Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've noticed that a lot of environmentalists and animal rights activists take an anti-human stance, saying that we need to lower our standard to living to protect Mother Earth and that we should stop all medical testing on animals despite the fact that it saves millions of human lives every year. Many greens are staunch advocates of population control and would condone racist policies to curve growth in India and Africa.
I definitely favor environmental protection but at the same time I'm first and foremost a humanist and I wouldn't feel good telling the Third World or anyone that they can't have babies or develop into an industrial society. I value people's freedom to be happy. What do you think? Do you think there is a strong ideological divide between green values and humanist values? And where do you stand personally?
I'm personally more of a humanist - I believe in constructing a sustainable society with green energy to first and foremost protect human life, preserving nature is an added advantage.
I believe it was found that reducing poverty and enabling women(in places like India mind you, where sexism is rampant, not the US) and providing condoms actually decrease population growth. That's why China, as it get wealthier, is having less and less kids, while India is still roaring upward in that department. Banning child labor does wonders too.
i also think that we need to balance the needs of the environment with the needs of the people living in that environment. we need sustainable energy, and farming techniques, and we need to harvest meat from animals, but we also need to protect animals as much as we can to avoid species going extinct.
we cannot go too far one way or the other in this, other wise we screw up what we are working for.
I'm both, and don't feel conflicted at all. Furthermore, I don't think you know what a humanist really is.
Ditto. You can support the environment without hating humans. I'm generally fond of the humans around now, but I also want to take care of the humans seven generations from now.
There is an ugly underside to the "humanist" movement which I don't believe that OP is familiar. Likewise is true of the green movement.
And there really is no need to choose one side or the other, if you understand the nature of life, and the symbiotic relationships all life have in common.
It's quite natural for any species, human or other, to promote and defend it's self interests, as the survival mechanism is dominant. The distinction between human life, and what we humans consider lower life forms resides only in our greater ability to reason, and to understand the value of balance and our own self interests in recognizing how those lower life forms contribute to our own long term well being.
Each living thing serves a purpose from algae to insect to mammal. The interdependacy is not always obvious or well understood, and is often ignored.
Like a child, who left to his own choice would likely consume nothing but cake, icecream and candy, clueless to the needs of his own well being for a more balanced and nutritious diet, we adults often fail to recognize the need to ensure balance between our desires and what is ultimately in our own best interests too.
The key is balance ... balance between human needs and desires in the short term here and now, with our own long term interests in protecting our natural environment. To place too much emphasis on one or the other shows a lack of understanding of the value of both.
I think the word you're looking for is anthropocentrists, not humanists.
And standard of living, not standard to living.
And curb, not curve.
And you're making up the part about environmentalists condoning racist policies-- they mostly want to lower birth rates through proven tactics such as education and birth control.
And you're making up the part about environmentalists not wanting third world countries to industrialize-- they're all for it so long as it is done in an environmentally friendly way, which contrary to what some people will say, can be done efficiently and cheaply.
There is no conflict, and this thread is just an excuse to bash environmentalists, by which you and the other right-wingers on this board mean liberals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
