism has at least -some- interest in keeping animals around. People like zoos, after all.
 
I wonder if critics of the essay have actually bothered to check out his references and citations, to see if he's truly exaggerating and misrepresenting what mainstream environmentalists really advocate and are doing?
Click to expand...
The sources are OK, I have no problem with the quoted material. As I pointed out earlier, he is assigning the actions and opinions of fringe groups and nutcases to the general environmental position. Then he is taking shots at these fringe and nutcase positions as if it proves something about the general environmental position. This is cheating.
 
I'm not sure which "nutcases" you mean. Here are some of the "nutcases" quoted in the essay and on his Web site and blog:

"Fringe groups"...like the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Nature Conservancy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace, the Humane Society, the EPA, etc.

"Nutcase positions"...like those of Al Gore, John Muir, Paul Ehrlich, former New York Times environmental reporter Philip Shabecoff, New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof, Henry David Thoreau, Rachel Carson, biologist George Perkins Marsh, U. S. Forest Service founder Gifford Pinchot, Aldo Leopold, Bill Moyers, Carl Sagan, Humane Society vice-president Michael Fox, Humane Society executive director John Hoyt, the text of the Wilderness Act of 1964, etc.

This doesn't seem to be the "extremists" and "nutcases" he's quoting, but the "mainstream" environmentalists. I think the point of the essay is that the "mainstream" environmentalists and the "extremists" believe a lot of the same crazy things. If that's the case, then the argument that he's picking on only "straw men" seems to collapse. Or am I missing something?
 
I can remember the start of the series on New York on TV. The people who originally lived there were amazed at how productive and beatiful the land was. There were springs, streams, wildlife. So then they had the brilliant idea of covering it in cement. Makes perfect sense to me.
 
In fact, Man himself is no longer praised as a conqueror of nature's obstacles, nor even accepted as just another part of the natural world. To many, he is an interloper, an alien presence on the planet--even nature's enemy--and his creative works are increasingly regarded as a growing menace to all that exists.
Click to expand...

Look at the fishing industry for an example of man acting as an alien.

I would liken the human race to a cancer. It is something that is natural and part of the greater body, but when it grows out of control, brings destruction.
 
The position taken by the author of the essay at www.ecoNOT.com was that "man hatred" was a common position among environmentalists.

Just curious... Do you consider yourself a "mainstream" environmentalist, or a member of the "radical fringe"? And regardless, do you think your view of "man as a cancer" is shared by most "mainstream" environmentalists?

In other words, was the author of the essay correct in his depiction of the underlying environmentalist philosophy as rooted in "man hatred"?

Thanks.
 
If you are talking to me, I don't hate man. I just can't see the point in regarding the world as being 'ours'. The attitude shown by this author, I do hate.

We share this world. It is a wonderful 'gift' to us. To just use it up and spit it out is lunacy. I posted a thread about the declining population of lions in the wild. In about 20 years their estimated population has declined from about 200,000 to 20,000, a reduction of 90%. That, to me, is something that is shameful, as it is purely the result of human actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom