OK, these are all helpful posts in the sense that I can see where Objectivists or students of Objectivism are coming from. And I think I can also safely say that on my campus, at least, the view that man is unnatural and not a part of nature is not predominant, except among younger, less educated students. I don’t doubt that there are plenty of educated scientists that hold these extreme anti-man views. In fact, the Gaia “hypothesis” was developed by a very prominent scientist who sometimes visits this campus, Lynn Margulis. However, I think most people in the scientific community have their heads on straight. I tend to have confidence in people if they have not shown a specific tendency toward anti-man behavior or beliefs. Basically, I believe people are generally good, and can be given the benefit of the doubt.
My dilemma is this: while there are a minority of individuals in society (I don’t know what percentage, but I believe they are a minority) that actively pursue anti-man goals, and call themselves environmentalists, there are a majority of others (scientists, laypersons, students) that want environmental problems solved but see that the reason for doing so is benefit to man (aesthetic value, economic value [biotechnology], or ecosystem function), and that these people also group themselves under the umbrella of environmentalism.
For instance, let me give you some example of the type of attitude I encounter daily. We have a department of Forestry on campus, and one faculty member has a bumper sticker on his car that says “For a Forester, Every Day is Earth Day.” So what am I to conclude from this? Foresters, by definition, are professionals that manage forests, that believe that forests should be used for human ends: recreation, appreciation of wildlife or nature in general, and harvesting of timber for profit. I guess what I’m getting at is that there are a large group of people out there that are not anti-man, and while they may be misguided in some ways, usually by thinking more government controls are the answer to “environmental problems”, a nebulous concept at best, they really don’t have evil motives. They are rather like the people that call themselves Christians who really don’t believe half the crap in the Bible!! This is why the term “religionist” is more appropriate for the hard-core religious people, while Christian is more appropriate for the rest that are not hardcore believers. So while I can accept the term “environmentalist” as evil, at least in Objectivist circles, I cannot accept it as evil when used by others who don’t define it in this way, precisely because in popular use in society, there really does appear to be a lack of a better term!
My concern is exactly the type of attitude that Inspector seems to hold: that anyone, without examination of his or her beliefs or motives, who speaks out in favor of “nature” or “the environment” is evil. Inspector, can you clarify as to what you mean by this? And is this indeed what you meant? That we must automatically be suspect of these people as much as we must automatically be suspect of someone who calls themselves a Christian? This seems very silly to me. Other things have to be taken into context. For instance, does the person have dred locks, a drugged, depressed, or miserable look, and is dressed in grunge? Or is this person clean-cut, bright eyed, with a positive outlook on life? Of course, we know that evaluating people in this way is not always so clear-cut. However, I think my point is obvious.
Furthermore, nobody here has really offered any solution to Objectivist-leaning or rational, pro-man individual (such as me) as to how to define themselves if they appreciate nature. All I’ve heard is a lot of lectures about not calling myself an environmentalist. The only alternative seem to break down the definition of environmentalism into sub-categories, which I commonly see on campus. Here, most people generally use the term environmentalist to describe themselves, while reserving the term “militant environmentalist” for those people who hold what you guys have described as “environmentalist” views.
I can assure you that ALL of you appreciate nature in some sense, since plants produced all the oxygen you breathe and are the ultimate source of all of your food. To think that appreciation makes us evil or suspect is, as Felipe said in another thread, pretty mindless.
Also, I think we have to make a distinction between joining radical militant environmentalist groups (ELF, PETA, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc.) from other groups like the Adirondack Mountain Club or the New York Mycological Society… Clearly we can all see the difference (I hope!) between organizations that advocate and practice terrorism vs. groups that wants to get out and hike or collect mushrooms, or raise money for such interests!