On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 11:36:14PM -0400, Norb wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 12:55:01PM -0400, Isaiah Weiner wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 11:15:36PM -0400, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > > > But okay, let's just imagine that the environmental movement _doesn't_
> > > > have more than its share of nut jobs. So what precisely is the end result
> > > > of all this environmentalism? Precisely. Not some pie-in-the-sky nebulous
> > > > utopian statement. Something that precisely defines what is and what
> > > > isn't acceptable use of the environment, and an acceptable trade-off
> > > > between progress (as defined by the sadly misguided few of us who believe
> > > > that the environment is here to serve us) and environmental protection.
> > >
>
> Ok, lets start simple (I reeeallly want to avoid sending an entire other
> book to the list ;). The point of environmentalism is the following:
> Careful Progress. In other words, don't do something just because you
> can, first know you can, then figure out whether you should or not. What
> will be the long term results of an action 50, 100, 500 years from now?
> What will be the result to people's lives? Will it be beneficial or will
> it be more harmful than good? Unfortunatelly with the way we, with a
> "Western" mind set, think about things, it becomes such that long term
> means one year, not a hundred. What Enviromantalism tries to do is to
> make us look at the long term results. Two perfect examples of this are
> nuclear radiation and GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Let me
> explain:
>
> When we first found out some of the effects of nuclear waste in the late
> 40's, we did not yet know what the long term effect were to humans.
<snip>
> Today, we have a similar battle going on with the introduction of GMOs,
> Genetically modified organisms.
<snip>
> In short, to environmentalists, progress should be carefully monitored.
> Yes, we should experiment and try new things and think up new theorems
> and come up with new forms of power supplies. However, we should also
> learn that nature is not here to serve us. In fact, evolution CLEARLY
> tells us that we are here to serve nature. Nevertheless,
> environmetalists maintain that we should work with nature, and make sure
> that we dont' destroy the only home we have. "Economy" does not exist
> without "Ecology". We are no longer here simply to serve nature, neither
> is nature here to serve us. Rather we are here to work with nature,
> shape to our wills if we must, but over al leave it to its own. Leave
> only tracks, take only pictures.
>
God, this sounds good. Too bad that's not what the environmental
movement is really about.
First off, the environment _is_ here to serve Man. It is here for no
other reason. That doesn't mean it's a wise idea to trash it. That's Man
being stupid. However, in order to live on this planet in the fashion we
wish to (not tents and campfires), some sacrifice must be made. Species
may have to die, pristine land may have to be put to industrial use.
This is the trade-off for living in this technological society. The
alternative is the African lifestyle, replete with disease, early death
and no Quake III. ;-}
Second, although your statements sound good, they do not in fact conform
to what the environmentalists actually _do_. I don't care what the
National Audobon Society _says_ their goals are. I look at what they
_do_. _That_ defines what they are really about.
I agree with you on the GMOs. I think Man has inadequate knowledge of
what he is playing with to continue to use the technology with impunity.
I suspect, though, that the dangers are overstated. I'm less concerned
with people getting sick from GMO corn than I am the fact that breeding
it to contain an insect repellent could mean that beneficial insects
die, and the stuff crowds out everything else (being able to procreate
without fear of pests). (Wow, what a sentence.)
Naturally, nuclear makeup is a bad idea. Yep, these guys didn't pay
attention to what they were doing. They didn't think the thought
through. The environmentalists don't act as though they want "monitored
progress". They act as if they don't want _any_ progress.
>
> > > No, the *reason* you're not going to find an end result is because
> > > we've not done it yet. You can't judge progress without having already
> > > been there, or without having something fairly accurate to relate it to.
> > >
> >
> > So the environmental wackos are going in a certain direction and they
> > don't know where they're supposed to end up? And they don't know because
> > they haven't gotten there yet?
> >
>
> I dare you to name me one pioneer who knew where the hell he was going
> when (s)he started. You won't be able to. Pioneers have what they
> idealize to be the end result. Whether it is or not is as unknowable as
> the future itself.
>
Environmentalists are pioneers? Not. This movement has been around for
decades, if not centuries. They ought to know by now where they're
going. And if they don't, it's because they don't _want_ to know. Again,
that allows them to play the game indefinitely. It's like a lot of
government programs. Ever see one with a definite complete-able end
result? Never. The reason is that every time you create one of these,
you want it to go on as long as possible, so you can be seen as the
hero, feeding it money and getting support from sympathetic people in
return. If you never give it a definite goal (e.g. "poverty levels down
to 1% of the population"), it can keep redefining itself and fighting on
forever. Et voila, the environmentalists.
<snip>
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:25:30 EDT