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.
It seems like environmentalism falls into two main camps - either it's greenwashed and just about feelgood "statements" of consumerism, or on the other extreme you have the "deep ecologists" who believe that all species are inherently equal and that we need to go back to a preindustrial civilization. You do have rational ecologists who believe that civilization is worth keeping but we shouldn't destroy natural areas and pollute for the sake of profit and the market, but they seem to be the exception not the rule.
I realize that industrial civilization has caused a lot of extinction, but let's be frank - isn't it worth it? Western countries are becoming lighter on their impact to the environment and honestly I think a less biodiverse world is a lesser evil than giving up all the progress in the standard of living we've attained.
Do you really want to go back to a world where most children either died before the age of 10 or became orphans? A world where life was nasty, brutish and short and violence was everywhere? That's the kind of world we'd return to if we abandoned industrial civilization.
While hunter-gatherer societies lived somewhat better than pre-industrial agrarian ones, there's no way 7 billion people could live like that without destroying every ecosystem. There would have to be mass killing of almost all of us and I can assure you it would be the rich and powerful who would be spared not you and me.
So if you care about the environment at all...you actually want to destroy the industrialized world?
Seriously? Talk about a silly hysterical extreme in order to demonize people.
I don't see how driving less, and riding my bike, means I want to destroy civilization. I don't see how choosing to buy a car that is more fuel efficient than another means I want to make every child to die or become an orphan before the age of ten. I don't see how buying ebooks, and reading electronic editions of magazines/newspapers, because I don't like the paper waste means I want to murder people. Tell me how that is without the silly extremes.
So if you care about the environment at all...you actually want to destroy the industrialized world?
Seriously? Talk about a silly hysterical extreme in order to demonize people.
I don't see how driving less, and riding my bike, means I want to destroy civilization. I don't see how choosing to buy a car that is more fuel efficient than another means I want to make every child to die or become an orphan before the age of ten. I don't see how buying ebooks, and reading electronic editions of magazines/newspapers, because I don't like the paper waste means I want to murder people. Tell me how that is without the silly extremes.
you are reading more into the OP than is actually there. caring about the environment is good, we all should care. but we need to balance what is goof for the environment with what is good for humans. if we go too far one way or the other, we cause more problems than we solve. and i dont mind. anymore, that pollution laws get a bit tighter every so often, as long as it is a progression, with time in between to adapt to the changes. as well as having the next set of regulations in hand so that during that adaptation period we can work on the next generation as well.
and we should also let the people who know best what needs to be done to meet the regulations do their jobs rather than have the government tell us how to meet those regulations. for instance, back in the 70s the government told the automakers that unleaded fuel was coming, and that certain pollution standards were to be met. if the government stopped there, i wouldnt have cared, let the engineers do their jobs and figure out the problems of meeting those regulations. however what the government did was TELL the automakers how to meet those regulations, and that caused a lot of problems.
when the government backed off and let the engineers work, we got EFI, roller cams, etc. that worked much better than what the government was forcing on the automakers.
so let the government set the standards, progressively, and the get out of the way and let business work to meet those standards.
you are reading more into the OP than is actually there. caring about the environment is good, we all should care. but we need to balance what is goof for the environment with what is good for humans. if we go too far one way or the other, we cause more problems than we solve. and i dont mind. anymore, that pollution laws get a bit tighter every so often, as long as it is a progression, with time in between to adapt to the changes. as well as having the next set of regulations in hand so that during that adaptation period we can work on the next generation as well.
Here is the OP, it's an either or.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belmont22
It seems like environmentalism falls into two main camps - either it's greenwashed and just about feelgood "statements" of consumerism, or on the other extreme you have the "deep ecologists" who believe that all species are inherently equal and that we need to go back to a preindustrial civilization.
Since I do things and not make feel good statements that don't mean anything, even if it's a side of the coin I oppose...it's the only part of the false dichotomy made by the OP I can fit in. I don't see how doing these things in my own life means I hate humanity. I do it so people in the next generation, and those after them, have a world filled with the wonders of nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
and we should also let the people who know best what needs to be done to meet the regulations do their jobs rather than have the government tell us how to meet those regulations. for instance, back in the 70s the government told the automakers that unleaded fuel was coming, and that certain pollution standards were to be met. if the government stopped there, i wouldnt have cared, let the engineers do their jobs and figure out the problems of meeting those regulations. however what the government did was TELL the automakers how to meet those regulations, and that caused a lot of problems.
when the government backed off and let the engineers work, we got EFI, roller cams, etc. that worked much better than what the government was forcing on the automakers.
so let the government set the standards, progressively, and the get out of the way and let business work to meet those standards.
While I agree with your point in theory, can you show examples and analysis of the problems?
It seems like environmentalism falls into two main camps - either it's greenwashed and just about feelgood "statements" of consumerism, or on the other extreme you have the "deep ecologists" who believe that all species are inherently equal and that we need to go back to a preindustrial civilization. You do have rational ecologists who believe that civilization is worth keeping but we shouldn't destroy natural areas and pollute for the sake of profit and the market, but they seem to be the exception not the rule.
I realize that industrial civilization has caused a lot of extinction, but let's be frank - isn't it worth it? Western countries are becoming lighter on their impact to the environment and honestly I think a less biodiverse world is a lesser evil than giving up all the progress in the standard of living we've attained.
Do you really want to go back to a world where most children either died before the age of 10 or became orphans? A world where life was nasty, brutish and short and violence was everywhere? That's the kind of world we'd return to if we abandoned industrial civilization.
While hunter-gatherer societies lived somewhat better than pre-industrial agrarian ones, there's no way 7 billion people could live like that without destroying every ecosystem. There would have to be mass killing of almost all of us and I can assure you it would be the rich and powerful who would be spared not you and me.
I actually think the majority of people who care a lot about the environment fall into that latter category you think is thinly populated. We just don't make for interesting guests on TV. Just like with political ideology...there's that vast, quiet middle that doesn't stand on a chair with a megaphone to be heard over everyone else with an opinion. These people also don't fancy being called any kind of an "-ist", except maybe a "realist" or a "centrist". That doesn't mean we don't feel a lot of care or concern.
And no, I don't think it's all been "worth it." That assumes we had no more responsible options for developing civilization and industry than the ones we've chosen for the sake of expediency. From when we first started commanding our environment, opportunities began to emerge for causing less harm, but harm was not our concern. I don't think we even know the full ramifications of the holes we've punctured in the web of life yet. We see isolated consequences when they present themselves, though there are plenty of people who still deny them. People talk about "God's plan", "God's mind", and "God's creation" but without much consideration for how he (if you believe in God, that is) quite likely made everything interconnected. We screw with the balance at our own peril, whether it was designed by Divine Intelligence or the collective intelligence of all living systems. Either way, we've taken more than our share of liberties to follow our agenda, and I can't say I feel it's been an undeniably good outcome.
Through our many advancements we have been able to increase our own numbers beyond what we can properly sustain. Anybody who has read my posts before knows I am well on the side of the less fortunate, but what other species has so many more individuals than its unrestricted habitat/ecosystem can support or use? At what point have we made more tools for mastery of our environment than we need, especially at the expense of all other life? Certainly we are by far the one species that has caused even ourselves the most physical and psychological harm by our own excesses.
I'm not advocating for scrapping all progress for the rough existence of a bygone age. That's silly. The damage, and the good, is already done. But we can and should own the harm we have caused and commit as we are able to being better stewards of the planet we command.
If we think there is nothing that can hold us responsible but us, I believe we'll soon have another think coming.
Last edited by Slithytoves; 10-27-2013 at 03:11 PM..
Reason: Typo
I actually think the majority of people who care a lot about the environment fall into that latter category you think is thinly populated. We just don't make for interesting guests on TV. Just like with political ideology...there's that vast, quiet middle that doesn't stand on a chair with a megaphone to be heard over everyone else with an opinion. These people also don't fancy being called any kind of an "-ist", except maybe a "realist" or a "centrist". That doesn't mean we don't feel a lot of care or concern.
I'd like to think I was just stereotyping or being hyperbolic, but really much all of the environmentalists I encounter both on the Internet and in real life make misanthropic Malthusian statements on a regular basis. Either that, or their idea of being a good steward of the Earth means shopping at Trader's Joe - often both.
I'd like to think I was just stereotyping or being hyperbolic, but really much all of the environmentalists I encounter both on the Internet and in real life make misanthropic Malthusian statements on a regular basis. Either that, or their idea of being a good steward of the Earth means shopping at Trader's Joe - often both.
You're hanging out with the wrong environmentalists.
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.
