I couldn't even get through the first 3 paragraphs. We know these guys are looney tunes. They have no concept of ecological systems. Most everone here on Gristmill understands that destroying the natural environment means destroying humans' ability to survive. These guys (and the libertarians) should take a lesson from the (now-extinct) Easter Islanders.

with a sense of humor.  Remember?

I laughed.  Certainly reading this post was more fun than reading Ayn Rand.

That's what I'm all about, "the sacrifice of human lives."

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Can someone define, in one sentence, "environmentalism?"

For those who seem to be defending the notion, then: How can you defend it if you can't define it?  One can't defend what one can't define.  I would rather hear a concise definition from those here who are defending the notion than dive into a thread containing possible definitions.

The article posted above seems to have a definite idea of what environmentalism consists of, and it is critiquing it.  Those who have commented seem to disagree with the critique.  So, I ask, if environmentalism is not what the article above makes out to be, what is it?

   A good place to start is that Environmentalism is the exact opposite of what the article claims it is...  

   I only read a little, laughing too hard.  I was crazy about Ayn Rand when I was 12, then I turned 13 and grew up a bit.

   This would have been great on April 1st, but the laugh is good today too.  Thanks Dave!

Patrick

Um, so what is it?  The question has yet to be answered.

Funny stuff.  But what ought to scare us is that all the ann coulter and "drug" limbaugh fans out there believe this.

You can find these very same talking points on "libertarian" sites and spewing  into the media from think tanks.

Then these talking points are condensed into bumper stickers.  Thus the infamous GOP political boast, "They have an essay, we have a bumper sticker".

Why is nuclear power considered acceptable by most people in the southland?   This is the process that acomplishes that.  Big lies distilled down through the whole process into bumper sticker sloganeering.

Did you know that our opposition to "progress" is murdering millions?  That enviros are the disease?  Well just visit a few of the think tank and libertarian sites then.  And shape up you mass murderers!  Hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

These Randists, and other libertarians, and certain right-wing Christians, and Coulter and Limbaugh and Michael Crichton (and no doubt George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Gale Norton, etc.), of course do not understand at all what environmentalists truly value.  Do not believe them, Felipe; and consider where they are coming from.  Nobody likes listening to the voice of the prophet saying that what he or she is up to is wrong.  And so it is natural that that gang should try to discredit the prophet.  But what that tells us, clearly, is that their anti-environmentalist words are self-serving and not to be trusted.  Please take the time, Felipe, to read the thread that Chris Schultz recommended.

By the same token, we environmentalists should acknowledge that some of our writers have indeed used language, such as that quoted in the Randist tract, to the effect that "the world would be better off if human beings were to disappear."  Now, of course no real environmentalist has ever suggested or ever desired that it would be a good thing to start killing all people.  The writers who have resorted to such rhetoric only wish to make very clear that the growth of human population, the development of technology, and the consequent requirement for vast energy sources, have meant danger and doom for countless non-human living beings.

We should disavow any suggestion that we are seeking to kill off the human race.  And we should make very clear that one of our principal beliefs is this: that all human beings will truly thrive, when we learn to live in harmony with the world and all other living beings.

"We should disavow any suggestion that we are seeking to kill off the human race."

But it's painful, it burns! How about if we only advocate getting rid of Bush voters?

Hehehey.  (Sorry, couldn't resist)  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Ha!

That was great.

Filipe,

"Advocacy of the preservation or improvement of the natural environment" is the most appropriate way to define it.

"Advocacy of the preservation or improvement of the natural environment for the benefit of the mankind without detriment to the majority of other species" is anthropocentric environmentalism, which is closely aligned with the conservationist approach.

"Advocacy of the preservation or improvement of the natural environment for the benefit of all other species" is the Deep Ecology (I have a problem with this name as an ecologist myself as it implies science, which it is not: it is a belief) or biocentric environmentalism, which is closely aligned with the preservationist approach.

I think that Ayn Rand is trying to marginalize all environmentalism by focusing on a few cases of extreme biocentric believers. I can sympathize with some of the biocentrists on a rare rainy day, but most environmentalists and I are quite reasonable and do not want to kill off any people or destroy any property.

I basically agree with you, Atreyger, but have a couple of quibbles.  Well, questions really.

On "conservation": I would have hoped that that were a morally neutral term, with no connotation of anthropocentrism.  After all, the word itself suggests a relationship which is left unexplained: conservation for whom?, for what?  It is not at all necessary to answer that people are the sole, or primary, party to benefit from conservation.

But if the word does indeed have that connotation, I would be glad to be told so.  Is the Sierra Club, for example, better described as a conservationist organization, than an environmentalist one?  They are a leading environmental-activist group, of course.  But then again, true to their founders' anthropocentric vision, "wilderness is for us human beings to enjoy," their magazine always has a large section advertising all sorts of out-doorsy recreational vacations in many parts of the world.  (I am a member, but have no desire whatsoever to go on one of those trips.)

On "Deep Ecology": I think you mischaracterize it by identifying its beneficiaries as "all other species."  To the exclusion of human beings?  No, that is not what Deep Ecology is.  Human beings definitely have a place in the biosphere, though not always first place.

From the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, s.v. Deep Ecology: "an environmental movement with a philosophical core founded and given its name in 1973 by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess.  It combines practical prescriptions with normative principles.  The philosophical core of Deep Ecology is called ecosophy, from the Greek words for 'household' and 'wisdom'.  Ecosophy is the wisdom of living in harmony with what is one's household in the broadest sense, that is, nature.  Fundamentally, a holistic view of nature is implied: even the boundary between a person and everything else is of no ultimate significance -- all is a seamless whole.  Natural things other than human beings have a value in themselves, and are sometimes worth more than human beings or the things valued by human beings. / A precursor of Deep Ecology was Aldo Leopold, author of The Conservation Ethic 1933 [!] and Sand County Almanac 1949."

I am not sure I understand what "Natural things" means in the second-to-last sentence: deserts?; glaciers?; forests?  It is not easy to compare their value to that of human beings.  Same for the denial of an ultimately meaningful "boundary" between human beings and "everything else," though I suspect that is just a matter of semantics.  Otherwise, this strikes me as a decent humanistic approach to the environment which I find very attractive.

I was just trying to simplify the definition of environmentalism.

The reason that I think that Deep Ecologists are mostly for other species is due to their rhetoric, which is frequently anti-human in nature. I often sympathize with this idea: 'how nice it would be if there were a lot less people in the world'. But I do not sympathize with some of the examples of anti-social behavior, where the radical organizations conduct damage to property. These people are extreme examples of this philosophy.

I think there are better ways of affecting change than alienating a cause from the mainstream.

I also think that the mainstream is not ready for the Deep Ecologist perspective, we would have to live much, much closer to nature as a whole in order to get there. That is not going to happen when we still live in cities and are passengers to the market economy.

I think conservation is a very important concept, and I do think that the majority of people understand it to be for humans. Whether or not that is true is more of a rhetorical question, since humans have detrimental effect on species, which they perceive to be harmful but in actuality may be beneficial.

I think that in general what is 'good' for humans is going to be good for the environment. We just need to figure out what is 'good' for humans and how we convince others what it is, even though we ourselves aren't always convinced. Therein, in my opinion, lies the movement's major problem.

I don't discount Rand the way that most respondents to this posting do. Maybe I haven't grown up yet, but Ayn Rand's work was not only influential in my youth, it continues to influence my thinking about various issues and the motivations of people when I hear them promoting particular agendas.  Which is why I am saddened to see an institution that bears her name take this outrageous stance on environmentalism. In my opinion, the best way to refute the Rand Institute's posting is to point out the flaws in their arguments, not to trivialize Rand's work as juvenile.  In fact, I think the environmental movement could learn from Rand's work, which should not be discredited by the extreme view presented by the Rand Institute.  Their posting is an extreme objectivist fringe, attacking the opposite extreme environmentalist fringe and ignores the 99% of both camps that fall somewhere in between.  
I'll briefly explain how I can be both pro-Rand (with some reservations), and pro-environment (also with some reservations).  What the Rand Institute's posting completely misses is that human beings absolutely rely on the earth and it's eco-systems.  All of the unlimited human genius in the world cannot remove our dependence on the environment.  I personally believe in the intrinsic value of the natural environment to a certain extent.  But even if you don't, you can't ignore the fact that humans are not closed systems.  We are reliant on, and connected to, the natural environment.  In order for human beings to be free to achieve their almost unlimited potential, then we had better be interested in protecting the environment that we rely on.  If the Rand Institute wants to be pro-human, then they should be pro-environment as well in order to provide the current, and future, generations of humans the opportunity to realize their genius.  
This is not to say that the only value I place on the environment is those services that it provides to humans.  But to show that even if you hold that view, there is still plenty of incentive to be environmentally responsible.  Maybe this is obvious to environmentalists, but some one needs to explain it the Rand Institute rather than laugh them off the blogosphere.
If Dagny Taggart had been aware of the long-term limitations that reckless pollution could impose on the ability of humans to act on their independent rational thought and free will, she would have said... "That metal of yours is brilliant and may save my railroad.  But Hank, we cannot subject the communities downstream to those nasty by-products, which would unjustly limit their ability to succeed as you have.  Nor can we, in good conscience, allow this factory to foul the air that we all rely on to thrive and create.  No Hank, that would make us no different from those that would place restrictions on our abilities to create and succeed.  My trains have switched to organic biofuels Hank, now you must green your processes before I'll buy your rail.  I refuse to succeed by destroying the ability of others to succeed as well Hank.  I prefer outright competition.  Now I'm off to the community farmer's market with John, clean it up Hank, then we'll talk."

Sorry, Minkler, you are right, it is sloppy to confuse the Rand Institute's pronouncements with Ayn herself.  And it is not good to make fun of young readers for having gone through their "Rand phase," their "Hesse phase," their "Tolkien phase," their "Castan~eda phase," etc.

For my part, I never read Ayn Rand.  From what I have heard and read about her, she seems a blend of Nietzsche, libertarianism, and the materialist compulsion, posing as virtue, to dominate and exploit Nature free of government restriction, typical (stereotypical perhaps?) of many settlers in the Western states.  (Settlers in the East did if anything an even better job of exploiting Nature; but at least they tended to retain some respect for government.)

Here is the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, s.v. Rand, Ayn (1905-1982): "American writer of Russian origin.  Her so-called philosophy of objectivism condemns altruism and extols selfishness; it strongly condemns injustice, especially in the way the weak exploit the strong (e.g. free-loading, benefiting from social welfare), and extols individual achievement."

Yipes!  This is not a woman after my own heart.  One wonders what kinds of "individual achievement" are meant: Would, say, those of Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr., or Mother Teresa of Calcutta, count?  And I am not sure how Dagny Taggart's concern for the folks downstream is consistent with this article.

I cannot help noticing that if the Rand Institute people do indeed accept this harsh denial of the classic social virtues, including altruism and the concern for society's weakest members, then they are at least as destructive of humanity as any of the extreme biocentric environmentalists.

...is that most of the extreme left or right people are incredibly close-minded. Right wingers tend to be myopic to a ridiculous extent, while most left wingers tend to be extremely far-sighted, so neither sees the same picture. I would rather focus on long-term gains resulting from wise use.

It's hard to get through to either of the extremist camps. But those are the loudest ones, and influence the flock in between the two camps on the issues that strike close to home.