|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 03/16/2007 : 19:40:12
|
I am curious as to what people on this forum think of this article on environmentalism, and the ineptness of the environmental movement thus far: http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/07-2om/White.html
I enjoyed this article at first because it didn't really demonize anyone. It didn't resort to black and white thinking, good guys and bad guys.quote:
Believing in powerful corporate evildoers as the primary source of our problems forces us to think in cartoons.
and quote:
THE IDEA THAT WE HAVE powerful corporate villains to thank for the sorry state of the natural world is what Francis Bacon called an “idol of the tribe.” According to Bacon, an idol is a truth based on insufficient evidence but maintained by constant affirmation within the tribe of believers. In spite of this insufficiency, idols do not fall easily or often.
Instead it dealt with complex realities which are far more overwhelming and frustrating, which is exactly why we resort to these cartoon that illustrate good and evil as such a simple equation.
quote:
What the environmental movement is not very good at is acknowledging that something in the very fabric of our daily life is deeply anti-nature as well as anti-human. It inhabits not just bad-guy CEOs at Monsanto and Weyerhaeuser but nearly every working American, environmentalists included.
Anyway, where it really gets good as far as having interest for us skeptics, is when it starts to criticize scientific rationalism: quote:
We use our most basic vocabulary, words like “ecosystem,” with a complete innocence, as if we couldn't imagine that there might be something perilous in it. What if such language were actually the announcement of the defeat of what we claim to want? That's the worm at the heart of the rose of the “ecologist.” It is something that environmentalism has never come to terms with because the very advocates for environmental health are most comfortable with the logic of science, never mind what else that logic may be doing for the military and industry. Would people and foundations be as willing to send contributions to The Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club if the leading logic of the organization were not “ecosystems” but “respect for life” or “reverence for creation”? Such notions are, for many of us, compromised by associations with the Catholic Church and evangelicalism, and they don't loosen the purse strings of philanthropy. “Let's keep a nice, clean scientific edge between us and religion,” we protest. In the end, environmental science criticizes not only corporate destructiveness but (as it has always done) more spiritual notions of nature as well.
This is where I get really bothered by the article. I think – hey, how come only religion gets credit for morality and ethics? Why is the Enlightenment and Reason (capitalized, no less) getting a bad rap here? To me, this goes back to a very old misunderstanding that was characterized first by C.P Snow as the “two cultures” (within academia at least) of intellectuals and scientists. This article clearly sides with the intellectuals, which I find disappointing, because I thought by now we could be acknowledging the third culture – where the best of both cultures merge together in
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 03/16/2007 19:43:45
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 01:04:31 [Permalink]
|
It gives me the impression of a single point of view just as the point of view it seems to be condemning. I agree there are people in the environmental movement who see only corporate evildoers (ahem green...nevermind). But there are people like me who (despite what people perceive about my corporate ranting) are actually looking at market forces, not everybody's value judgments. Market forces such as not including the cost of disposal and environmental cleanup in the cost of goods sold makes the products appear to be cheaper than they actually are. So we overuse them at the cost of the environmental damage.
The episode on Penn and Teller's Bu11sh!+ about recycling not really being cost effective has a lot of skeptics thinking recycling is a lost cause. But there are so many aspects to the equation that choosing to only look at the cost of energy or money to reuse something is very misleading. What we need is to have the cost of disposal included in the purchase price, the long term aspects of not recycling, the increased efficiency that comes after the technology improves and the increased market for the recycled products including new, not yet discovered uses that technological innovations might bring, and so on and so on.
If I see an episode like the one above it seems like the market angle this author questions. And the article here talks about "caring" and all the religious values aspect. That's nice but some people just don't value a walk in real wilderness like another person does. Some people don't care that there is trash on the side of the road.
I prefer the science. What it lacks is perhaps a broader view, but it still offers the best solutions over time. Earth Day was wonderful back when the environment was really getting widespread attention. I have to nag my son to recycle even though he is a pretty considerate person. I think he'll come around on the environmental issues when he gets out in the world. The Earth Day mentality has subsided, and that is what we have to work with currently.
I view the science as helping determine which approaches work best with which social circles. You can offer the argument, God wants Evangelicals to be stewards of the Earth to people who believe we are in the End Times. Not that that is rocket science. But it is nonetheless using evidence based practical approach.
Not only is there little in the way of solution there (maybe that's in part 2), it seems like a typical rant for everyone to wake up to the author's values. It ain't gonna happen so what's the point?
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/17/2007 01:08:28 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 06:11:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's nice but some people just don't value a walk in real wilderness like another person does. Some people don't care that there is trash on the side of the road.
So true. My husband is allergic to most plant life and absolutely hates hanging out in nature. Talk about that doesn't persuade him in the slightest.
quote:
it seems like a typical rant for everyone to wake up to the author's values. It ain't gonna happen so what's the point?
I think the point is that it can persuade some people. Although I agree with you about the typical rant part. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 07:54:45 [Permalink]
|
| Seems to be missing one of the main points - that population control is needed to combat environmental damage |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Environmentalism, how to frame the issue
