Environmentalism or Individualism?

[a_unique_person]

LOL

Your bigotry never ceases to amaze me. What about the wealthy Europeans and Japs? No, its always the fault of the evil americans.

My answer stands.

What answer? You didnt answer anything, you just dodged the question.

I said, the disappearence of the lions means about as much to me as the disappearnce of the human race.

It's not my fault that the quote referred to these guys. If it had referred to Japs, I would have posted it.

 

[a_unique_person]

I would also take issue with the title of the thread. It is a false dichotomy. You can be an individual who cares for the environment. You can be part of a collective, as happened in the USSR, and trash it.

 

[BillyTK]

Re: "Environmentalism or Individualism?"

About the essay at www.ecoNOT.com/page4.html:

Some folks here are criticizing the essay for exaggeration and misrepresentation of environmentalism. But its author provides an awful lot of source material--drawn directly from mainstream environmental groups, plus quotations from major spokesmen and leaders--elsewhere on his ecoNOT.com Web site, at www.ecoNOT.com/page3.html and also in his site's news archives. You can find even more on the author's separate blog, located at http://bidinotto.journalspace.com.

Hmmm. I wonder if critics of the essay have actually bothered to check out his references and citations, to see if he's truly exaggerating and misrepresenting what mainstream environmentalists really advocate and are doing? That ought to put the matter to rest one way or the other, right?

There's an easier way; the author of the essay is arguing from a particular viewpoint (I'm kind of getting hints of laissez-faire capitalism, natural rights and a long finish of Libertarianism) and as such, sources are going to be selected and presented in a certain way to match that viewpoint. We can certainly check his references, and I would expect them to be valid, although possibly out of context. But this in no way invalidates the criticisms being made of the article.

 

[Avatar]

Tony, guess you were right about A_unique_person not wanting to answer direct questions.

He denies he's a misanthrope and that he hates humans. So I challenged him on his terminology, asking him why he chose words like "alien" and "cancer" to describe the human race, rather something neutral. But when asked why he uses such nasty metaphors, his only reply is "leukemia is a cancer." So, leukemia is supposed to be GOOD?

This is pure sophistry, of course. Anyone can see that his comparing humans with aliens, cancers, or (now) leukemia only confirms that he hates the human race. He's not refuting that ecoNOT.com essay: by his own statements, he's simply providing its author with more confirming footnotes!

On the second point, I wanted him to justify his earlier claim that it's "wrong" for humans to regard nature as "ours." So I asked him why is it "right" for a robin or beaver to use the stuff of nature as "theirs," but wrong for a man to claim it as "his"?

Again, he evaded my questions of morality and of possession, and suddenly switched the subject instead to "damage." Humans, he says, do much more "damage" than critters. Okay, then: Is the beaver really "damaging" the environment in building a dam--if only a little bit? Is that "wrong"? Or is it "right"? If so, by what standard? How much "damage" is acceptable from a beaver, and why? How much from a human, and why?

Any bets I won't get a direct, coherent reply?

Third point: in logic, the onus of proof is on a person making an assertion. This guy asserts that the loss of species is "wrong," and "immoral." So I ask him to support that assertion: by what moral standard, I ask, is it "wrong"? What's your standard of right and wrong--your morality?

Again, he just ducks the question. "What's yours?" he evades. Then he simply reiterates his initial arbitrary assertion: "For me, the extinction of a species is immoral." Well, DUH! We all KNEW that's his position. What I was asking for wasn't repetition, but a justification. But he comes up empty.

The only thing I know about his ethics is that somehow, for a reason he can't or won't specify, its "immoral" for humans to cause the decline, or extinction, of ANY species--presumably of ANYTHING, presumably at ANY time or ANY place, for ANY reason. But he can't or won't tell us: WHY? (I'll specify my own standard in a separate post.)

Finally, Mr. Unique was exercised that there was an alleged 90% reduction in the lion population. So I asked him a perfectly reasonable question: If a reduction in lions (or any species) is morally "bad," as he insists, then what number of lions is the morally "right" number on earth?

Again, no answer. Again, he changed the subject. All we can divine from his answer is the unsupported assertions that "extinction" is "immoral"--though he can't or won't say why, nor what extinction has to do with the subject of ethics.

So I ask again: if man is to be condemned as Evil for reducing the numbers in a species, there must be some sort of ideal baseline number that "should" be on planet earth. Okay, so what's the ideal number of lions? Tigers? Tulips? Amoeba? Is it wrong for us to reduce their number by one? How about ten? A hundred? Twenty percent? Seventy-five percent? How many are enough, how many are too few? Where do we begin being "immoral"? And why?

Folks, before one starts slinging around moral condemnations of humans for developing nature to support human life, isn't it a good idea to first get one's moral philosophy in order--at least to be able to reasonably justify your most basic claims?

 

[Avatar]

Moral standard

Unlike Mr. Unique, I'll be glad to specify my own moral standard.

I agree with that www.ecoNOT.com essay: there can be no such thing as "moral values" without a "moral valuer." Moral values (concepts of "right" and "wrong") presuppose a moral valuer--somebody who has the capacity to grasp and make moral choices between right and wrong. And that means people--not critters--because only people can make such moral distinctions. Things are therefore "valuable" or "have value" or can be "good" or "bad" only insofar as they are related to the world's only moral "valuers": humans.

My moral standard, then, is HUMAN LIFE--because that's the source of all moral values and valuing. What furthers human life is good; what harms it is bad. Put anything above human life in your priorities, and you are degrading humans--the source of all values--to being less important than rocks, plants, and critters.

And that's also my reply to Mr. Unique's claim that there's no difference between animal and human extinction. If humans are the source of VALUES and VALUING in the world, then there's an enormous moral difference between loss to humans, and losses to anything else.

Okay, folks, I've done my bit. Now, I invite any critics to specify their OWN moral standards of right and wrong, and justify them in an intelligible way.

 

[Avatar]

BillyTK says there's an "easier" way to judge the validity of the claims in that www.ecoNOT.com essay than by actually checking them out to the sources it cites. But even if the sources of his claims prove to be valid and accurate, "this in no way invalidates the criticisms being made of the article," BillyTK asserts.

Huh?

One of the main criticisms raised of the article on this thread is that its author has misrepresented environmentalism, by cherry-picking quotations only from extremists. Well, I pointed out that the author actually quoted many MAINSTREAM, highly regarded environmentalist leaders, spokesmen, and groups. So how then can we determine if that important criticism of his article is true, if we take the "easier" (lazier?) way and don't even bother to check out his sources to see if his negative depiction of environmentalism is accurate?

One of the essay's main contentions is that environmentalists have a misanthropic, negative view of humans. Right on this thread we have humans being compared with "cancer," "aliens," and "leukemia." That seems to confirm, rather than refute, the point the author was making.

The author also said many environmentalists value animals and nature as much or more than they value their fellow humans. Right on this thread we have someone saying that he ranks the extinction of people with the extinction of lions, as morally equal. Is THAT a refutation of the author's point, or a confirmation?

Another major point of the essay is to challenge the notion that "untouched nature" has value in itself. Right on this thread we have had someone endorsing that notion...but simply asserting it. He never argues for it, or grapple with the arguments raised in the essay.

I could go on, but my point is this. So far, I don't think anyone here has laid a glove on that essay and its contentions. BillyTK's suggestion that it would be "easier" if we just dismiss it, without daring to come to grips with its arguments, is just an argument for intellectual laziness and dogma. Several people here have already followed that advice, and admitted that they stopped reading in the middle. That didn't stop them from making all sorts of claims about it, however--all erroneous.

That ignorant approach certainly isn't a refutation of the essay. It's simply a dogmatist's way to remain secure in his dogmas, never submitting them to intellectual challenge. At least the author of the ecoNOT essay--judging by his many footnotes to environmentalists--troubled himself to actually read his opponents' views, and to grapple with them fairly and openly.

 

[BillyTK]

BillyTK says there's an "easier" way to judge the validity of the claims in that www.ecoNOT.com essay than by actually checking them out to the sources it cites. But even if the sources of his claims prove to be valid and accurate, "this in no way invalidates the criticisms being made of the article," BillyTK asserts.

Misrepresentation. What I actually said was: "We can certainly check his references, and I would expect them to be valid, although possibly out of context."

Huh?

One of the main criticisms raised of the article on this thread is that its author has misrepresented environmentalism, by cherry-picking quotations only from extremists. Well, I pointed out that the author actually quoted many MAINSTREAM, highly regarded environmentalist leaders, spokesmen, and groups.

Context and representation. You said, "its author has misrepresented environmentalism,", so you agree with 'us', huh?

So how then can we determine if that important criticism of his article is true, if we take the "easier" (lazier?) way and don't even bother to check out his sources to see if his negative depiction of environmentalism is accurate?

Strawman; I never suggested we shouldn't even bother to check his sources. Misrepresentation by implication; your use of "lazier". However, the validity (hell, even accuracy) of his sources alone doesn't support his case; all it proves is that the people quoted said what they said (or that the quotes attributed to these people have, indeed, been attributed to said people). See also next comment on the fallacy of composition.

One of the essay's main contentions is that environmentalists have a misanthropic, negative view of humans. Right on this thread we have humans being compared with "cancer," "aliens," and "leukemia." That seems to confirm, rather than refute, the point the author was making.

Fallacy of composition; the qualities exhibited by some elements in a particular set or class are not necessarily exhibited by all the elements in that set or class.

The author also said many environmentalists value animals and nature as much or more than they value their fellow humans. Right on this thread we have someone saying that he ranks the extinction of people with the extinction of lions, as morally equal. Is THAT a refutation of the author's point, or a confirmation?

No, because it's your second fallacy of composition.

Another major point of the essay is to challenge the notion that "untouched nature" has value in itself. Right on this thread we have had someone endorsing that notion...but simply asserting it. He never argues for it, or grapple with the arguments raised in the essay.

I could go on, but my point is this. So far, I don't think anyone here has laid a glove on that essay and its contentions. BillyTK's suggestion that it would be "easier" if we just dismiss it, without daring to come to grips with its arguments, is just an argument for intellectual laziness and dogma.

Strawman #2. I never suggested such.

Several people here have already followed that advice, and admitted that they stopped reading in the middle. That didn't stop them from making all sorts of claims about it, however--all erroneous.

As your claim about "advice" is based on fallacious reasoning, we can dispense with it.

That ignorant approach certainly isn't a refutation of the essay. It's simply a dogmatist's way to remain secure in his dogmas, never submitting them to intellectual challenge. At least the author of the ecoNOT essay--judging by his many footnotes to environmentalists--troubled himself to actually read his opponents' views, and to grapple with them fairly and openly.

Originally posted by Avatar
I agree with that www.ecoNOT.com essay

Oh... and welcome to the forum.

 

[MoeFaux]

All right, I finished reading this.
It was a long way about it, but I seem to agree with everything he says.

It's time that we, as human beings, assert our right to exist as our nature demands.
It's time that we stop apologizing for our every footprint, for our every fence, for our every meal.
It's time that we stop regarding our homes as morally inferior to the trees they came from, or our children's needs as less morally important than Bambi's.

I find his closing statements to be especially strong, much stronger than the rest of the essay where he just seems to ramble on using as many big words as possible. While his writing style may not be the best, the gist of what he's saying seems perfect.

I am sick of hearing "environmentalists" whining about "animal rights" and "conservation". It seems to me that 80% of what environmentalists are for is bullsh*t. In my opinion, they're just spewing crap that they have no idea about. Have they any idea the impact not only on the economy but to our lives the way things would be if PETA or Treesitters had their way? Are they blind?

Aren't are lives more imortant than a tree? When did we become so stupid that we could question which is more important - an animal being saved from "cruel" animal testing or a cure for cancer?

Treesitters do nothing but put poor loggers out of work. They are not "winning" anything. Logging companies have fantastic measures in place where they replant trees for every tree they chop down. And that regrowth is important to the ecosystem. How hard is this to figure out? Even in area's where NO MAN has come in contact with, nature has a cycle that destroys old forests and regrows new ones. Lightning hitting a tree and starting a forest fire is a GOOD thing.

I'm for animal testing. I'm for logging.
I am however, NOT for things being harmed for no reason. Hunters killing animals for pleasure - no. Hunters killing animals for pleasure AND food - yes.
Protected land or unpopulated areas being destroyed just in case we may need to build one day - no. Being leveled because of a pressing need for more space - yes.

I would like there to be areas preserved. Yellowsone Park is wonderful. The Everglades, fantastic. But when someone wants to keep a park when there's no more room to build and people need homes, it has to go. That Yellowstone would ever turn into a land of condos is highly unlikely. We still have plenty of room, we can fit millions of people in with the land we have, and still have protected areas.

The belief that human interests are inherently in conflict fails to take into account human creative intelligence. We aren't fighting over a fixed or dwindling amount of resources, or an economic pie of fixed size. That's because we aren't just pie consumers: we're pie producers. By using our creative intelligence to develop previously idle resources, we create a bigger pie--then more pies--then better pies--then cake, as well.

The history of human progress is that Man takes things from nature, and by using his reason, transforms them into ever-increasing abundance. He does so with ever-greater efficiency, too, creating more values with fewer resources.

This too, is a very good point. "Mr big bad company man" isn't so foolish to not realize that there's a point to which was can use nature. Things run out after time. Their interest is at stake, and therefore they will find new and better was to drill oil, log, build homes. We recycle, we replace, we find a way to help nature and by doing so we help US. I don't think industries are given enough credit. They have money at stake. Of course they'll find a way to make things better.

Perhaps you can be both an enviromentalist or an individualist. But, chooseing ones self always seems to be the better option over giving up wellbeing for a tree.

 

[Avatar]

Re BillyTK:

What then did you mean when--in response to my urging that people actually check out the essay's sources--you wrote "There's an easier way"? What exactly were you suggesting that people do?

The structuring of your comment, with those words immediately following my suggestion, could only seem to mean to me: No, folks--you don't really have to check out that essay's sources for accuracy or context; "there's an easier way."

Well, WHAT way?

You then immediately started to describe what you glean to be some of the philosophical premises of the essay; but that hardly seems related to your comment that "there's an easier way" to evaluate the merits of the essay. So what are you saying is the "easier way"? Are you implying that, simply by your labeling the philosophic perspective of the essay, that's sufficient for anyone to judge its merits? Or are you recommending something else? If so, what?

As for the "fallacy of composition." Never my intention to suggest that all people who call themselves "environmentalists" share the misanthropic perspectives of several people posting here. Several critics of the essay have made clear that they do NOT share this view. Neither does that essay suggest such a thing; quite the contrary. Its author distinguishes, for example, between "conservationism" and "environmentalism." I was merely trying to suggest (perhaps clumsily) that there is evidence even on this thread for the essay's claims about rampant misanthropy among environmentalists...not that all environmentalists are misanthropes.

Still...on that point, the essay quotes a lot of leading, famous, mainstream environmentalists saying some pretty awful things. If THEY don't define and represent "environmentalism," who does? Is it a "fallacy of composition" to conclude something about the general thrust of a movement, when so many of its founders, leaders, and major organizations state such viewpoints?

If it is, then let's try another approach: What is your definition of "environmentalism"--a definition that you think is broadly representative of what its "mainstream" leaders and groups believe and advocate?

BTW, thanks for your welcoming me to the forum. (I think...) <G>

 

[dsm]

Re: Moral standard

Ahh. You started out in this thread pretty good, but you seem to be going downhill in your position.

Unlike Mr. Unique, I'll be glad to specify my own moral standard.

His standard was well stated -- you're just not paying attention.

My moral standard, then, is HUMAN LIFE--because that's the source of all moral values and valuing. What furthers human life is good; what harms it is bad. Put anything above human life in your priorities, and you are degrading humans--the source of all values--to being less important than rocks, plants, and critters.

And if some of the humans of the world choose to value the presevation of animal life in order to further human life, are their values misplaced? Why?

Okay, folks, I've done my bit. Now, I invite any critics to specify their OWN moral standards of right and wrong, and justify them in an intelligible way.

By who's definition of "intelligible"?

 

[Avatar]

1. You'll have to excuse my inattention or blindness, but please help me locate that "moral standard" of his that is supposed to be so glaringly evident.

2. You posit as a value "the presevation of animal life in order to further human life." Nothing wrong with that, as it regards animals not as "ends in themselves," but valuable in terms of their benefits to humans. So I gather that you then agree with me that such activities as breeding, raising, capturing, or hunting animals for our food and clothing, and for our pleasure (as pets) are a "good" thing?

3. "Intelligible: capable of being understood; comprehensible. Philos.: apprehensible by the mind only; conceptual." -- Random House Dictionary of the American Language.

In short, an attempt to provide a rational justification. I don't mean I have to agree with someone's justification or reasoning--only that it be intellectually coherent and basically responsive to the question at hand, providing some reasons rather than pure assertions. I think I've been trying to do that.

 

[dsm]

Aren't are lives more imortant than a tree?

If you're a logger, then your life in no more or less important than a tree. Cut down the last tree and you no longer have a life.

Logging companies have fantastic measures in place where they replant trees for every tree they chop down. And that regrowth is important to the ecosystem. How hard is this to figure out? Even in area's where NO MAN has come in contact with, nature has a cycle that destroys old forests and regrows new ones. Lightning hitting a tree and starting a forest fire is a GOOD thing.

Are we qualified enough to know when destroying a forest is a "good" thing? Also, remember that nature has a MUCH longer timescale in mind than man does. If cutting down an old-growth forest would provide loggers with jobs, but devastate the nearby towns because of changes in water runoff (etc.), is it still a GOOD thing? Do we know all the potential devastation we may do to ourselves by making such large-scale changes to the environment.

"Mr big bad company man" isn't so foolish to not realize that there's a point to which was can use nature.

Or maybe they'll simply say it's a big world with a global economy and, if the forest runs out in (say) Thailand, they'll simply move to Malaysia regardless of the elephants (aka loggers) they put out of jobs. After all, unchecked by environmental concerns, it's cheaper for companies to simply move to a better location and leave it to the locals to fix the problems so that they can return at a future time.

Perhaps you can be both an enviromentalist or an individualist. But, chooseing ones self always seems to be the better option over giving up wellbeing for a tree.

Hmmm. With an attitude like that, people may not have learned to look beyond themselves to come up with words like "we can either all hang together or, most assuredly, we will all hang separately".

 

[BillyTK]

Re BillyTK:

What then did you mean when--in response to my urging that people actually check out the essay's sources--you wrote "There's an easier way"? What exactly were you suggesting that people do?

The structuring of your comment, with those words immediately following my suggestion, could only seem to mean to me: No, folks--you don't really have to check out that essay's sources for accuracy or context; "there's an easier way."

Well, WHAT way?

"Easier way" doesn't mean "only way". If you choose to interpret it in that way, you're quite welcome, as long as you're clear that is a matter of your interpretation and don't try to represent it as the author's intention. Look, referencing is important, but good referencing alone doesn't prove a case, it only shows that that the sources actually the content an author attributes to them.

You then immediately started to describe what you glean to be some of the philosophical premises of the essay; but that hardly seems related to your comment that "there's an easier way" to evaluate the merits of the essay. So what are you saying is the "easier way"? Are you implying that, simply by your labeling the philosophic perspective of the essay, that's sufficient for anyone to judge its merits? Or are you recommending something else? If so, what?

Critical analysis.

As for the "fallacy of composition." Never my intention to suggest that all people who call themselves "environmentalists" share the misanthropic perspectives of several people posting here. Several critics of the essay have made clear that they do NOT share this view. Neither does that essay suggest such a thing; quite the contrary. Its author distinguishes, for example, between "conservationism" and "environmentalism." I was merely trying to suggest (perhaps clumsily) that there is evidence even on this thread for the essay's claims about rampant misanthropy among environmentalists...not that all environmentalists are misanthropes.

(My italics)

Originally posted by Avatar
One of the essay's main contentions is that environmentalists have a misanthropic, negative view of humans. Right on this thread we have humans being compared with "cancer," "aliens," and "leukemia." That seems to confirm, rather than refute, the point the author was making.

See also Confirmation bias

Still...on that point, the essay quotes a lot of leading, famous, mainstream environmentalists saying some pretty awful things. If THEY don't define and represent "environmentalism," who does? Is it a "fallacy of composition" to conclude something about the general thrust of a movement, when so many of its founders, leaders, and major organizations state such viewpoints?

It's fallacious when trying to generalise about a range of groups covering a range of positions. Quoting Al Gore? I mean, really...

If it is, then let's try another approach: What is your definition of "environmentalism"--a definition that you think is broadly representative of what its "mainstream" leaders and groups believe and advocate?

How is this relevant?

BTW, thanks for your welcoming me to the forum. (I think...) <G>

It was a sincere welcome. Disagreement shouldn't interfere with civility.

 

[dsm]

1. You'll have to excuse my inattention or blindness, but please help me locate that "moral standard" of his that is supposed to be so glaringly evident.

Still not paying attention, huh? It's simply that nature should have rights as well as understanding and not upsetting the "balance of nature" is important to the survival of man.

2. You posit as a value "the presevation of animal life in order to further human life." Nothing wrong with that, as it regards animals not as "ends in themselves," but valuable in terms of their benefits to humans. So I gather that you then agree with me that such activities as breeding, raising, capturing, or hunting animals for our food and clothing, and for our pleasure (as pets) are a "good" thing?

Still thinking like a one-dimensional human, huh? This is mere sophistry on your part to try to build a case for "environmentalist = radical".

3. "Intelligible: capable of being understood; comprehensible. Philos.: apprehensible by the mind only; conceptual." -- Random House Dictionary of the American Language.

Another words, fitting into your belief.

In short, an attempt to provide a rational justification. I don't mean I have to agree with someone's justification or reasoning--only that it be intellectually coherent and basically responsive to the question at hand, providing some reasons rather than pure assertions. I think I've been trying to do that.

The paper pushes the point "environmentalist = radical" to the extreme. In so doing, it brands itself as radical in that it's applying a broad brush to a group rather than focusing on what the individual problems are and, in the process, alienates the people that it's trying to reach. Right-wing conservatives will embrace the doctrine without understanding all the details that led up to its creation. Left-wing radicals will dismiss it as having no real substance and missing the point of the environmentalist movement. Moderates will see points on both sides, but, because of its incendiary approach, will tend to dismiss the paper as politically incorrect.

In short, rationality is not possible in this politically charged environment.

 

[Avatar]

BillyTK,

Now what do I have to do to get a simple, direct answer to a question here?

I asked you, quite sincerely, to tell me what you meant when you said there was an "easier way" to analyze the essay than by going through the references. You say that interpretation of your words is mistaken; but you never explain what you meant by "an easier way." Instead, you respond with more verbal shuffling and rope-a-dope misdirection than Mohammed Ali in his prime, and chide me because I "choose" an interpretation of your words that seems, on its face, to be pretty straightforward.

Sorry, but sending us to a footnote reference on the nature of critical analysis is no substitute for a simple answer to a simple question. I'm asking you again, politely, just to explain your words, amend them, withdraw them...but to be responsive to a direct question about what you meant by "easier way." Is that an unfair request?

Another point. In an early post, I cited the names of MANY leading and famous environmentalists and mainstream environmental groups which were quoted in the essay. In your latest response, you condense all of these down to one name: Al Gore...adding a laughing smilie. As if the essay, or I, had only quoted him!

Now come on: play fair, fella. YOU were the one who raised the issue of "composition fallacies." Don't you think you're doing the same thing by ignoring all the many individuals and groups quoted in the essay, and which I named, and instead cherry-picking only ONE to ridicule? (One who, incidentally, wrote a bestseller quoted, hailed, and promoted by the entire environmentalist mainstream and the media as a major movement manifesto.)

Finally, I asked you to explain your conception of what environmentalism means. If you think its so wrong to cite the beliefs and positions of leading greens because that supposedly distorts the REAL meaning of environmentalism, then I asked you to tell me: What IS the real meaning of environmentalism? Your enlightening reply? "How is this relevant?"

I am still waiting, waiting, WAITING for any self-defined environmentalists here who want to engage in a truly responsive discussion about that www.ecoNOT.com essay. Civility is more than just a tone; it is a respect for substantive engagement. So can we please stop all the sophistry, the evasive bobbing and weaving, the ducking of simple questions, and actually start addressing the positions set forth in the ecoNOT article?

 

[Suddenly]

Perhaps you can be both an enviromentalist or an individualist. But, chooseing ones self always seems to be the better option over giving up wellbeing for a tree.

As a general rule most reasonable persons are going to say that people are more important than "other stuff" be it rocks or trees or whatnot. I at least hope so.

Problem is that general principle can lead reasonable people to different (or even opposing) viewpoints on a particular issue when trying to decide what is best for people when dealing with stuff.

For example, if a particular enviromental measure, call it "X" is in place it will immediately lead to the death of 100 more or less identifyable people(Lets say the 100 will come from the class of professional poker players). However, there is reason to believe X may make it 25% less likely that a future (say in 10 years) tragic event will occur killing 10,000 random people.

There are arguments to be made for or against X independent of the above principle, that people are better than stuff. Those for X may argue the math, that in theory X "saves" 2500 people for a cost of 100. Opponents may say that there is a moral objection to killing members of an identifyable class in order to "gamble" for a larger later benefit (how 'bout my wry irony w/r/t choice of class?) However, this disagreement as to practical application does not necessarily imply a disagreement as to the core principles.

However, sometimes labels are placed and accepted that obscure the moral point. Most people who favor enviromental causes do on the basis that action now makes life better in the long run. Those who oppose mainly do so believing that the present cost outweighs the future benefit. It is simply a cost argument, not one having to do with political philosophy of "individualism."

Of course, there are those that elevate "stuff" over people, and I disagree with that in a pretty basic way. However, taking an particular incident where someone chooses a policy that values "stuff" over people does not idicate that person values the "stuff" over people. It is just as likely that the policy is chosen for the reason that more people will benefir from a pro-stuff stance on that particular issue.

These kinds of articles give me the sense that some people just can't grasp the idea that all differences in "what to do" do not automatically imply a difference in core beliefs.

 

[jj]

The preservation of nature is a hopeless cause because if there is one thing that we can be sure of it is that someday, hopefully very far in the future rather than soon, everything on Earth will be destroyed.

Besides, we ARE part of nature.

His version of environmentalism is obviously pure propaganda, and his attack on it regarding its goals is nonsense from any number of directions.

 

[jj]

Re: "Environmentalism or Individualism?"

Hmmm. I wonder if critics of the essay have actually bothered to check out his references and citations, to see if he's truly exaggerating and misrepresenting what mainstream environmentalists really advocate and are doing? That ought to put the matter to rest one way or the other, right?

Whose definition of "Mainstream"?

Green Peace? The EPA? James Watt? The ALF?

I think it's utterly distorting the whole point to assert that there is a "mainstream".

 

[jj]

It's not PC to be critical of environmental (and other such groups) groups.

Tony's statement is exactly and precisely an example of the new right-wing mean spirited "conservative" PC.

Tony's statement is an exemplar of PC, is a call to make some comments un-PC, and is the veriest epitomy and example of using PC to silence opponents. In short, it is a call to discount anyone who doesn't accept Tony's PC view of the world.

Pot, Saucepan.

 

[jj]

About as much difference as if there are any people in the world.

Was it your intent to take a species-traitor point of view there, or not?