Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

I Haven't Introduced Myself, Either!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Better late than never, so here I am!

I lurked here for a long time and recently started posting quite a bit. I was actually introduced to Objectivism by a neighbor, a fortuitous event for which I am very grateful, because I've now read Atlas Shrugged, some of Ayn Rand's non-fiction, and part of The Fountainhead. I found Atlas Shrugged to be a very moving book. I'm fascinated by the philosophy, and am interested in learning more as I have time to read. So far, I have not found anything, really, to disagree with in Objectivism, but I am still examining the philosophy.

I was raised in a very religious family. We skipped around from church to church when I was growing up, too many to count! Most of my Sundays were spent in the faith-healing-holy-roller-speaking-in-tongues-feel-good types of churches. It wasn't all bad. We did attend a Presbyterian church for a short time where people did not faint in the aisles and laugh uncotrollably, and during that time I was the church organist, which I rather enjoyed! (Alas, my family's stint there was short-lived; it was much too mundane for my parents!) In any case, I spent four years at a Christian college where I took philosophy classes that, strangely enough, were partly responsible for helping to lead me out of the Christian swamphole!! Of course, being a biology major and having exposure to reality helped. :)

I am almost done with my PhD in biology. I study fungi that attack insects. I hope to be done with my student career soon so that I can make some real money and get out of Syracuse, the armpit of New York State. Well, that's about all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to have someone that is knowledgable in the life sciences. I think you're the first person in this forum to introduce the notion of a pro-man environmentalist, as crazy as that sounds, showing that the science of ecology, for example, isn't necessarily linked to an anti-man ethics. Thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're the first person in this forum to introduce the notion of a pro-man environmentalist, as crazy as that sounds, showing that the science of ecology, for example, isn't necessarily linked to an anti-man ethics.

I rather disagree. She has shown only that her personal, positive sense of life drastically conflicts with the evil, anti-man ideology of environmentalism... and that the two cannot survive together. One must go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rather disagree. She has shown only that her personal, positive sense of life drastically conflicts with the evil, anti-man ideology of environmentalism... and that the two cannot survive together. One must go.

Inspector, I love the way you drop context and assume that I define environmentalism as anti-man. Which I don't, and haven't. I define it as a need, at this point in human history, to preserve basic ecosystem function for humans to not only survive, but thrive. That is all.

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess it's a game of definitions, as these things sometimes turn out to be. What would you call a person that studies the environment, scientifically, without knowing their ethics? Does the study of the environment necessarily mean one has an anti-man ethics? Sure the label has ugly conotations and a horrible reputation, but is it a package-deal? I'm an engineer who happens to embrace a pro-man ethics, but just because I'm an engineer doesn't necessarily mean I have to be or not be pro-man. There are plenty of Islamic nuclear physicists who would like nothing better than to nuke the infidels. Get me? So I guess, if what you're saying is correct, that is that the term environmentalism has been thoroughly preverted, what do you suggest as a new name? Obviously this is a viable option, as we saw Ayn Rand have to choose Objectivism over, if I remember correctly, Realism or Existencialism, since these choices were also ruined.

Nevertheless, my point stands, and that is that there is value for man in the environment, and the study of the environment doesn't necessarily make one anti-man. To think that it necessarily does is just silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector, I love the way you drop context and assume that I define environmentalism as anti-man. Which I don't, and haven't. I define it as a need, at this point in human history, to preserve basic ecosystem function for humans to not only survive, but thrive. That is all.

You misunderstand.

I am not saying YOU are anti-man.

I am saying ENVIRONMENTALISM is anti-man and YOU need to stop calling yourself one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind, also, that Ayn Rand spoke about ecology as a social principle. I define ecology in its strictest sense. It comes from the Greek word for the economy of the house, oikos. Basically, ecology is the study of the relationships between organisms and the nonliving parts of the environment. That is how it is defined in scientific circles. To define it differently is fine, but to argue that my ideology is not sound simply because I study ecology.... simply because we are talking about different definitions... is just ridiculous!

I see. So I need to actually stop thinking and adopt YOUR definition of environmentalism, rather than thinking for myself.

Have a nice day! :lol:

Oh, by the way, I will add that at my university, which is focused on environmental science and biology, we also have majors in forest engineering, paper science, environmental and resource engineering, biotechnology, etc. Most of these people would probably call themselves environmentalists. And most of these people are not anti-man. So if you want to redefine the majority of people who want to harness nature for man's use, in terms of the minority, who are anti-man, that is your choice.

Until the environmentalists who truly want to dig in the bare soil for roots become the majority among the ranks of those who call themselves environmentalists, I will keep using the word. As always, it is sad that the wackos who label themselves get all the publicity. This happened with the word "liberal" as well.

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the intro, Liriodendron Tulipifera.

When I was in High school we had a discussion regarding the definition of "Nature." Because I thought that man-made changes were, in a sense, natural, I would have agreed with your definition of environmentalism. However, when I think of mainstream "environmentalist issues" I recognize they are mostly anti-man. I think that we need more people (like you) using "environmentalism" in a pro-man sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liro, you seem to use the terms "ecology/ecologist" and "environmentalism/environmentalist" interchangably, which I think is part of the confusion here.

"Environmentalism" MEANS ecology as a social principle.

I think that we need more people (like you) using "environmentalism" in a pro-man sense.

That's like saying that we need more people using "socialism" in a pro-man sense. Don't sanction the environmentalists by identifying with them.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was in High school we had a discussion regarding the definition of "Nature."

I think these types of discussions go on in educational circles more than people think. For instance, I've recently been discussing this issue with the students, asking them if they view environmentalism as anti-man, or if they think that nature has intrinsic value. Most of the students are surprisingly pro-man, which is pleasing, considering there are militant environmentalists on campus and they are generally the loudest voices among the undergrads.

Inspector, I was not the first person who used the term environment, environmentalist, ecology, or ecologist in this thread. In fact, I would have preferred the subject hadn't come up at all now, because I'm rather tired of battling everyone on this forum that feels a need to bring my profession, my ethics, or my ideology into question! And lest you backpedal again on this issue, saying that you didn't insinuate that I was anti-man, I quote from your original:

"She has shown only that her personal, positive sense of life drastically conflicts with the evil, anti-man ideology of environmentalism... and that the two cannot survive together. One must go."

Edited by Liriodendron Tulipifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Environmentalism" MEANS ecology as a social principle.

That's like saying that we need more people using "socialism" in a pro-man sense. Don't sanction the environmentalists by identifying with them.

I just have a few concluding things to say. I hope Inspector's not accusing Liriodendron of willingly accepting and promoting anti-man ethics. Secondly, I think perhaps this is just an issue of word usage, so I wouldn't glean from this that she is wanting to "hang out with the bad crowd." How anyone could ascertain that anyone is wanting to hang out with any crowd from a few forum posts is strange to me. Anyway, until Liriodendron states, for the record, why she wants to use this terminology, it isn't accurate to pressume her reasons are (fill in the blank). I get the impression that Inspector doesn't want the anti-man ethics associated with "environmentalism" to be white-washed, which is understandable. Is it the case that all "isms" are ideological? If so, then yes, if environmentalism is ecology as a social principle, it makes little sense to call one's self that. But I think the broader point being made here is that the proper defense against environmentalism is not hatred of the environment. The broader point is that there is value in the environment for man, and to think that it's pro-man to consider the environment useless/evil/etc. is mindless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector, I was not the first person who used the term environment, environmentalist, ecology, or ecologist in this thread.

Yes, I know. It was Felipe, and it was him I was responding to.

Well, you know my opinion on the term "environmentalist" and you know I think you shouldn't call yourself that. That's about it for here. If we want to have a discussion about the proper definition, that belongs in its own thread.

I hope Inspector's not accusing Liriodendron of willingly accepting and promoting anti-man ethics.

No, I'm not doing that.

I get the impression that Inspector doesn't want the anti-man ethics associated with "environmentalism" to be white-washed, which is understandable.
You are correct in thinking that.

But I think the broader point being made here is that the proper defense against environmentalism is not hatred of the environment. The broader point is that there is value in the environment for man, and to think that it's pro-man to consider the environment useless/evil/etc. is mindless.

Hmm, I'd caution against your use of the package-deal "the environment" as such there, but that's a matter for another thread if you're interested. I believe I've made myself clear enough now in replying to your initial post, and I consider it bad form to muck about like this in someone's introduction thread.

Liro: Um, welcome. Glad to see you've discovered Objectivism and I hope you integrate it well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liro:

Coming from a religious background, what do you think of this: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/...es_quote05.html

?

I agree! Notice also that he said we needed an environmental movement based on science, not religion. Not that we didn't need an environmental movement at all. Anyway, I commonly face students who use totally unscientific phrases like "life force" etc. These things are picked up by the pop culture, mostly.

"But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form."

I really agree with this statement of his. But why the heck is this? I mean, even in educated circles, even in science, there are so many people who cling to a belief in God. Why? I really don't get it. Emotional need, mostly? THe inability or lack of desire to face reality? Of course, it's the Christians who think religion is "under attack" when it's really rationality that's under attack!

Basically, I think a lot of the wacko Christians feel a need to control people, as do the wacko environmentalists. Basically, they don't trust that human nature is good, and thus, people must be coerced. That's it, basically. I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form."

I really agree with this statement of his. But why the heck is this?

The answer is rooted deep within epistemology and metaphysics. Man needs a philosophy. If nothing is put forward, then he will keep falling back on old, broken ideas, or new, nutty ones, no matter how much they have been disproven. And someone who rejects "God" but doesn't reject faith or mysticism per se, will be drawn to things like environmentalism. Or scientology. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...