there should be an amendment to the constutution protecting all of the creatures that live in the u.s.there right to a place to live without harressment or death. if they develope a piece of land the creatures that are liveing there should at least be traped and moved.to a safe place. to live

"Future interests have been represented primarily by what is referred to as the "environmental movement," and have often been blended on the political stage with other interests related only incidentally, such as aesthetic/intrinsic valuation of natural objects and systems or the more immediate effects of regional pollution."

Working for future interests ("posterity") will yield the same results as working for "esthetic/intrinsic valuation of natural objects and systems" or pollution, if environmental sustainability is taken into account when working on the former.

I agree with using any credible argument that will cause more people to work on environmental issues, but saying that enviros are prejudiced because some of us prioritize non-humans over humans is as ridiculous as it is offensive.  If anything, it's the vast majority of humans who are prejudiced against non-humans, and that's the root of all environmental problems.  The fact that some of us like tigers, bears, and trees, for example, more than people has no bearing on how we feel toward certain groups of humans, such as the poor or non-whites.  Enviros should NEVER stop advocating for non-humans, and in fact needs to advocate for them more now than ever.

Jeff Hoffman

Sure, we would be 'more effective' at addressing global warming if we framed all of our concerns as human-centered. This is true because most people don't really care about (most) other species, and envision future generations living quite healthy and happy with nothing more than a dog and a cat for diversity. "OH, you mean PEOPLE might suffer from global warming? Well, now your talking!" If you can get them to listen, more power to you!

But there's much more to the environmental movement than human posterity just as there's more to the environment than human 'habitat' (at least for now). People are not the only species on the planet that has a right to exist, and humans, with their great power to destroy or restore must accept the responsibility that comes with that power. That's what environmentalism is about (to me).

We could eliminate human GHG production while causing even more damage to the environment; for example, by converting rainforests to biofuel production. Some say it might be carbon neutral, but it would be devastating to the diversity of life on Earth. If we concern ourselves with human posterity without regard for other species and their need for habitat, we could end up with a world where humans can survive (through technology) but the Earth is a lifeless toxic cesspool.

This isn't really environmentalism- it's humanism, with a narrow, specific environmental mission. Because we DO care about future generations and because the mission might also save the rest of Mother Earth, environmentalists will back it. But surely you're not asking us to stay silent when the proposed solutions would be harmful to other species- I for one, cannot.

a liberal in redsville

So what we need to do (as an environmental movement)is stop revering nature because it turns off impoverished urban voters and those in the under developed world?  

They don't have the financial safety net to embrace nature, they need to exploit it to survive, so they find any reverence of nature offensive?  Only us rich white folks can afford to imagine we have a spiritual connection with nature.

Then you will get these groups  to embrace austerity, but be very careful to make them think it was their idea?

Isn't the main push behind these urban and under developed nation empowerment movements to help those who have been discriminated against to acheive the conspicuous consumption lifestyle status that we white folks have?  

And isn't that the red state strategy of the GOP also?  To empower the nascar dads to become rich just like their racing and country music heroes?  So they can all drive hummers and F-350s.

Simple country folk acheiving success through their own ambition, low low taxes, and faithbased values.  

Condi and Gonzalez are their examples that prove that anyone can succeed as long as they have that unbending loyalty to daddy corporations, low low taxes, and faith filled gawdly goodness.

I've got news for you reapers (of the environmental movement is dead fame), mainly old people vote with regularity.  And mainly old white people donate money to political parties and environmental and progressive causes with regularity.

Most of the rest of the money comes from corporations and foundations supported by corporations.

The environmental movement is using lobbying as usual to try to get favorable legislation, but they hire the same old lobbyists.  These folks are not environmentalists, they have no particular ideals.  Washington DC is a cesspool,and in a cesspool the scum rises to the top.  Witness the careers of jack(abram)off and the exterminator

It is only about the money, the lavish lifestyle provided by corporate largesse, supported by the tax dodges used to "petition (bribe)the government".  Along with a little environmental movement largesse.

After all, how much extravagance does the mere 200 million per year (from the environmental movement) provide?  These power brokers will always take environmentalist's money AND corporate money, then make sure they support meaningless compromises like "The Apollo Energy Plan" or corn/ethanol or nuclear power or clean coal.  All plans that industry lobbyists can live with, thus coopting the environmental movement.

My view of you so-called realist reapers (that call us crazed hippies and pagans dancing around the campfire)is a bunch of trust fund kids living off "donations" from corporate wealth.  Those of you who succeed will someday be lobbyists, corporate board members, and maybe even think tank pundits.

You feel bad because you traveled to under developed nations and saw how the rest of the world lives.  And then, while living in the low rent side of a college town,found out that is how the urban poor live also.

So now you want to join with your fellow progressive revolutionaries to overthrow the evil Cheneys of this world.  You even want your allies to lead the movement to austerity to save humanity through social justice (swing voters call it socialism), and then save the earth as an after thought.

But you forgot, the masters are you. Reverse classism won't change that.

And you also forget that those mired in poverty  mainly  want a way up to conspicuous consumption, they need to get their fill.  

If you really want to authentically join the revolution,try donating all the family wealth to charity, give up your job gained through family connections, and live off that minimum wage intellectual work you do.

After 20 years you may well find yourselves  embracing conspicuous consumption.  Shortage will tend to effect values, and everything else along the way, as  Malthus and Bucky Fuller pointed out.

Only by stressing practical solutions to the real economic, survival, and security threats posed by fossil and nuclear power and global climate change will we get real progress on environmental issues.

Class warfare will only alienate crucial moderate swing voters.

The key values question is:  Can quality of life replace quantity of consumption and possesions at the heart of human culture?  

If reproductive rights for women worldwide can get human overpopulation and the resulting shortages under control, maybe it can?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

"Saying that enviros are prejudiced because some of us prioritize non-humans over humans is as ridiculous as it is offensive... Enviros should NEVER stop advocating for non-humans."

First if you prioritize a non-human over a human you are by definition prejedice against humans. (prejedice:A preconceived preference or idea.)  But that is not the prejedice I was talking about in the essay anyway so.

Second I did not say that enviros should stop advocating for non-humans.  What I am saying is that enviros are mixing there advocacy for non-humans (a value they share with fewer people) with there advocacy of posterity and that this is at the cost of a stronger posterity movement that could generate major progress on climate change and other posterity issues.  

Enviros need to work with others as a part of a posterity movement, but to work with others you have to recognize which values you share and which values you do not.

I don't have time to respond to much of that, but I will respond to two points.

First I believe that a stronger message means less compromise not more.

Second, to this point..
"So what we need to do (as an environmental movement)is stop revering nature because it turns off impoverished urban voters and those in the under developed world?...Class warfare will only alienate crucial moderate swing voters."

I think that talking about posterity is actually a great way to reach moderates, conservatives and everyone.

I'll just chime in here and say that I'm with Kip (and Arthur). I can't decide what I like less about misanthropic environmental authoritarianism: the moral obtuseness or the strategic impotence. Given that virtually everything I write is advocating against it, implicitly or explicitly, I don't know why this site has become ground zero for it.

www.grist.org

Yep, it's a great way to get eco responsibility a place in the political debate.  Most people who vote are grandparents so they DO have posterity in mind already.

But class warfare.  Not so good.

I don't think that progressive movements that use class warfare will accept leadership of the environmental movement even if it were offered.

Some progressive leaders may accept money from environmentalists, the same way that lobbyists take our money, but without a commitment to our issues. We see what that has gotten us.  

The Apollo Energy Plan, renewed calls for newer, safer, waste recycling nuclear power, corn based agribizz ethanol (complete with GM greenwashing commercials all about flex fuel vehicles),  liquid fuel from clean coal technology, a pie in the sky hydrogen (from clean coal or nuclear)economy,and  even more corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.

I really doubt that embracing social justice movements and trying to make them see that environmentalism benefits their causes would constitute a good political strategy.  They simply won't buy into it.

And our movement will be swiftboated, just like Earthfirst and other more radical protest movements have been.

Embracing the hard left, that operates mainly on populist envy of wealth, will only alienate those who actually vote.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

misinformation that diminished EF!, Dr. X.  If anything, it was because many of those who embraced the purist philosophy offered too much information (i.e. like writing that AIDS was a good thing for the earth, and arguing that illegal immigrants were destroying America.)  Sometimes it's not a conspiracy, sometimes things are ignored and diminished because they have no value.  Kip

First, I think we need to identify what we're talking about: goals or strategies.

Re goals, there are two distinct priorities here: the Earth and humans.  I can only speak for myself, but you will NEVER convince me to change priorities from the Earth to humans.  I've put both my life and freedom on the line, literally and physically, for the Earth, so if an there were something that could scare me into changing my mind, I've already experienced it.

Re strategies:  I agree that we should not publicly advocate a misanthropic position, because it would clearly be counterproductive.  However, people who post on this site are supposed to be communicating with other environmentalists, not the general public, not even social activists.  I was a spokesperson for many actions when I worked with Earth First! and am now an attorney.  Speaking for myself, I am well aware of how to speak to diplomatically the public.  What is said on this site is not necessarily what I'm advocating saying in public, it expresses the environmental problems that humans are causing and what our goals should be.  Our goals must remain the same (see previous paragraph), but yes, we must speak diplomatically and use productive strategies when speaking or writing to the general public.  Where we differ is in our priorties, not ideologies, though this difference could result in very different outcomes.

To Arthur (this goes for Dave and Kip, too, but I'm specifically responding to Arthur's comments),
You are clearly anthropocentric, the other side of the coin from misanthropy.  The difference between us is that we prioritize  By YOUR definition, which is correct, we are not prejudiced because we prioritize non-humans.  ("[P]rejedice:A preconceived preference or idea.")  We prioritize non-humans because they are in need of help far more than humans and because humans are causing the problems.  Personally, my misanthropy is based on the FACT that humans fit the medical description of being a cancerous tumor on the Earth.  While we can debate about whether this is OK and, if so, what to do about it, there is no debating the fundamental fact.  The vast majority of humans are either unaware of the situation or in total denial of it, the latter describing your position.

I'm also sick to death of being told that we "need to work with others ..." or need to do anything else.  I'll define my own priorities, thank you, and they'll be defined by what I think is most in need of help.  With 6.5 BILLION people on Earth and climbing, humans are clearly not what needs help, non-humans and ecosystems are!  How about "people who work on social issues need to work with environmentalists, because the state of the natural environment affects us all, and because there will be no social issues if we make the Earth uninhabitable"?  I'll compromise with you (don't tell any of my old EF! friends): you don't tell me what to work on, and I won't tell you what to work on.

To Kip,
First, I have no idea where this "environmental authoritarianism" to which you refer exists, certainly not on this planet except possibly in a few microscopically small areas where people still live as hunter/gatherers.  On the rest of the planet, we have a very strong anti-environmental authoritarianism in place that's destroying all life.  Instead of authoritarianism, I'd like to see people evolve to the point where they give up materialism and overpopulation and respect the rest of the Earth, but absent that, yes, I'd rather have environmental authoritarianism than allow people to destroy and kill.  At heart I'm an anarchist, but anarchy first requires taking greater responsibility in order to have more personal freedom.  (This is where libertarianism fails, because it doesn't include the responsibility portion, which is fundamental.)

Second, "[t]he reason the purist view," as you call it, "has no traction" is because people value things like comfort and materialism more than they respect other forms of life, not because "it is misanthropic."  Your denigration of a view that has people living in harmony with nature as "purist" shows that you don't value non-humans very much, either.  People used to live like this, but as a whole decided they'd rather be comfortable and have "things" at the expense of the rest of the Earth.

Third, Earth First! did not "evolve into a people-hating organization in the 1980s" or at any other time that I know of.  Earth First! was founded in 1980.  When I began working with it in 1984, there was a great DIVERSITY of people in the group, ranging from misanthropists to humanists who thought that giving priority to the Earth was the best thing that humans could do for themselves.  And guess what: we all tolerated each other's views and worked well with each other.  This comment shows great ignorance about Earth First!, probably caused by buying into corporate propaganda about us instead of researching for yourself (working with the group, talking to those who actually did, etc).

To answer your question about how to save the Earth: 1) oppose all environmentally destructive projects, giving priority to the most destructive ones (mining, logging, dams, etc.). This is done by organizing with people, not excluding them as you think we're trying to do.  2) Educate people as much as possible.  Try to awaken some sense of empathy with other forms of life and some feeling that everything is alive.  Educating children should be the top priority, because that has the most chance of success.

"Caring for nature cannot exclude caring for people."  Not only would the Earth be fine without people, it would be much better off.  Again, this is not my opinion, it is a biological and ecological fact, so your statement is provably false.  It doesn't have to be this way.  If humans would give up their extremely environmentally destructive lifestyles, we could live in harmony with the Earth and hopefully contribute to her beauty instead of her demise.

Finally, your statement about "trying to get environmentalism to mature as an idea" shows a total lack of knowledge of movements like Earth First!, which was the most mature form of environmentalism until the group was taken over by Rainbow People and leftists in the late '80s.  EF! was mature because it realized that humans are not at the center of the universe, and are not the best or most important thing on the planet.  Being able to give others the same respect that you give yourself is a sign of maturity.  Worshipping the human race, which is what the vast majority of humanity does, is very immature indeed!

Jeff Hoffman

To protect all living creatures?  Does that include rats and cockroaches too?  That's ludicrous.

"It is self-evident that in a democratic political system the short-term interests of the present generation can pose a threat to the long-term interests of their posterity."

I have been mulling over this one statement for a bit.  I wonder why the type of government is mentioned.  The idea of today's generation posing a threat to posterity is true in any government, any economic situation and any time in history.  It is worse though in a dictatorship where only the needs of those few in power are considered.  In our society, with the freedom of speech, movement & action, we can have a very positive effect, and we have.

If you say so.

Peace,
Kip

OK, that's it. I've ignored the 'misanthropist'-slinging as long as I can. Just because a person cares as much (or more) about non-human forms of life as he does about human forms does not make him a people-hater. Just because a person criticizes destructive human behavior does not mean he hates people. The goal has never been to rid the world of humans (even though their behavior does resemble that of a cancer on the Earth). The goal is to change human behavior, and it won't change if people think that humans should do whatever makes humans more comfortable, without regard to the effect on other species.

I get this every time I criticize American attitudes and foreign policy- that makes me an America-hater (because if you love your country, you support it no matter what it does). When I point out the way Christianity has been used to justify bad human behavior (environmentally and socially), I become a Jesus-hater. All of the above is just the easiest way to deflect criticism- it does not require defending your position, it serves only to nullify the opposing position. You can do better- show me how to save the Earth while focusing on human needs, instead of dismissing me as hating people for not putting them first. Putting people first will not  necessarily help other forms of life- in fact, it has historically contributed to the destruction of other forms of life.

Dave- I'll take your "strategic impotence" because most people's view of the Earth is SO self-centered that they respond defensively whenever anyone mentions other species. If the opinions of people who love Mother Nature 'too much' (which seems to be our crime), are not welcome here, then this is a pale green blog. C'mon Dave, is it "moral obtuseness" to love the Earth more than human comfort? We deep greens would love to hear what you mean by that.

If you want to save the baby humans, that's great- if you're smart, you know that you will need a healthy planet to do it. My goal is to save the planet's health so that the baby everything can live. We should be looking for methods that can achieve both goals instead of squabbling over who's is most righteous.

a liberal in redsville

I will consider the idea of trying to prove that my particular solutions to the problem of global climate change will help employ the unemployed and raise the standard of living of the vast majority of impoverished humanity.

But raise that standard of living through quality of life rather than through emulating the over consumption of the developed world.

It would be excellent to have as many of us as possible on the same side, but without compromising our integrity.  That is also the challenge that the democratic party faces in this next election.

Locally produced food from urban gardening, especially projects that involve city kids in apreciation of nature are a really great way to meld these movements.  Local urban gardens on roofs, in vacant lots, and parks have empowered many urban residents already.

Also camping and nature excursions for city dwelling kids who may nor be able to afford traditional summer camps is another area that environmental groups should invest time, personal energy, and money in.  

The karmic boost alone from volunteering in programs like this can't be beat, it's wonderful beyond words to see a child's eyes light up at the perception of the essence of this living planet.

And in many ways investing in kids is way more effective than throwing money away on corrupt lobbyists.

You have provoked some changes in my way of thinking already with your essay.  Thanks.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

It's strange to me that this discussion (and the index-card discussion before it) have become so Manichean.  I'd find it more valuable if there were fewer attacks on people's motives.  Don't shrink the environmentalist tent and succumb to the ancient bane of the left:  rejecting potential allies as insufficiently ideologically pure.  

Arthur - I agree  with most of your post at the top of this thread.  But not this:  "groups organizing around social justice, human rights, poverty, and self-determination bear a more direct moral connection to the fight for our posterity."  I don't think so.  I think they are fighting for posterity, and so is the environmental community.   Arguing about who cares more about the future seems futile.  

In saying "posterity" you're using another word for a longstanding principle of environmentalism: intergenerational equity.  For the vast majority of the environmental movement, concern for future generations of people is a bedrock principle.  Especially in taking on climate change, it seems to me that the environmental community has kept intergenerational equity concerns at the forefront of the debate.

I won't argue against the proposition that environmentalists need to do something different to be more effective, but on finishing your essay, I'm not sure what it is you want us to do.

Traditional indigenous people are not poor unless robbed of their way of life, which can be done by stealing their land or in the many different ways humans have found to destroy it.  This is almost always by a civilized culture.  (BTW, when I use the terms "civilization" or "civilized," I mean as defined anthropologically.)  All we need to do to get rid of poverty and end environmental destruction is to lower our population and live much more naturally.  It is the hoarding of wealth, which is always based on natural resources, that causes poverty.

Jeff Hoffman

Reproductive rights for women maybe the number one enviromental issue of all time.  Maybe global climate change is an emergency that temporarily eclipses it, but it all goes back to that issue in the end.

Freedom of choice would restore the balance.

Many tribal cultures had herbal versions of the "morning after" pills.

But this is a very sensitive cultural issue.  Many contend that it is driven by prejudice.  This maybe a bigger block to reproductive rights than even religion.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog