The fundamentals of Environmentalism

Why should I be an environmentalist?



Before you jump all over me please hear me out. I have been thinking about the reasons for becoming an environmentalist lately and I have come up with a few conclusions. I have found one that I think suffices as a feasible reason for saving and conserving but I am quite unsure if that is the reason the majority of environmentalists are how they are.



If you will, please tell me the reason you are an environmentalist. Please save the ‘the environment is beautiful so we should save it’ reasons and such. That is unless you are willing to defend that or like particular positions.



I want the fundamental reasons. I want the fundamental assumptions. Like me asking a Catholic why they are what they are and having them respond “because there exists a God” I ask you, Mr. or M(r)s Environmentalist, why you are what you are.

 

If we fuck the planet up too badly, humans as a species could cease to exist.

That seems like a pretty good reason to me, no?

 

I'm no environmentalist, but if you do become one, please look up all the facts about the environment objetively first before you go out and protest. There are too many environmentalists who know next to nothing about the environment, yet continue to go to rallys and complain about problems that really don't exist, but are created by politicians as a tool of political warfare.

 

Ellis would you agree then that the fundamental would be a duty to future generations?

 

Yes. An attitude well summed-up by the bumper-sticker slogan:

"We didn't inherit the Earth--We are borrowing it from our children"

The Native American (Cherokee?) concept of considering the impact of decision-making not only in the "here-and-now", but it's impact on the next 7 generations is another example of the imperative of considering the future inhabitants of the planet.

Other people who consider themselves "environmentalists" may find other "fundamentals" that speak to them, however.

 

Please explain to us exactly what "problems... really don't exist, but are created by politicians as a tool of political warfare". Personally, I've never heard of a politician "making up" an environmental problem--if anything, politicians are notorious for avoiding environmental issues, except when they know that it could score then votes in an election.

 

Thank you, EllisDTripp. I could not have expressed it any better myself .

 

Deforestation for one. Tree farms exist all over the world, and since trees are a renewable resourse they can be regrown as necessary. But some environmentalists don't use paper goods because it's killing the trees that gife us the oxyen we need to survive, and can't be replaced for a million years.

The myth of recycling is another one. This thread can explain it.

Global warming is also largely misunderstood and overblown, and this is all just off the top of my head. Don't kid yourself, there is plenty of political power to be gained through uninformed environmental activism.

 

Thanks Ellis. A duty to future generations was the single fundamental I arrived at after I began thinking about why I should start respecting this place we live a little bit more. Every other road I went down to arrive at the same place took me to a ditch. But as I think about it more I find myself swerving widely around other obstacles that seem to fall as a result of where I want to go.



It seems that where I want to go is taking me in circles.



Which is why I posed the question. I had hoped for fundamentals other than the one you gave. But I am beginning to think there is no other viable option.



And if there is no other viable ‘fundamental’ option I can not support ‘environmentalism’.



Contrary to what you may think (any of you) this is a sincere and honest quest.

 

Might I inquire as to WHY?

 

Yes, of course you may.



Simply and quickly put, no other ‘fundamental’ could be held [by me] as a universal law [to others] justly.



If, though, a duty to future generations is held [again by me] as a universal law [for others] than this universal law would cause a collision when applied to the other firm beliefs I have. Namely abortion.



A duty to future generations seems contrary to the pro-choice position. The duty I have to women here and now would be contradicted by the duty I have to future generations in regards to the environment. If I have a duty to women here and now than should I not have the same duty to anti-environmentalists here and now?



If the duty (hence right) can differ, I am at a loss to explain how and why.

If I can not provide an answer I can not provide support. Quite a dilemma.

 

I'm an an environmentalist for a couple reasons. One being our duty to future generations. The second reason is that I don't believe that it is right for humans to be messing up something that was given to us by God, gods, nature, whatever. We should not be attempting to play the part of a god. We cannot think that we are immortal and will always be able to do what we want.

 

Some decisions that we make seem to be for the here and now, but again they are for the future generations. In the case of abortion, yes it is benefitting that particular woman right here right now. But it also benefits the future generations. It stops or at least slows down overpopulation. And it could possibly prevent sever child abuse or even death of an unwanted child. Some would aruge that the child's rights surpass those of the mother. I don't think so. In the case of abortion, the harm would be to that one potential child. The benefit would be to the world in general. Again preserving the world for future generations. Preserving the world for the future is the main fundamental reason for environmentalism.

Kathi

 

Deforestation isn't an issue addressed by politicians all that much, because the forest industry has much money and influence.

In terms of tree farms, you have got to be kidding. Silviculture is practiced on an extrememly limited basis, and is by no means enough to sustain the forest industry in Canada, for instance. In Canada, the forest industry still relies on "natural" forests, much of which is old growth. The same goes for South America, and Africa.

No it is not largely misunderstood, except by those who choose not to inform themselves about it. Most climetologists--those scientists who specialize in the field--agree that humans have, because of the emission of CO2 among other gases, into the atmosphere--caused an increase in the average annual global temperature. This conclusion is derived from an immense amount of scientific data, and is the result of decades of analysis--it is hardly "overblown".

 

Star I understand the first reason but I don’t think the second reason is a good reason at all. 1.God doesn’t exits. (Here I am not trying to start a debate about the existence but I am simply saying that not everyone believes in God thus it could not be a universal and if not universal than trivial) 2. Nature can not freely give since nature is unconscious. (It would be more like taking from nature. And if humans are a part of nature what is wrong with the natural progression of things. The Earth doesn’t care if we waste it’s resources. The Earth will replenish itself after we are done with it. That is what this planet does. Heck at one point it was covered in molten rock, at another point it was covered in ice. I don’t think anything could have lived at that point. But the Earth pulled through and became hospitable to life. Why wouldn’t it do the same if we deplete it again. How it becomes depleted is not an issue with the Earth.



Ultimately what I want to get at is that such a fundamental (like for the sake of the earth) will not hold up to reason. The fundamental has to do more with our species.



I don’t think humans are immortal, but I do think they will always be able to do whatever they want. To say that we shouldn’t ‘for’ the earth seems a bit silly to me. But to say that we shouldn’t ‘for’ ourselves or our children is reasonable.



~ OSF

 

Kathi,



I give you the benefit of the doubt that you have considered both sides of every coin. Which is why I have to admit to not being able to understand some of your reasoning.



You argue that abortion stops or slows down overpopulation. Of course it does. Like China’s 1 child policy, the world could mandate that every person has only one child and is forced to abort any subsequent children. But mandating abortion would meet such a revolt as has not been seen in years in the western world. Why? If the premise that abortion stops or slows down overpopulation was enough by itself to justify abortion than no one would be able to reasonably oppose such a mandate. To suggest that those who would oppose it are unreasonable people would be wrong. I am not an unreasonable person.



But a little more directly, to say that abortion would benefit future generations by leaving the world not as crowded is too similar to saying that killing half of the worlds population is justifiable. Of course it would be but only to those that lived.



I suppose I need not bring up an example but I will anyway (just in case). Hitler said that he was going to kill the Jews to make the world a better place for Germans. Imagine how a Jew would have felt knowing he was going to be killed to make the world better for a German. Do you think he would have seen the justice in his killing? Poor bugger was killed because chance had him born into a Jewish family instead of a German one. Because it benefits the future, the termination of life can’t be justified.



It is irrational to say that abortion helps future generations and should be allowed. Abortion, contrary to environmentalism, is completely dependant on the ‘here and now’ argument. It has to be or else it is flawed.

And it could possibly prevent a child who may one day find the cure for cancer or aids or any other disease that takes millions of lives a year.



You see the possible benefits of abortion for future generations are at least weighed equally in the face of the negatives. But if we forget the future and focus on the here and now abortion is justified. So now I am left back where I started wondering why the difference between the two?

~OSF

 

I just can't see how it can be right to take and take and take and never have any thought as to where these things that we are taking are coming from. No other animal on earth wastes as much as we do. It seems to me that we are abusing our larger and more capable brains. What a way to pay back evolution!

 

Who said we don’t give a thought where these things come from? That is a very unfair assumption to make about someone. Just because a person utilizes available resources does not mean that he has does not know where they come from. I waste a lot and I know where my waste is coming from. It comes from the earth. To tell you the truth most of it comes indirectly from the earth. Most of what I waste is man made.



You are going to have to define what you are terming abuse (of our brains). I don’t quite understand how you mean the term.



And what of paying back evolution? How is it possible to pay back a process? I don’t think we can.

 

It was a generalization. Most people have no idea what the processes were that went into making their Kraft mac and cheese. I'd be willing to bet that if you asked the average American person where the packaging came from and where it goes to when they're done with it, they'd look at you like you're crazy for even caring.

What I actually meant was abusing the priviledge of having our larger brains. Now, you're probably going to say that it isn't a priviledge, it's just something that came to us by evolution, which is only a process. I just don't think that people are using our intellect in a very good manner.

And the last sentence was a half-assed joke. But you can go ahead and tear that apart and take it way too literally if you'd like. I don't mean anything by that remark either.

~M~

 

Because most people would think you are crazy for caring. Of course, why wouldn’t they? For some people environmentalism is a nice thing but is not a necessary thing. Which is why I posed my question in the first place. If environmentalists ever want to be taken more seriously than they are going to have to come up with something more viable than ‘oh the world is alive’ (gaia) or ‘nature gave us a place to live so we should respect it’. Hence my duty to future generations. But how do we make that duty universal and compatible with other things? You can’t. Or at least I can’t.


We aren’t going to find answers here cause most here look at me like I’m crazy when I propose the question. It seems, like religion, that most proponents are willing to blindly accept what they have been taught to do.