# Is environmentalism a religion?



## TRG

I have come to think that beliefs held near and dear by environmentalists are religious in nature, i.e., many things are accepted as fact without any basis in fact. So I did a google search on "environmentalism as religion" and the first thing that came up is a speech give by Michael Crichton in September of 2003. You can read this speech here. 

One of the most interesting parallels between Christianity and environmentalism is the Garden of Eden story. As told in the Old Testament, the earth was created pure and without sin, but with the introduction of man came sin. Environmentalists believe that nature is perfect and harmonius sans human influence, but whatever man touches he destroys and so on. Perhaps my favorite myth of environmentalism is the "balance of nature." This is an idea that is drummed into people's heads from the time they first begin to learn. While true that equilibrium conditions do exist, in terms of geologic time they are very transient. The notion of natural balance as some kind of natural law invoked by Gaea is just silly, IMO.

I could go on with this for quit a while, but I'd like to hear what you think. Is environmentalism a religion? If so, I wish to present myself as a heretic.


----------



## maxiogee

From WordReference's dictionary (available to all at the top of the page)

religion
A	noun
1 	religion, faith, religious belief
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"​
2 	religion, faith
institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"​
No.


----------



## fenixpollo

You seem to be confused by the term  "Environmentalism". 





			
				Britannica online said:
			
		

> Environmentalism:
> Advocacy of the preservation or improvement of the natural environment, especially the social and political movement to control environmental pollution. Other specific goals of environmentalism include control of human population growth, conservation of natural resources, restriction of the negative effects of modern technology, and the adoption of environmentally benign forms of political and economic organization.
> Environmental advocacy at the international level by nongovernmental organizations and some states has resulted in treaties, conventions, and other instruments of environmental law addressing problems such as global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the danger of transboundary pollution from nuclear accidents.
> In the social sciences, the term refers to any theory that emphasizes the importance of environmental factors in the development of culture and society.


Environmentalism is not the opposite of creationism. Evolutionism (aka Darwinism) is the opposite of creationism.

No.


----------



## Outsider

TRG said:


> So I did a google search on "environmentalism as religion" and the first thing that came up is a speech give by Michael Crichton in September of 2003. You can read this speech here.


Michael Crichton is hardly an expert on the environment. He has been harshly criticized for his stance on environmental issues, for example here.


----------



## .   1

No.
Environmentalism requires no faith.

Environmentalism is the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the environment based on observation, experiment and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.


Robert


----------



## elbeto

Environmentalism is not a religion, but there are some "forms" derived from it that are. Does "Eco Religion" rings the bell? Perhaps not in English. This could be a long discussion and my English is not as good as yours, so let me get back a little later. I just wanted to put this on the table; "Mother Nature" is not a being, but some people worships her, literally. That makes any "environmentalism" institution a religion.


----------



## danielfranco

Could this be an instance of misrepresentation? I mean, sure the New Age movement incorporates many seemingly mystical elements in its ideology, such as the _*belief*_ in a distinct personality or awareness of the Gaea being. And the _*belief*_ in the curative properties of crystals (which might be true, or not...) and other stuff like that.
So, maybe, all this ends up a bit muddled in the general public perception of environmentalism, and we erroneously think that _every_ environmentalism also subscribes to some sort of mysticism or other.

But as was exhaustively discussed before, the definition of religion allows for the possibility of some people placing their complete faith in that precise idiosyncrasy. In that sense, yes. For them, it is their religion.

I'm pretty sure you can make a religion out of anything, if you really want to.


----------



## elbeto

elbeto said:


> Environmentalism is not a religion, but there are some "forms" derived from it that are. Does "Eco Religion" rings the bell? Perhaps not in English. This could be a long discussion and my English is not as good as yours, so let me get back a little later. I just wanted to put this on the table; "Mother Nature" is not a being, but some people worships her, literally. That makes any  some "environmentalism" institutions a religion.


 
Allow me to correct myself. Not "any" but "some."


----------



## Athaulf

TRG said:


> I have come to think that beliefs held near and dear by environmentalists are religious in nature, i.e., many things are accepted as fact without any basis in fact.
> [...]
> I could go on with this for quit a while, but I'd like to hear what you think. Is environmentalism a religion? If so, I wish to present myself as a heretic.



I would say that the answer to your question is yes, but for somewhat more complex reasons than those you mention. 

Now, I will readily admit that many environmental issues are indeed objective problems, whose consideration is based on valid science, and which indeed affect human welfare (or might affect it in the future). For example, I certainly wouldn't deny the problem of air pollution in large cities. 

However, many environmentalists -- and by no means an insignificant minority -- routinely leave the realm of science and rationality and adopt positions that are grossly irrational and incorporate beliefs that are no more objectively justified than the beliefs that are normally considered religious. These are some of their frequent flaws:

(1) Conflating objectively important issues with those of only subjective importance. Environmentalists tend to lump together those issues that objectively affect human welfare with those that have only sentimental and emotional importance, and then label all of them as "environmental issues" that all deserve grave consideration. For example, the extinction of some obscure species that nobody has ever even heard about, and nobody has any objective reason to care about, is often trumpeted as a problem equally important to those that might actually result in harm to people.

(2) Labeling certain human activities as intrinsically evil without any rational basis, just like religions tend to proclaim certain activities as sinful just because God supposedly said so. Examples would be the nuclear energy or the genetically modified food sources. Of course, one might well have rational objections to these activities, but many (if not most) environmentalists consider them as _a priori_ sinful, and don't even want to discuss them rationally.

(3) Many environmentalists are prone to apocalyptic fervor that truly smacks of apocalyptic religious movements. Supposedly disasters are always looming on the horizon and will wipe us out unless we repent and make penitence in whatever ways they deem appropriate -- and even though the prophecies of doom have so far always turned out to be false, the currently fashionable one will surely be true. 

(4) Many (again, if not most) environmentalists hold beliefs that are so firmly entrenched, not only among them but also among the general public, that they tend to instantly dismiss as a lunatic anyone who questions them using rational scientific or economic arguments. Sometimes, such beliefs are so plainly false that even those environmentalists who know the relevant science don't subscribe to them. For example, I've experienced people calling me insane because I pointed out the fact that rainforests actually consume as much oxygen as they generate, even though any scientist in the area will readily confirm this. Or, to take another example, they are also apt to go crazy when one points out that recycling might actually be not only economically unjustified, but also outright _wasteful_ of resources -- just because in the environmentalist circles, this activity has a near-religious aura of supreme virtue.

(5) Finally, environmentalists tend to have a completely irrational devotion to some supposed "natural" activities and ways of life -- as if humans, with all their activities, weren't every bit as "natural" as any other living organism. They also tend to grossly romanticize the primitive ways of life, often believing in ridiculous myths about the supposed general virtuousness of various primitive cultures. Of course, anyone who has ever truly experienced a primitive way of life -- as opposed to a weekend camping with all the really important conveniences of modern civilization at hand -- can only honestly confirm that it's poor, nasty, brutish, and short.


----------



## Athaulf

maxiogee said:


> From WordReference's dictionary (available to all at the top of the page)
> religion
> A    noun1     religion, faith, religious beliefa strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"​



I would say that some brands of environmentalism satisfy this definition, in the sense that they operate with metaphysical categories without basis in observable reality, and judge human affairs in terms of those categories. In practice, I see very little difference between such thinking and the notions of sin, grace, karma, etc. from the traditional religions. Examples of such thinking would be the classification of things and activities as "natural" or "unnatural," or defining "pollution" in terms that have little, if any connection with the objective question of how exactly human welfare is affected by it. Furthermore, there is a strong tendency among environmentalists to proclaim harsh moralistic judgments about people's activities with a force of conviction that can stem only from a strong devotion to metaphysically personified categories of good and evil. When proclaiming such judgments, they are often as immune to rational argument as a religious preacher claiming that something is right or wrong just because the divine revelation says so.



> 2     religion, faithinstitution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"​


In some of the more extreme versions of environmentalism, "Mother Earth" is personified as a conscious being to the extent where it's hardly distinguishable from traditional deities. A few weeks ago, I saw a stand selling environmentalist propaganda materials with inscriptions such as "Mother Earth is angry!" and the like, all this being meant with grave seriousness.

Of course, I'm not claiming that all environmentalists are like that -- I've already written that some of them have entirely valid points and arguments. But overall, I observe a strong presence of the above described tendencies in the modern environmental movement, and the more rational environmentalists are doing little, if anything to distance themselves from the more religiously inclined ones.


----------



## Bienvenidos

I will keep my comment short and simple:

Just like liberalism, environmentalism is a religion.

People give up all of their common sense--and their personal opinions--to adhere to the "code" set by the "environmentalist elite." 

One of the two subjects of my joint concentration (some people call it a "double major") was Premed/Biology, further specified to Human Anatomy, Biochemistry and Human Life. And I stayed away from ecology because I don't like learning about it. The Earth is a planet, not a spirit.


----------



## danielfranco

Now, though, let me raise one point:
Some (many? few?) scientists argue in favor of what is called a "neural network" to describe an ecosystem, where nodes (or "neurons", if you prefer) form part of the system. This nodes transmit and receive information, and although sometimes it is cooperative, this interchange can also be competitive and prejudicial to the system at large. Individuals in species act as neurons for their species. And species themselves act as neurons for the ecology in general.
So, in a sense, "Mother Nature", or Gaea, or whatever the flock you want to call Earth's biosphere, IT does have a mind and intelligence.
Perhaps, because of our prejudices, we find it hard to accept mind and intelligence void of self-awareness, and that's why the planet easily becomes anthropomorphosized  by its advocates...

Like I mentioned before: a misrepresentation.


----------



## Athaulf

danielfranco said:


> Now, though, let me raise one point:
> Some (many? few?) scientists argue in favor of what is called a "neural network" to describe an ecosystem, where nodes (or "neurons", if you prefer) form part of the system. This nodes transmit and receive information, and although sometimes it is cooperative, this interchange can also be competitive and prejudicial to the system at large. Individuals in species act as neurons for their species. And species themselves act as neurons for the ecology in general.
> So, in a sense, "Mother Nature", or Gaea, or whatever the flock you want to call Earth's biosphere, IT does have a mind and intelligence.



I would be really curious to see some references for this claim. Neurons and neural networks are very clearly defined concepts in biology and computer science, and I've never heard of anyone using these concepts in the sense described above, nor do I see any meaningful way to do it. (I have had a very limited exposure to this area, though, so I'll be glad to learn something new if you can provide some references.)



danielfranco said:


> I mean, sure the New Age movement incorporates many seemingly mystical elements in its ideology, such as the _*belief*_ in a distinct personality or awareness of the Gaea being. And the _*belief*_ in the curative properties of crystals (which might be true, or not...) and other stuff like that.
> So, maybe, all this ends up a bit muddled in the general public perception of environmentalism, and we erroneously think that _every_ environmentalism also subscribes to some sort of mysticism or other.



But virtually every environmentalist I've ever encountered harbors some moralistic beliefs that simply cannot be justified rationally. For example, one of the core principles of environmentalism is the belief that saving some obscure animal and plant species from extinction -- even if they are so obscure that nobody but a handful of biologists has ever heard of them -- is a supremely important goal that must be achieved regardless of the cost. I find very little difference between such beliefs and the traditional religious dogmas that some human activities are somehow virtuous or wicked regardless of their objective consequences.


----------



## boardslide315

As a self proclaimed environmentalist myself, I do not think it is fair to call environmentalists irrational. There are environmentalists who hate the extremists, the type that chain themselves to trees to save a bird, as much as the hard conservatives. But environmentalism does not have to be irrational. 

Too often people view environmentalism as being unimportant in our society. Too many people automatically label anyone who shows concern for the state of nature to be a "tree hugger." And to those people I ask, can we really live in a world that is unsuitable? Do we not rely on the earth's fertility for food? We can not live on an uninhabitable planet. We are natural creatures, and modern technology is still extremely limited. Only when we can support the world's billions completely by artificial means will environmentalism lose its importance. 

One final note, I don't think most people understand the nature of the Gaia hypothesis...it should be remembered that this idea was not proposed by an environmental organization, but by a scientist (with a doctorate in physiology.) His idea is by no means literal; rather it is the belief that certain parts of the ecosystem affect others. He believes, with a large amount of evidence, that evolution has "tuned" earth to the extent that it can more or less regulate itself.  A simple example would be how animals urinate and replenish nitrates to the soil so that plants may receive nutrients. It is not a spirit, but rather a scientific inevitability. Survival of the fittest on a global scale.


----------



## elbeto

danielfranco said:


> So, in a sense, "Mother Nature", or Gaea, or whatever the flock you want to call Earth's biosphere, IT does have a mind and intelligence.


 
Having a mind includes the capacity of thinking and thinking includes intuition, common sense, being able to compare things and make analogies and even have a sense of humor. Finding intelligence in the biosphere, I would say, points to the Designer instead of being an attribute of the creation. No, I wouldn't agree with you on this, danielfranco.


----------



## elbeto

boardslide315 said:


> As a self proclaimed environmentalist myself, I do not think it is fair to call environmentalists irrational. There are environmentalists who hate the extremists, the type that chain themselves to trees to save a bird, as much as the hard conservatives.
> ...
> A simple example would be how animals urinate and replenish nitrates to the soil so that plants may receive nutrients. It is not a spirit, but rather a scientific inevitability. Survival of the fittest on a global scale.


 
Just two comments for now.
All religions have their fanatics/extremists (called them irrational if you'd like) and conservatives among which are those who don't have a real conviction and commitment to their religion (or principles). So it not fair to generalize (hope this word exists).

About evolution, I think it is a good subject for another thread. It has always looked too slow for me (and to others, including some scientists). With millions of years of trial and error, life on earth would have disappeared a long time ago.


----------



## Athaulf

boardslide315 said:


> Too often people view environmentalism as being unimportant in our society. Too many people automatically label anyone who shows concern for the state of nature to be a "tree hugger." And to those people I ask, can we really live in a world that is unsuitable? Do we not rely on the earth's fertility for food? We can not live on an uninhabitable planet. We are natural creatures, and modern technology is still extremely limited. Only when we can support the world's billions completely by artificial means will environmentalism lose its importance.



However, a lot, if not most of the mainstream environmentalist ideology is not about any sort of concern for human welfare. Environmentalists are opposed to turning the raw, hostile wilderness into an environment that is suitable and pleasant for humans to live in. 

For example, the environment of Western Europe has been radically altered for the benefit of humans in historical times. As a result, today this is possibly the nicest place in the world to live in. For me, this is a clear sign that today's environment of Europe is far superior to what it used to be several thousand years ago, when it was covered in thick forest, without infrastructure suitable for human life, and roamed by dangerous beasts. But environmentalists clearly don't think so. When people in other parts of the world want to do the same that Europeans did with their countries -- clear the forests, exterminate the dangerous beasts, build cities and infrastructure, and enjoy the comforts of modern life -- environmentalists are ferociously opposed to their attempts.


----------



## elbeto

I once had a friend who was an environmentalist. One day we were crossing a street and I saw a dog across the street barking at us. I said "if that dog keeps barking at me, I will kick its but as soon as I cross to the other side." She looked at me and said "if you do that, I'll kick you." And I said "but I'm your friend and besides, I'm human!" And she replied "I don't care, I won't let you or anybody harm that poor dog, even if I have to hit you, kick you or even run over you with my car!"

And she ment it.

She was working to make this world a better place for plants and animals, even if humans had to be sent to Mars.

Would you consider that an example of extremist? There are many.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Athaulf said:


> (1) Conflating objectively important issues with those of only subjective importance. Environmentalists tend to lump together those issues that objectively affect human welfare with those that have only sentimental and emotional importance, and then label all of them as "environmental issues" that all deserve grave consideration. For example, the extinction of some obscure species that nobody has ever even heard about, and nobody has any objective reason to care about, is often trumpeted as a problem equally important to those that might actually result in harm to people.
> 
> (2) Labeling certain human activities as intrinsically evil without any rational basis, just like religions tend to proclaim certain activities as sinful just because God supposedly said so. Examples would be the nuclear energy or the genetically modified food sources. Of course, one might well have rational objections to these activities, but many (if not most) environmentalists consider them as _a priori_ sinful, and don't even want to discuss them rationally.



I don't understand the distinction you're making between "rational" and "irrational" here. Take the two positions

1) All animal life has the same intrinsic value
2) Human life has more value than non-human life

Why is 2) rational but 1) irrational? These just seem to be basic moral axioms that people adopt, and if you adopt 1), it would then be rational to care about the extinction of obscure species, no?

And more generally just because some environmental groups exhibit some characteristics that some religious groups exhibit, why should that mean they are also religious groups? I mean, things like fanaticism, dogmatism, ignoring facts that don't support one's beliefs can be found everywhere from political movements to sports teams and even in sciences, economics for example. Is everything a religion then? What about legal systems based on those unobservable human rights -- are they part of an irrational legal religion? 

I figure if the word religion is to mean anything, we shouldn't use it so casually. Now, if people are praying to Gaia and performing rituals to counter global warming, then it's pretty clear you have a religion. Where you draw the line between religious and non-religious is something I'm not sure of, and it'll probably have to be a fuzzy line anyway, but I don't see what is gained by calling environmentalism in general a religion?

And as an aside, how come every time such questions come up (is communism a religion? and so on) people use negative aspects to show how something is a religion. Why not say environmentalism is a religion because it encourages altruism and caring for others? Or it's a religion because it provides avenues for people to work for the greater good?


----------



## Athaulf

modus.irrealis said:


> I don't understand the distinction you're making between "rational" and "irrational" here. Take the two positions
> 
> 1) All animal life has the same intrinsic value
> 2) Human life has more value than non-human life
> 
> Why is 2) rational but 1) irrational? These just seem to be basic moral axioms that people adopt, and if you adopt 1), it would then be rational to care about the extinction of obscure species, no?



True, but most environmentalists don't accept the assumption (1), at least not consistently. For example, none of them are concerned about animals being hunted and killed by their "natural" predators. Furthermore, the majority of them are not really concerned with animal deaths as such -- they perceive it as a dramatic and outrageous event only when the last specimens of a particular species go extinct. 

This focus on the particular event of extinction is (in most cases) a fundamentally emotional and irrational reaction. I understand that someone can be emotionally distressed because some species has disappeared. However, there are other things that make _me _sad and distressed, but I don't expect the world to bend over backwards to prevent or undo them in order to make me feel better -- while the environmentalists expect exactly that.



> And more generally just because some environmental groups exhibit some characteristics that some religious groups exhibit, why should that mean they are also religious groups? I mean, things like fanaticism, dogmatism, ignoring facts that don't support one's beliefs can be found everywhere from political movements to sports teams and even in sciences, economics for example. Is everything a religion then?


In a way, yes. I would generally agree that there is no fundamental difference between the forms of fanaticism commonly encountered in traditional religions and modern ideologies. Personally, I am apt to describe as religious those ideologies that tend to be highly moralistic and judgmental about a very wide range of issues in human life, both private and public, and environmentalism certainly fits that bill. The apocalyptic millenarianism of some (admittedly extreme, but still rather prominent) factions of the environmental movement also makes such a designation particularly apt.



> Where you draw the line between religious and non-religious is something I'm not sure of, and it'll probably have to be a fuzzy line anyway, but I don't see what is gained by calling environmentalism in general a religion?


The problem is that in the general public today, environmentalism enjoys vast respect as a supposed outgrowth of pure science and rationality. The goal of such rhetoric is to emphasize that many aspects of even the moderate mainstream environmentalism have no rational basis, while its extreme factions, which people still tend to perceive as fundamentally well-meaning and benevolent, are quite akin to various apocalyptic religious cults.



> And as an aside, how come every time such questions come up (is communism a religion? and so on) people use negative aspects to show how something is a religion. Why not say environmentalism is a religion because it encourages altruism and caring for others? Or it's a religion because it provides avenues for people to work for the greater good?


Of all people in the world, I am by far the most afraid of those who spend their time plotting various grand schemes "for the greater good." But I digress. Anyway, on most issues, environmentalism most certainly doesn't encourage altruism and caring for other human beings, regardless of the fact that some of its proponents make various hypocritical and/or deluded pretenses that they do. 

To the inhabitants of a poor Third World country, I say: go ahead and do what we Europeans did to our lands. Cut the forests, kill the wild beasts, industrialize, build cities, roads, and infrastructure, and enjoy the same luxury and comfort that we do -- which is impossible without taking these steps. Be concerned with environmental issues only when they really affect human welfare directly. But the environmentalists tell them that their "untouched natural environment" is something supremely important in itself, which should be preserved at all costs.


----------



## maxiogee

elbeto said:


> Would you consider that an example of extremist? There are many.



I would consider you an example of an extremist - why would you kick a dog just because it is barking? The dog wasn't causing you any harm and was probably no realy threat. Barking is what dogs do.


----------



## Kajjo

TRG said:


> Is environmentalism a religion? If so, I wish to present myself as a heretic.


Religion is connected to divine or supernatural powers. So the answer is a clear "No".

However, there are certain parallels like strong believings, absence of sound scientific evidence, apocalyptic fervor, sinful behaviour detected in humans. Such parallels are similar in many ideological systems. I wouldn't call communism or capitalism religions and thus I do not call environmentalism a religion.

It is important to understand that there actually is evidence for environmental influence of humans. Not every guy who knows about such effects and wants mankind to behave more properly is an "extreme environmentalist". In contrary, there are sound reasons to watch the environment and reduce its pollution.

However, I certainly agree that there is a kind of unfounded, intense environmentalism that is neither rational nor acceptable and that even is contraproductive if meant to convince others. Many claims do not hold up against strict scientific investigations.

Kajjo


----------



## danielfranco

Athaulf said:


> I would be really curious to see some references for this claim. Neurons and neural networks are very clearly defined concepts in biology and computer science, and I've never heard of anyone using these concepts in the sense described above, nor do I see any meaningful way to do it. (I have had a very limited exposure to this area, though, so I'll be glad to learn something new if you can provide some references.)



Well, maybe this is old news and different modes of thinking have surfaced in the seven or so years it's taken me to digest the info. But back in the 90's there was some interest in the re-activation of dormant retroviruses in the human genome (ah, the heady days of the Human Genome Project...) and one of the many questions that was very difficult to answer was how a handful of nucleotides just knew it was time to wake up, as it were... Back then, gene therapy consisted of using h_*o*_llowed-out bacteriophages (very similar to retroviruses in the way they operate) to deliver and insert a specific gene... So there's some literature on _that_ issue.
Anyway, one of the concepts that seemed to help understand how stress-induced hormones or even pheromones might trigger changes in the evolution of a species (or even produce a rash of speciation!) by "firing up" one of the mutation machines is the concept that the ecosystem is a neural network. And I think there's also some literature on _that._
However, I'll be damned if I can even begin to remember where specifically I read all that jazz, you know?



Athaulf said:


> But virtually every  environmentalist  _*person *_I've ever encountered harbors some moralistic beliefs that simply cannot be justified rationally.



The addition in bold italics is mine. I think, in order to generalize properly, I would have to state the same opinion in the above manner.



elbeto said:


> Having a mind includes the capacity of thinking and thinking includes intuition, common sense, being able to compare things and make analogies and even have a sense of humor. Finding intelligence in the biosphere, I would say, points to the Designer instead of being an attribute of the creation. No, I wouldn't agree with you on this, danielfranco.



In the very next sentence in the post where I made this comment:

"Perhaps, _*because of our prejudices*_, we find it hard to accept mind and intelligence void of self-awareness, and that's why the planet easily becomes anthropomorphosized by its advocates..."

The new emphasis is to highlight the idea that we (humans) definitely are married to the concept you describe of a mind and intelligence. But many other animal species in nature are intelligent, and clearly fail to demonstrate some attributes you posit to intelligence and mind. As for them having self-awareness, well, who can tell?
However, this is another different topic.



maxiogee said:


> I would consider you an example of an extremist - why would you kick a dog just because it is barking? The dog wasn't causing you any harm and was probably no real threat. Barking is what dogs do.



Maybe there was some context missing in elbeto's anecdote. But, in the city where I grew up, many dogs were left outdoors with no restraints. So, in that situation I guess that would make two extremists here. I would also let my hackles rise and get a good dose of adrenaline going if there were a barking dog in my path. I'd be gearing up to "smoosh" the dog if he were to threaten me in any manner. Especially if the dog was outside, with no restraints. A barking dog, in my mind, is not a friendly dog. But this is also _*another*_ different topic.


Anyhoo, I think all these side discussions are fired up by how much (or how little) each one of us wants to believe that "religion" has to be all about a deity and the supernatural. Now, in _that_ thread there seemed to be little agreement, too, and it also prompted a parade of "oh, yeah? well this and that religion sucks because..."
I still think anything can be a religion.
Even the WRF's.
Pass the offering plate, please.


----------



## TRG

I think Athaulf states the case about as clearly as possible and certainly better than I could ever hope to. One other point; on some level, all of us are environmentalists. We all want no pollution and the preservation of the natural world. However, we cannot have our cake and eat it too, as it were, so we must set priorities and make choices. This is where the true believers get separated from the rest of us. And I believe this is unhelpful to environmentalism in some respects. Many people hear environmentalist and they immediatly think of PETA and organizations like Earth First that take radical positions and in doing so turn some people against "environmentalism" who would otherwise view it with favor.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Athaulf said:


> True, but most environmentalists don't accept the assumption (1), at least not consistently. For example, none of them are concerned about animals being hunted and killed by their "natural" predators. Furthermore, the majority of them are not really concerned with animal deaths as such -- they perceive it as a dramatic and outrageous event only when the last specimens of a particular species go extinct.



I'm not sure it's entirely inconsistent, since respecting life does not necessarily imply we must do all that we can to save each and every individual life. My impression is that most environmentalists are against needless death.



> This focus on the particular event of extinction is (in most cases) a fundamentally emotional and irrational reaction. I understand that someone can be emotionally distressed because some species has disappeared. However, there are other things that make _me _sad and distressed, but I don't expect the world to bend over backwards to prevent or undo them in order to make me feel better -- while the environmentalists expect exactly that.


I won't disagree that environmental movements can show some pretty negative characteristics but I fail to see what makes it irrational. I dislike the word irrational since often it's code for non-mainstream, which doesn't really affect the validity of something. But I don't know that environmentalism is about preventing feelings of distress (although it may try to evoke such feelings in support of its causes) so much as it actually believes that damage to the environment is morally wrong. And again I don't see why such a position is inherently irrational but say murder is wrong is not.



> In a way, yes. I would generally agree that there is no fundamental difference between the forms of fanaticism commonly encountered in traditional religions and modern ideologies. Personally, I am apt to describe as religious those ideologies that tend to be highly moralistic and judgmental about a very wide range of issues in human life, both private and public, and environmentalism certainly fits that bill. The apocalyptic millenarianism of some (admittedly extreme, but still rather prominent) factions of the environmental movement also makes such a designation particularly apt.


I guess I disagree with you in thinking that religious is the right word here. More than anything, much of what you mention makes me conclude environmentalists are human . From my experiences of what religion is like, I just don't see the religion in environmentalism. What I see is the sort of psychology that arises in many group structures.



> The problem is that in the general public today, environmentalism enjoys vast respect as a supposed outgrowth of pure science and rationality. The goal of such rhetoric is to emphasize that many aspects of even the moderate mainstream environmentalism have no rational basis, while its extreme factions, which people still tend to perceive as fundamentally well-meaning and benevolent, are quite akin to various apocalyptic religious cults.


But I don't see how calling it a religion would help, even if people think that religion is automatically wrong, so if they suddenly realize environmentalism is a religion they'll all abandon it. In the end much of this seems to be a question of values, and again, where rational basis fits in, I'm not sure.

On simple questions of fact and what current scientific theory says and does not say about the world, I fear that religion or not, there will always be a lot of unsupported, and even false, claims that have wide currency among the public, mostly because the media does a horrendous job covering science and most people don't have the time, nor probably the desire, to study and learn about the issues involved. It's very unfortunate that our political leaders seem have that exact problem as well.



> Of all people in the world, I am by far the most afraid of those who spend their time plotting various grand schemes "for the greater good." But I digress. Anyway, on most issues, environmentalism most certainly doesn't encourage altruism and caring for other human beings, regardless of the fact that some of its proponents make various hypocritical and/or deluded pretenses that they do.


Yeah, if you say plotting grand schemes, it doesn't sound so good, but saying getting people together to volunteer at a food bank improves it a bit. I'm just wondering why religion is being thrown around as basically an insult here.



> To the inhabitants of a poor Third World country, I say: go ahead and do what we Europeans did to our lands. Cut the forests, kill the wild beasts, industrialize, build cities, roads, and infrastructure, and enjoy the same luxury and comfort that we do -- which is impossible without taking these steps. Be concerned with environmental issues only when they really affect human welfare directly. But the environmentalists tell them that their "untouched natural environment" is something supremely important in itself, which should be preserved at all costs.


There are issues of sustainability, however, and, as I see it, our duty to future generations. That's one altruistic aspect that I'd point out as well. But about your point, I would say it's very colonial for Westerners to tell the rest of the world to not do what the West did, while still enjoying the results, but hypocrisy isn't exactly limited to religion either.


----------



## cuchuflete

This all sounds so very logical.  It's a good exposition.  Unfortunately, it's bunk!  You could draw the same sort of conclusions about any non-religious set of beliefs and concerns.  Would you apply all of these seemingly logical "proof cases" of the religious nature of environmentalism to political ideology?  You could.  Whether you are writing of National Socialism, or the so-called conservative political movement in the US today, the same lack of factual basis for deeply held convictions is present.

That doesn't make either one of those ideologies religious.  
Neither one has any spiritual basis.

I'll change the words environmentalist and environmentalism to the name of a political movement.  The points you have argued will maintain their value.



Athaulf said:


> I would say that the answer to your question is yes, but for somewhat more complex reasons than those you mention.
> 
> Now, I will readily admit that many political issues are indeed objective problems, whose consideration is based on valid science, and which indeed affect human welfare (or might affect it in the future). For example, I certainly wouldn't deny the problem of air pollution in large cities.
> 
> However, many right-wing conservatives -- and by no means an insignificant minority -- routinely leave the realm of science and rationality and adopt positions that are grossly irrational and incorporate beliefs that are no more objectively justified than the beliefs that are normally considered religious. These are some of their frequent flaws:
> 
> (1) Conflating objectively important issues with those of only subjective importance. Right-wing conservatives tend to lump together those issues that objectively affect human welfare with those that have only sentimental and emotional importance, and then label all of them as "political issues" that all deserve grave consideration. For example, the extinction of some obscure species that nobody has ever even heard about, and nobody has any objective reason to care about, is often trumpeted as a problem equally important to those that might actually result in harm to people.
> 
> (2) Labeling certain human activities as intrinsically evil without any rational basis, just like religions tend to proclaim certain activities as sinful just because God supposedly said so. Examples would be the nuclear energy or the genetically modified food sources. Of course, one might well have rational objections to these activities, but many (if not most) environmentalists consider them as _a priori_ sinful, and don't even want to discuss them rationally.
> 
> (3) Many Right-wing conservatives are prone to apocalyptic fervor that truly smacks of apocalyptic religious movements. Supposedly disasters are always looming on the horizon and will wipe us out unless we repent and make penitence in whatever ways they deem appropriate -- and even though the prophecies of doom have so far always turned out to be false, the currently fashionable one will surely be true.
> 
> (4) Many (again, if not most) Right-wing conservatives hold beliefs that are so firmly entrenched, not only among them but also among the general public, that they tend to instantly dismiss as a lunatic anyone who questions them using rational scientific or economic arguments. Sometimes, such beliefs are so plainly false that even those environmentalists who know the relevant science don't subscribe to them. For example, I've experienced people calling me insane because I pointed out the fact that rainforests actually consume as much oxygen as they generate, even though any scientist in the area will readily confirm this. Or, to take another example, they are also apt to go crazy when one points out that recycling might actually be not only economically unjustified, but also outright _wasteful_ of resources -- just because in the environmentalist circles, this activity has a near-religious aura of supreme virtue.
> 
> (5) Finally, Right-wing conservatives tend to have a completely irrational devotion to some supposed "natural" activities and ways of life -- as if humans, with all their activities, weren't every bit as "natural" as any other living organism. They also tend to grossly romanticize the primitive ways of life, often believing in ridiculous myths about the supposed general virtuousness of various primitive cultures. Of course, anyone who has ever truly experienced a primitive way of life -- as opposed to a weekend camping with all the really important conveniences of modern civilization at hand -- can only honestly confirm that it's poor, nasty, brutish, and short.



Just so the Right-wing conservatives among us don't get too bent out of shape, you could just as easily substitute Howard Dean style Democrats.  Any "true believers" in most any political ideology are prone to leave facts and rationality at the door, argue with passionate sincerity, base their heated arguments on assumptions based on assumptions based on whatever cant is repeated until they accept it as verifiable fact.  It still has no spiritual basis, and is still not like religion.

You might well call me and most of the people I know "soft core" environmentalists.  None of us believes in Gaea, or in any immutable "Nature" ravished by evil humans.  We tend to see the geometric population growth of humans in recent decades, and the natural consumption of raw materials at historically unknown rates, as a series of important issues.  We don't go around yelling "cataclysm!" and trying to restore some idyllic "balance" of 1732.  

Your description does fit a loud minority, but the attempt to paint that fervent minority as "religious" is illogical, unfounded, and based on the same sort of verbal trickery used by those you have painted as extremists.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> You could draw the same sort of conclusions about any non-religious set of beliefs and concerns.  Would you apply all of these seemingly logical "proof cases" of the religious nature of environmentalism to political ideology?   You could.



Actually, I've done exactly that on occasions. As I've previously stated, I don't see much fundamental difference between the traditional religions and modern ideologies. (By which I mean not only extremist ideologies, but even some ideological assumptions that are a part of the shared worldview of most people nowadays.) All of them require belief in and respect towards various entities that lie outside the realm of observable phenomena; in any case, one can either accept the belief in those entities or consider them as superstitious fiction. But this is a very complex and general topic, which is guaranteed to hit many nerves whenever any concrete examples of such beliefs are discussed. 



> Any "true believers" in most any political ideology are prone to leave facts and rationality at the door, argue with passionate sincerity, base their heated arguments on assumptions based on assumptions based on whatever cant is repeated until they accept it as verifiable fact.  It still has no spiritual basis, and is still not like religion.


Well, now we get to the question of what exactly constitutes a "spiritual basis" necessary to qualify a belief as religious. As I wrote above, I would say that the fundamentals of modern ideologies aren't that much different from the "spiritual" fundamentals of traditional religions, and this is primarily because of their similarity in reliance on a metaphysical basis, rather than because of the reasons you've described above. But if you insist on a more restrictive definition of a "spiritual basis," fair enough.




> You might well call me and most of the people I know "soft core" environmentalists.  None of us believes in Gaea, or in any immutable "Nature" ravished by evil humans.  We tend to see the geometric population growth of humans in recent decades, and the natural consumption of raw materials at historically unknown rates, as a series of important issues.  We don't go around yelling "cataclysm!" and trying to restore some idyllic "balance" of 1732.


Sure, and I clearly wrote that I actually share the concern about certain issues that are commonly labeled as environmental. Also, when I write about the proponents of any particular ideology, I normally have in mind those people who are active and vocal in the promotion of the ideology in question, not the ordinary people who just happen to have some (usually not too well informed) "soft core" sympathy towards it. 

The primary problem that I see with the "soft core" environmentalists -- a category that probably includes most people nowadays -- is that they have massively fallen for some commonly repeated false or misleading claims. To take just one example, the supposed geometric population growth you mention was in fact a relatively short trend; the world population growth rate is in fact plummeting and the population is likely to stabilize at about 10 billion in this century (see this report, for example). But this could now lead us into an essentially off-topic discussion of the truth of various environmentalist claims.


----------



## Kajjo

I really do not see your point, Athauf. There are both terms: ideology and religion. They might have common points and quite a few parallels as they probably aim at the same human trait to have strong beliefs and convictions ("what I believe is true"). I can see why you feel both concepts quite close to each other. However, the significant difference is the presence of supernatural or divine powers in the concept of religion. I think in a language forum like this, we should focus on the exact definition.

Thus, I do not think that political movements of any kind are religions, even if their nature has religious aspects like blind believing, fervor, irrationality, unfoundedness of believings, apocalyptic perspectives and focus on moral issues.

Another aspect: 

When reading this thread the same issue came up that always comes up in such discussions: We lack an exact definition of envorinmentalism. Naturally [sic!], there are several ecological reasons to minimise pollution and preserve nature, but we do not talk about ecology and scientific results, we talk about a political movement, about a sort of extremists and call that movement environmentalism*. *We should focus on these extremism and its system of belief, and not on mainstream scientific evidence related to ecology.

Kajjo


----------



## Athaulf

modus.irrealis said:


> But I don't see how calling it a religion would help, even if people think that religion is automatically wrong, so if they suddenly realize environmentalism is a religion they'll all abandon it. In the end much of this seems to be a question of values, and again, where rational basis fits in, I'm not sure.
> [...]
> I'm just wondering why religion is being thrown around as basically an insult here.


Now I realize that I've missed to clarify a supremely important point! You see, the problem is not about the religion itself, but about _religious proselytism_ and _state religion_. 

Rational people generally don't care what religion others practice in their private lives. But aggressive religious proselytism is looked upon far less favorably -- although it's commonly believed that it should be legal, most people consider it to be in very bad taste -- whereas the official establishment of a state religion is nowadays generally looked upon as a monstrosity. So the intended "insult" to the environmentalists is not that they practice a religion, but that they are aggressively pushing it onto other people and, which is the worst of all, lobbying the government to legally force it onto others. 

I think I've answered most of your other points in my previous post above.


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> I really do not see your point, Athauf. There are both terms: ideology and religion. They might have common points and quite a few parallels as they probably aim at the same human trait to have strong beliefs and convictions ("what I believe is true"). I can see why you feel both concepts quite close to each other. However, the significant difference is the presence of supernatural or divine powers in the concept of religion. I think in a language forum like this, we should focus on the exact definition.
> 
> Thus, I do not think that political movements of any kind are religions, even if their nature has religious aspects like blind believing, fervor, irrationality, unfoundedness of believings, apocalyptic perspectives and focus on moral issues.



But in many political ideologies, I do see the reverence towards metaphysical entities, supernatural if you will, that have no essential difference from the ones found in religions. 

Take the rather clear example of nationalism. A "nation" as perceived by a nationalist is a spiritual entity not much different from a deity -- it decidedly _does not _refer to a mere set of individuals existing in this world and this universe. Thus a nationalist deems things to be in favor of or against the "interest of the nation" and talks about the "will" and "life" of the nation, as if it were a conscious being; he judges things to be "good for the nation" or "bad for the nation," as if things could ever be measurably and observably good or bad other than for particular, concrete individuals. And these are not just figures of speech whose meaning, properly interpreted, would still refer to observable things and people existing in this world. In the mind of a nationalist, the "nation" truly exists as a supernatural power, a metaphysical entity in its own right. 

Similar analysis can be applied to essentially any political ideology. The existence of such supernatural objects of reverence is more pronounced in extremist ideologies, but my opinion is that many of them lie at the heart of more conventional political persuasions, too.



> When reading this thread the same issue came up that always comes up in such discussions: We lack an exact definition of envorinmentalism. Naturally [sic!], there are several ecological reasons to minimise pollution and preserve nature, but we do not talk about ecology and scientific results, we talk about a political movement, about a sort of extremists and call that movement environmentalism*. *We should focus on these extremism and its system of belief, and not on mainstream scientific evidence related to ecology.


True -- ecology is a positive science, and environmentalism is an ideology, whatever one might think of it. One can conceivably be an ecologist by profession, and at the same time an anti-environmentalists. It is sad that in some languages (my own native one included ), these terms have gotten mixed up very badly.


----------



## cuchuflete

Athaulf said:


> The primary problem that I see with the "soft core" environmentalists -- a category that probably includes most people nowadays -- is that they have massively fallen for some commonly repeated false or misleading claims. To take just one example, the supposed geometric population growth you mention was in fact a relatively short trend; the world population growth rate is in fact plummeting and the population is likely to stabilize at about 10 billion in this century (see this report, for example). But this could now lead us into an essentially off-topic discussion of the truth of various environmentalist claims.


 You again attribute to a very large group of people certain attributes that you have seen on display among a vocal minority.  You may be correct, or you may be quite wrong.   It's impossible to usefully debate a string of generalities, but I haven't seen any proof that the majority of people who have some concern for the environment are subject to having  "...massively fallen for some commonly repeated false or misleading claims."

When I was a child, the population of the planet was around 2.5 billion. Today it's about 6.5 billion.  The resource pool has not been expanding; to the contrary, we have been making use of it.  A population that _may_ "stablize" at around 10 billion is still cause for concern.  

Back to 'soft core' environmentalists, whom you dismiss as gullible swallowers of conventional wisdom--a few decades ago it was normal and acceptable to dump sewage into oceans and rivers.  Many were fouled to a point at which they could no longer support fish, recreation, or use as potable water sources.
Today my neighbors and I monitor our river, which is no longer used for dumping sewage and industrial effluent.  The fish have returned, and we can swim in it.  We didn't accept anybody's party line about the sky falling on Mother Earth to participate in such common sense activity.   Fouling one's own nest used to be routine; today it is not in many developed countries.  Where is the fanaticism or irrationality in that sea change in values and behavior?   It seems more a widespread attack of common sense.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> You again attribute to a very large group of people certain attributes that you have seen on display among a vocal minority.  You may be correct, or you may be quite wrong.   It's impossible to usefully debate a string of generalities, but I haven't seen any proof that the majority of people who have some concern for the environment are subject to having  "...massively fallen for some commonly repeated false or misleading claims."



Well, my impressions could be wrong. But they are derived from two sources: the observations of what people around me (either online or in real life) tend to believe, and the observations of various claims that are often repeated in the mainstream media in a manner that indicates that a typical member of the audience would be expected to consider them as well-known indisputable facts. Certain claims that I know to be false are indeed very widespread in these categories, so my conclusion seems rational to me. 



> When I was a child, the population of the planet was around 2.5 million. Today it's about 6.5 million.  The resource pool has not been expanding; to the contrary, we have been making use of it.  A population that _may_ "stablize" at around 10 billion is still cause for concern.


Whether the resource pool has not expanded is arguable. New technologies have turned a lot of stuff that was yesterday entirely worthless into valuable resources -- a point that is often overlooked. 

But rather than discussing this point, please focus on the supposed "geometric" nature of the population growth. This factoid is an excellent example of an extremely widespread false belief. There is a precise mathematical definition of what "geometric growth" means: constant ratio between the numbers in each two consecutive years. The world population growth has definitely not been like that in the last two decades, because this ratio has in fact been falling rather quickly, and is projected to continue doing so. (Even the _absolute _increase in population was smaller in 2005 than in 1985, so that the growth has in fact been _less than linear._) But the "geometric growth" catchphrase is still repeated around as if it were a permanent feature of the global demographics. I'd bet that most people still believe that it is (to the extent that they are thinking about the issue at all). 

Of course, one can ask if even a stable population of 10 billion is too much, but that's an altogether different question from whether humanity can cope with a relentless geometric population growth. 



> Today my neighbors and I monitor our river, which is no longer used for dumping sewage and industrial effluent.  The fish have returned, and we can swim in it.  We didn't accept anybody's party line about the sky falling on Mother Earth to participate in such common sense activity.


If environmentalism were only about such common sense activities, I would have very little to say about it at all.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks for the correction.  I should not have said "geometric". That was a gross exaggeration.  On the other hand....as the economists are wont to say.....stating that the ratio of growth is falling is just a little bit misleading, as population may continue to increase on a higher base, simultaneous with a fall in the rate of growth.  

I agree with you that there are extremists who buy into "facts" that are not factual at all, but they may have a useful effect in directing the broad public to take an interest in a topic that would otherwise be ignored.  

I recently had an argument with a person who is a serious tree-hugger.  She declared the evils of disposable diapers, their effects on land fills etc.  I asked about alternatives, and was told that "of course" cotton diapers was a superior solution!  I asked about the net environmental effects, including the energy costs of transport, the water use required for cotton farming in the California desert, and so forth.  The look I received was venemous.  It was not the sort of question a knee-jerk environmentalist seems to want to address.  All that said, the majority of people I know are too mature to accept that there are easy, automatic solutions to environmental questions, and they don't buy into the more extreme alarmist predictions.

Going way, way back to the thread title, some envirornmentalists share with some religious proselytizers some behavior patterns and techniques.  For me, that doesn't support characterizing environmentalism itself as a religion.  There are plenty of people with serious environmental concerns, and factual and scientific awareness, who do not make hare-brained claims, just as there are many devout followers of religions who do not try to impose their own beliefs on anyone else.


----------



## danielfranco

Focusing for a second on population trends and environmentalism, is the Carter Catastrophe significant here?


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> [...]some envirornmentalists share with some religious proselytizers some behavior patterns and techniques.  For me, that doesn't support characterizing environmentalism itself as a religion.


I could not agree more. Several people now stated that there are parallels between religion, ideology and environmentalism. But that dos not make environmentalism a religion. 

However, I like Athaulf's idea to point out that proselytism is not only another parallel to religion but also one of the main reasons environmentalism is viewed so controversely by many rational, educated people.

Further, ecology is worthwhile and there are a lot of good reasons to behave responsible towards nature. But it just is a fact that environmentalists have accepted (or even proselytised) many false information as truth. What today is preached as environmentally friendly always has to be reconsidered and double-checked, because a lot of rubbish ideas go around.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

danielfranco said:


> Focusing for a second on population trends and environmentalism, is the Carter Catastrophe significant here?


The Carter Catastrophe is a more a joke than a serious argument. It is only a play with numbers and statistics. It could be applied to any development, not only population.

However, population trends are of course a valid source of worry. 

Kajjo


----------



## ernest_

Athaulf said:


> Take the rather clear example of nationalism. A "nation" as perceived by a nationalist is a spiritual entity not much different from a deity -- it decidedly _does not _refer to a mere set of individuals existing in this world and this universe.



I don't know what your idea of a nationalist is, but I regard myself nationalist and I can tell you that I don't think a nation is a spiritual entity, but a collection of individuals that share some common characteristics. Of course it has no life of its own, nor divine powers, nor anything like that. I think you're making up a straw man here, mate.


----------



## Kajjo

ernest_ said:


> I don't know what your idea of a nationalist is, but I regard myself nationalist and I can tell you that I don't think a nation is a spiritual entity, but a collection of individuals that share some common characteristics. Of course it has no life of its own, nor divine powers, nor anything like that. I think you're making up a straw man here, mate.



I am not a nationalist, but I could not agree more to you statement. I suppose most nationalists do not think their nation is a somewhat independent, conscious entity. 

Kajjo


----------



## palomnik

One thing strikes me very forcefully about most of the comments made so far. 

For most people, their impressions about environmentalism as a religion depends on whether they have a positive or negative impression of religion in general. Most responders who view religion as a baneful drag on man's ability to achieve all that he can be seem to feel that environmentalism _can _be a religion - that is, one more form of fanaticism which the world will be better off avoiding when misused in the wrong hands, but which can be a positive force when approached "rationally", whatever that means.

Those who consider themselves religious people (and I don't think I'll get much disagreement when I say that there aren't many such people on this website, although there are a few) tend to deny that environmentalism is, or could be, a religion; people like this tend to have definite ideas about what a religion should be, and don't see how what is basically a social philosophy based on a specific interpretation of scientific data can be called a "religion."

Allow me to place myself in the latter category.  Religion, to my mind, is based on the concept of an ultimate reality to life, and a way that we can share in that ultimate reality.  While belief and ethics are important, they are in the final analysis only derivative of this basic fact.  Anybody who conceives of religion as based primarily around a moral code is missing the point.


----------



## Kajjo

palomnik said:


> For most people, their impressions about environmentalism as a religion depends on whether they have a positive or negative impression of religion in general.


No, I do not think so. I have read several posts that clearly distinguish between religion and ideology by the presence of a divine power. This argument can be made no matter how one's personal relation to religion is. And is has been made by some people who I figure are not particular religious.



> Religion, to my mind, is based on the concept of an ultimate reality to life, and a way that we can share in that ultimate reality.


However, your definition cannot clearly distinguish religion from other concepts, e.g. from science and reason. What is an "ultimate reality"? 

Religion is about _belief_, more exactly about a belief in divine or supernatural powers. That is what distinguishes religion from other concepts.



> While belief and ethics are important, they are in the final analysis only derivative of this basic fact.


I do not think so. Belief is the origin of everything religious.



> Anybody who conceives of religion as based primarily around a moral code is missing the point.


Here you are right, I feel.

Kajjo


----------



## modus.irrealis

Athaulf said:


> So the intended "insult" to the environmentalists is not that they practice a religion, but that they are aggressively pushing it onto other people and, which is the worst of all, lobbying the government to legally force it onto others.



Wait, environmentalists have certain ideas about what would be best for the world and they are going about trying to convince the public and the government to incorporate those ideas into law and public policy. Why is the proselytism? That just sounds like democracy to me. Is any push to change the law now an act of forcing something onto others?


----------



## Athaulf

ernest_ said:


> I don't know what your idea of a nationalist is, but I regard myself nationalist and I can tell you that I don't think a nation is a spiritual entity, but a collection of individuals that share some common characteristics. Of course it has no life of its own, nor divine powers, nor anything like that. I think you're making up a straw man here, mate.



Well, what can I say, except that where I come from, I've certainly had quite an exposure to both the propaganda and the actions of nationalists. As for your (Catalan?) "nationalism," I would guess that if you ever saw real nationalists in serious action, you would probably prefer to use some other name for your patriotic affection. But we're now getting off-topic here.


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> I am not a nationalist, but I could not agree more to [Ernest's] statement. I suppose most nationalists do not think their nation is a somewhat independent, conscious entity.



They are certainly reluctant to frame it that way explicitly, but if I took a typical nationalist tract and analyzed it, I could easily show that it has the characteristics I described above. Also, note that I'm talking about real political nationalists -- a sort that is fortunately nearly extinct in Western Europe nowadays, but still thrives in many other places.


----------



## Athaulf

modus.irrealis said:


> Wait, environmentalists have certain ideas about what would be best for the world and they are going about trying to convince the public and the government to incorporate those ideas into law and public policy. Why is the proselytism? That just sounds like democracy to me. Is any push to change the law now an act of forcing something onto others?



If the law in question restricts other people's freedom and hurts their well-being, the answer is certainly yes. For a hypothetical example, certain religious groups firmly believe that the world will be condemned to hell collectively unless people start adhering to their doctrine and rituals; thus they also have "certain ideas about what would be best for the world." But if a religious group sought a law that would mandate everyone to participate in their religious observances, that would certainly be an act of forcing their religion onto others, regardless of whether the change in law would be brought about by democratic or other political institutions. (If a law hurts my freedom and well-being, what difference does it make if it was brought about democratically? Even the greatest believers in democracy nowadays admit that there must be at least some limit to the power of the will of the majority.)

Now when it comes to the political influence of environmentalists, the relevant question in this context is: when we observe what laws they are lobbying for, are those laws of such nature that they are trying to force onto others their subjective and irrational ideas? I would say that those laws that they've actually managed to push through have so far been relatively benign (there are exceptions, but their discussion would get us too far), and in some cases they have even been beneficial (e.g. certain laws against air pollution). But I would say that this is only because so far, they've managed to push through only a small part of their agenda, which also happened to be its most moderate and sensible part. The rest of their agenda certainly includes forcing people to surrender a lot of their well-being and adhere to their rather irrational standards of virtuous behavior. And here I'm actually talking about the moderate, mainstream environmentalist orgalizations that command significant material resources and public respect, not about the loony extremist factions.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Athaulf,

Who gets to decide what "restricts other people's freedom" or "hurts their well-being?" Who decides what are "subjective and irrational ideas?" It seems to me you're just labelling your point of view as rational and objective, and whoever disagrees with you is irrational, yet unless I missed it, you have given no reasons why you are rational but people who think the extinction of species is wrong are not, so your comments come across as subjective as anyone else's. Sure you can trot out some more extreme examples, but what about something like protecting certain areas from urban development? Is this rational or irrational? And how do we decide whether it's you or the environmentalist who gets to answer that question?


----------



## Athaulf

modus.irrealis said:


> Athaulf,
> 
> Who gets to decide what "restricts other people's freedom" or "hurts their well-being?" Who decides what are "subjective and irrational ideas?"



The answer to the first question is fairly straightforward: if a law prohibits doing something that the people were free to do yesterday, then it obviously has the effect of restricting their freedom; if it introduces measures that lower their standard of living, then it obviously hurts their well-being. These are more or less questions of fact -- although admittedly there are grey areas, especially for the first one.

As for your second question, it is indeed something one must decide for oneself, and there is no way different people will ever agree on the answer. But generally, I believe that when a group of people are trying to promote certain ideas to the status of legal norms that will be imposed on everyone, by force if necessary, such ideas should be mercilessly scrutinized before they are awarded such a status. They should be "presumed guilty," i.e. presumed subjective and irrational before a very strong proof of the contrary has been presented. I believe that what I'm stating now is basically a common-sense precautionary principle, and I also think that for many (most?) items on the environmentalist agenda, such a proof has never been presented. 

There is also the fact that certain popular environmentalist causes are usually justified by arguments that can be shown to be objectively false by scientific argument, to which their proponents are however usually deaf. If one admits this fact (and several examples have already been given in this thread), I don't see why one should object to labeling such causes as subjective and irrational. 



> It seems to me you're just labelling your point of view as rational and objective, and whoever disagrees with you is irrational, yet unless I missed it, you have given no reasons why you are rational but people who think the extinction of species is wrong are not, so your comments come across as subjective as anyone else's. Sure you can trot out some more extreme examples, but what about something like protecting certain areas from urban development? Is this rational or irrational?


Of course, all people have their subjective and irrational ideas, but the relevant difference is to what extent they are trying to push these ideas on everyone else. 

If some people are truly distressed about a species being exterminated, it's not like they are helpless about it. They can invest their own money and effort into saving that species; there are obvious ways of doing that. But that's not what they want; they want _others _to pay the cost of fulfilling their desires (by being taxed to pay for the conservation efforts, being prohibited from developing their land without compensation, having their standard of living lowered by suppressing economic development, etc.). 



> And how do we decide whether it's you or the environmentalist who gets to answer that question?


Obviously, the decision will be brought by the existing political system, whatever it is, and as an individual, I can't do anything but subject myself to the power behind it.  But I can't be expected to be happy about it.

However, the same question can be asked about other things too, and I'm curious if you would respond with the same attitude in those situations. For example, imagine if there existed a very powerful sectarian political party trying to push through the establishment of their creed as the state religion, whose observance will be strictly mandated by law (this is indeed the situation in some countries, as you probably know). In such a situation, would you agree that there is indeed some limit beyond which ideas can be labeled as too subjective and irrational to form a legitimate basis for government policy, even if they manage to capture significant public support?


----------



## modus.irrealis

Athaulf said:


> The answer to the first question is fairly straightforward: if a law prohibits doing something that the people were free to do yesterday, then it obviously has the effect of restricting their freedom; if it introduces measures that lower their standard of living, then it obviously hurts their well-being. These are more or less questions of fact -- although admittedly there are grey areas, especially for the first one.



I don't know. There are very few acts of legislations that can be seen only as restricting actions -- most usually involve a rebalancing of various freedoms, so deciding whether it's a net decrese or net increase of freedom depends on what freedoms you value more, whose freedoms you value more, and so on. Well-being is even worse, because people don't seem to agree on what well-being is and whether condition A is better than condition B. Again, there does not seem to me to be any logically privileged position from which to make these decisions, which would be necessary to label some positions as rational or irrational (except when people use irrational to mean they disagree).



> As for your second question, it is indeed something one must decide for oneself, and there is no way different people will ever agree on the answer. But generally, I believe that when a group of people are trying to promote certain ideas to the status of legal norms that will be imposed on everyone, by force if necessary, such ideas should be mercilessly scrutinized before they are awarded such a status. They should be "presumed guilty," i.e. presumed subjective and irrational before a very strong proof of the contrary has been presented. I believe that what I'm stating now is basically a common-sense precautionary principle, and I also think that for many (most?) items on the environmentalist agenda, such a proof has never been presented.


Why irrational, though? If you're just saying that before enacting laws, we should examine their consequences and make thoughtful decisions about what we change, then that's just a trivial claim that almost all people would agree with. Throwing around "irrational" and "subjective" is then just a rhetorical trick to move the argument onto an emotional level, which is the exact opposite of what you seem to want.

And proof? This isn't math. I'd even go further and say that on some levels of this debate, even the question of evidence is irrelevant. On a question like "We should put the needs of the current generation above all else" vs. "We should consider future generations," which can sometimes come into conflict, it really comes down to what a society values more, and I really don't see where proof comes in, especially why it comes in only for one side, while the status quo gets a free ride.



> There is also the fact that certain popular environmentalist causes are usually justified by arguments that can be shown to be objectively false by scientific argument, to which their proponents are however usually deaf. If one admits this fact (and several examples have already been given in this thread), I don't see why one should object to labeling such causes as subjective and irrational.


That's fine. People who believe contradictory things or people who refuse to acknowledge facts are irrational. But you seem to be applying irrational on a much broader scope. And still, I don't see why this irrationality is a sign of environmentalism's being a religion.



> Of course, all people have their subjective and irrational ideas, but the relevant difference is to what extent they are trying to push these ideas on everyone else.


But sometimes pushing irrational ideas like all humans are equal is not so bad a thing, is it? Or if that's not an irrational idea, why not?



> If some people are truly distressed about a species being exterminated, it's not like they are helpless about it. They can invest their own money and effort into saving that species; there are obvious ways of doing that. But that's not what they want; they want _others _to pay the cost of fulfilling their desires (by being taxed to pay for the conservation efforts, being prohibited from developing their land without compensation, having their standard of living lowered by suppressing economic development, etc.).


Just like those people who want to have public health care but instead of investing their own money they want to tax rich people and lower their standard of living by decreasing their yacht time? Again, it's a balancing act, and I don't see why certain views should be eliminated beforehand without any consideration, because their underlying values differ from yours, or from society's at large.



> Obviously, the decision will be brought by the existing political system, whatever it is, and as an individual, I can't do anything but subject myself to the power behind it.  But I can't be expected to be happy about it.
> 
> However, the same question can be asked about other things too, and I'm curious if you would respond with the same attitude in those situations. For example, imagine if there existed a very powerful sectarian political party trying to push through the establishment of their creed as the state religion, whose observance will be strictly mandated by law (this is indeed the situation in some countries, as you probably know). In such a situation, would you agree that there is indeed some limit beyond which ideas can be labeled as too subjective and irrational to form a legitimate basis for government policy, even if they manage to capture significant public support?


No, such a scheme could conceivably be the height of rationality -- if, say, you truly believe that God has revealed to you the structure of the perfect society and you truly believe that a certain ritual gives real benefit to whoever partakes in it, it is rational to try to impose it. But I don't think rational is synonymous with right. There are all sorts of policies that I vehemently disagree with, like the one in your example, and yet have no problem calling rational.


----------



## Athaulf

modus.irrealis said:


> I don't know. There are very few acts of legislations that can be seen only as restricting actions -- most usually involve a rebalancing of various freedoms, so deciding whether it's a net decrese or net increase of freedom depends on what freedoms you value more, whose freedoms you value more, and so on. Well-being is even worse, because people don't seem to agree on what well-being is and whether condition A is better than condition B. Again, there does not seem to me to be any logically privileged position from which to make these decisions, which would be necessary to label some positions as rational or irrational (except when people use irrational to mean they disagree).
> 
> Why irrational, though? If you're just saying that before enacting laws, we should examine their consequences and make thoughtful decisions about what we change, then that's just a trivial claim that almost all people would agree with. Throwing around "irrational" and "subjective" is then just a rhetorical trick to move the argument onto an emotional level, which is the exact opposite of what you seem to want.
> [...]
> I don't see why certain views should be eliminated beforehand without any consideration, because their underlying values differ from yours, or from society's at large.
> [...]
> [If], say, you truly believe that God has revealed to you the structure of the perfect society and you truly believe that a certain ritual gives real benefit to whoever partakes in it, it is rational to try to impose it. But I don't think rational is synonymous with right. There are all sorts of policies that I vehemently disagree with, like the one in your example, and yet have no problem calling rational.



In a way, I very much agree with you -- a truly consistent and thorough philosophical examination of most notions frequently used in ideological debates, such as "freedom," "well-being," "rights," and "rationality" will indeed yield the conclusion that these notions are generally without objective meaning, and that they can be (and indeed usually are) defined and redefined by pretty much everyone as the need arises for scoring rhetorical points. This is more or less the point of your first paragraph as I understand it.

Once we get that straight, though, we get to the problem that politics can be seen as pure struggle of interests, in which individuals support either their own selfish ones -- in which I include the quest for good feelings by supporting various (supposedly) altruistic policies -- or the interests of other parties that are successfully deluding them. Also, we have to accept that there is no objective basis by which to judge any side in a political struggle except its practical success in raising support and seizing power. 

This is a problem because most people (I'm pretty sure you're also among them) will still insist that there _are_ some policies that should be dismissed as outright insane or criminal, even if they have overwhelming support. But your analysis quoted above, especially the first and last paragraph, clearly  shows that any such attitude must necessarily be based on the same flaws that you ascribe to my arguments. Because any notions of "freedom," "well-being," "rights," etc. can be easily deconstructed in the same way; we're just placing different thresholds at which we decide to stop with this deconstruction (and possibly taking different initial definitions of these notions, which are all however arbitrary and subjective to start with). 

But the more important point is that if politics is just about struggle for power, where no side can claim any merit except practical success, then there simply _can't_ be any other political arguments except convincing people that something is in their individual interest or appealing to their emotions. Thus if you identify the flaw of appeal to emotions in my arguments, you'll have to admit that the same flaw is present in every other political argument too. You write that "rational" is not "synonymous with right." But how can you then consider "right" -- to which you seem to ascribe some sort of objective meaning -- as anything else than just another fuzzy, emotion-laden rhetorical buzzword?


To put it briefly, we have basically reiterated the circle that every rational discussion of ideology and politics always ends up in. At the end of the day, it's all about subjective views, emotional appeal, and struggle for power.


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> This wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I started this thread, but these people are clearly attempting to enlist religion as an active player in environmentalism. Given that the real playing field for environmental issues is politics and public policy, I find it interesting that people whose political brethren are constantly trying to exclude religion from all areas of public life are in this instance trying to co-opt religion for their cause.


 
Do you not think it normal human behaviour that those who think XYZ is a thing which society needs to address would try to garner support whereever they can - especially from bodies which see themselves as having a relevance to all spheres of their followers lives?

While I disagree that environmentalism is a religion in itself, I see it as fitting that environmentalists try to seek the support of those Churches which see the spiritual and the physical welfare of their congregations as within their remit. This is just the same as I would see it as right and proper that they seek the support of trade unions which, while they may think that anti-pollution measures are anti-business and therefore anti-jobs, they would be justified in supporting anti-pollution measures as they impact on their members lives - both inside and outside the workplace.




> Given that the real playing field for environmental issues is politics and public policy


Is that a given?
The real playing field I see for environmental issues is all around me, it's in the litter on the streets of Dublin, the graffiti on the walls everywhere, the pollution of our rivers by both industry and agricultural overuse of chemicals which run off into the watercourses, it's in the apparant disregard for the generations yet to come which seems to be displayed by those who would have use use up every resource available to us fast than it can be replaced, or deplete a limited stock totally because we feel we 'need' it for our economies.


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's have a look at a few "environmentalist" changes that have occured in my society in my lifetime, and see if they are either
(1) religious, or (2)fanatical, irrational, extremist, or any of the other not so positive things Athaulf has ascribed to environmentalism in general.


When I was a small boy, people would rake leaves in the autumn, and burn piles of them in the street in front of their houses.  Such burning was outlawed decades ago, as the smoke was considered unhealthy.

1- religious?  NO
2- fanatical, etc.?  NO

Batteries, thermometers, and other devices containing mercury used to be placed in household trash.  Now these are segregated and recycled.


1- religious?  NO
2- fanatical, etc.?  NO

Building codes for septic systems have likewise been made much more stringent.  

1- religious?  NO
2- fanatical, etc.?  NO

Asbestos was used for house siding and pipe insulating and building insulation.  In the past it went to dumps and landfills when demolition was done.  Now it is contained, and treated as hazardous waste.


1- religious?  NO
2- fanatical, etc.?  NO

The list could go on for many pages.

While a few arguably odd-ball causes such as protecting the scarce habitat of the wooly-nosed flea flicker, at the expense of a developer who wants to build McMansions for the very rich, get a lot of press attention, there has been a steady movement to clean up our surroundings, and make them safer and more pleasant for our own and for future generations.


1- religious?  NO
2- fanatical, etc.?  NO


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> Let's have a look at a few "environmentalist" changes that have occured in my society in my lifetime, and see if they are either
> (1) religious, or (2)fanatical, irrational, extremist, or any of the other not so positive things Athaulf has ascribed to environmentalism in general.



Well, I'll repeat what I've already written a few posts up:

_I would say that those laws that they [environmentalists] have actually managed to push through have so far been relatively benign (there are exceptions, but their discussion would get us too far), and in some cases they have even been beneficial (e.g. certain laws against air pollution). But I would say that this is only because so far, they've managed to push through only a small part of their agenda, which also happened to be its most moderate and sensible part.
_

Of course that any political movement will first manage to push through the most moderate items on their agenda, which can be expected to be appealing even to many people who don't share its ideological basis. For many political movements, their success remains forever limited to such things, and that may turn out to be the case with environmentalists too. (Although I have a lot to say about certain things that they've already managed to push through, but that would take us too far.) But either way, this isn't a reason to exclude the rest of their agenda from a general discussion of their ideology, especially because a lot of my criticism applies even to the widely respected mainstream environmentalist organizations (such as Greenpeace or the Sierra Club), let alone to the more extreme factions (some of which still command significant public respect).


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> Well, I'll repeat what I've already written a few posts up:
> 
> _I would say that those laws that they [environmentalists] have actually managed to push through have so far been relatively benign (there are exceptions, but their discussion would get us too far), and in some cases they have even been beneficial (e.g. certain laws against air pollution). But I would say that this is only because so far, they've managed to push through only a small part of their agenda, which also happened to be its most moderate and sensible part._


You made me snort milk all over my toast then I saw that you weren't joking.
Are you seriously saying that environmentalists have not been able to effect significant change.
Why do you not have sewage flowing down your street?
Why do you not have a power generation station built in your town?
Why is lead not used in paint anymore?
Why is asbestos no longer used in public housing?
Why are farmers not routinely using DDT et al?
Why is lead now not used in petrol?
Why may I not spray a huge range of chemicals like dioxins on my garden?
Why are farmers no longer encouraged to clear fell their land?
I could keep asking similar questions until I wear out my why key?

The world may be heading to hell in a handbasket but in any event I would hope that the handbasket is being maintained by an environmentalist not someone with their eye to the bottom line caring only for short term profit at all costs.

Robert


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> You made me snort milk all over my toast then I saw that you weren't joking.
> Are you seriously saying that environmentalists have not been able to effect significant change.



I'm afraid your laughter is caused by your confusion, rather than the inherent absurdity of my statements. I was not comparing the present achievements of environmentalists to some absolute measure of significance, but to their overall agenda, and this agenda certainly contains many rather more extreme items (how many exactly, this of course depends on what concrete environmentalist group we are talking about). As for your list that I've avoided quoting, I don't want to enter a detailed discussion of it, but I'll just notice that it appears to be revealing your somewhat shallow understanding of certain issues. 



> The world may be heading to hell in a handbasket but in any event I would hope that the handbasket is being maintained by an environmentalist not someone with their eye to the bottom line caring only for short term profit at all costs.


You are very wrong if you believe that environmentalism and related ideologies are the only thing giving people incentives to take into account more than the short term profits and to avoid inflicting harm on other parties. But we are getting away from the original topic here.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> I was not comparing the present achievements of environmentalists to some absolute measure of significance, but to their overall agenda, and this agenda certainly contains many rather more extreme items (how many exactly, this of course depends on what concrete environmentalist group we are talking about).


What is their overall agenda?
Give it to me with both barrels, the real deal, make sure that you hold nothing back; I want to know what those environmentalists want?

Robert


----------



## frenchtranslater

PLEASE STOP MIXING IDEOLOGIES AND RELIGIONS!!! You all have an exaggerated idea of religion. Religion is believing in a.) God, b.) gods, c.) holy/devine spirit/s, nothing more nothing less (whatever dictionnaries might say). In the case of environmentalism, there is no such thing as any of these three. It is people with the same perspective of the world today, who want to preserve it. 

Mother Earth/Nature is only an image for people to unite themselves around. Today the olympic flame is also a religious item, in remembrance of the gods of the Olympus. However, infact, today it is the symbol of Glory. The ex-diety (Mother Nature), is only an image to assemble around. Assuming it wasn't, we shall say the Olympics are the biggest religious ceremony in the world after the Midnight Mass?


----------



## cuchuflete

Athaulf said:


> ...I was not comparing the present achievements of environmentalists to some absolute measure of significance, but to *their overall agenda*, and this agenda certainly contains many rather more extreme items (how many exactly, this of course *depends on what concrete environmentalist group we are talking about*). As for your list that I've avoided quoting, *I don't want to enter a detailed discussion of it,* but I'll just notice that it appears to be revealing your somewhat shallow understanding of certain issues.



You have been prancing through this thread, wielding a very broad, very unspecific brush.  You have cast aspersions on environmentalists *in general*, never detailing 'their overall agenda" and never telling us the names of any fringe or mainstream "concrete environmentalist group" _you_ "are talking about". 

You cite characteristics of almost any social or political extremist group, and then blithely attribute them to environmentalists in general.  That is, perhaps, an effective debate technique, but it isn't credible if one casts more than a quick glance at your blanket condemnations.  

You have said that environmentalists are x and y and z, without any proof.   You have called them names.  You have asserted, illogically, that *they* are like a religion.

I am thoroughly unpersuaded by such superficial generalities.
From what I have seen of your own writings in other threads, you would be too, if someone tried to sell such thin gruel to you, badly disguised as a meal of substance.


----------



## .   1

frenchtranslater said:


> PLEASE STOP MIXING IDEOLOGIES AND RELIGIONS!!!


Please stop yelling.  We can all read lower case just as clearly.
You have your opinions as to what constitutes a religion and an ideology and others have divergent opinions.  Surely you are interested in opinions other than your own; or is that not the case?
It is not possible to not consider environmentalism and religion together and remain on topic as the question clearly states that this is the aim of the question.
If you don't like the question simply don't answer it but the question has been asked and so far many, many, many people have had a ball discussing the pros and cons of this and that without some self appointed school teacher telling us what we should talk about.
If environmentalism is a religion it is far and away the most effective and efficient religion ever devised as it actually achievesresults that are measureable, predictable, repeatable and  beneficial to all humanity.


Robert


----------



## frenchtranslater

Some people in this conversation have crossed a line they shouldn't have. Of course I am intrested in everybody's opinion, but judging and rejudging the deep beliefs of some people who have what they call 'the faith', is purely unacceptable. There was one environmentalist who specificly said in this thread that he didn't consider envronmentalism as a religion. It is deeply worrying that people do not differenciate the nature of the 'supernatural' and the 'unnatural'. And that they put all there conviction in saying both are same, pointing fingers sayign people are fanatics, and thinking it is right. The question was 'is environmentalism a religion?' not 'are these people members of a mind draining sect which involves fantasim, diety worship or recrutement of poor, innocent souls that should not be brought into such an obscur cult".


----------



## caballoschica

Bienvenidos: If liberalism is a religion, so is conservatism.  You're painting with a biased brush if you can't see conservatism as a religion, too, based on your "apparent qualifications" for a religion.  

Athaulf: What is the overall agenda and how could you possibly know it? What specific groups? What could their overall agenda possibly be that would be so radical that it would hurt mankind?  The reason us environmentalists care about the Earth is because we care about humans, too.  Quality of life!  Do you like to just relax outside and take in nature's beauty?  Being with horses or just being outside relaxes me.  

As to the subject matter: My straight answer is No.  Environmentalism itself is not a religion.  It is caring about the environment (and quality of life) and there's nothing wrong with that.  Some people, however, may follow it in a religious way.  Some people may literally worship the Earth. 



			
				. said:
			
		

> If environmentalism is a religion it is far and away the most effective and efficient religion ever devised as it actually achieves results that are measureable, predictable, repeatable and beneficial to all humanity.


I completely agree.  I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## cuchuflete

Here's a case study that makes the assertions of environmentalism being a religion look just as silly as they really are.   

There is a proposal for a zoning change to allow a "wind farm", a windmill electricity generating facility, not far from me in Maine.  The plan is to generate sufficient electricty, using the wind, to power about 40,000 homes.  If all goes as planned, this will prevent the emission of roughly 780,000 pounds of air pollutants per year.

Many environmental groups support the plan, and have written to the authorities to express a favorable opinion of the request for authorization to build the windmills.  Others, such as the Audobon Society, have opposed the plan, due to the risk the windmills are apt to present to some birds.

There is some complexity to the issue, and some environmentalists favor one side of the argument, while others, equally sincere and armed with recorded data of the effects of wind power on birds, take the other side.  All concerned have presented logical, data-driven arguments.  There has been no 'hidden agenda', no fanatical ranting for or against anything.  There has been a logical dispute between a number of groups seriously interested in improving the environment.

This does not remind me of either the best or of the worst of any religious movement.  Nobody has invoked theology or a view of a deity.  It isn't a spirtual debate.  There has been no group worship or proselytization.


----------



## TRG

This is a repeat of an earlier post which was deleted due to excessive quoting of material from other websites (sorry).

First, environmentalism as religion is an idea that came to me as a random thought and from my own observations of the world around me. I didn't get it from reading a book or anything else that I recall. When I began to look at what others thought, the first thing I found was the speech by Michael Crichton which I referenced in my initial post. In this post I will give some additional references, which I hope will pass muster with the mods.

If you go here you will find something called "Introduction to Religion and Ecology" which part of a forum on religion and ecology conducted by Harvard University. The authors of the material are evidently Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim of Yale University. They assert that we are in an environmental crisis and that religions (in the usual sense of the word) need to be involved in dealing with the crisis. This should happen they go on to say "_because the attitudes and values that shape people’s concepts of nature come primarily from religious worldviews and ethical practices_".

This wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I started this thread, but these people are clearly attempting to enlist religion as an active player in environmentalism. Given that the real playing field for environmental issues is politics and public policy, I find it interesting that people whose political brethren are constantly trying to exclude religion from all areas of public life are in this instance trying to co-opt religion for their cause. 

I am now going to reference some material from this web page which is affiliated with the University of California at Santa Barbara. The title of the page is "Nature as Sacred". In it they talk about the fact that an opinion survey was done which found that many people feel that nature is intrinsically spiritual or sacred. 

My last reference is to another UCSB web page found here. It again talks about the concept of environmentalists being motivated by their spiritual sense of nature.

If you think environmentalism is just about picking up trash and cleaning the air and water, then you are missing the point of this entire discussion. People "get religion" about many things. Sometimes the get it about politics which is not a pretty sight. When we say "get religion" what we mean is that people develop a blind faith to a particular cause or issue. This could be true of anything, but for environmentism it is more true because many people feel that there is a sacred or spiritual aspect to nature. For some, this may be because they feel nature is God's creation, but I think we can presume that many people who feel that nature is sacred are otherwise completely secular in their worldviews.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> Others, such as the Audobon Society, have opposed the plan, due to the risk the windmills are apt to present to some birds.


Not-quite-off-topic aside.

I've heard it said both here and in Britain that birds die by flying into these giant propellor-like blades. All of these which I have seen personally, or in photographs, have been brilliant white. They stand out on the horizon and against their natural surroundings, whether on land or on sea.

If any birds are dying by flying into them then it is likely to be either "the will of God" as He controls His creation, or else it is survival of the fittest in its true sense - those species which cannot adapt to their ever-changing environment die out (where it is man or 'nature' which does the changing).


----------



## modus.irrealis

Athaulf,

If I had a point to make, it was probably that we should (but it seems in the political debate of Canada and the States at least, we don't) distinguish between value judgements, definitions of what freedom is, etc. on the one hand and the policies that flow from those values on the other hand. I just don't see where rationality fits in on the first question, and for me it's just a matter of societies making decisions through whatever political institutions they have. Personally I'd prefer those decisions be made consciously and democratically, and I wouldn't mind if they perfectly reflected my ideals, but that's not going to happen and I have to live with it. The problem is when society makes certain decisions that certain people cannot just accept and they feel compelled to do something about it, but those people can be dangerous fanatics or inspired heroes depending on how people, and ultimately history, view them.

Whether these decisions can be based on an objective procedure and whether there is a correct answer is a private philosophical point of view (personally, I do think there is an objective answer). I just think society as a whole needs to treat it as subjective so that everything is explicit, and on this level I think using words like irrational hurts because it's an easy way to continue on the basis of unexamined principles.

As an on-topic aside, that's the way I see almost any movement that seeks political change, whether it's religious, environmentalist, labour, etc. But in the end, something is not religious because of how it interacts with politics but with whether it's religious -- I've avoided defining this, because it's hard, but I'd add to what others have said that I think there should be a component involving ritual in the definition of religion because just saying supernatural could include all sorts of things -- are deists religious? are people who believe in objective human rights religious? -- unless supernatural is defined circularly as being what is believed in by religions.

With the other question, I think there is a lot of room for saying this is a rational decision and that isn't. If someone claims situation A is more desirable than B but our best science strongly suggests that that person's policy proposal is more likely to lead to B than to A, then such a person is up for a lot of criticism, and especially if they make errors of logic, then they are irrational. I think much of criticism you're leveling against environmentalism is on this level, i.e. that people are fixated on certain policies even when there's no evidence that this will make things better, even on their own standards, and that's not the most rational of behaviour (although again, it's not a specifically religious trait either). And here I have no problem with your criticism. And plus, I think most questions that come up are of this type -- but something like what is the value of animal life compared to human life is something I'd say is a basic question where in the end you just have to choose and I don't see why one choice is rational but another is not (but I do personally think there is a right choice).

Hopefully, I addressed your points because it seemed easier this way than responding to each of your paragraphs separately.


----------



## modus.irrealis

TRG said:


> This could be true of anything, but for environmentism it is more true because many people feel that there is a sacred or spiritual aspect to nature. For some, this may be because they feel nature is God's creation, but I think we can presume that many people who feel that nature is sacred are otherwise completely secular in their worldviews.



But for me, that's the point, that even though some people might support environmentalism out of some religious feeling, others do so with no religious feeling at all (although I'd say using the word sacred is a sign of religious feeling), and there's no point in calling the latter religious. Similarly, the fact that some people oppose murder for religious reasons doesn't imply that all opposition to murder is religious. (Although I think you do have a point about some people's hypocrisy who cry foul when religions that disagree with them try to influence politics but encourage them when they agree.)



cuchuflete said:


> Here's a case study that makes the assertions of environmentalism being a religion look just as silly as they really are.



But you can find similar examples within religions - e.g., in debates trying to determine what a certain scriptural passage means, both sides will often use logic and data to make their case. I'd still call that a religious issue.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> You have been prancing through this thread, wielding a very broad, very unspecific brush.  You have cast aspersions on environmentalists *in general*, never detailing 'their overall agenda" and never telling us the names of any fringe or mainstream "concrete environmentalist group" _you_ "are talking about".



Well, that's not really true -- in my reply to your previous post, I actually did name two concrete environmentalist groups that are rather mainstream and respectable, and whose agenda does include a lot more than environmentalists have ever managed to push through legislation anywhere (which can be easily seen from their official programs).  But that's mostly beside the point, so please read on; this time, in the interest of clarity, I won't make even my usual feeble effort to avoid being long-winded. 

The confusion stems from the nonexistence of a precise and universally accepted definition of "environmentalist." When I wrote my statements against environmentalists, I certainly didn't have in mind people concerned with real-life issues afflicting them directly, such as those featured in most of your examples (I tried to be clear about that from my first post, but obviously I wasn't).

So let's try to agree on the following: the spectrum of people who are called or who call themselves "environmentalists" covers a very broad range. On one end are quite ordinary people concerned with obviously reasonable issues like the cleanness of the air and water they consume. On the other (extreme) end are various outrageous eco-nuts and people who have _self-admittedly_ made a religion out of environmentalism. (Random examples would be, say, here and here -- and please note the clear qualification in the previous sentence that I'm talking about the extreme fringe.) Also, it is obvious that the distribution of environmentalists across this spectrum is not uniform; as with almost any other ideology, the more extreme a particular brand is, the thinner are its ranks. 

When it comes to the least extreme end of environmentalism, I have already written that the bulk of my criticism certainly doesn't apply to that category of people. On the other hand, when it comes to the most extreme end, my criticism clearly applies, since these people pretty much admit my accusations (and much more)  themselves. Up to this point, I believe we have nothing to disagree about.

Now, generally, when I write about a certain belief system whose definition can't be exactly pinpointed, but whose notion still makes some sense, I take neither its least nor its most extreme proponents as representative, regardless of what their numbers might be. For example, people declaring themselves Christians range from those who are for all practical purposes atheists or agnostics to those who are fanatic fundamentalists of various kinds. In most Western countries nowadays, the former group is by far the most numerous. But I think that it still makes sense to talk about the doctrine and the mindset of the adherents of a particular Christian church by referring to people who show a certain level of devotion to it, who take it is an important part of their lives and regularly participate in its rituals -- even if they might be far outnumbered by those who care very little about their nominal faith and don't even know much about its doctrine. Similarly, when it comes to environmentalism, the most numerous "environmentalists" are indeed people who care only about certain "environmental" issues that affect them directly (like those in some of your examples) and otherwise have only vague ideas about the doctrines of more devoted environmentalists; but when I criticize the environmentalist doctrine in general, I have in mind the corpus of doctrine held by more dedicated environmentalists, those who actually consider that as their primary ideological affiliation and who are seriously devoted to environmentalist activism. (Please note that the point of this analogy is not to identify environmentalism with religion; I am merely comparing the distribution of varying degrees of devotion that can be observed for almost any cause.) Up to now, I hope you could at least agree that I haven't written anything outright unreasonable.

Now, the question over which we'll probably disagree is: can my criticism be applied to any ranks of environmentalists except the most extreme fringe nutcases? In particular, can any of it be applied to the well-established mainstream environmentalist individuals and organizations (such as, say, Greenpeace)? Because if some particular qualification can be applied to such individuals and organizations, I believe that it's generally fair to ascribe it to the environmentalist ideology in general, for reasons explained above. And while they obviously don't subscribe to the most outrageous ideas of the lunatic fringe, my impression is that even in their ideology one can often find elements of irrationalism and belief in unobservable entities that make it at least somewhat justified to compare, if not even identify, their beliefs with what is traditionally considered as religion. We'll probably disagree about this point, but I hope that we can now at least agree to disagree.

I also hope that you might understand why I'm trying to avoid entering a discussion about the doctrine of some concrete environmentalist organization, because in my experience, such discussions tend to fall apart in going over endless details, and my posts are already getting much too long.


----------



## .   1

G'day Athaulf,
I read both of your links and the fisherman fella seems to be saying that we should not live beyond the means of the earth and the church of the eco seems to say the same thing..
I hope that it is nto a bad thing that we should learn to live at the level sustainable by the environment because I have a feeling that we will shortly be forced to do something very like this.
I did not read enough to understand the genocide bit but that does seem to be a bit extreme.
Is there any chance that we could take a scientific approach to this and exclude data at the extreme end of the spectrum.  Remove the high and low scores and take an average approach.

.,,


----------



## emma42

Athaulf, I must just point out a couple of factual errors in what you have said, either explicitly or by omission:

1   It may well be true that rainforests consume as much oxygen as they produce.  However, you omitted the important point that the rainforests do deplete polluting carbons, and contribute to air-cooling.

2  Many people who are concerned about disappearing species (flora and fauna) are not merely being "emotional", but are concerned about the serious effects of diminishing biodiversity on the global environment.

I understand that this is not the thread in which to argue about specific environmental issues, but, as you have repeatedly charged "environmentalists" with selling factoids, I wanted to point out that you have, in fact, done the same thing, possibly unintentionally.


----------



## Athaulf

modus.irrealis said:


> If I had a point to make, it was probably that we should (but it seems in the political debate of Canada and the States at least, we don't) distinguish between value judgements, definitions of what freedom is, etc. on the one hand and the policies that flow from those values on the other hand. [...]



I started writing a reply to the first part of your (very good) post, but I realized that we're drifting too far off topic, however interesting the discussion might be. So I'll just comment the following part of your post:



> But in the end, something is not religious because of how it interacts with politics but with whether it's religious -- I've avoided defining this, because it's hard, but I'd add to what others have said that I think there should be a component involving ritual in the definition of religion because just saying supernatural could include all sorts of things -- are deists religious? are people who believe in objective human rights religious? -- unless supernatural is defined circularly as being what is believed in by religions.


If I'm not misunderstanding you, here you are yourself coming close to the point that I've made in some of my previous posts -- that there is not much, if any essential difference between "supernatural" beliefs found in traditional religions and those found in the doctrines of various more modern political ideologies. Where we probably disagree is that you seem to argue that we should avoid stretching the notion of "supernatural" to absurd limits, whereas I argue that these limits are not absurd at all, but only seem absurd because people tend to have too much reverence for some supposedly "non-supernatural" concepts to see them for what they really are.

Almost every modern ideology -- except those explicitly religious ones -- tends to present itself as an outgrowth of reason and science, rather than beliefs in unobservable (and therefore, if one takes a skeptical stance, imaginary) entities. So, when one wants to point out the fact that most (if not all) of them actually do have such beliefs at their core, what would be a good term to use? In such situations, I like using the term "religious," even if it requires a stretching of the conventional meaning of the term, because it has a strong effect of negating the supposedly scientific and rational basis of the ideology in question. "Metaphysical" would probably be a better word, but alas, it would be a poor choice when it comes to rhetorics.

Related to your remarks above, I think it could also be argued that many brands of environmentalism do incorporate elements that could be fairly described as ritual, but this would require a long separate argument.


----------



## emma42

Good arguments have been made for characterising environmentalism as religion.  However, as Athaulf's argument still contradicts, to my mind, both the dictionary definition and the commonly accepted definition, I am still not convinced.

For rhetorical purposes, then, I propose *quasi-religious.*


----------



## Kajjo

emma42 said:


> I understand that this is not the thread in which to argue about specific environmental issues, but, as you have repeatedly charged "environmentalists" with selling factoids, I wanted to point out that you have, in fact, done the same thing, possibly unintentionally.


Emma, your comments were ecologically correct and right on target!

But maybe we should more clearly distinguish between (a) ecologists (the experts) and ecologically interested laymen (the people) who focus on scientifically founded facts, argue rationally and have a worthwhile and important agenda, and (b) environmentalists, who often argue ideologically, less rationally and often using unfounded "factoids" (nice term!). I agree with other posts that those latter guys do proselytise, do distort scientific facts and obviously do use methods that are not acceptable, e.g. force against persons and property.

Kajjo


----------



## emma42

Thanks, Kajjo.  I think it was Athaulf who first used "factoids" in this thread, so I can't take the credit for that - I agree, it's a great word.

Yes, we do need to distinguish.  We will need to invent words.  Eco-liars?  Enviroliars?  Eco-distortion?  Eco-fibs?/Envirotruths? Eco-integrity?


----------



## TRG

emma42 said:


> Athaulf, I must just point out a couple of factual errors in what you have said, either explicitly or by omission:
> 
> 1 It may well be true that rainforests consume as much oxygen as they produce. However, you omitted the important point that the rainforests do deplete polluting carbons, and contribute to air-cooling.
> 
> 2 Many people who are concerned about disappearing species (flora and fauna) are not merely being "emotional", but are concerned about the serious effects of diminishing biodiversity on the global environment.
> 
> I understand that this is not the thread in which to argue about specific environmental issues, but, as you have repeatedly charged "environmentalists" with selling factoids, I wanted to point out that you have, in fact, done the same thing, possibly unintentionally.


 
This, in my view, is an example of part of the populist mythology of environmentalism. It is a corollary of the "balance of nature" myth. In the church of environmentalism it is believed that the natural world will achieve an optimum balance among the species and that human interference in this mystical balance is a sin. I disagree. The human species, having a cognitive advantage over other species, can pick and choose the winners in the race for survival in a way that creates the best possible environment for humans. We do not have to defer to "nature" to look out for our interest or sacrifice human interest in order to preseve some natural balance. Genetical modified food is a good example of this. Environmentalist oppose GMF for no scientific reason, but on the basis that is not natural and could possible cause harm in the long run for some reason we are unable to detect. They hold these beliefs based on superstition and a semi-religious notion that the laws of nature are omniscient.


----------



## emma42

I don't think like that at all, TRG.  I learned something about biodiversity while proof-reading a dissertation for an environmental law PHD.  THe writer of the dissertation appeared to be a generally well-informed, honest sort of person, so I had no reason to question what he was writing.  I am not, however, an expert in the field.  But as for most of what you have written, following my post - that's not me, mate.

I would like to debate biodiversity further, but it would be off-topic.


----------



## Athaulf

emma42 said:


> Athaulf, I must just point out a couple of factual errors in what you have said, either explicitly or by omission:
> 
> 1   It may well be true that rainforests consume as much oxygen as they produce.  However, you omitted the important point that the rainforests do deplete polluting carbons, and contribute to air-cooling.



Well, we could now enter a long debate about this issue (I don't think that your above formulation is precise), but I will just point out that when it comes to many issues such as these ones you mention, fast-growing commercial tree plantations grown by the paper and lumber industries are actually superior to old-growth forests, let alone rainforests. Yet from what I've seen, environmentalists tend to have little sympathy for the former. 



> 2  Many people who are concerned about disappearing species (flora and fauna) are not merely being "emotional", but are concerned about the serious effects of diminishing biodiversity on the global environment.


But what exactly is meant by the phrase "effects... on the global environment" here? When environmentalists complain about particular species being endangered or extinct, I almost never hear concrete explanations of how exactly their disappearance is threatening to affect human life in practice. 

In historical times, even long before the modern age, humans have radically altered the ecosystems of large regions to make them more suitable for human habitation; this has invariably included radical reductions in their biodiversity. The agriculture itself, which is an activity essential for any reasonable level of civilization, is nothing else than the process of of utterly destroying the original ecosystems of wide areas and replacing them with an artificial, extremely non-biodiverse ecosystem inhabited by life forms useful for humans. The results of all these reductions in biodiversity have not been catastrophic, but rather hugely beneficial for humans -- as I noted in my previous posts, just look at the radically altered ecosystems of Western Europe and ask yourself if you would prefer to live there or in an area of untouched biodiversity.

It is only in recent times that "biodiversity" has started to be considered as something good in itself, which should thus be preserved even at a great cost. Sometimes such a attitude is supported by vague concerns that a radical reduction in global biodiversity might somehow result in a disaster through some yet unspecified mechanism; often this is framed in terms of some supposed "delicate balance of nature" which is being ruined by humans. But it seems to me that the practical results of previous radical human-induced changes to the "natural" ecosystems have already shown such theories to be false; otherwise, this "delicate balance" would have been disastrously shaken long ago.

This kind of reverence for "biodiversity" as something having value in itself, separate from all practical concerns, is another kind of -- to use your proposed term -- quasi-religious attitude that many environmentalists display. I honestly can't escape the impression that in many people's minds, it has a place akin to various concepts that are considered as "holy" in traditional religions.

And there we go, I couldn't resist spewing out a rant after all. But at least this one is more or less on topic.


----------



## cuchuflete

TRG said:


> This, in my view, is an example of part of the populist mythology of environmentalism. It is a corollary of the "balance of nature" myth. In the church of environmentalism it is believed that the natural world will achieve an optimum balance among the species and that human interference in this mystical balance is a sin. I disagree. The human species, having a cognitive advantage over other species, can pick and choose the winners in the race for survival in a way that creates the best possible environment for humans. We do not have to defer to "nature" to look out for our interest or sacrifice human interest in order to preseve some natural balance. Genetical modified food is a good example of this. Environmentalist oppose GMF for no scientific reason, but on the basis that is not natural and could possible cause harm in the long run for some reason we are unable to detect. They hold these beliefs based on superstition and a semi-religious notion that the laws of nature are omniscient.



The post above is an example of part of the mythology (I won't waste time seeking a politically incorrect adjective) that "the human species, having a cognitive advantage over other species, can pick and choose the winners in the race for survival..."blah blah blah
That is the sort of short-term "if it feels good to me today, I'll just do it because, after all, I'm a smart humanoid and am therefore entitled to short-term gratification without regard to consequences" thinking.  It has led to the extinction of many species, and nearly eradicated the North American bison, a major food source for others with a cognitive advantage.

You may not consider fisheries part of the realm of enviro-whatevers, but the fishing industry in much of the world has demonstrated its cognitive ineptitude and arrogance to the point of diminishing stocks below replenishment levels for many species.  Finally and very belatedly, that same bunch of cognitively superior types, noticing the absence of fish to catch, has acknowledged that maybe unrestrained harvests are not such a good thing after all.  

Of course you can find, as I can, examples of nut cases within the environmental movement.  But take a good look at those who spray paint graffiti slogans saying that humans can do no wrong to their own sandbox.  You will find just as much ignorance and extremism, though of the denial variety.  If you really don't have to defer to nature, you will find ever less cod, halibut, swordfish, hake...and at ever higher prices.  Those critters don't reproduce faster, just because there are lots more humanoid cognitive types around to eat them, with ever better fishing technology.


----------



## emma42

Thank you, cuchuflete, for redressing the balance in this, even though both you and Athaulf are in danger of accusations of being off-topic.


----------



## Kajjo

TRG said:


> This is an example of part of the populist mythology of environmentalism. It is a corollary of the "balance of nature" myth.


So far I agree. The "balance of nature" is actually a myth -- the contrary is right: natural processes are transient, the world is ever changing and evolving.



> In the church of environmentalism it is believed that the natural world will achieve an optimum balance among the species


I will ignore the "church" part and agree with you again. An optimal balance would sort of stop evolution. Nature and life are about change, not about  balance. What we see as balance is just a snap-shot, compared to the evolutional time scale.



> The human species, having a cognitive advantage over other species, can pick and choose the winners in the race for survival in a way that creates the best possible environment for humans.


And here I strongly disagree. The tremendous intelligence of humans, and hence our technological advantage, has changed the laws of evolution entirely. What we can do, influences nature much more than any species could perform previously. This, in my opinion, comes along with a responsibility to use our intelligence in a smart way. It does not appear smart to ruin our own environment, and what could become of this planet does not appear to be "the best possible environment for humans" -- even if your argument would be taken as true, the focal question is: _What is the best environment for humans? _



> Genetical modified food is a good example of this. Environmentalist oppose GMF for no scientific reason


I do not want to get off-topic, but there _are_ a lot of valid, scientific reasons to oppose GMF. And I am a scientist, not an environmentalist!

But yes, there are a lot of environmentalists' views that are actually disputable or even obviously wrong. They are ideologically driven, not rationally and scientifically.



> They hold these beliefs based on superstition and a semi-religious notion that the laws of nature are omniscient.


Once more you are right. Nature is neither "good or evil", nor does it know anything. Catastrophes or evolution do happen not for any "reason", it just does. I like your term "semi-religious" which is much more true and fitting than our previous "religion" discussion.

Kajjo


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> The post above is an example of part of the mythology (I won't waste time seeking a politically incorrect adjective) that "the human species, having a cognitive advantage over other species, can pick and choose the winners in the race for survival..."blah blah blah
> That is the sort of short-term "if it feels good to me today, I'll just do it because, after all, I'm a smart humanoid and am therefore entitled to short-term gratification without regard to consequences" thinking. It has led to the extinction of many species, and nearly eradicated the North American bison, a major food source for others with a cognitive advantage.
> 
> You may not consider fisheries part of the realm of enviro-whatevers, but the fishing industry in much of the world has demonstrated its cognitive ineptitude and arrogance to the point of diminishing stocks below replenishment levels for many species. Finally and very belatedly, that same bunch of cognitively superior types, noticing the absence of fish to catch, has acknowledged that maybe unrestrained harvests are not such a good thing after all.
> 
> Of course you can find, as I can, examples of nut cases within the environmental movement. But take a good look at those who spray paint graffiti slogans saying that humans can do no wrong to their own sandbox. You will find just as much ignorance and extremism, though of the denial variety. If you really don't have to defer to nature, you will find ever less cod, halibut, swordfish, hake...and at ever higher prices. Those critters don't reproduce faster, just because there are lots more humanoid cognitive types around to eat them, with ever better fishing technology.


 
I think your post is evidence against my statement that humans have a cognitive advantage.

When fishermen stop catching fish, they will stop fishing. We are not going to catch all the fish. (Warning: anecdote! Some time ago I was having dinner with a business associate and he ordered the swordfish. I'm not sure what prompted him to mention it, but he said, "Whenever they have swordfish on the menu, I order it because I know that soon there won't be any more". I thought it a bit strange since he was extremely liberal in all of his political views. Maybe he was making a joke, but I bet he is still ordering the swordfish.) 

Even if we had killed all the buffalo the world would not be even the tinyest bit different today. Buffalo are functionally extinct. The fact that we have a few still running around is meaningless. We don't need buffalo, we have cattle. I'm not really sure we need cattle, but that's another discussion. 

I guess your point is that we have no cognitive advantage or that if we do we are about to squander it by our profligate consumption. If this was your point it wasn't clearly expressed. But, words are cheap, I'll let you have another go at it.


----------



## emma42

Perhaps if advocates of a world geared to the needs of humans were to ask certain fishermen or native Americans what were their needs, those advocates might broaden their views?


----------



## TRG

Kajjo said:


> So far I agree. The "balance of nature" is actually a myth -- the contrary is right: natural processes are transient, the world is ever changing and evolving.
> 
> I will ignore the "church" part and agree with you again. An optimal balance would sort of stop evolution. Nature and life are about change, not about balance. What we see as balance is just a snap-shot, compared to the evolutional time scale.


 
You are right to do so, but what's a good argument without a bit of invective thrown in. 



> And here I strongly disagree. The tremendous intelligence of humans, and hence our technological advantage, has changed the laws of evolution entirely. What we can do, influences nature much more than any species could perform previously. This, in my opinion, comes along with a responsibility to use our intelligence in a smart way. It does not appear smart to ruin our own environment, and what could become of this planet does not appear to be "the best possible environment for humans" -- even if your argument would be taken as true, the focal question is: _What is the best environment for humans? _.


 
I said; "The human species, having a cognitive advantage over other species, can pick and choose the winners in the race for survival in a way that creates the best possible environment for humans. " I think this sounds a lot like what you said. Humans are in the dominant position in evolution, not only by our mere presence and biological success, but by our intelligence.



> I do not want to get off-topic, but there _are_ a lot of valid, scientific reasons to oppose GMF. And I am a scientist, not an environmentalist!


 
Well, I'm a Nobel prize winning geneticist so who are you to tell me that GMF are dangerous! (just kidding). I'm sure there are good reasons to use caution when letting loose our own biological creations on the world. It is my opinion that most of the opposition to GMF is based on politics, fear and superstition.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> Environmentalist oppose GMF for no scientific reason, but on the basis that is not natural and could possible cause harm in the long run for some reason we are unable to detect. They hold these beliefs based on superstition and a semi-religious notion that the laws of nature are omniscient.


Some environmentalists may oppose Genetically Modified Food for no scientific reason but I am sure that many environmentalists oppose Genetically Modified Food for perfectly valid reasons.
The New Scientist magazine reported that Indian farmers are being required to use more chemicals to grow a Genetically Modified Cotton than Standard Cotton because the Genetic Mutation that protects from the boll weevil makes the plant vulnerable to some other tiny pest that I can not remember the name of.
I am pretty sure that the farmers would have been told by the chemical company that the crop was safe but...
We have received many Absolute Guarantees Of Safety by big drug companies over the years and some of them have been true but many people died.
Genetically Modified Food could well be called Genetically Adulterated Food or Genetically Adulterated Quasi Food or Genetically Spliced Food.
We have only been playing with gene splicing for a couple of decades.  This is not nearly long enough to evaluate the potential dangers and the very concept of eating a radish with a pig's gene added is fraught with significant potential dangers.


Robert


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> The post above is an example of part of the mythology (I won't waste time seeking a politically incorrect adjective) that "the human species, having a cognitive advantage over other species, can pick and choose the winners in the race for survival..."blah blah blah
> That is the sort of short-term "if it feels good to me today, I'll just do it because, after all, I'm a smart humanoid and am therefore entitled to short-term gratification without regard to consequences" thinking.  It has led to the extinction of many species, and nearly eradicated the North American bison, a major food source for others with a cognitive advantage.



But in most cases, the radical changes made by humans to the "natural" environment are definitely _not _a matter of short-term gratification, but rather of _very long-term_ investment and improvement. We are nowadays deriving great benefit from such changes made by our ancestors; our lives would not be anywhere as comfortable and pleasurable if we were the ones faced with the task of taming the wilderness. I would certainly say that this benefit is well worth the price of the species that had to be eradicated to achieve it (European bisons also being among them).

As for those peoples who used the American bisons for their food source and other indigenous American ethnic groups, they were certainly victims of gross injustices in recent centuries, but I don't think that this issue has much to do with environmentalism (despite the fact that some environmentalists like to appropriate them as mascots, often by spreading outright falsehoods about their culture and history -- something that I perceive as rather patronizing and offensive towards those peoples). 



> You may not consider fisheries part of the realm of enviro-whatevers, but the fishing industry in much of the world has demonstrated its cognitive ineptitude and arrogance to the point of diminishing stocks below replenishment levels for many species.  Finally and very belatedly, that same bunch of cognitively superior types, noticing the absence of fish to catch, has acknowledged that maybe unrestrained harvests are not such a good thing after all.


This is the classic economic problem of the tragedy of the commons, and it doesn't have much to do with either arrogance or ineptitude. Such a problem arises whenever multiple parties have access to a resource that is consumed most efficiently at a certain limited rate, but excessive consumption will ruin it. In such cases, each party will, acting in its best individual interest, try to grab as large a piece as possible, since it's taking only a very small part of the overall resource pool anyway -- even though it would be in the interest of all parties to collectively refrain from excessive consumption. But without some sort of coordination, such a collective agreement is impossible -- and spontaneous coordination is difficult or even impossible over a certain group size. There is no way all fishermen in the world could come to an agreement about individual fishing quotas, let alone enforce it; I wouldn't call them arrogant or inept because of that. 

Generally, when a problem of this kind arises, the only ways of solving it are either regulation or privatization of the resource in question. The pro and contra arguments for either solution are of course abundant in any particular case of such a problem. But either way, the case of commonly owned resources is one of the few instances where even the elementary economics correctly predicts that inefficient use is likely to take place despite all actors being fully rational; the situation is akin to the public goods problem.

(I'm spelling this out for the benefit of forum participants in general; I'm not automatically presuming that you're completely unfamiliar with these concepts.)


----------



## emma42

Dear Athaulf, you do seem to be almost religiously negative about environmentalists.  One does not have to subscribe to the Noble Savage idea to be concerned about the depletion of north American bison, which was _of_ _course_ an environmental issue.  How could it not have been?


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> (I'm spelling this out for the benefit of forum participants in general; I'm not automatically presuming that you're completely unfamiliar with these concepts.)


Thank you for the explanation of the explanation.  I will try to feel a little less patronised as a result.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Athaulf said:


> This is the classic economic problem of the tragedy of the commons, and it doesn't have much to do with either arrogance or ineptitude. Such a problem arises whenever multiple parties have access to a resource that is consumed most efficiently at a certain limited rate, but excessive consumption will ruin it. In such cases, each party will, acting in its best individual interest, try to grab as large a piece as possible, since it's taking only a very small part of the overall resource pool anyway -- even though it would be in the interest of all parties to collectively refrain from excessive consumption. But without some sort of coordination, such a collective agreement is impossible -- and spontaneous coordination is difficult or even impossible over a certain group size. There is no way all fishermen in the world could come to an agreement about individual fishing quotas, let alone enforce it; I wouldn't call them arrogant or inept because of that.
> 
> Generally, when a problem of this kind arises, the only ways of solving it are either regulation or privatization of the resource in question. The pro and contra arguments for either solution are of course abundant in any particular case of such a problem. But either way, the case of commonly owned resources is one of the few instances where even the elementary economics correctly predicts that inefficient use is likely to take place despite all actors being fully rational; the situation is akin to the public goods problem.
> 
> (I'm spelling this out for the benefit of forum participants in general; I'm not automatically presuming that you're completely unfamiliar with these concepts.)


Thank you for spelling out a good, clear rebuttal to the arrant foolhardiness that human cognitive superiority doesn't bring some not so lovely baggage along with it.  

Some participants in this conversation, in a cognitively disabled attempt to smear anything and everything in any way associated with concern for the environment (I do not include Athaulf among these, despite his ocassional rhetorical excesses) are content to leave well enough alone, even when there is clear scientific evidence of difficulties.  

If the environuts out on the fringes of rational argument trouble you, the solution is not to label all environmental concerns hogwash. There have been and continue to be some genuine environmental problems in need of rational, scientificly based attention.  Reduced water levels in some major lakes, acid rain, smog to name just a few.  These are not inventions of fanatics.  They have resulted from many things, among them ignorance and drives for short-term economic gains.
I've consulted for some of the largest electric and gas utility companies in the US, and their scientific staff never tired of boasting about the advances in scrubber technology.  The business side of the house (my adored clients), in the meantime, has successfully withstood regulatory and legislative attempts to put that technology to use.  The fault is not with the EPA, but with EPS, measured quarterly.
This is a rather obvious collision of an environmental problem acknowledged by all the players, and
a failure to address it with current technology for short-term economic motives.    

Slinging mud at the lunatic fringe may be a pleasurable passtime, however this is but a single example of a mainstream issue in which there are tradeoffs between environmental cleanliness and very modest capital investment costs.  Whichever side of the argument one may choose to take, there is no religion in the mix, and the players with decision making authority are not looney extremists.  There may be a few loud fanatics with bullhorns and/or limousines off to the side, cheering their respective teams on, but they are not material to either the science or the debate about how and at what rate to implement solutions.


----------



## gaer

TRG said:


> I have come to think that beliefs held near and dear by environmentalists are religious in nature, i.e., many things are accepted as fact without any basis in fact.


Don't we need to agree upon a definition of "environmentalism"? For instance, from MW:

_2 : advocacy of the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment; especially : the movement to control pollution_ 

I am concerned about "the environment". Coral reefs in South Florida are all but dead in this area. I'm telling you this as a fact based on what I've seen with my own eyes. I have given up skin-diving. There is nothing to see. The reefs in some areas in the Keys are still in better shape, but the overall picture is not good.

My wife wanted to go on a "Sunset Cruise" from Key West, a nice sail-boat. The problem is that motors are used to get the sail boats out far enough to use sails, and everywhere I looked, in the area from which all these boats/ships leave, I saw gasoline and smelled gasoline and oil.

In the 1950s you could catch crabs in New River and see "sea cows". It was safe to swim in the river, so long as you watched out for alligators.

A few decades later, sewage plants were spewing crap—and I do mean crap—directly in the water.

Not everyone who is concerned about such things is a fanatic.


> So I did a google search on "environmentalism as religion" and the first thing that came up is a speech give by Michael Crichton in September of 2003. You can read this speech here.


Did you read his book? I did not like this book at all. I've enjoyed his books in the past, but his position in this one (_State of Fear_), in my opinion, is as extreme in its opinions as opionions of those you seem to be describing as "religious environmentalists".

The main character in this book dismisses global warming as pure nonsense through a series of speeches that are much in the style of Ayn Rand. As he character lectures, other characters who ask him questions or debate him are portrayed as ignorant morons.

Does this mean that I think his book made no points? No. But I think it was glib and simplistic.

There are all kinds of fanatics in this world. There are religious fanatics, grammar fanatics, and there are global warming fanatics. Fanatics see only one side of an issue and label all who disagree with them as morons, fools or well-meaning but brainwashed innocents.

I've met religious people whom I consider reasonable. That does not mean that I agree with their views. But I don't view them as fanatics.

I've met people concerned about the environment who seem reasonable and others who seem fanatical.

You have an obvious agenda. You wish to link the terms "environmentalism" and "fanatic" together under the term "religion".

I don't agree with what you are doing.


> Environmentalists believe that nature is perfect and harmonius sans human influence, but whatever man touches he destroys and so on.


That's your definition. That's not one I would agree with. I think that's an unfair and misleading generalization.

Gaer


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> Even if we had killed all the buffalo the world would not be even the tinyest bit different today. Buffalo are functionally extinct. The fact that we have a few still running around is meaningless. We don't need buffalo, we have cattle. I'm not really sure we need cattle, but that's another discussion.



… and therein lies the kernel of the environmentalist issue!

Why should our "need" be even mentioned in relation to the existence/extinction of the buffalo?
The existence of the buffalo is not a matter for us to decide based upon our perceived needs.


----------



## winklepicker

TRG said:


> It is my opinion that most of the opposition to GMF is based on politics, fear and superstition.


 
Yes, I agree. But I would also throw in there a growing distrust of doing stuff just because we can. I think the last century taught us (Thalidomide anyone?) that to rush to acceptance of new and convenient solutions can be dangerous.

Hence my position on GM: I'm quite certain that the current state of science shows no objection to it at all. After all, it's just a speeded-up form of stock-breeding. But I don't want any growing here and I certainly don't want to eat any thank you. Perhaps in 20 years when we understand it better?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator Note:  There is already a thread on genetically engineered food here.  Further comments on the topic should be directed to that thread.  Thanks.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> Even if we had killed all the buffalo the world would not be even the tinyest bit different today. Buffalo are functionally extinct. The fact that we have a few still running around is meaningless. We don't need buffalo, we have cattle. I'm not really sure we need cattle, but that's another discussion.


Do the buffalo need us?
Are you of the opinion that humanity has the right to dominate the planet and use it as we wish?
Buffalo and bison et al were part of a self regulating cycle. They graze and move on then graze and move on. This practice had not significantly impacted on the environment for millions of years. Humanity came along and ate the buffalo and bison to replace them with static herds of cattle and many parts of the world became dust bowls. Australia has suffered unremedial landscape devastation as a direct result of the introduction of cattle.
Environmentalism is a complex issue and simplistic examinations can be confusing to such a subject.

.,,


----------



## TRG

. said:


> Do the buffalo need us?
> Are you of the opinion that humanity has the right to dominate the planet and use it as we wish?
> Buffalo and bison et al were part of a self regulating cycle. They graze and move on then graze and move on. This practice had not significantly impacted on the environment for millions of years. Humanity came along and ate the buffalo and bison to replace them with static herds of cattle and many parts of the world became dust bowls. Australia has suffered unremedial landscape devastation as a direct result of the introduction of cattle.
> Environmentalism is a complex issue and simplistic examinations can be confusing to such a subject.
> 
> .,,


At the moment, the buffalo need us a lot more than we need them.

We have the right, but is it right? Humanity has the right by virtue of it's dominant position in the environment. Whether this right is being used to the benefit of any particular species is clearly debatable, but I would hope that it is used first in a manner which benefits humankind for the indefinite future. In other words, if human survival depends on the extinction of any number of other species, then I am in favor of that. Which is not to say that I am in favor of annihilating other species. I hope we can keep them all, but as a practical matter some of them are going to have to go. I can deal with that.

Now, the notion that the buffalo/bison were part of a self regulating cycle and that therefore it should be given preferential treatment in terms of competition for space and resources, it the very thing that I object to in current environmental thinking. It is essentially a myth that interrupting these self regulating cycles necessarily represents an ecological disaster. It may be a disaster or it may not. In the case of the American buffalo, as I said earlier, they a functionally extinct. We have some, but they are not a significant part of the ecological system of the Great Plains, and if there were none, the environment would not notice, IMO. It's over for the buffalo just as it's over for the woolly mammoth. Frankly, it would be cool if we still had some woolly mammoths running around, but you can hardly argue that their disappearance was an ecological catastrophe.


----------



## emma42

I do not know why you are insisting on this "myth" business in respect of the buffalo.  The point I am trying to make, as I suspect you know, is that the actions of white settlers depleted the north American buffalo to such an extent that the lives of native Americans were seriously affected, to put it mildly.  I am not arguing for the innate rights of the buffalo, I am pointing out that not every human being wishes to live in the same environment as you do.  It's no good just saying "it's over for the buffalo".  It was also "over", to a large extent, for the native Americans.  It was a "catastrophe".  But perhaps native Americans don't count?

There are many current examples of humans deciding that their profits are more important than the preservation of the chosen environments of other humans.

I have asked the mods to start a new thread about the right of humankind to dominate the planet.


----------



## TRG

emma42 said:


> I do not know why you are insisting on this "myth" business in respect of the buffalo. The point I am trying to make, as I suspect you know, is that the actions of white settlers depleted the north American buffalo to such an extent that the lives of native Americans were seriously affected, to put it mildly. I am not arguing for the innate rights of the buffalo, I am pointing out that not every human being wishes to live in the same environment as you do. It's no good just saying "it's over for the buffalo". It was also "over", to a large extent, for the native Americans. It was a "catastrophe". But perhaps native Americans don't count?
> 
> There are many current examples of humans deciding that their profits are more important than the preservation of the chosen environments of other humans.
> 
> 
> I have asked the mods to start a new thread about the right of humankind to dominate the planet.


 
I would agree totally that the arrival of Europeans in the Americas was a catastrophe for all the indiginous peoples. The indiginous people were destroyed even more so than the buffalo. But, if you want to stand back and look at this historical event from the broadest possible prespective, can you say unequivocally that it was a catastrophe for all mankind? I'm not sure that holds up. But, it's really another subject altogether.

I didn't know you were trying to make a point about the buffalo until you just made it. I was responding the Robert's post wherein he referred to the "concept of a "self-regulating cycle". It is, IMO, part of environmentalist dogma (to put it in religion speak) that the self-regulating aspect of nature is some way sacrosanct and in no way to be interferred with by man. I believe environmentalists use this wittingly or otherwise as a cudgel to move environmental policy in a way that is in concert with this belief. It may be true that there are some natural equilibria that if upset would cause a chain of events that would destroy life as we know it. That doesn't mean that every natural state is inviolable. Furthermore, by our mere presence we are going to upset the equilibrium, but then we are part of it, not something set apart from nature. If we can see that our actions are going to destroy all life on the planet, we have an interest in avoiding that. However, most of the time, we really can't predict how it's going to play out. I just refuse to accept that a "natural system" is inherently superior on a moral, ethical, or scientific basis to one contrived by human beings.

Among the criticisms that have been made is that I am focusing on some lunatic fringe and that the argument is not relavent to the environmental movement as a whole. I don't agree because 1) my favorite environmental myth, the balance of nature, is believed almost universally and is, I'm sure, taught in public school, and 2) environmental policy is much more influenced by the most ardent and activist members of the movement than by the average person who would consider themselves an environmentalist (nearly everyone on the planet, except me, I guess). The activists adhere to the pseudo-dogma of environmentalism much more tightly than the average person. In some respects they may be counterproductive to environmentalism because they have give birth to terms like "tree-hugger" and "environmentalist wacko" which are not very complimentary. Nevertheless, the "tree-huggers" hold a lot of sway in the environmental movement. 

Finally, I would offer that some of this is admittedly hyperbole, but a smart guy once told me that sometimes you need to use a little of it to liven up the conversation.


----------



## emma42

Hi TRG.  But what is "the environmental movement as a whole"?  Can it not include the many, many people who are in no way loonies, but are concerned about human activity harming the planet?  You have already answered this honestly, I know.  

There is no call to use unnecessary hyperbole - I think (most of) our fellow forer@s are quite capable of lively conversation without hyperbolic encouragement from you, thank you very much.  How are we to take you seriously if you yourself admit you are using hyperbole?  Stop it, TRG.

Also, dotcommacomma in no way was insisting on the self-regulatory character of nature itself (as far as I understood it), just one particular instance.

I think it would be helpful if you read what others write a little more carefully and with a bit more of an open mind because, ironically, you seem to be the most quasi-religious advocate of your position among us all!


----------



## .   1

*hyperbole* _n_ a deliberate exaggeration used for effect:  _he embraced her a thousand times._

Trying to discus matters with a person employing deliberate exaggeration for effect is useless.
I do not know which parts of your soliloquies are fair dinkum and which parts are exaggerated for effect.
Then again perhaps you have achieved what you intended although I did not think that you needed to liven up proceedings but it is wonderful of you to deign to assist us as we bask in your reflected glow.

Robert


----------



## .   1

emma42 said:


> I think it would be helpful if you read what others write a little more carefully and with a bit more of an open mind because, ironically, you seem to be the most quasi-religious advocate of your position among us all!


A crossover agreement.  It always amuses me that those flinging invective often look internally for their ammunition.

Robert


----------



## cuchuflete

We seem to have a new, bigger, better definition of environmentalism, just so that its opponents will have a broader target.  This definition says that any attempt to constrain the cognitively superior species from doing what it pleases is "environmentalist", and therefore suspect, in posession of nefarious "agendas", and smacks of whatever one doesn't like about religion.  What a load of codswallop!

The cognitively superior species used to put lead in gasoline, thereby fouling the environment both for itself and for other species.  Moves to restrain such ignorant self-harm were made long before the term environmentalist existed.  It wasn't environmentalists who banned the use DDT, it was scientists in the public health field.  
Who among the fanatic, religious environmentalist community put an end to the use of asbestos for home pipe insulation and siding shingles?   Note that all of these products were used for the benefit of the cognitively superior species, which now and then does some pretty ignorant, self-destructive things in its quest for comfort.

As a side note, leaded gasoline, asbestos insulation and siding, and a fair number of "wonder drugs" coincidentally befoul the environment.  Is it religious or fanatical for those with a concern for the environment to
object and to seek remedies?  

As cognitively superior beings, humans have demonstrated their ability to intentionally or accidentally eradicate other species.  That is not an argument for or against environmentalism.  Rather, it's a sign that the cognitively superior beings still have a lot to learn about how and why they should use or restrain the powers they hold.


----------



## .   1

We don't even know what we don't know about the environment.
There was an experiment conducted recently in what was called the 'Biosphere 2' or something similar.  The concept was to observe the effects of isolation of a space crew during a mission to Mars by having them live together is a self-contained self-regulating dome mimiking the environment of Earth to produce oxygen and scrub carbon dioxide with plants.
The entire program failed because the inhabitants were required to spend an inordinate amount of time fighting weeds and disease in their simplified environment.
Scientists are still not sure what went wrong but there are subtlties about the environment that are beyond our ken and it is my opinion that we should try to copy nature as much as possible.

Robert


----------



## TRG

I have the whole time been arguing a point or idea or, if you like, against an idea. I'm not the only person in the universe to hold this opinion. But while I have been attacking an idea you have been attacking me with your dismissive comments and subtle insults. I use hyperbole which evidently causes anguish and when I tell you I'm doing it to stimulate debate I'm then scolded for using hyperbole. 

Then there's this: Some participants in this conversation, in a cognitively disabled attempt to smear anything and everything in any way associated with concern for the environment (I do not include Athaulf among these, despite his ocassional rhetorical excesses) are content to leave well enough alone, even when there is clear scientific evidence of difficulties. 

Since I am the only person besides Athaulf posting in this thread that took the "pro" position I must assume that this comment is directed at me. Now I freely admit that my posts were not as erudite as Athaulf's, but that is no reason to refer to them as a "congnitively disabled attempts". As for the balance of the statement, I refer you to my second post which said:


> I think Athaulf states the case about as clearly as possible and certainly better than I could ever hope to. One other point; on some level, all of us are environmentalists. We all want no pollution and the preservation of the natural world. However, we cannot have our cake and eat it too, as it were, so we must set priorities and make choices. This is where the true believers get separated from the rest of us. And I believe this is unhelpful to environmentalism in some respects. Many people hear environmentalist and they immediatly think of PETA and organizations like Earth First that take radical positions and in doing so turn some people against "environmentalism" who would otherwise view it with favor.


 
Not exactly an attempt to "smear everything" or was this just a bit of hyperbole to energize the debate?

I can't think of anything else we could accomplish with this discussion, so I think it's time to move on. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is closed.


----------



## maxiogee

I would agree with TRG about the myth of species in balance.

My view would be that species expand to exploit whatever environment they encounter. The extinction of a species leads to the blossoming of new ones or the expansion of existing ones.

What I object to is the concept that we have a "right" to impact species in any way we see fit.
What we kill off might well be a thriving species - the buffalo - and what takes its place might well be something deleterious to humanity.

We are tenants here, not landlords. We have (more or less) as much right to the place as any other species.


----------



## gaer

maxiogee said:


> What I object to is the concept that we have a "right" to impact species in any way we see fit.


The problem, as I see it, is that humanity is quite capable of using its power to "impact" ITSELF right out of existence.

If that happens, the earth will "shrug its shoulders" and carry on.


----------



## PPatience

Environmentalism isnt a religion.. how it could be a religion.. it is just a principle


----------



## .   1

gaer said:


> If that happens, the earth will "shrug its shoulders" and carry on.


It is entirely possible that we are feeling the earth have a bit of a scratch between the shoulder blades at the moment.  The weather down under is weird.

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

In summary:

(1) Environmentalism like other ideologies shares some aspects with religion. Whether we actually call it a religion depends mainly on our definition of the word "religion".

(2) We also lack a proper definiton of "enviromentalism", because some members see a significant difference between "reasonably ecologically interested or active" and "fanatical environmentalists".

(3) In contrast to the outline of the thread we could not restrain from discussing individual environmentalists agendas.  Whether certain aspecst of environmentalism  are reasonable or not, should be discussed in a dedicated thread. Issues like biodiversity, balance vs. transience, human influence on climate are interesting, but should not be part of this thread.

Kajjo


----------



## emma42

Perfect, Kajjo, and apologies to all for my off-topic posts.


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> Buffalo and bison et al were part of a self regulating cycle. They graze and move on then graze and move on. This practice had not significantly impacted on the environment for millions of years.



_Millions _of years?! Please tell me you're kidding. 

The American bison (_Bison bison_) migrated to North America mere _ten thousand _years ago. Before they came, the Great Plains were inhabited by an entirely different species of bison (_Bison priscus_), which became -- guess what -- extinct thousands of years before the first Europeans stepped onto the American soil (although it is possible that its extinction was in part due to its hunting by the ancestors of American Indians). Of course, not even the presence of _bison priscus_ was millions of years old -- this species started its spread through North America some 700,000 years ago.

Generally, the idea that any local ecosystem can remain more or less unchanged for millions of years, with or without human influence, is sheer fantasy  (except perhaps in a handful of extreme cases). Just consider the fact that the peak of the most recent ice age occurred mere _18,000_ years ago -- you'll certainly have a hard time finding a place whose ecosystem didn't look very different back then.


----------



## fenixpollo

TRG said:
			
		

> Now I freely admit that my posts were not as erudite as Athaulf's, but that is no reason to refer to them as a "congnitively disabled attempts".


 Although I wouldn't use the words "cognitively disabled", I do think that your initial reasoning was flawed.  You're assuming that any belief structure can be called a religion if its subscribers are sufficiently activist. If that were true, then _anti-environmentalism_ would be a religion, too. 





TRG said:


> I just refuse to accept that a "natural system" is inherently superior on a moral, ethical, or scientific basis to one contrived by human beings.


 You obviously don't subscribe to Western religion. If you did, this would be an arrogant statement -- to suppose that the "natural system" created by God is inherently inferior to anything that could be contrived by humans.


----------



## John-Paul

For many Americans environmentalism is junior-socialism and therefor considered dangerous because it will drain public funds, just like public education, welfare and, God-forbid, universal health-care. Be posing questions like these you force people to deny that environmentalism is a religion and therefor make it an easy target for destruction. Capitalists (and they are everywhere nowadays) don't want environmentalism because they believe that minor issues like global warming should be left to the free market. But if it's a religion you can't attack it. There is no answer to this question. What else could be the purpose of this question than to polarize a peaceful community like this. If the original poster was sincere he/she should have asked: should environmentalism be part of religion (I have never seen a TV preacher praying for a decline in CO2 emissions.)


----------



## frenchtranslater

I was simply thinking tonight about the entire meaning of environmentalism, and I noticed it was quite close to Stoicism (an Hellenistic philosophy). Stoicism says that there is a divine power controlling the universe. It also says peole should live with a close bond to nature, and that things such as humand desires are evill. In the Hellenistic times, this philosophy appealed to many differenct races and cultures, because of its 'logic' and purity. 

I think it is amazing how close environmentalism and Stoicism are. However, I think it is important to be mentioned the Stoicism is a philosophy, ideology and a doctrine (a word I have not heard in this discussion)


----------



## .   1

. said:


> Buffalo and bison et al were part of a self regulating cycle. They graze and move on then graze and move on. This practice had not significantly impacted on the environment for millions of years. Humanity came along and ate the buffalo and bison to replace them with static herds of cattle and many parts of the world became dust bowls. Australia has suffered unremedial landscape devastation as a direct result of the introduction of cattle.


Are you intentionally misrepresenting my words or do you simply not understand them?
My reference is the the practice of the bison grazing and moving on and that this practice did not change the environment. I did not specify which bison or buffalo. I believe that it is unfair to take a small part of a quote and rearrange the context to fit your agenda.
My comment was not of the unchanging nature of bison et al but on the unchanging nature of bison's eating and excreting habits as against intensive agriculture.

Robert
Guess what, Athaulf, I was able to guess, even before your superior prompt, that bison and mammoth and other beasties died out quite a few years ago only to be replaced by even more beastlier beasties.



Athaulf said:


> _Millions _of years?! Please tell me you're kidding.
> 
> The American bison (_Bison bison_) migrated to North America mere _ten thousand _years ago. Before they came, the Great Plains were inhabited by an entirely different species of bison (_Bison priscus_), which became -- guess what -- extinct thousands of years before the first Europeans stepped onto the American soil (although it is possible that its extinction was in part due to its hunting by the ancestors of American Indians). Of course, not even the presence of _bison priscus_ was millions of years old -- this species started its spread through North America some 700,000 years ago.
> 
> Generally, the idea that any local ecosystem can remain more or less unchanged for millions of years, with or without human influence, is sheer fantasy (except perhaps in a handful of extreme cases). Just consider the fact that the peak of the most recent ice age occurred mere _18,000_ years ago -- you'll certainly have a hard time finding a place whose ecosystem didn't look very different back then.


----------



## gaer

Kajjo said:


> In summary:
> 
> (1) Environmentalism like other ideologies shares some aspects with religion. Whether we actually call it a religion depends mainly on our definition of the word "religion".


I was about to strongly disagree, Kajjo. I checked MW for "support", but this is what I found:

1: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
[…]
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or and faith 

Although the first (primary) definition centers around "God or the supernatural", the fourth defintion does not.

Using this broader defintion, I have to agree with you.


> (2) We also lack a proper definiton of "enviromentalism", because some members see a significant difference between "reasonably ecologically interested or active" and "fanatical environmentalists".


This was my main point from the start. Here are two definitions for "enviromentalism":

1) Cambridge: an interest in or the study of the environment, in order to protect it from damage by human activities

2) MW: advocacy of the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment; especially : _the movement to control pollution_ 

Even using the most liberal or "fuzzy" definition of "religious" (beliefs held to with ardor or and faith), labeling environmentalism as a "religion" is at best highly inaccurate.

Gaer


----------



## maxiogee

gaer said:


> I was about to strongly disagree, Kajjo. I checked MW for "support", but this is what I found:
> 
> 1: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
> […]
> 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor or and faith
> 
> Although the first (primary) definition centers around "God or the supernatural", the fourth defintion does not.
> 
> Using this broader defintion, I have to agree with you.



Yes, but as people who are interested in words, I think we all here would agree that there are tight and loose meanings applied to certain words. The fourth definition is what I would consider a colloquialism… "shopping is the new religion", "Joe trains down the gym every week, religiously".

I'd be interested to see what else you could name for us which you would term a religion using that definition and not involving any of the first definition.


----------



## .   1

A religion can be an adherence to a certain way of life in preference to another.
There are some people who believe that modern organised sport has taken on certain appearances of being a religion.  
Baseball is often spoken of as an American religion.
One parishioner's God is another fan's Lou Gherig.

.,,


----------



## emma42

So, in fact, we are all right!  (But some are more right than others?)  Hurrah!


----------



## gaer

maxiogee said:


> The fourth definition is what I would consider a colloquialism… "shopping is the new religion", "Joe trains down the gym every week, religiously".


I simply said that I can understand Kajjo's point of view.

My personal use of religion is restricted to what you and I might agree is the primary definition.

Even using the definition of religion that you label "a colloquialism" (and I don't disagree with that), I still don't agree that "environmentalism" is a "religion".


> I'd be interested to see what else you could name for us which you would term a religion using that definition and not involving any of the first definition.


 
You're asking the wrong person. I only use the first definition myself. 

Gaer


----------



## cuchuflete

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  That's a fundamental ecological principle, right?

There have been a few recurring themes in this thread:

1) Some environmentalism is just plain, sensible activity to keep our surroundings clean and healthy, or restore them to that sort of condition.  Nobody here appears to have trouble with that.

2) Some people who advocate for environmental causes go to extremes, and give environmentalism a bad name.  There hasn't been much disagreement about that either.

3) The attitudes, beliefs and actions of the 'type 2' environmentalists have been ascribed to environmentalists in general.  This has raised more than a little fuss.  It also has been grounds for some folks to call environmentalism a religion.  They have done so without specifying that such a classification does not and should not be applied to most people with concerns about the environment, and that if it is an accurate analogy, it only holds true for a minority.

In keeping with the above, I propose that industrialism should be labelled a religion, as some unspecified minority of those in favor of economic growth believe that industrialization will unfailingly improve the human condition.  Further, the excesses of that minority should be used to characterize any and all proponents of any sort of industrial development.

You may begin throwing bricks at your convenience.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> There have been a few recurring themes in this thread:
> 
> 
> 1) Some environmentalism is just plain, sensible activity to keep our surroundings clean and healthy, or restore them to that sort of condition.  Nobody here appears to have trouble with that.
> 
> 2) Some people who advocate for environmental causes go to extremes, and give environmentalism a bad name.  There hasn't been much disagreement about that either.
> 
> 3) The attitudes, beliefs and actions of the 'type 2' environmentalists have been ascribed to environmentalists in general.  This has raised more than a little fuss.  It also has been grounds for some folks to call environmentalism a religion.  They have done so without specifying that such a classification does not and should not be applied to most people with concerns about the environment, and that if it is an accurate analogy, it only holds true for a minority.



But as I wrote in greater detail several posts above, this depends on what categories of people we consider as "environmentalists." If you insist of using this term for all those ordinary people who merely expresses some sort of vague sympathy for environmentalism, and who mostly have very shallow understanding of the issues involved, then yes, one can hardly ascribe any sort of fanaticism to those. But what if we focus on people who consider environmentalism as their primary ideological affiliation, who invest substantial time and effort in activism in various environmentalist organizations? My impression is that among such people, the type you labeled as (2) is definitely not a minority, although I don't expect we'll agree on this point. 

Furthermore, you have yourself provided an important clue several posts ago, which suggests that there might be slightly more to the story than the summary above (emphasis mine):



> The cognitively superior species used to put lead in gasoline, thereby fouling the environment both for itself and for other species. *Moves to restrain such ignorant self-harm were made long before the term environmentalist existed.*


So, you write that even long before the emergence of the ideology (or, if you will, a whole family of ideologies) nowadays known as "environmentalism," people were concerned about certain issues that are nowadays commonly perceived as environmental, because there was an evident connection between these issues and human welfare. This is indeed true. But this naturally leads to a question: what is then the basis for the additional "environmental" issues brought into the public debate only with the advent of the modern environmentalist ideology? Are these additional issues akin to the previously existing ones (i.e. are they basically a product of the same rational ways of thinking, only with the benefit of modern scientific insights)? Or are at least some of them different in that regard, i.e. based on subjective, ideological, perhaps even quasi-religious thinking? Again, I guess we'll come to an irreconcilable disagreement at this point too.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Athaulf said:


> If I'm not misunderstanding you, here you are yourself coming close to the point that I've made in some of my previous posts -- that there is not much, if any essential difference between "supernatural" beliefs found in traditional religions and those found in the doctrines of various more modern political ideologies. Where we probably disagree is that you seem to argue that we should avoid stretching the notion of "supernatural" to absurd limits, whereas I argue that these limits are not absurd at all, but only seem absurd because people tend to have too much reverence for some supposedly "non-supernatural" concepts to see them for what they really are.
> 
> Almost every modern ideology -- except those explicitly religious ones -- tends to present itself as an outgrowth of reason and science, rather than beliefs in unobservable (and therefore, if one takes a skeptical stance, imaginary) entities. So, when one wants to point out the fact that most (if not all) of them actually do have such beliefs at their core, what would be a good term to use? In such situations, I like using the term "religious," even if it requires a stretching of the conventional meaning of the term, because it has a strong effect of negating the supposedly scientific and rational basis of the ideology in question. "Metaphysical" would probably be a better word, but alas, it would be a poor choice when it comes to rhetorics.



I think that's a fair description of what I was saying, and we probably do agree on a lot, although I'd add that I think science itself as having certain unprovable assumptions (like the regularity of the existence), which is another reason I think it's not useful to use the mere fact of such suppositions to group systems of thought (for lack of a better term) together.

I would say that there's a bunch of things that set religion apart from these other systems, some of which have already been mentioned, but you could also mention a certain fixity, in that religious ideas are often not, at least consciously, up to the same evaluation and readjustment that scientific assumptions are. For me environmentalism probably falls under the category of ethics, since ultimately it seems to me to deal with which circumstances are better than others and about regulating behaviour, and although ethical ideas can also be religious, they need not be, and I just don't see what environmentalism in and of itself shares with religious ideas like Mithraism, say.

Metaphysical is better in my opinion but still has certain undertones I don't like -- for example that there is an opposition between metaphysical and physical, and I'm not sure how far such an opposition can be taken. After thinking about it and looking for some terms, I'd be happiest with saying all ideologies make certain ontological suppositions.



> Related to your remarks above, I think it could also be argued that many brands of environmentalism do incorporate elements that could be fairly described as ritual, but this would require a long separate argument.


I wouldn't be surprised, and I would say that in so far as something is religious, it's religious .


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> Are you intentionally misrepresenting my words or do you simply not understand them?
> My reference is the the practice of the bison grazing and moving on and that this practice did not change the environment. I did not specify which bison or buffalo. I believe that it is unfair to take a small part of a quote and rearrange the context to fit your agenda.
> My comment was not of the unchanging nature of bison et al but on the unchanging nature of bison's eating and excreting habits as against intensive agriculture.



Your comment did clearly imply the existence of some environment that was essentially unchanged for millions of years and then suddenly interrupted when the European settlers came. But such an unchanging environment never existed anywhere for that long. Even through periods of several tens of thousands of years, populations of individual species can oscillate wildly and migrate permanently, climate can change drastically, certain species can drive others out of their habitats, etc. -- all this without any human influence. Some 10-15 thousand years ago, mastodons and saber-toothed tigers were still roaming the present territory of the continental U.S.; 18,000 years ago, the ice cover stretched all the way down to what is today New York and Pennsylvania!


----------



## gaer

Athaulf said:


> But as I wrote in greater detail several posts above, this depends on what categories of people we consider as "environmentalists."


As other people have pointed out, we need a working definition, something useful.

As yet we don't really have it.

You insist on attaching pejorative meanings to the word. I regard this as a personal view, although it is shared by many.

I'm very concerned about the environment of our planet. I have given what I think are solid reasons for feeling this way in other posts. According to your definition, which I think is extremely narrow-minded and loaded, if I dare label myself as an "environmentalist", you will assume I'm a fanatic.

What if I could convince you that I am not? What if I could convince you, for instance, that I examine everything I read, pro and con, with a very healthy amount of skepticism. My concern about our environment is no less strong. However, my beliefs about what should be done to protect the planet and ourselves—which I see as bound together—do not fit your model.

For instance, although I do not think "State of Fear" is a first-rate book, I do think that Crichton made some good points. He may have been justified in exaggerating the "evils" of fanatical environmentalists by countering it with what I think was a deliberately loaded counter-attack. When one side is (or is perceived as) "loading the dice", I think loading them another way is often the only way to shake up people who are cock-sure that they know all the answers.

My point is that extremists on both sides insist on distorting truth, jumping to conclusions without evidence, misquoting the other side, and so on. My biggest concern is that a great deal of science is referred to by people who don't UNDERSTAND the science. Dangerous!

If we examine just one area, global warming, which cannot be separated from other issues all under the umbrella of environmental issues, I think we find absurd statements both pro and con, and many people who are making them, part of what I still think is a very vocal minority, have a great deal of power.

In short, I have many reasons to distrust Big Business, and we could all find many examples of abuses in the past that were shocking. They undoubtedly go on.

But I also have many reasons to distrust "liberals", perhaps because those who you label "religious" often make statements that sound very convincing but that are, in fact, not based on any solid scientific evidence at all.

I think what we need are "informed" environmentalists, people who spend a few years studying science and keeping very open minds before they shoot off their mouths about things they do not understand.

Just my viewpoint. 

Gaer


----------



## emma42

_


Athaulf said:



			But as I wrote in greater detail several posts above, this depends on what categories of people we consider as "environmentalists." If you insist of using this term for all those ordinary people who merely expresses some sort of vague sympathy for environmentalism, and who mostly have very shallow understanding of the issues involved, then yes, one can hardly ascribe any sort of fanaticism to those. But what if we focus on people who consider environmentalism as their primary ideological affiliation, who invest substantial time and effort in activism in various environmentalist organizations? My impression is that among such people, the type you labeled as (2) is definitely not a minority, although I don't expect we'll agree on this point.  point too.
		
Click to expand...


_You seem to be a reasonably intelligent person:  Are you sincerely saying that  there is no middle ground between "vague sympathy"/ "shallow understanding" and the ecofanatics?  If so, I can only deduce that either a) you need to get out more, or b)  you need to get out more.

Quite apart from the lack of knowledge about the many people either concerned about or active in environmental issues, this view appears shockingly arrogant.


----------



## cuchuflete

Athaulf said:


> But as I wrote in greater detail several posts above, this depends on what categories of people we consider as "environmentalists." If you insist of using this term for all those ordinary people who merely expresses some sort of vague sympathy for environmentalism, and who mostly have very shallow understanding of the issues involved, then yes, one can hardly ascribe any sort of fanaticism to those.


  Your repetition of the charge that the "ordinary people "mostly have very shallow understanding of the issues involved" doesn't make it a true statement.  The average citizen doesn't know diddly-squat about economics either, but that doesn't discredit their ability to perceive value in their economy.  Your debating techniques are deft and well-executed, but they grow painfully tiresome as you continue to accuse
nameless, uncounted, faceless groups of labeled but undefined people, who may or may not even exist, with dismissive insults from on high.  Are you so lacking in specific facts that you have to resort to such nonsense?

Where is your own definition of environmentalism?   So far you have referred to the extremists, and those who are ignoramuses.  I would suggest that you have left out the majority, which has information and concern without fanaticism, but as you suggest, we are not likely to agree.  Nonetheless, your debate style is to be complimented.   At every opportunity you have told us that environmentalists consist of the lunatic fringe and the uninformed, misguided, deluded and deceived.  If all environmentalists were in one of those groups, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with them.   





> But what if we focus on people who consider environmentalism as their primary ideological affiliation, who invest substantial time and effort in activism in various environmentalist organizations? My impression is that among such people, the type you labeled as (2) is definitely not a minority, although I don't expect we'll agree on this point.


  So now we are going to discuss whether a minority consists of a majority of minority members?   Rubbish.  That is just
a tail-chasing exercise.  Those who consider environmentalism as their primary ideological affiliation?  Show me more than a handful.  Even the most extreme environmentalists, the ones you and I agree are "out there" may not think of environmentalism as an ideology, and in any case the way extremists may choose to label themselves doesn't make them more or less numerous, or more or less extremist.  



> So, you write that even long before the emergence of the ideology (or, if you will, a whole family of ideologies) nowadays known as "environmentalism," people were concerned about certain issues that are nowadays commonly perceived as environmental, because there was an evident connection between these issues and human welfare.


  More good debate tricks.
1- Declare, as if it had to be true because you say it so matter-of-factly, that there is an ideology or family of ideologies "if you will" know as environmentalism.   That you have declared it does not make it so.  You may perceive that some environmentalists act as if, in your opinion, they hold and attempt to practice an ideology.   That's fine.  You may characterize people as you see fit, but again, that doesn't make environmentalism an ideology, nor its adherents members of one.   You told us a few posts back that you had met some environmentalists who acted that way.  OK, but what gives you the right, or any factual basis, on which to apply such judgments to environmentalists in any numbers?  
2- Having suggested that environmentalists are partisans of one or more ideologies, you have already attempted to discredit them.  Shall we follow that line of reasoning and say that all business people are followers of rapacious capitalist ideology?

Why not acknowledge the obvious?  Before there were environmentalists and an associated set of 'isms', there were common sense efforts to prevent pollution, and to clean it up.  Many of those efforts continue, and some folks who favor them may choose, today, to label themselves as environmentalists.  Having applied that label does not mean that they have uniformly abandoned the common sense and the science they used before the new terminology became widespread. It certainly doesn't imply that such people have turned into nature worshippers who are aghast at the thought of any modification to a mythical delicate balance.  

Some of the environmental work I see going on around me involves building code enforcement.
There are things like shoreland setback requirements, clearcut restrictions, and other common sense regulations that prevent homebuilders from causing stormwater runoff to erode banks, and silt up harbors.  No ideology, no religion, no fanaticism, no empty headed drones being driven by myths and misconceptions...just widespread environmental activism that has become thoroughly mainstream.   Things like that are the bulk of the environmentalism I'm exposed to.  It is nearly ubiquitous around here, and most of it is based on good science and common sense.  It shows no influence of extremists, and is most assuredly free of ideology.  Zoning laws are another common, and in this neighborhood, common sensical application of environmental principles.  Some of these limit the number of dwellings, and the size of commercial and industrial buildings, so as to avoid
contact between septic effluent and drinking water.  Where's the ideology?  Where's the link to religious practice?  Where's the extremism?   




> But this naturally leads to a question: what is then the basis for the additional "environmental" issues brought into the public debate only with the advent of the modern environmentalist ideology?


  There you go again, as Mr. Reagan said.  

That sounds impressive:  "...the advent of the modern environmentalist ideology".
Please define "modern environmentalist ideology", and offer some scientific evidence that it exists, and if so, in what numbers and locations.  I suspect you personally invented it just for the sake of this debate.  We have agreed that there are some vocal extremists, but why should we ascribe to them any sort of ideology?  Who are these people?  Sure, you may cite a few books and monographs by some folks who appear to smoke funny stuff for breakfast, but that doesn't mean that there is any such thing as "the modern environmentalist ideology".  When did it come into being?  Who were its founders?  What are the primary tenets of this supposed ideology?  How many followers does it have?  Was Theodore Roosevelt a card-carrying member when he called for the first national parks?  Was that before or after he attacked the capitalist monopolists? 





> Again, I guess we'll come to an irreconcilable disagreement at this point too.


_Most of the anti-environmentalists are ideologically driven supporters of free-market economics, who abhor Keynes and fellow travelers, and they brought us the Love Canal, thalidomide, PCPs in our fish and water, and..... It is common knowledge that most of them are church-goers, so the ineluctable conclusion is that destroying the environment is ......  oh, gracious.  Since the advent of modern, neo-con, creationism, they have spread their false ideology into the vacuous heads of the ignorant masses....

_Yes, that's pretty ridiculous too.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> Your comment did clearly imply the existence of some environment that was essentially unchanged for millions of years and then suddenly interrupted when the European settlers came. But such an unchanging environment never existed anywhere for that long. Even through periods of several tens of thousands of years, populations of individual species can oscillate wildly and migrate permanently, climate can change drastically, certain species can drive others out of their habitats, etc. -- all this without any human influence. Some 10-15 thousand years ago, mastodons and saber-toothed tigers were still roaming the present territory of the continental U.S.; 18,000 years ago, the ice cover stretched all the way down to what is today New York and Pennsylvania!


My comment contained the information that intensive agricultural practices did not exist before humans.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Of course the environment has changed.  Of course there have been ice ages, thanks for that but I can remember High School Science, of course there have been climate fluctuations but there has never before been intensive agricultural practices destroying ecosystems.
I was refuting the claim that the loss of the bison and replacement with cattle had no negative effect on the environment and I stand by that claim despite as many red herrings as can be spawned.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

> What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  That's a fundamental ecological religious principle, right?
> 
> 1) Some environmentalism religious practise is just plain, sensible activity to keep our surroundings clean and healthy wholesome and moral, or restore them to that sort of condition.  Nobody here appears to have trouble with that.
> 
> 2) Some people who advocate for environmental religious causes go to extremes, and give environmentalism religion a bad name.  There hasn't been much disagreement about that either.
> 
> 3) The attitudes, beliefs and actions of the 'type 2' environmentalists religious people (fundamentalists) have been ascribed to environmentalists religious people in general.  This has raised more than a little fuss.



One can see where the thread starter got the topic from. 

======



> You may begin throwing bricks at your convenience.


Hand crafted using the finest materials by skilled artisans, or mass produced by machines in dark, satanic mills?

After throwing your bricks, please pick them up and recycle them


----------



## Kajjo

gaer said:


> Here are two definitions for "enviromentalism":
> 1) Cambridge: an interest in or the study of the environment, in order to protect it from damage by human activities
> 2) MW: advocacy of the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment; especially : _the movement to control pollution_


OK, given these definitions, environmentalism is just a mentality or social-political interest. However, this definition ignores the kind of extremist behaviour some of the environmentalist exhibit. Normal people like you and me can be reasonably environmentally concerned without calling themselves environmentalists. It is difficult to define the difference, isn't it?



> Even using the most liberal or "fuzzy" definition of "religious" (beliefs held to with ardor or and faith), labeling environmentalism as a "religion" is at best highly inaccurate.


I agree. Very early on in this thread I took position against calling an ideology "religion". 

Kajjo


----------



## winklepicker

cuchuflete said:


> 2) Some people who advocate for environmental causes go to extremes, and give environmentalism a bad name. There hasn't been much disagreement about that either.
> 
> 3) The attitudes, beliefs and actions of the 'type 2' environmentalists have been ascribed to environmentalists in general. This has raised more than a little fuss. It also has been grounds for some folks to call environmentalism a religion. They have done so without specifying that such a classification does not and should not be applied to most people with concerns about the environment, and that if it is an accurate analogy, it only holds true for a minority.


 
YES. What people are objecting to - it seems to me - fundamentalism. Environmentalism (is there such a word?) is not of itself a bad thing - nor is religious faith. The problem arises when one group of people claim to have the answers for all the people - and plan to impose those answers. Call it fascism, call it fundamentalism, call it what you will: it's an excuse to control others.



cuchuflete said:


> You may begin throwing bricks at your convenience.


 
I'll refrain if you don't mind: it tends to break the ceramics...


----------



## winklepicker

TRG said:


> I just refuse to accept that a "natural system" is inherently superior on a moral, ethical, or scientific basis to one contrived by human beings.


 
Have you ever eaten dodo? Delicious - sadly we're right out of it just now. Perhaps I could offer you some auroch haunch? - Oh, bother. Well never mind, I've got some very flavoursome passenger pigeon - oh. It's not your day is it?

The point is, it may not be superior, but it's one-way traffic. We will never know what we are missing either in the above flavoursome comestibles (sadly extinct) or in Amazon rainforest medicines. It is in our own self-interest that we should try to conserve and preserve what we have, in species, and in climate, and in ecology, just the same.



TRG said:


> Among the criticisms that have been made is that I am focusing on some lunatic fringe and that the argument is not relevant to the environmental movement as a whole... tree-huggers ...


 
I share your distate for extremists of all kinds. But sadly they are a necessary part of the social dialectic. Without Edwardian ladies throwing themselves under horses or being forcibly fed arguably we'd not have female suffrage today. Without the ANC we'd still have apartheid. Without Irgun there'd be no state of Israel. Arguably. 

So we need these extremists to raise the profile of the issue, so that society can move in that direction - as it is doing already. They remind us that some things are just plain wrong: ruthless exploitation and greed to name but two.


----------



## Kajjo

winklepicker said:


> What people are objecting to is fundamentalism. [...] The problem arises when one group of people claim to have the answers for all the people - and plan to impose those answers.


Yes, I agree. Quite early in this thread we mentioned the _proselytising manner _of some environmentalists -- a concept that is quite close to what you describe: imposing their beliefs, being fundamentalist, claim of absolute truth.

Again we should distinguish environmentally interested people from fundamental or even fanatic environmentalists.

We are in need of two distinct, well defined terms.

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

Kajjo said:


> Yes, I agree. Quite early in this thread we mentioned the _proselytising manner _of some environmentalists -- a concept that is quite close to what you describe: imposing their beliefs, being fundamentalist, claim of absolute truth.
> 
> Again we should distinguish environmentally interested people from fundamental or even fanatic environmentalists.
> 
> * We are in need of two distinct, well defined terms.
> *
> Kajjo



Well said.  Perhaps if the opening post had asked, for example, if environmental extremists shared some traits with their religious counterparts, we would have come directly to some different conclusions.


----------



## maxiogee

winklepicker said:


> I share your distate for extremists of all kinds. But sadly they are a necessary part of the social dialectic. Without Edwardian ladies throwing themselves under horses or being forcibly fed arguably we'd not have female suffrage today. Without the ANC we'd still have apartheid. Without Irgun there'd be no state of Israel. Arguably.
> 
> So we need these extremists to raise the profile of the issue, so that society can move in that direction - as it is doing already. They remind us that some things are just plain wrong: ruthless exploitation and greed to name but two.



Without the extremists, the moderates would just divide and some would become extreme - without changing their views or mofidying their arguments.
It's how we humans are. We are a spectrum - and if infra-red or ultra-violet don't appeal, well — there's always red and voilet.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> Your repetition of the charge that the "ordinary people "mostly have very shallow understanding of the issues involved" doesn't make it a true statement.  The average citizen doesn't know diddly-squat about economics either, but that doesn't discredit their ability to perceive value in their economy.
> Your debating techniques are deft and well-executed, but they grow painfully tiresome as you continue to accuse
> nameless, uncounted, faceless groups of labeled but undefined people, who may or may not even exist, with dismissive insults from on high.  [...]



Well, you're certainly right that I've continued writing in this thread long after it's outlived its usefulness (assuming it ever had any in the first place). I don't think you've really represented my points fairly in this last post, but I don't see any further sense in continuing, so I'll let you have the last word.


----------



## emma42

Off-topic, contemptuous of others, childish.

I fully expect to  be deleted, as should be the preceding post.


----------



## cuchuflete

Athaulf said:


> Well, you're certainly right that I've continued writing in this thread long after it's outlived its usefulness ...


  That remark doesn't earn points as good debate technique.  It is a blatant lie, a pure fabrication, and a shameful and inept one.  

I never commented on how long you have continued writing in this thread.  You just invented a straw man.  



> (assuming it ever had any in the first place).


  If you have doubts about the usefulness of this thread, why did you write in it so much?



> I don't think you've really represented my points fairly in this last post, but I don't see any further sense in continuing, so I'll let you have the last word.



I think you have done a great deal of misrepresenting throughout the entire thread, and I have pointed out how you have done it.   If you think you have not been accurately represented, you are most welcome to issue a rebuttal, as is normal in a debate.  I only ask that you do not continue to invent things out of thin air, and attribute them to me.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> Well, you're certainly right that I've continued writing in this thread long after it's outlived its usefulness (assuming it ever had any in the first place).


I make a habit of not contributing to threads that I consider to be useless.
Just my way of conserving resources.

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> That remark doesn't earn points as good debate technique.  It is a blatant lie, a pure fabrication, and a shameful and inept one.
> 
> I never commented on how long you have continued writing in this thread.  You just invented a straw man.



Well, you did make a comment (among others) that I was starting to become "painfully tiresome" -- to which I actually don't object, because it's probably true. Maybe I misunderstood the intended point of this comment, in which case I apologize, but please be assured that it wasn't a conscious fabrication. Together with the fact that the discussion was starting to adopt an accusatory tone (in the sense of accusations directed towards individual participants), this indicated to me that the potential for interesting discussion was gone, with more or less everything relevant having been said, at least from my part. If you believe that it was my improper attitude that spoiled the discussion, please accept my apologies; I certainly don't want to turn abstract debates into personal confrontations, and if you perceived something I wrote as confrontational, it wasn't meant to sound that way. 

In particular, I probably made a mistake when I complained about my points not being represented fairly; it probably sounded as if I was trying to attribute to your malice what was most likely a product of my failure to express myself in a way that can be understood only clearly and unambiguously. Looking back, I admit that at least a part of what I wrote lacked precision and clarity, as well as satisfactory argumentation for some of the more controversial claims I made. When one tries to argue a controversial opinion in a medium like this one, it is very hard to avoid either losing the general direction by falling into endless discussions of particularities or limiting oneself to hopelessly abstracted general claims. It seems like I somehow managed to commit both mistakes at different points in this thread, which unfortunately led to a degradation of the tone of discussion. So I guess that at this point, I can only ask you not to attribute to malice what was likely a product of misunderstanding and, perhaps, the ineptness of my argumentation of certain points. As for the concrete arguments, points, and facts over which we were arguing, I honestly believe that we have, or at least I have, reached the limit of useful discussion that can be accomplished through this medium.


----------



## cuchuflete

cuchuflete said:


> I never commented on how long you have continued writing in this thread.  You just invented a straw man.
> 
> ...you are most welcome to issue a rebuttal, as is normal in a debate.





Athaulf said:


> Well, you did make a comment (among others) that I was starting to become "painfully tiresome" -- to which I actually don't object, because it's probably true.




Another distortion.  You write well.  Please take the trouble to also read well.    Here is precisely what I said, and it was not a comment on either your longevity in this thread, or, as you would now have us believe, a comment that you were starting to become anything.  


> Your debating techniques are deft and well-executed, but they grow painfully tiresome...


There is not a word about you "starting to" do anything, or about you as a person. The debating techniques  (not you personally, or your positions) grow tiresome...  as they do yet again when you inaccurately paraphrase, yet again.




The thread topic received an excess of generalities from many persons, including myself.  There has been a lack of precision in defining terms used throughout the conversation, and that has no doubt led to much of the disagreement, despite the easily overlooked points of agreement, which are many.  Some of us have been talking past one another, rather than addressing specifics.  

I don't see any malice on the part of any participant.  I only wish that there had been more emphasis on educating one another with facts.


----------



## emma42

Well said, Athaulf and Cuchuflete.


----------



## .   1

It would appear to me that the difficulty raising between Athaulf and Cuchuflete is one of two precisionists holding discussions in a language in which only one is a precisionist.

Robert


----------

