Also today on Culture11 -- why haven't you bookmarked it yet? -- Freddie deBoer admits that many environmentalists (among whose number he counts himself) think and act as if humans aren't part of the environment. A more realistic environmentalism would take this into account, and not approach the natural world as if man were an illegitimate interloper. And:
Alas, franker discussion about the intersection of human need and environmental protection has fostered an overreliance on bad rhetoric. Some environmental advocates relentlessly romanticize nature -- or anything 'natural', that vague and unhelpful term which suggests that Earth would be in 'perfect harmony' if only humans obeyed Mother Earth and returned to some fully natural way of life. But this 'natural' state is unreal, an empty conceptual vessel too easily filled with irresponsible and unreasonable agendas.It reflects simple scientific illiteracy -- about the climate and our planet's flora and fauna. There is no default setting for Earth. Our planet, and its climate, are in a state of constant change, with the atmosphere, weather, and temperature varying wildly over geological space and time. Man has altered and accelerated some aspects of this change, no question. We have left a larger footprint on the planet, it is likely, than any other species before. But there is no sense in which this is inherently unfair or illegitimate. It simply means that we are a part of the planet's continued changes. When oil companies have scientists propose that the world is simply undergoing a 'greening' through climate change, I have no doubt their motives are selfish and that they are speaking in bad faith. But they are also, in a fashion, perfectly correct. The world has no preferred temperature. We do. There is no appeal that we can make to the environment, or to Gaia, in order to learn how the world should be. When it comes to shoulds, we have only ourselves to rely on.
It won't be easy. As climatologists have been telling us for some time, the consequences of a significantly hotter planet are likely to never be fully understood until we are already living with them. It's sensible to suggest that we try to maintain our current climate to defend the human way of life. This is an environmentalism emptied of the zealot's certainty, but filled with flexibility, honesty, and adaptability, to a changing world and a changing political landscape.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
To an extent though I think environmental concerns trumps other issues. Unless you have air you can breathe and water you can drink (which for more and more people each year is not the case, when not for reasons of actual worsening pollution, because more human bodies are losing tolerance for the chemical pollution present everywhere and in everything, and because we continue identifying the chemicals that are causing damage and illness to the human body) nothing else will matter. Environmentalism is far here-and-now more than global warming, whatever one may believe the science actually tells us about that.
The inclusion of human action as part of the environment is certainly something that cannot be stressed enough. We are different from the rest of the natural world, and with that power differential comes a responsibility to care for it.
That's good, but the relativism/skepticism which follows makes me a little nervous.
"the the consequences of a significantly hotter planet are likely to never be fully understood"
Sure, but can they be somewhat understood? How much do we need to understand before we take an active role in attempting to mitigate human impact? Frankly, I don't think the public is going to be motivated by, "maybe all of this will have a negative impact on humans, or perhaps we could just adapt. Let's see what happens."
I don't think the idea that human flourishing requires the existence of wild gorillas is strong enough to protect wild gorillas. I think that one has to argue that the existence of gorillas is in some sense an inherent good. However, such an argument should come reasonably easily for a theist.
Although I sympathize with deBoer's position, this is old news. The issue has been front and center within the environmental movement for more than 30 years. Way back in the mid seventies, Wendell Berry was making the point in his The Unsettling of America, a book published by the Sierra Club press.
The only folks within the environmental movement who argue that people issues don't matter are those (like Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First! and The Wildlands Project) who honestly believe that the needs of the human species shouldn't come before those of other species. And these folks are a very, very small minority.
If you look at the agendas of the big national environmental groups, issues concerning human health are at the top of the agenda: air and water pollution, toxics, organics, environmental justice, etc.
I've been on the staff of two different environmental groups over the past 30 years, and concern over human health and other aspects of human well-being was universal in the policy stands of those organizations. Its largely just the anti-environmental folks (libertarians, etc) who keep accusing environmentalism of being anti-human.
As one of the real life victims (our family got torn apart, our means of earning a living, the failure of our business along with complete financial ruination) of environmentalism, you will NEVER convince me these people have "people first". That's a facade, with the real money and real agenda being about power. I got to watch my father die a little at a time as he lost everything only 10 years from retirement age.
There's simply no way that much money and lobbying, all among such a FEW people is about anything BUT power.
Yes, we lost our means of earning a living. Yes, they claimed it was for the environment. But I can tell you that NOTHING these people did benefited the environment in any way. It was a self-serving political power play. Pure and simple.
The depths of ignorance on display, and the incomprehensible arrogance of those who drive the movements is far beyond even the "lack of respect" that a recently posted article mentions about Democrats and the people.
Yes, we were loggers. And today, I can take you to see the wanton destruction that was created by the efforts of the environmental movement. They understood nothing, they were simplistic and stupid. They had "save the trees, save the forests, save the water, save the land" as simplistic and mindlessly pursued those pathetically shallow goals. They cared not who was destroyed in the process, and NEVER HAVE. They never will, either. They hate the common man anyway - he's ignorant and stupid and unsophisticated, probably even believes in God and guns, too.
Driven by Hollywood and "elite liberal" money, they have shallow stated goals which are no deeper than the sound bites used to sucker in the public. Some of them are even highly profitable. Consider that some exist solely to transfer property to the government - That is their goal and they believe that private ownership is bad - our only way to save the land is for the government to own it all.
Yet, the parade around with an image of "conservation" and claim they're such caring and wonderful people. I know who they are, by first hand experience. You can't fool me. I have seen the wanton destruction wrought by their hands, both against the planet and against humanity.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.