Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Definitions Of Environmentalism

Rate this topic


Liriodendron Tulipifera

Recommended Posts

Just to paint a clearer picture, I believe the intentions of environmentalists are golden.

I challenge you to follow the links I gave, and the links in those links, and the links I put up in all the currently active 'viro threads, and still say that.

This is not a communist party, this is a field thats sole purpose it to work toward protecting the natural environment from destruction or pollution. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=environmentalism)

It's in fact a movement far more nihilistic than the communist party. Far more evil.

Protecting the natural environment, you say?

"Now observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists - amidst all

their appeals to nature and pleas for "harmony with nature" - there is no

discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is

treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the

kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision - i.e., on the level

of sea urchins or polar bears. . . .It is not merely symbolic that fire

was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The

ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire. "

("The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left, 136)

The so-called "natural environment," in a "protected" state (i.e. untouched by technology) would be a death sentence for mankind.

"...we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death." -Ayn Rand (ibid)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The environmentalists you are talking about are the irrational quasi-religious kind."

I don't think we're talking about the same people. If you did respond to my post though, could you provide evidence supporting this statement? Maybe you can reply to the first post with what you think environmentalism means, and what comes to mind, instead of replying to mine.

I adopted Liri's initial categorizations, meaning that there are two categories of people who profess concern for the environment. The first category is concerned with recognition of scientific fact for the purpose of putting Earth to the best possible use for man. The second category are those who ignore or invent scientific conclusions on the faith-based premise that nature has some sort of intrinsic value and must be preserve; Liri compared them to theists.

Granted, popular usage almost always refers to this latter category, but if Liri wants to call herself an environmentalist, but distinguish herself from other environmentalists by noting an essential difference, I don't really see a problem with that, since I do recognize the essential difference.

The reason I said you were referring to the quasi-religious kind is because of the specific issue you pointed to as being held by environmentalists (i.e. that pollution caused by industry is the cause of global warming). That position has no scientific basis whatsoever; in fact there is very strong scientific evidence that goes against it. And I don't mean that there is no such phenomena of global warming; there clearly is. What I disagree about is the cause of that warming and the immenent catasrophe predicted by environmentalists.

You might say they have good inentions, and so might they, but that's just not what the facts point to. They have ignored science and posited something that is obviously good for humans as the cause of global warming. I remember a scientific report (although I cannot cite a source) which reported that the amount of "greenhouse gasses" produced by humans was miniscule in comparison to what was produced naturally, as part of a number of normal ecological processes.

In light of scientific evidence opposing human pollution as the cause of global warming (and other falsifications, such as their arguments in favor of preserving rain forests), why would they continue to attack industry? All one has to do is look at their standard of value: mother nature. They have accepted a non-life standard of value. Nature is to be untouched and preserved, left unaltered by any human actions whatsoever. What this amounts to is that man is subordinate to the world he lives in.

"Good intentions" is a value-judgment, and is necessarily drawn from some standard. The reason they say their intentions are good and I say they are bad is because their standard of value is opposed to mine. According to my standard of value, their intentions (to preserve nature at the expense of human achievement) are not good, but evil. Value is not intrinsic; "good" is not good without reference to some valuer and his chosen standard. My standard of value is rooted in fact; it's rooted in the metaphysical nature of value.

It's also what I want to think.

And that's the big epistemological error. Thinking what you want to think is subjectivism; it's inventing conclusions based on whim. I'd like to think they have good intentions, too; I don't like knowing there are people out there trying to destroy my values. Unfortunately, I also know that the correct way to go about thinking is to derive my thoughts from what I can observe in reality--that's Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon P., I wish I could put intentions in my bank account!

Would you agree that the only (repeat only) reason to preserve any aspect of the earth is to serve some current or furture human need? Do you think there is any other reason to do so?

I think preserving the earth serves the utmost important human need, and that's living. To ensure survival of the earth is to ensure the survival of the human race. So that’s what I think, they’re here to ensure everyones survival. And to ensure our entire races survival, is to ensure their own. So really, they are ensuring their own survival, the basic motive behind their actions. Even the extremists (Quasi-modo religious devotes?) who have their foots cramped in their mouths, are really just trying to survive. I did acknowledge that there is no irrefutable evidence that proves we are killing our world. I haven’t taken a firm stand on this issue, but some, whose jobs are to study the environment, seem to believe we are killing it, and if it is a possibility, I have no problem with groups of ecologists and environmentalists alike taking necessary steps to ensure I live. I’ll support them in ensuring my own survival, and the survival of my children, and childrens children, and childrens childrens children. So you can just call me cautious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Now observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists - amidst all

their appeals to nature and pleas for "harmony with nature" - there is no

discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is

treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the

kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision - i.e., on the level

of sea urchins or polar bears. . . .It is not merely symbolic that fire

was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The

ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire. "

("The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left, 136)

They're not all Quasimodo monsters. My friends sister is a pretty normal woman who is an ecologist. She is grateful to what this country has provided for her and her family. She is out of the country right now working on environmental issues, I think in Cuba or Columbia? How about the ecologists who pursue fuel replacement energies, or the ones that encourages you to recycle, or the ones who detest toxic waste dumps, which kill innocent people living in the vicinity. They’re not outside throwing rocks at your windows are they? Their idea of harmony isn’t wearing fig leaves over their private parts in the Garden of Eden, most of them are like you and me, not monsters. They just want a healthier environment, and it’s their Job, above all else. The crazy environmentalists in the media are a rare breed I would think. The media over proportionalizes such people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I adopted Liri's initial categorizations, meaning that there are two categories of people who profess concern for the environment. The first category is concerned with recognition of scientific fact for the purpose of putting Earth to the best possible use for man. The second category are those who ignore or invent scientific conclusions on the faith-based premise that nature has some sort of intrinsic value and must be preserve; Liri compared them to theists.

Ok, clearer what you are implying.

Granted, popular usage almost always refers to this latter category, but if Liri wants to call herself an environmentalist, but distinguish herself from other environmentalists by noting an essential difference, I don't really see a problem with that, since I do recognize the essential difference.
I didn't know there was only two categories of environmentalists, did you come to this conclusion?

The reason I said you were referring to the quasi-religious kind is because of the specific issue you pointed to as being held by environmentalists (i.e. that pollution caused by industry is the cause of global warming). That position has no scientific basis whatsoever; in fact there is very strong scientific evidence that goes against it. And I don't mean that there is no such phenomena of global warming; there clearly is. What I disagree about is the cause of that warming and the immenent catasrophe predicted by environmentalists.

I'm no expert on the subject myself, but I was under the impression that global warming is a natural occurrence, but the process itself has accelerated due to industrial effects. I don't think global warming was the thesis I had in mind aynway, it was just a branch of one supporting sentence... I would have to do some googling if you were to argue this one, I'd rather just set the topic aside.

I remember a scientific report (although I cannot cite a source) which reported that the amount of "greenhouse gasses" produced by humans was miniscule in comparison to what was produced naturally, as part of a number of normal ecological processes.
This is interesting, i'd like to read this article if you would ever come across it again.

All one has to do is look at their standard of value: mother nature. They have accepted a non-life standard of value. Nature is to be untouched and preserved, left unaltered by any human actions whatsoever. What this amounts to is that man is subordinate to the world he lives in.

I don't find any objections to preserving mother nature to the best we can. But it's likely we will still dig into it for its resources.

"Good intentions" is a value-judgment, and is necessarily drawn from some standard. The reason they say their intentions are good and I say they are bad is because their standard of value is opposed to mine. According to my standard of value, their intentions (to preserve nature at the expense of human achievement) are not good, but evil. Value is not intrinsic; "good" is not good without reference to some valuer and his chosen standard. My standard of value is rooted in fact; it's rooted in the metaphysical nature of value.
It's all how you interpret them, there are probably those who fit your description of evil, and there are those who don't.

And that's the big epistemological error. Thinking what you want to think is subjectivism; it's inventing conclusions based on whim. I'd like to think they have good intentions, too; I don't like knowing there are people out there trying to destroy my values. Unfortunately, I also know that the correct way to go about thinking is to derive my thoughts from what I can observe in reality--that's Objectivism.

I think I rationalized my way of thinking to some objective degree. There's still things I think I took into consideration in the subject, that you may have overlooked, and likewise you may think i have overlooked. Otherwise, you can think I'm some kind of subjectivite - giving my subjective interpretation of objectivity through my subjectively interpretive eyes. Nice paragraphing by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, popular usage almost always refers to this latter category, but if Liri wants to call herself an environmentalist, but distinguish herself from other environmentalists by noting an essential difference, I don't really see a problem with that, since I do recognize the essential difference.

I do have a problem with her calling herself an environmentalist, and it's being demonstrated by Jon P right here. To give those scum any sanction or recognition only encourages and emboldens them... and confuses the man on the street. If the goal is to help people recognize that environmentalism is a death-worshiping philosophy, then it does not help to have "good environmentalists" and "bad environmentalists."

As I have said before, that would be like calling capitalism "good socialism."

I haven’t taken a firm stand on this issue, but some, whose jobs are to study the environment, seem to believe we are killing it, and if it is a possibility

No, that is a lie you have been told. Follow the links I gave. It is NOT a species of the possible, but of the ARBITRARY into which their claims fit.

They're not all Quasimodo monsters.

They don't have to ALL be monsters. The point is that they are dupes and pawns, serving a cause more evil than they could imagine. I've been over this in detail; your average "environmentalist" has no idea that the ideas that they advocate, spread, and support are not only lies, but harmful lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know there was only two categories of environmentalists, did you come to this conclusion?

It wasn't my conclusion, it was Liri's. As I said, I adopted her definitions, primarily for the reason of moving the discussion forward. I don't like to quibble over what words mean. I could generally care less what words I use to designate specific concepts, as long as they are the same ones being used by everyone else in a specific discussion.

If you have a third category, describe it, and I'll tell you if I accept or reject it.

I don't find any objections to preserving mother nature to the best we can. But it's likely we will still dig into it for its resources.
I don't have any objections to preservation, either, provided it is pursued on behalf of man's life, rather than any intrinsic value.

It's all how you interpret them, there are probably those who fit your description of evil, and there are those who don't.

The extent to which they accept any standard of value other than man's life is the extent to which I wil evaluate them as evil.

Nice paragraphing by the way.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find any objections to preserving mother nature to the best we can. But it's likely we will still dig into it for its resources.

I find objection with the TERM "mother nature!" It's a sleazy attempt to anthropomorphize something so that you can emotionally manipulate people into swallowing a poisonous agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that is a lie you have been told. Follow the links I gave. It is NOT a species of the possible, but of the ARBITRARY into which their claims fit.

I haven't been lied to about anything, and I don't deny there are maniacs among all groups who profess things to support their cause, but why would they make claims that don't do anything but cause controversy? I'll look at those threads, and the links you gave me, I'll also do some googling. I'm not denying that there are quasiclones proclaiming what ever it is they've been told to say.... dupes and pawns, just not sure there is reason for environmentalists to do it.

I've been over this in detail; your average "environmentalist" has no idea that the ideas that they advocate, spread, and support are not only lies, but harmful lies.

I've seen little activist groups growing up, and i've had my talks with them on the streets. They're always preaching crap and I've talked with them, they've even gotten my phone number out of me, and called and hassled me to join their cause and join their meetings, and spread their documented beliefs. And you're right, when you actually talk to some of these people, some of them just blurt out what they have been conditioned to say.

Caring about the environment should never be associated with being Quasi anti-mans though. You can rephrase it all you like, and make a list of all the people who you think can't give you solid facts, but the fact remains that true environmental issues are very important, and when evidence has surfaced that certain things are causeing damage to the environment, they should be able to anounce these things to the world.

Now, assuming you are correct, that the evidence presented by environmentalists has completely no base, which I don't see why – but if you are correct, I will agree that the people claiming these "facts" are quasi modo religious types..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caring about the environment should never be associated with being Quasi anti-mans though. ...
By "caring about the environment" do you mean "caring that the environment can be best exploited for human use"? Or do you mean something else?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't my conclusion, it was Liri's. As I said, I adopted her definitions, primarily for the reason of moving the discussion forward.

I hadn't read all the posts, sorry if I started from phase1. Just thought by responding to the first post was how the people here liked it, sticking to the topic. I did read a few posts down from page 1, and read a few posts before mine.

I don't like to quibble over what words mean. I could generally care less what words I use to designate specific concepts, as long as they are the same ones being used by everyone else in a specific discussion.
Good, that keeps us from getting off topic. I usually ask people what they mean by words, just so they can tell me not to think real hard about them. In turn, it assures they wont quote me on the basic things that I wouldn't want them to think real hard about.

If you have a third category, describe it, and I'll tell you if I accept or reject it.

This is a project. Hmmm, will I lose if I don't come up with one Right now?

I don't have any objections to preservation, either, provided it is pursued on behalf of man's life, rather than any intrinsic value.

The extent to which they accept any standard of value other than man's life is the extent to which I will evaluate them as evil.

This is what I'm finding hard to truly understand, is the value of one mans life, primarily your own, the utmost important thing, regardless of circumstance? Maybe this isn't the place for such a topic, but it's something I'd like to understand, rather than creating a new thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say at this point, Jon, is to follow the links. When you see how completely full of it these people are, and how every single last one of the environmental "causes" is totally baseless, maybe you'll change your opinion on how to judge the movement, and how much "benefit of the doubt" to give their latest "theory."

You say "true environmental issues are very important," but that assumes that there actaully ARE "true environmental issues." Sorry, but it's a lie.

And you say you haven't been lied to? No, you're simply wrong about that. If I'm being vague here, it's because I've already said it all in the links that I provided.

And finally, as for "Caring about the environment should never be associated with being Quasi anti-mans," again, sorry to have to break it to you, but they ARE. To "care" about the "environment" in this context is to HATE man and want to make his way of life impossible. Read the links!

[Not defining "environmentalism"] keeps us from getting off topic.

Um, no.... the "topic" here IS "what is the proper definition of 'environmentalism.'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "caring about the environment" do you mean "caring that the environment can be best exploited for human use"? Or do you mean something else?

I mean caring for all the fluffy animals and forests.

I mean caring for all the fluffy animals and forests.

I don't think I'm ever going to post here again, Au Revoir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I'm finding hard to truly understand, is the value of one mans life, primarily your own, the utmost important thing, regardless of circumstance?

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things one might value higher than his own life (such as a spouse). But one's life is, metaphysically, the proper standard by which value is judged. A discussion of that, however, belongs in the ethics forum, and before you start asking questions about it, I ask that you read "The Objectivist Ethics," in The Virtue of Selfishness.

Edit: Oh, he left us. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean caring for all the fluffy animals and forests.

There is nothing wrong with caring about the "fluffy animals" or even non-fluffy animals, or even forests. I like animals, too.

However, you need a hierarchy of values. Humans are more important than animals. Your life would by your highest value, and everything would follow from that. This is simply a metaphysical fact, not an arbitrary assertion. Check out Ayn Rand's essay on this in "The Virtue of Selfishness".

Not necessarily. There are plenty of things one might value higher than his own life (such as a spouse).

I don't think this is possible, Don. You can value a spouse so much that you could not live without them, or that you would do anything to save them, but I don't think it's literally possible to value them more than you value yourself just as a simple matter of logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, you need a hierarchy of values. Humans are more important than animals.

No, there's nothing irrational about valuing the life of a pet more than you value that of a particular human. Given the choice between saving their dog and saving a stranger, I imagine most people would opt for the former (unless theyd been corrupted by altruism). Saying that something is 'more important' always presupposes the question "more important to who?".

Similarly, theres nothing wrong with me valuing a particular part of the environment, such as a forest I enjoy walking in, more than I value the lives of people who wish to cut it down and build a multistorey carpark.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: "Human's are more important than animals:"

No, there's nothing irrational about valuing the life of a pet more than you value that of a particular human. Given the choice between saving their dog and saving a stranger, I imagine most people would opt for the former (unless theyd been corrupted by altruism). Saying that something is 'more important' always presupposes the question "more important to who?".

What I'm saying is that you are more important than animals. Each individual is more important. I'll put it the following way. A proper system of government is set up with the idea that humans are more valuable than animals, or anything else. Each individual is recognized as an end in himself, with inalienable rights. This sort of system allows men to prosper in a social context.

It's true that you can value an animal more than a person, so I agree with you on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarly, theres nothing wrong with me valuing a particular part of the environment, such as a forest I enjoy walking in, more than I value the lives of people who wish to cut it down and build a multistorey carpark.

Watch your wording there. If you valued the forest more than their lives, you'd kill them. Is that what you're saying?

Oh, and for the record: personally, I value any given carpark more than any given forest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there's nothing irrational about valuing the life of a pet more than you value that of a particular human. Given the choice between saving their dog and saving a stranger, I imagine most people would opt for the former (unless theyd been corrupted by altruism).
I've never owned a mammal, but if I had to choose between (say) saving a box of my favorite clothes and saving the life of a stranger (a true stranger) I'm sure I'd choose to save the stranger's life. I might choose otherwise if my context was extremely different from my real one -- if my context had brought me to the conclusion that the typical stranger is (at best) a worthless piece of flesh. Similarly, if I had to leave my goldfish bowl to save the life of a stranger, it would be the same for me. I can easily get another goldfish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: "Human's are more important than animals:"

What I'm saying is that you are more important than animals. Each individual is more important. I'll put it the following way. A proper system of government is set up with the idea that humans are more valuable than animals, or anything else. Each individual is recognized as an end in himself, with inalienable rights. This sort of system allows men to prosper in a social context.

I think this is dangerously speaking in terms of non-essentials and using the concept "important" as a floating abstraction. As Hal said, more important to whom? Are you saying X should be more important than Y to all men?

Watch your wording there. If you valued the forest more than their lives, you'd kill them. Is that what you're saying?
This is clearly not what he's saying, and to even suggest that he does seems very overdramatic. Just because I value my brother more than any other human being on this planet doesn't mean I'm ready to kill every other human being on this planet. Or, just because I highly value my two dogs--with whom I've spent many hours training and building a relationship I derive much joy from--and would be willing to save them over a drowning stranger, doesn't mean that I'm killing the stranger, or that I'd be willing to kill anyone. Simply stating that one value is higher than another in one's value hierarchy doesn't mean that one wishes to destroy the lower value. Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and for the record: personally, I value any given carpark more than any given forest.
Heh, what a shock. This logically means that you'd value a carpark in the middle of some vast stretch of uninhabited land, like say the amazon.

Personally, my answer to this question depends on context. I don't work with these forms of acontextual absolutes. Since I often like escaping the the visible drudgery of the people around me in this city and take a hike with my dogs in some forest, there are plenty of contexts for which I'd value a given stretch of forest over a carpark. But again, that's just me, I'm not demanding that everyone employ my value hierarchy, nor am I calling them immoral if they do not.

Edited by Felipe
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...