The Financial Times says: "Beware the dirty hippies!" Dirty hippie Jerome a Paris responds.
A day in the dirty hippie wars
Never gets old 10
-
Posted 10:29 AM on 9 Jan 2007
by David Roberts -
Posted in
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:51 am
09 Jan 2007
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:19 am
09 Jan 2007
Permalink
EcoSpeak Posted 8:00 am
09 Jan 2007
He practically reiterated everything Crichton said in this 2003 essay.
Does that mean Kay also denies the existence of man-made climate change? Or perhaps he just wishes it didn't exist, and he wrote the FT article to make himself feel better.
I say that articles like this only prove the effectiveness of the environmental movement. Opponents are getting desperate to find any way to slow the awakening process. "Awakening" meaning, of course, the slow realization that the planet isn't big enough to support the unending growth of populations and economies--and that the wonderful benefits of the economic system a la mode (increased quality of life, increased access to medical care, increased access to education, increased access to fast food in every dark corner of the planet) aren't without equal and opposite ramifications (increased risk of wierd cancers, increased risk of mass extinctions of all types of creatures, including people...). Does that sound too Christ-y? Wait, do I sound like Pat Robertson describing the apocalypse?
Religion today, at least the Vatican's version, is commonly used for the denial of truth, the denial that humans too are part of the natural world. Religion is waiting for one's life on this planet to end so one can get on to the next--Heaven, or whatever you want to call it. How can one respect our planet, our only habitat, if one only wants to get off from it and take up residence in some other dimension?
Religion wasn't always this way...it used to be used for connecting people to the earth, establishing relationships with other living beings and emphasizing our Oneness. Perhaps environmentalism is a return to this pre-Christian idealogical framework.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:22 am
09 Jan 2007
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 8:33 am
09 Jan 2007
As one called to till and look after the garden of the world (cf. Gen 2:15), man has a specific responsibility towards the environment in which he lives, towards the creation which God has put at the service of his personal dignity, of his life, not only for the present but also for future generations. It is the ecological question-ranging from the preservation of the natural habitats of the different species of animals and of other forms of life to "human ecology" properly speaking - which finds in the Bible clear and strong ethical direction, leading to a solution which respects the great good of life, of every life. In fact, "the do- minion granted to man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to ?use and misuse', or to dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to ?eat of the fruit of the tree' (cf. Gen 2:16-17) shows clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with impunity".
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:36 pm
09 Jan 2007
There is no question of learning about those religions in any deep way, still less of opening oneself to their influences. All that matters is negotiating around them, and if necessary, with them, always for the sake of one's own profit.
How can this fail to be insulting to environmentalists? Most environmentalists do not understand themselves to be primarily members of a discrete sect. On the contrary, they know that they belong to a diverse international society, including business folks; and relying on the right to free speech that is enjoyed in that society, they hope that their ideas on the direction of public policy should be listened to. For a Ferengi sophist such as John Kay to say that they do not deserve to be listened to, really, only to be got around, shows a contempt for public discourse in an open society that is chilling.
That said, I think it is not impossible to make an argument that the values and behavior of some environmentalists -- by no means all! -- are similar in some regards to those of some religious groups. But really, any similarities are not of more than academic interest.
It is perhaps of more than academic interest, however, that the suggestion that environmentalism is a kind of religion should be taken as a provocation.
Jason Scorse points to "the very real, practical, and rational work that environmentalists do." "Rational" can mean a number of things there. I wonder if he would be willing to say that health workers who treat victims of, say, malaria, and who happen to be religionists, including many nuns and priests, do "rational work." By no means should "rational" be allowed to mean "non-religious," "secular" or "atheist."
He goes on: "there is no doubt a grain of truth to [the Financial Times's] underlying claim. I like to say that the far left [?; can environmentalists be located on a two-dimensional right-to-left calibrated line?] environmentalists and the far right christians are two sides of the same coin [Block that Metaphor!] in many ways- they both crave a prior utopia of traditional values that is pre-industrial, simple, and anti-capitalist. This is true."
Whatever "far left" and "far right" mean, this is most certainly NOT true. It is simplistic, unnuanced, and finally inaccurate. Whoever Jason may have in mind, on either side, he does not understand them. For starters:
-"crave" is far too strong;
-"prior utopia" suggests a happy, ideal state actually existed once, which could only be the belief of a very small, very ill-educated minority;
-"pre-industrial" and "anti-capitalist" language is indeed heard, but it is a symptom of a sincere and well-founded antipathy to the undeniable destructiveness that attended the Industrial Revolution and the rise of Capitalism, which historically took place in a world which did not yet know how to regulate them;
-"simple" might indeed describe the state of society in certain artistic representations of a "prior utopia," e.g. Hobbiton and the Shire in the works of J.R.R. Tolkien; but does any truly humane person, who loves civilization, honestly want to live literally like that? To be sure, there have been, and perhaps still are, "communes," more in Western states than over here, I think, whose residents want to live like Indian tribes, or whatever; these do not seem to be the best-educated or sharpest-thinking of environmentalists -- but I could be wrong, I would hate to be unfair -- , and I doubt that folks such as they should be allowed to stand in as representatives of all environmentalists.
Jason goes on: "One only needs to read some of the Gristmill comments to see that this strand is alive and well. But it is just one strand and overall the environmental movement is full of mature people who get the big picture."
At which JMG rightly protests Jason's condescension. (He sucked it up in his mother's milk, apparently, JMG. By the way, what does "F.O.A.D." mean?)
Looking out from between the bars of my play pen, I might observe that the strand of anti-religious prejudice is also alive and well in Gristmill. EcoSpeak's ideas about religion are themselves pretty kindergartenish. And that highly prejudiced person, for whom "the Vatican" is apparently a bogeyman, offers no useful introduction whatsoever to what is to be discovered within Catholic social thought.
Thanks very much to Jjwfmme, for sending that quote from the late Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter, "Evangelium Vitae," "The Gospel of Life," a passage most helpful to Catholic environmentalists, though it is an item of secondary importance in a primarily anti-abortion document.
Catholic social thought, including much by John Paul II, often enough criticizes the damage done to society, and to the lives of individual persons, by the abuses of industrialization and capitalism. Such criticism does not arise from any ill-considered sense of history. If Jason wishes to persist in thinking that an environmentalism which is based in a religious tradition, and which is critical of capitalism, is somehow "immature," of course he is free to do so. But whether his persistent thoughts have any value is not at all clear.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:41 am
10 Jan 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:53 am
10 Jan 2007
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:19 am
10 Jan 2007
Although I'm not a Christian, I could reasonably be said to be a far left environmentalist AND a far right theist. And I do sometimes wish for a prior utopia of traditional values that is pre-industrial, simple, and anti-capitalist.
However, I object to the suggestion that this means that I am less mature than, or fail to understand as big a picture as someone who does not honor the same values. It may or may not be true, but I don't think anyone here is qualified to make such a judgement.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:56 am
10 Jan 2007
First of all, I am either an atheist or an agnostic (depending on my mood). But I hardly feel like attacking my theist brothers who are standing on the front lines fighting for environmentalism (including the oft forgotten concept of environmental justice!).
Jason does not speak for secularists.
In fact, in all probability, Jason is mostly interested in stirring the pot. His self image seems to be the small boy with a stick shaking it at the hornets nest. It is unlikely he is actually interested in winning anyone to his point of view. I suggest that people address his rational arguments (which are sometimes of value) and ignore his meaner impulses.
Jason's description of "far left environmentalists" is as inaccurate as anything he writes. His description would apply to far right environmentalists. Far left environmentalists tend to be socialists of something around that spectrum of the political line. It is the typical MSM tactic of defining your opponents that Jason is about here. Sorry boyo, that dog don't hunt.
I would like to encourage the theists to work not only in the environmental community, but to work on their brothers and sisters who haven't gotten the message yet!! (As I must work on mine!).
pace,
patrick
Permalink