I am constitutionally averse to orthodoxies. I don't like it when means become ends in themselves. I don't like it when solutions to problems become holy writ even after the problems are solved. I don't like it when objections to a practice become dogma even when the practice has changed.
In some areas -- religion, for instance -- orthodoxy is built in, and of course many movements become de facto religions as methods harden into unquestioned dogma. (See: early 20th century communism.) But in a secular, democratic society, orthodoxy has no place in public policy. The raison d'etre of a democratic government is to pursue the mutually agreed-upon goals of its citizenry using the methods empirically demonstrated to be effective, within the bounds of the law. This is a bit idealized, of course, but you get what I mean.
Environmentalism has, in many people's eyes, become a religion. I don't think this is quite true, but I certainly know of greens who behave more like priests than scientists, forever condemning any dissent from the straight-and-narrow and excommunicating those who stray. I find this kind of stuff obnoxious -- aesthetically, morally, but most important, pragmatically. The question of how best to protect our natural resources and put human civilization on a sustainable course is empirical, involving a smart synthesis of scientific data, political savvy, and a sense of the possible. To that end, there should bo no verboten topics, no discussion or argument that's out of bounds. No one should feel any "shame" for bringing up sensitive topics.
This was meant to be a prelude to a post, but it's gotten too long, so I'll split it in two. More shortly.
Calling all radicals: Unite for Kerry-Boxer
Dispassion as the world ends: The absent heart of the great climate affair
Comments
View as Flat
birdboy Posted 2:46 pm
08 Apr 2005
It's a fine line between pessimism and realism, when all the facts point to unhappy outcomes. It will be the optimists who make progress as long as our concerns are widely disregarded. Whether we are pessimists or realists, we are not the ones to give the interview- let the optimists do it. Our role from the dark side is to keep reminding the optimist that time is running out, to keep prodding you so you don't get too comfortable.
We know that environmentalists come in all degrees; from the 'priest' who suffers with the Earth to the carefree consumer who trusts in comfortable solutions in plenty of time. If only the media would recognize the spectrum of those who care, instead of perpetuating the labels given to us by our enemies. Perhaps we should label ourselves, rank our members, poll them, and see if anyone listens. I'll bet those of us who are 'priests', who advocate drastic immediate change, (call them 'level 4'), are a minority; we are the 'extreemists' who so often get quoted by our foes, for the purpose of ridicule. Many would likely be 'level 3', who are deeply concerned, frustrated, and willing to change, but maintain some hope for gradual change and a high living standard for all. Most are probably 'level 2'; mildly concerned, willing to change, but trusting in technology to maintain their standard of living. What I would call 'level 1' is anyone who is not an enemy to our cause; willing to listen, but completely trusting in technology, God or government (shudder), to keep them happy without significant change.
If we do this, and the numbers show the majority of us are in fact not 'prophets of doom', then maybe our image will change, and more of 'them' will listen to 'us'.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 3:24 pm
08 Apr 2005
So, to your saying that environmentalism has become a religion or that some of us act like priests when we see someone doing or advocating something ecologically destructive, I say GOOD! If all religions would fight for the Earth instead of against it, I wouldn't have to be anti-religion.
Re your comment about me wanting to excommunicate those who support environmentally destructive policies: as I said before, those who call themselves enviros while promoting ecologically harmful policies do great harm to the efforts to fight those policies, and almost certainly do great harm to the Earth as a result. I'm not interested in excommunicating anyone and aside from the minor detail (sorry, couldn't resist the sarcasm) in the preceding sentence I couldn't care less how people lable themselves. I just want to have clearly defined terms so that we can have honest discussions. Sorry if the truth hurts.
And yes, as an environmental advocacy magazine, Grist should be deeply ashamed of itself for even hinting at implying any support for nuclear power. Disgusting compromises like this by the large environmental groups are a main reason why there is so little of the natural world left in good condition.
None of this is meant to say that we shouldn't consider all points of view and all topics, but as an environmental advocacy rag I expect you to support the environment, not support destroying it. Those who want to get anti-environmental messages have only to look at the massive advertising that attacks us every second, or to read or watch corporate propaganda, othewise known as "news." There will be plenty of nuclear advocates in those media.
P.S. Perhaps I've misconstrued what Grist is supposed to be. I always thought of you as an online environmental advocacy magazine, which is why I've been a loyal reader for about a couple of years. Am I wrong?
Permalink
Norris Posted 6:05 am
09 Apr 2005
You are right and jbhlax is wrong. He is absolutist in his deep ecology. Humans and their activities are a cancer on the Earth to him.
We can live in harmony with God's creatures. Here in DC and Maryland, the eagle has recovered. They have also recovered in the lower 48. I have eagles near me that cohabit right near the Washington Beltway. They seem to love the traffic. They still prosper. The Potomac River watershed area and suburbs evidently affords them and their progeny a reasonable living. And they are beautiful to see as I am driving home from DC.
So please keep the magazine open to ideas. A healthy exchange of views is a very unique Amercan innovation. Among logic, science and religion, we should come up with reasonable solutions to problems that are humanly solvable. Don't be bullied.
Norris McDonald
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 12:36 pm
09 Apr 2005
Permalink
usandthem Posted 3:33 pm
12 Apr 2005
When people become fanatics they stop thinking and operate according to dogma.Always be studying and examining and looking for what needs to be done.Never close your mind to all the possibilities. Ed P.
Why not ask why!?
Permalink