The fundamentals of Environmentalism

I have been finding your posts enlightening , OSF. You have made a couple points that I havent considered previously.

I too lament the fact that most people (here and everywhere) either accept or reject data based on their preconceived notions. The world would be a better place if people were willing to:
1. alter their worldview based on the evidence
2. keep a neutral position until they see trustworthy evidence

I hope you keep posting.

 

I feel people would be crazy not to care. Actually most people do care, they just don't always know the best things to do or just have a lack of knowledge about it. Children are being raised to be aware now, and the tide is turning. It has to. Old fashioned skepticism such as yours is on its way out. You are just being selfish to have no regard for the environment.

I do not blindly accept anything, I look at the facts and come to my own conclusions. The opponents of environmentalism are the ones who do not back up their claims with facts. They often dismiss credible research by multiple scientists. I was not taught to just accept things, I was taught to research and learned how to conduct valid research projects.

To answer your question about why I'm an environmentalist, let me list some reasons:
1) I prefer clean air and water (you don't??)

2) I enjoy nature undisturbed by man and believe it has an intrinsic value

3) I believe biodiversity should be preserved (do you not appreciate the vast array of interesting animals present on the earth?)

4) Ecological complexity should be maintained (I like the idea of unique animals living in their own natural habitat vs. locked up in a zoo)


Really, it's a matter of ethics. Yes, man dominates all other species, but does that mean we are superior? If we are on top of the biotic pyramid as we arrogantly suppose, then it is our responsibility to treat other life forms with dignity, compassion and respect.

 

Of course you would. Which is why I already wrote that people that aren’t environmentalists are going to seem crazy. But that doesn’t mean anything. I could care less how you feel and you could care less how I feel. Most people might care about the environment but I wouldn’t commit myself to that thought.

What I will commit myself to is the argument that those who care about the environment are not a new breed of people. You said:

I am sorry for saying but have you any idea what you just said? Yes it may be true that children are being raised as environmentalists. You claim that this is the tide turning. What you fail to realize is that the tide turns a lot. Look at every single intellectual paradigm shift and you will see that behind the shift is that ‘old fashioned skepticism’ like mine. As a matter of fact your parents probably helped bring about this change in children’s priorities through skepticism themselves. It was people questioning the impact that capitalism and essentially globalization had on the world that gave rise to the green revolution. Old fashioned skepticism is what brings change. It starts with a few people who question the way things are and spread their skepticism about any particular thing and it snowballs.

What is even funnier is that you wrote this:

It is funny because of how closed minded it makes you sound on the issue. You must have some supreme knowledge that is being hidden from me that lets you speak with such authority. We will see your reasoning behind your environmentalism a little later. It is always going to be the proponents of one movement saying that proponents of the other are selfish and naive. I understand this and am telling you in hopes that you understand. Your revolution is a carbon copy of every other revolution that has ever happened. One day it will fall and some person is going to be telling you that you are selfish for caring for the earth’s environment and not planet x’s.

I think we have something to get straight before any of this continues.

You have accused me of having no regard for the environment. I have to accept some blame for I haven’t done much to let on that I do have a regard for the environment. I do like trees. I don’t think old growth forests should be touched. I think every big city in the world would benefit from more green space. I think it is a shame if a species of animal goes extinct.

As for me being selfish, well that is partly true. But my selfishness is more a consciousness for our race. It is me putting the needs and freedom of people (you included) over the rights of the environment. In that way my regard is selfish. I have no reason to put the rights of the environment over my personal freedom. Which is why I started this thread. You have contributed your reasons and I will eventually get to them and tell you what I think. Before I get on to that I have one more thing to comment on.

There are many reports denying a problem with environment. You are going to believe the ones you agree with are the right ones. That is nothing more than human nature. Do you not see that both sides of the coin deny credible scientific research? Is it really only the anti-environmentalists that deny reports? Really? That is what happens. Some corporation with money sponsors some scientist to come up with results that are favourable to that corporation’s goal. Both sides do it and now you know they do.

Well here we go ....

I ask the fundamental idea behind environmentalism and you give me "I prefer clean air and water over dirty air and water." Yeah that helps a lot. I prefer it too. Unfortunately that isn’t enough for me. I wouldn’t be caught dead saving a tree with that as my fundamental. Of course people prefer clean to dirty, undisturbed habitats to zoos, and diversity to no diversity. I don’t care about that. I want to know the fundamentals behind saying that these preferences should be held as universal law over my personal freedom!

Yes, that is exactly what it means.

Stop telling me it is and tell me why it is. This whole damned thread is about why and how. Not what.

Have a good one.

 

Maybe if you were less confrontational, accusatory and obnoxious, more people might dialogue with you.

If you want a purely selfish, personal reason for environmentalism, how about the old adage about a bird not shitting in it's own nest? All the crap that gets spewed into the air and water eventually gets consumed by humans (including YOU), and is likely shortening YOUR lifespan.

As natural resources get depleted, the prices are going to go up, meaning that YOU will be paying more for them.

As biodiversity declines, potentially useful plant and animal genetic material is lost. Genes that could hold the cure for diseases that YOU or somebody you care about might someday be stricken with.

Protecting the environment is in your OWN interest, as well as everyone else...

 

I think that any reasonable and justified reasons for environmentalism have to be selfish. I can’t find a way around it. No other interest deserves to be held in a higher regard than those of my own species. We don’t have a gaia theorist participating in this thread and no one is going to put animal rights before human rights.

I will pay what the market demands for goods and services. Doesn’t matter how high gas prices go, or why they are rising (unless it has something to do with ‘the man’), I need gas and I will always purchase gas. Lumber is plentiful and I live around the biggest fresh water supply in the world. I might even argue that the effect of natural resource depletion has such a marginal effect on the cost of goods that it can’t really be taken into account. At least it shouldn’t now. In 100 years from now it might be a different story.

Yes, that would be a shame. But the odds against that are astronomical. It is more probable that a species that was naturally extinct contained the cure for the disease. I would call that a sad fact of life and not a reason to start saving the environment.

 

Correction: I couldn't care less about how you feel.
You're right though, I don't care how you feel...but I care about how you act, if your actions harm the environment.

It's rather obvious that I'm speaking about skepticism about the dire state of the environment. Thinking that resources will never run out, that there will always be enough room for more landfills, that we'll always have enough clean water to drink, that the earth can handle more and more humans, that the earth "belongs" to us and man is to dominate all living things is very OLD FASHIONED thinking. People are getting smarter and we know more about how our activities are affecting the earth. That is the precursor to change. And change will come.... In fact, it's snowballing. Watch out!

I did no such thing. To clarify: when I write "you" I'm not saying you as in OSF, I mean anyone in general.

If this statement were true, we wouldn't be arguing.

OK, so you're anthropocentric. Well, in contrast, I'm misanthropic. I believe in the expansion of the moral community. I consider all living things to have intrinsic value, regardless of their value to us (redundant). I do value humans slightly over other forms of life, but it depends on the human . If there are things we can do that will allow other life forms to continue living quality lives, then I advocate that we practice them. As for you putting the rights of humans (including myself) over the environment, well I think I have the right to all the things mentioned above. I don't want to breathe in smog from someones SUV or other polluting vehicle, I don't want a war to obtain oil due to our dependence on it. These things affect me.

Most large corporations do not want to pay for environmental cleanup or modifications that cost them money. The motivation is money. What is an environmentalist's motivation I ask you? I'm not in this for the money. Where are your many reports? The research that concerns me cannot be disputed. Species going extinct, ice sheets melting, bird migration patterns changing..etc. the list goes on. Are you trying to tell me that you can disprove these obvious facts?

You answered your own freakin question. YOU DON'T CARE! I DO!!
Go drink some polluted water, or come here- we have a PCB polluted river for you to swim in. People once swam in it...no more...we're no longer FREE to do that.

I feel a good number of animals are superior to you, try not to take it personally, I just really love animals.

All my responses were about why. We have the capacity to know right from wrong. To deliberately harm the environment and cause the extinction of other species is not "our right". It is wrong to do and most humans agree on this point. So we should do what is in our power to prevent such occurrences. Okey dokey?

 

Think again

Oh God, you're near. That fresh water supply now contains over 140 exotic species. Species introduced to the Great Lakes (by man) cause the decline of other species and harm fisheries. There are ecological and economic effects.

Now don't you go worrying yourself about that...let someone else worry. It's not your problem after all.

 

You missed the point completely. Do you want to understand what I said? If you do you have to listen here and listen good. Go back and read what I wrote. But don’t just think about your green revolution. Think about all the revolutions that have happened. .... did you go back and read it? ... now do you honestly think that your revolution will be the last one? Can you see how old fashioned skepticism is the enemy and the saviour of your movement at the same time?

If you can’t I am sorry. It really is a shame.

Do you find it that hard to believe that someone can respect the earth and not be an environmentalist?

And your tree-hugging affects the SUV driving, war-loving veteran. This is nothing new. I already know this. This is obvious. But it has nothing to do with the ‘why’. Just more ‘whats’. This is nothing more than stating the obvious and it is wasting MY time.

We have only taken steps sideways and backwards. This is beginning to become a useless thread. Considering where I put it and how I think I suppose it always was. I asked a simple question and it hasn’t been answered. All discussion that has been had is only chatting before the real discussion starts. Stuck in a purple swirl of mediocrity and hypocrisy.

Oh well.

 

I'm pro-Green cuz... I'm pretty fond of nature... really, I am. I like camping, I like the outdoors, and I'd like those pleasures to be preserved.

Heh, sorry I'm not in the mood for a long-winded post at the moment.

 

I never once stated that it would be the last "revolution" (your word). What's happening is an evolution of ethics. Go back and think of slavery, we now think that is very wrong (well, everyone except a few stray rednecks). We are appalled that it even happened. Women can now vote. Gays are getting married. Animals are getting rights! I'm sorry, but this is what is happening and the changes are, I project, permanent. So how is skepticism (the type you're speaking of) the enemy of the environmental movement? There will be no future movement revoking these changes, I truly believe. This is progress. Expanding the set of living things that we give rights to. You can join in or be left behind, because we don't really need you, it's inevitable.

Well I don't recall your definition of an environmentalist. I really have no idea what you consider respecting the earth either. You've been very vague. Is an environmentalist a radical tree hugging hippy to you? I would never describe myself as that.

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more foolish. You claim to support the well being of the human species over all else. I think we all can agree that war is decidely harmful to the human species, which is why I used it as an example. So when we are wasteful with our natural resources, it can be motivation for things like war. This is likely to be a trend if we run out of potable water, farm land, etc. Wars will continue to be over resources if the human population increases.
One 'why' is that we have to learn how to live sustainably with the limited resources on Earth. If you don't believe this then you are more delusional than I originally suspected.

It was a useless thread to begin with as you clearly have an unwavering opinion and are not receptive to any ideas to the contrary. Much like myself, which is why I would never start a thread asking why I shouldn't be an environmentalist. I already know the answers I'll be given. I don't question my convictions. Your question has been answered, you just can't wrap your mind around the answer. You are unable to formulate useful responses, no wonder you are not happy with your thread. I can't decide whether you are a naive young child or a misguided old man. Mediocrity is not even in my vocabulary.

Do have a nice life.

 

It can’t be an evolution of ethics. I have asked for the ethical standard that an environmentalist has have universal in his life and I have not gotten an answer. It is hard for me to believe you, metro, when you can’t even name the fundamental behind environmentalism yourself. I am one not willing to take your propositions of clean air versus dirty, natural environments over zoos if you can’t tell me why I should. You may be able to believe it blindly. I can’t. You may not think that there will be any changes in the future but unless thousands of years of history are not a good gauge, there will be. Only death is more certain.

Hold on. I thought you said war was harmful. Why would wasting natural resources be cause for war? Are you telling me that wasting natural resources is a worse thing than war? But if you are saying that people are going to go to war to stop a horrible thing than wouldn’t war be a tool used for a greater good? Kinda makes your blanket statement about war being decidedly harmful to humans look confused. Untangle yourself and try that paragraph again cause it made no sense and discredited itself.

FINALLY!!! WELCOME TO THE CONVERSATION!!!!!!!

Alright. We have to sustain life with the limited resources on Earth. Based on what you said I have to believe that there are not enough resources on Earth to sustain me before my natural death. This is not correct. If you differ please refer me to where it says we are in that much trouble. You said ‘we’. ‘We’ are current people. ‘We’ only refers to alive persons. I know beyond a reasonable doubt that there are enough natural resources on earth to sustain every person on Earth until death. So all we have to do is live the way we are and the Earth will sustain us until we die. Why am I conserving again?

This is a why, this is a fundamental. This is behind the whats. Here is where we want to be.

I don’t want to debate whether or not the world is going to run out of water. I don’t want to debate the effects of cars. Those things are not for this thread. I haven’t brought them up once. I keep trying to avoid them cause they take the conversation away from its intended goal. It is nothing personal, it is nothing against environmentalists, it is simply contrary to the purpose.

Forget all I said before the FINALLY line. That stuff means nothing here. It is useless. Only focus on the meaningful paragraph and maybe we can get into a good discussion.

 

Of course there will be changes, I just feel they will be in our favor. Improvements on what we have already achieved. For instance, I don't think we'll reconsider slavery and reinstate it. I feel the same about the environmental accomplishments we're making. I think humans are becoming more aware of their obligation to not wreck the environment.

Let me clarify, I was not effective in getting my point across. War is harmful. I suppose you could argue that for some it is not, but in general it is, even if the attack is one-sided, it is still, at the very least, costly to the attacker. Wasting resources may cause a war because one country may run out of a resource and then attack another country in order to obtain their resources. In the future people will probably be fighting over resources, since they will inevitably become scarce as the human pop. soars.

You see, it really is pointless to discuss this with you as you cannot consider the well being of any living entities aside from humans, perhaps even aside from yourself. Yes, you can live out your life w/o regard for other living things. Nor will we run out of resources before you die, BUT what about quality of life? I aim to improve the quality of human life. Smog, as one example, reduces the quality of human life. I do not merely seek to live, I seek to live well. Do you only support something if it means death to you if you do not support it? I care about my health. Health factors cannot be ignored when discussing environmentalism. When I suggest living sustainably, I mean allowing the greatest number of people to enjoy a quality life. In order to accomplish this, we must live in an environmentally sound fashion.

There exists a balance, to be sure. I wouldn't enjoy living in a tree or a cave and not using electricity or many other modern comforts, but we can live comfortably while consuming less, driving less, recycling, improving technology etc. etc.... you know the drill.

Humans tend to be selfish. How can we reach a compromise? I love to nordic ski, my enjoyment of skiing is affected adversely by people who snowmobile near the ski trails. Which party's rights should be priority? It's fine when conflicts such as this are prevented by separating conflicting interests, but when the human population increases these conflicts will become more numerous. If the earth were larger, we could continue on as we are, but the fact is, space is limited and as more humans are added, our quality of life will be impaired.

Already stated (earlier in the thread) was the obligation to future generations: You can selfishly ignore this accountableness, but if you have children, then you must consider their happiness, which can only be allowed if they can live w/o the consequences of environmental destruction. Your contentment, if you are even somewhat normal, is allowed only if your children are safe and healthy. They may have children as well. You will feel a service to them, (again, if you're normal). You will be pleased that they can experience the world of nature preserved as it was in your day, with all species present and ecologically sound. The here and now is tied closely with the future and the future continuously becomes the present. You can't really ignore it or draw a distinct line between the two in regards to the environment and who will be affected by our actions.

Your argument, as I interpret it, would be acceptable in the caveman days perhaps. The world has since become much "smaller" if you will. News about what happens on the other side of the world is available. We are informed of happenings thousands of miles away. No one is confined to just their immediate surroundings, travel is easy and readily available. I could say the destruction of the rainforest doesn't affect me, because I live nowhere near the equator. I can learn of it though. I may wish to travel there someday. I don't think anyone lives so much in the present tense so as not to consider these future possible plans.

I expect I will not be able to convince you that environmentalism is legitimate. The adoption of a nonanthropocentric attitude is almost essential if you are to believe that all living things should be allowed to exist unhindered by humans. Humans are not the focus of the cosmic drama. Why shouldn't we cause the extinction of e.g. zebras? Well, why do we have the right to? We certainly could. It's necessary to expand your sense of self. You must adjust the process by which you identify yourself from an emphasis on you, your family, the people you have frequent contact with, your race, your species..etc. While it is human nature to befriend these beings you closely associate with, the resulting complication is that those who fall outside of this narrow grouping will appear to be the agents of greed, desecration, conflict, etc...
When one expands their definition of self, one sees that we are perhaps part of one large unraveling process, not the center of it.
You must first see this before you can appreciate the reasons to adopt a lifestyle that treads lightly on the earth.

 

I suppose that depends entirely on your perspective. A selective perspective would argue that way. Unfortunately the world is full of such perspectives, none having any more moral worth than another. If it turned out that slavery was better in the long run, would you support its reinstatement as a staple of societal interaction? I doubt it. That is unfortunate. You should always be willing to look back and correct error.

You have carved yourself quite the moat, though. Unless we sign a warranty on the useless wind turbines that the green revolution seems so keen on, we won’t be able to gain back what we will have lost through the realization of such abstract demands.

Would you argue that World War Two was harmful to man? I don’t mean in the sense that innocent people died. I mean in the sense that it did more harm than good. As for the scarcity of resources, when you are on your deathbed, look up the average oil production of developed countries. You will find that it is no different than it is now. The notion itself (of looking up oil production sixty years from now) is absurd. Technology develops at an unfathomable rate. Fifty years is the mark that is set for fusion. Once we have that, won’t all these worries seem unfounded? I guarantee that they’ll be the greatest of exaggerations. And even though we will still need that oil, you will have been forced to recognize that we are practically floating on oil. With the technology we have now, old oil fields can be milked for twice the original amount. Isn’t it interesting how that works?

I am still, months later, wondering how you think fighting for a just cause is an unreasonable thing to do. You are willing to cause a harm to humanity now in order that the future generations may have an easier time, without any consideration of the path of R&D. And for some reason or another, it is not bad when you do it.

How’s the view from up there?

Woah woah woah, let me get this straight. You think that because large urban centers have smog levels that may (or may not, tests are still premature) be more harmful to a human than are the natural effects of being in sunlight, that I should worry about quality of life? That doesn’t follow. Something should be said for logical consistency, should it not?

Why should your living situation be my problem? If you don’t care to live in a smog ridden city than take your chances basking in the sunlight (caused skin cancer long before you realized the ozone was being depleted) out in the middle of nowhere. There is no more a selfish statement in this thread than the one that concludes that people should pay for needless and fruitless changes in order that you might feel better about getting killed naturally. The argument that lies behind that is one of psychological egoism. You might aim to improve the quality of life, but so do I. Pardon me for saying, but my way steps on far fewer toes than does yours. Why is that? Why are there more capitalists than environmentalists? Not to assume that they are antitheses, simply that at the heart of capitalism lies (apparently) the contrary to the your altruism. I say apparently because you desiring that reasonable persons curb their action in order that you may ‘feel’ better seems pretty damned close to the notion at the heart of capitalism.

Agreed. Where we disagree is on the haste behind legislation. We don’t have to do something now. It’s just a waste of money. Why do you think that more countries don’t put up those wind turbines? Canada, one of the more progressive and liberal nations in the world, informed its citizens that they couldn’t produce more than they cost. But go ahead and put them up anyway, right metro? We’re not ready to be more environmentally friendly, and as long as the pressure from your side continues, we are going to have to sit through absurd resolution after resolution. You might think you are finished after you have legislation introduced. You’re not. You’ll be their bitch forever. Patience, my man, patience. We want the same thing. We just aren’t content with some abstract notion from an abstract group.

Why is it that overpopulation is only a geographically represented problem? Could it be because population will always tend to spike where there are more people? I live, currently, in a small city. I have to walk, literally, fifteen minutes before I can not see another home or person. The problem is not overpopulation, but population distribution.

What on earth does unequal population distribution have to do with the environment? Shouldn’t we be looking at our economic system. In light of the coming paradigm shift in global governance, I’ve really got to wonder if you are really concerned with humans. That is where the focus should be, when the issue you had highlighted in that selection is realistically considered.

I’m with you on the problem. You couldn’t be further from a realistic solution.

My children aren’t considered future generations. They are current generations. Your point is very had to consider simply because my children will not be any more impoverished than I will be (health wise of course) given the current state of things.

However, with the tide swinging, unfortunately, your way, my children will be impoverished economically. They’ll be happy living in a tree. Just the kind of impoverishment that you wish to avoid (as mentioned earlier in this thread). You do understand that the very reason that governments have not begun to ‘save the environment’ is because it will impoverish the people. We just aren’t in the dire straits that you suggest we are in. But allow the revolution that you back and we will be in an infinitely more devastating situation.

We can protect ourselves from smog in urban centers, from harmful UV rays, from the lack of ozone, as long as we have the means to do so.

Please do not continue what you are doing or my children will die.

Are you suggesting that my child’s enjoyment of nature is contingent on them enjoying nature as it exists now? Surely you are not as you now enjoy art, right? Art is nowhere near the quality it was five hundred years ago. Appreciation is not contingent on the current state of nature. Such a thought is rather arrogant wouldn’t you say. How do you honestly place such a value judgement on an arbitrary process like the appreciation of beauty (of nature, art, life, etc)?

I know you don’t. So I’ll disregard that paragraph.

 

That is fine, but you have provided nothing in the way of legitimate argument. You say that the logger that is cutting down the rainforest should not have that job. And your proof for that? Because you might want to visit it some day.

You have got to be kidding me.

Suffice to say, an argument based on a possible desire (not even a real desire, just one that you ‘might’ have) is not a good enough reason to stop the logger from making a living. I’m offended that you would even say such a thing. You must think poorly of me.

I’m almost at a loss for words. I can’t wrap my head around how anyone can adopt such a position. So I’ll forget that paragraph too, and move on.

I read that and laughed. Why don’t I just buy a unicorn? Or plant a money tree?! It would be just as fantastical as what you are suggesting I do to myself. I can’t expand myself further than I am, as I am solely what I am. No amount of dreaming will be able to make any human more or less than they actually are.

Are we the focus of cosmic drama? No. There is no such thing. The cosmos has no focus. The cosmos is not a sentient being.

Humans are the only thinking, reasonable, and sentient beings that have ever existed. I understand that. If it is wrong for me to think that than I wonder why you would campaign that we thwart our natural path and save future humans. Do you not see that you are as egoistic as I am?

Are you doing it for the good of the world? Should I not live as I will in order that a rock may live better? It is plain stupid to think the earth cares what we do. You are a student of the environment, and thus, you must know of the regenerating powers of our planet.

What I want to know is who the fuck you are considering? It sure as hell ain’t mother earth!! I can’t believe you would accuse me of being too anthropocentric on the matter. Open your damned eyes and read what you wrote.

In order that I might consider whom? Future generations? Where is the guarantee that they will exist? Is there one?

Hell no.

There is no guarantee that future generations will exist.

As for the assumption that I should do so in order that “mother earth” can live better, or that animals are given similar rights to those of my family, you’re insane. To do so would be to try cats for the murder of the mouse. Any serious student of biology understands that consideration within the species is the only legitimate consideration.

I mentioned earlier that the only thing missing from this thread was the gaia theorist. Metro, I had no idea you were one.

What you have just said is that any being that falls outside of humanity is greedy, unsanctimonious, and in conflict with those outside of their own group.

Absolutely true. Tigers are like that. Whales are like that. Monkeys are like that. Fish are like that.

Every animal is like that.

Except us.

Funny thing, the human species is the only species concerned with saving all other species.

Human nature is not at all what you claim it to be.

Supposing it is, wouldn’t it be okay for us to not care that those outside of our species are dying as a result of our action? Our nature says it is okay! You are suggesting we deny our nature.

That denial is made evident in your next sentence ...

Metro, I can’t do that. I might as well be redefining the cup that holds my beer from “a container in which a liquid is held and dispensed at the controllers leisure” to “ a container in which a liquid is held that can sprout wings and fly away at any moment so I better hold on.”

Let us keep the fantastical notions of what we can and can’t become in science fiction novels.

I ain’t crazy, I ain’t a hypocrite, I ain’t an abstract opportunist, and I ain’t a science fiction author. For these very reasons I can not adopt such a lifestyle.

I am sorry that you are so confused.

 

Just a couple of clarifications and questions, OSF.

You say that environmentalism for future generations conflicts with the pro-choice stance. How is this? Your statements say (or lead me to believe, I won't assume) that you are pro-choice...because you feel you have a duty to the women of now. I would say my reason is also a kind of rescue from the life it would have had with the mother who didn't want it or at the orphanage. That said, I would say that part of the purpose of environmentalism is for the benefit of future generations. I care about these people that will be with the same amount as I care for these women I don't know and can't see, I care for these children who would probably go through a life of pain. To say that there is no assurance that the generations of tomorrow is using a very small chance to justify your position.

Also, I would say that environmentalism affects this generation also, and many people who are alive right now. The world population is predicted to double in 50 years. That's not much. CO2 levels are predicted to rise substantially, raising the global temperatures and ocean temperatures, and causing mass extinctions. Corals become bleached and die with a temperature change of a few degrees. In many parts of the world, corals are a large part of the food web. If the corals die, I have no doubts that I will be witness to many human starvations, too.

Oh yeah. I think that the world is a beautiful place. There is beauty everywhere, but when I see trees around my college campus dying from the air pollution it makes me want to puke. I think that the trees are beautiful, their leaves are beautiful, and even the dirt they grow in is beautiful. There are beautiful landscapes everywhere, beautiful geological formations and beautiful organisms. I think a lot of environmentalism is seeing this beauty and wanting to preserve it, because man rarely makes things so beautiful. Can you see it?

In addition, I was wondering if you could give me some example of a fundamental reason for something. If you are not satisfied by helping the human race, and keeping the world we live in as clean of pollutants as possible, I wonder what would qualify as reasonable.

 

What is the hassle in even doing a little bit at a time. You will see how it will change your lifestyle, and although it may not be as simple as throwing your trash on the ground it will sure make the environment (which you live in, your children, grandchildren ect) a much cleaner, more pure place. I find it horrific how you can not just assume to even put your trash in your pocket instead of littering. It makes this earth look so much better.... Next time your swimming in a lake full of scum you will understand.

 

I think it's just a matter of selfpreservation and brains. To keep a close eye on our surrounding environment is a is vital our safety. For instance, if you're careless and run of a cliff you could fall to your death. If all your water supplies are contaminated you are likely to die from poisoning or thirst to death if you can't find new ones. These are very elemental survival skills.

It's a lot harder to monitor what hazardous effects industrial pollution and other largescale manipulations has to the environment. It might be fine today, maybe it's not a big deal at all and maybe it could take out some resource that's vital to our continued existance. Here is where imagination and logical thinking gets useful. Some bad scenarios:

If the fishing fleets are too effective it could mean that the populations of fish diminishes to a non-useful resource for us humans. Wouldn't that suck?

Feeding cattle too much antibiotics to keep them healthy works awesome for some time, that is until the bacterias get resistant and leaves us with no means of countermeassures to prevent them from doing whatever they please with us humans too. Life will find a way... (to quote the movie "Jurassic Park"). In fact, it has already happened. They play by the same rules as we humans do even though we have a hard time understanding it.

Cutting down to much rainforest - well, I don't know what will come out of that for certain but I know since biology class that these forests produce a lot of oxygen for us to breathe. The global warming/ozone layer theory stuff doesn't sound very unbelievable to me either, scary stuff me thinks.

In fact, some tiny micro-organisms gone bad, for instance, could prove even more lethal to you than a close encounter with a tornado. If you slap nature in it's face, it will come back for you with a vengeance and there's really little we can do to win that war. That is why I think we (humans) shouldn't get to cocky and keep our hybris at bay, simply play it safe and gamble with moderation.

I'm not an environmentalist, (really hate labels whatever they are), but it still concearns me a lot, especially since I and my potential offspring would suffer the consequences of today's stupidities. And of course, nature is really more beautiful than the constructions of men. (... and women...)

A little edit: Added a little sentence somewhere.
Edit #2: RE: The last sentence: Women are all natural constructions and all beautiful, it wasn't supposed to imply anything else.

 

I think that this thread suffers from a problem of definition. All the posts assume that all people who call themselves "environmentalsts" support or oppose the same things.

For example, Ducks Unlimited is an established group of duck hunters who want to keep the duck population high enough to make hunting possible. They bought and preserved wetlands and there are plenty of ducks to shoot at.

I suspect that metro who is motivated by respect for non-human life forms would choose different methods and be interested in different aspects of environmental change.

Lady Bird Johnson was motivated by wanting the country to look nice and started a sussesful anti-litter campaign.

What actions "environmentalists" take depends on what they are individualy motivated by. An ethic that is held by all environmetalists does not exist.

I don't think that environmetalism is a moral or a philosophical position. It is the awareness that humans effect the entirety of the world. I see it more as awareness of a fact that has become more clear the more powerful humanity has become.

 

to be an environmetalist (to me) is recognize that we are not living on earth, we are not inhabitants of a planet... we are of the earth, we are earth. To damage & ignore the environment is to damage and ignore ourselves

so, in a way, being an environmentalist is a selfish, self-preserving act of recognition
life and love

 

I am an environmentalist because it is an equality issue and im an egalitarian.

It is unfair of all of us living in the North to continue to live this way AND deny people in developing countries the opportunity to industrialise and develop. the fact of the matter is that we can all afford computers and cars because of our ability to turn natural resources into profit. The North deserve the opportunity to industrialise, or at least develop in some way. We have a number of options, we can live a more environmetally sustainable life, or we can fund development of cleaner industries in the south. or we can do a bit of both. And quite frankly not enough of either is being done.