• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is environmentalism a 'woo' industry?

Igopogo

Critical Thinker
I
Joined
Nov 9, 2003
Messages
270
Are all environmentalists 'woos'? I've seen that assertion many times about the so-called skeptic industry at large, and it still has me perplexed as to why. The environment exists, does it not? Can't activities by man be proven to have an affect on our environment? Shouldn't that lead to a branch of science to research if there is such a thing as damaging effects to our environment, and what these could be? Why are "environmentalists" lumped in with folks who believe in ghosts or UFOs?

(For definition sake, I'm referring to an 'environmentalist' as a logical, honest, good researched based scientist. This excludes folks who merely dance naked with owls in the woods).

What accounts for this attitude? I would argue that as humans, we have a powerful bias towards our own species. We can only experience nature through the human experience. Is it possible for science to over come this bias? Should it even try? Also, we live in biased times, and probably always have. At present, science is skewed towards corporate power. We all need money to function in our society. Corporations have a definite bias today in generating money. Like all nature, a bias over time leads to predominance. Science, like everything else, requires money to operate. Science is then heavily biased in favor of corporations. As skeptics, I believe we should keep this in mind.

Much bashing is made of pseudoscience by skeptics, (shooting fish in the barrel), but I would argue that not enough examination of what I call "partial-science" is done. That is good science by all our standards, that takes things out of context due to human bias. Is drawing conclusions from studying the life cycle of a certain plant or animal out of context with the environment in which we found it really science at all?

As a skeptic, I would argue that this human-centric science appears more woo than good environmental science. Life cycles can be proven to function without help from human endeavors. The fossil record shows that nature functioned fine a very long time before we sprang forth. Human centric science makes numerous claims of improving or fixing life-systems as we find them. This in my book is 'woo', just like if someone came along and said, "I'm going to improve gravity". IMO, the onus should always be on human &/or corporate biased science to 'prove it', (possibly an impossible task).

Looking back on history, bias in favor of the prevailing powers skewed our notion of reality. Even the smartest minds in the past assumed whole heartedly in the prevailing science of the Catholic Church. Now that that bias is over, we can clearly see the wide spread delusion of the population at large. Anyone skeptical of the existence of angels or demons at that time would be automatically considered 'woo' by prevailing society. Is 'environmentalism' the modern equivalent.
 
From my perspective, a lot of enviromentalist claims are based on pseudo-science. A fair amount of their claims are based on good science, but are put forward as facts when they're really unproven.

You also have to remember that the first publicly visible champions of environmentalism were fringe groups, because they had nothing to lose (and much to gain) by standing out. A lot of these people are woo to start with, and that influenced their presentations. (And the media, of course, loved it. Not much in the way of ratings when you talk to a scientist, but give 'em a good woo, and WHOA!)

Sadly, I think that the valid aspects of environmentalism have been overshadowed by the highly vocal and visible woo elements. That and a lot of disinformation from various industries and governments trying to discredit various claims by environmentalists.
 
Igopogo said:
Are all environmentalists 'woos'?
Click to expand...

This sort of generalization is almost always false.

In the case of environmentalism, it's demonstrably so. For example, dioxin has been well-established to be one of the more nasty chemicals out there, and dioxin exposure from chemical plants (for example, the Chapaevsk, Russia, plant, or the Kanawha Valley in West Virginia, USA) has been shown to have some impact on the health of the local residents. (See volume 66 of Organohalogen Compounds.) By itself, this is just basic science. But from a political perspective, it's also strong evidence that building chemical plants and allowing them to leak dioxin into the neighboring community is bad for the locals' health.

The political problem is one of degree. For the most part, the environmental contamination is a relatively old one -- most of the plants studied closed down years ago (largely in response to environmental concerns. The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2003 that environmental dioxin levels in general have declined by as much as 76% since the 1970. Is this good enough, or should we (by which read, the government and/or corporations at gunpoint) spend lots of money trying to clean up the last quarter of the problem? Are the current regulations too lax, too tight, or "just right"?

It becomes "woo," in my opinion, when one starts to ignore the science. A statement like "dioxin is bad, therefore no cost is too great to eliminate dioxin from our environment" is simply ludicrous. But by the same token, for someone to argue against any kind of dioxin regulation at all is equally "woo."
 
Who cares about the environment??? we are making lots of MOONEEY!!!

or, in other words, sometimes is simply politics. Look at what bush says about environmentalism...
 
jmercer said:
From my perspective, a lot of enviromentalist claims are based on pseudo-science. A fair amount of their claims are based on good science, but are put forward as facts when they're really unproven.
Click to expand...

This I guess is the point of my starting this thread. What constitutes a claim from the viewpoint of science?

For instance:

-if I say that: "clear-cutting a forest and replanting it with saplings may lead to unexpected and possibly detrimental effects on the existing ecosystems."
-Then if you as a scientist say, "show me the evidence that this claim is so."
-I answer, "I can't. The environment is too complex and little known system to say with any certainty."

Which one of us has made a claim?

I'm basing my opinion on the facts that the processes that brought the forest to this point stretch back through prehistoric time, and no evidence exists that I know of indicates that the clear-cutting example above has ever taken place. Knowing that life-systems have complex balancing forces, I therefore summize that any shortcomings from our assumptions would become apparent over time, and we should be cautious in our actions at the present. I ask you for proof of you claim that I'm wrong. You supply peer reviewed papers funded by the forestry industry showing numerous studies indicating clear-cutting is sound.

Clear-cutting is then implemented on a wide scale, then a generation or two later, environmental degradation problems arise from erronious assumptions of previous generations.

I'll bet it's not hard for you to come up with real examples of variations of my above hypothetical one above. I agree totally that claims made by environmentalists should always be countered, but I think we should be skeptical as to what's a claim and what is not.

My argument then is that often the scientific powers are biased by our corporate based society that supplies incomplete (and therefore erroneous) science. I'm not arguing for a revolution against the system, but simply a recognition of this fact be taken into account in one's skepticism, to push for better science for wiser policy making.

jmercer said:
You also have to remember that the first publicly visible champions of environmentalism were fringe groups, because they had nothing to lose (and much to gain) by standing out. A lot of these people are woo to start with, and that influenced their presentations. (And the media, of course, loved it. Not much in the way of ratings when you talk to a scientist, but give 'em a good woo, and WHOA!)
Click to expand...

I don't know that this is the case at all. We should always be on our toes for faulty reasoning as skeptics, wherever it comes from.
 
Regarding your first comment and example - you made the claim that clear-cutting a forest may lead to... etc. etc. That's fine, and a great example of properly conservative representation.

My problem is with the people who say "clear-cutting a forest and replanting it with saplings WILL lead to unexpected and possibly detrimental effects on the existing ecosystems." And that is, unfortunately, what the media picks up on because it's a controversial statement that can be publicly shot down by environmentalist opponents.

Regarding your second comment - Ok, it's a matter of opinion that I can't prove or disprove. However, note that ELF and ALF were making headlines, and ELF, in particular represents the fringe of ecological protection groups.

In point of fact, both ELF and ALF are cited in the FBI 2000-2001 terrorism report.

The media jumped on the bandwagon with this, of course. "Build it and we will burn it", etc. All of a sudden, organizations like GreenPeace (who have had their own share of public embarrassments by woo-splinter-sects acting criminally as "GreenPeace" representatives) have been painted with the same tarred brush.

This is why I believe that the valid aspects of environmentalism have been overshadowed by the highly vocal and visible woo elements.
 
jmercer said:
Regarding your first comment and example - you made the claim that clear-cutting a forest may lead to... etc. etc. That's fine, and a great example of properly conservative representation.

My problem is with the people who say "clear-cutting a forest and replanting it with saplings WILL lead to unexpected and possibly detrimental effects on the existing ecosystems." And that is, unfortunately, what the media picks up on because it's a controversial statement that can be publicly shot down by environmentalist opponents.
Click to expand...

If you listen to the actual words of any scientist speaking to the press, they usually use qualifiers similar to what I provided to express the limitations of their findings. Often the headlines and journalistic content that delivers the comments to the public doesn't. I'm often amazed at the clear discrepancy between what is said to the media, and what the media says is said.

jmercer said:
Regarding your second comment - Ok, it's a matter of opinion that I can't prove or disprove. However, note that ELF and ALF were making headlines, and ELF, in particular represents the fringe of ecological protection groups.

In point of fact, both ELF and ALF are cited in the FBI 2000-2001 terrorism report.

The media jumped on the bandwagon with this, of course. "Build it and we will burn it", etc. All of a sudden, organizations like GreenPeace (who have had their own share of public embarrassments by woo-splinter-sects acting criminally as "GreenPeace" representatives) have been painted with the same tarred brush.

This is why I believe that the valid aspects of environmentalism have been overshadowed by the highly vocal and visible woo elements.
Click to expand...

I agree that we always have to view mass-media information with a skeptical eye.

The 'media' can be anything in the spectrum from cheesy tabloids to peer reviewed scientific journals (in print, TV, whatever). It all depends on ourselves to choose what's the prevailing media.

The lazy way to get our information is to let society choose it for us. In these times, that means it comes skewed from a society with corporate/monetary bias.
 
Somehow, most environmentalists seem to be the types that wear the moon earrings and African dresses if you can understand what kind of people I'm talking about from that. They're people who are into astrology and the Kabala and all of that weird stuff. But it is also true that skeptics are generally environmentalists. Spirituality can lead to tree-hugging tendencies as well as simply examining the effects noxious chemicals, deforestation, etc. have on the environment from scientific studies, albeit in the latter case, those tendencies are tempered with a heavy dose of scientism and lack the zealous, unquestioning qualities of the former. It just so happens that the spiritual types greatly outnumber the skeptics in the entire human population, so naturally you're going to see a greater amount of them amongst environmentalists.
 
Batman Jr. said:
Somehow, most environmentalists seem to be the types that wear the moon earrings and African dresses if you can understand what kind of people I'm talking about from that. They're people who are into astrology and the Kabala and all of that weird stuff. But it is also true that skeptics are generally environmentalists. Spirituality can lead to tree-hugging tendencies as well as simply examining the effects noxious chemicals, deforestation, etc. have on the environment from scientific studies, albeit in the latter case, those tendencies are tempered with a heavy dose of scientism and lack the zealous, unquestioning qualities of the former. It just so happens that the spiritual types greatly outnumber the skeptics in the entire human population, so naturally you're going to see a greater amount of them amongst environmentalists.
Click to expand...
My emphasis.

Now that is just about as silly a statement as I've read. Over the last decades, "environmentalism" has become pretty much a mainstream "value" with a full spectrum of participants. "Most" (your word) environmentalists are probably just a typical cross-section of the population. Your gross generalization does not befit a skeptic forum.

Originally posted by jmercer
You also have to remember that the first publicly visible champions of environmentalism were fringe groups, because they had nothing to lose (and much to gain) by standing out.
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't think this is true. Loosely speaking, the environmental movement in the USA began with Carson's Silent Spring and was galvanized into political action by the 1969 Platform A blowout in the Santa Barbara Channel. This was supported by the hippy crowd but was very much a mainstream political movement that led to the creation of the EPA.

As happens with all movements, all stripe of other organizations subsequently jumped on the bandwagon. Again, as usual, some were WAY out, such as the examples you cited. But these were not the first "publically visible champions" by any means. In fact, I find it interesting that you would remember these folks but the not massive mainstream groups that preceded them.
 
SezMe said:
Now that is just about as silly a statement as I've read. Over the last decades, "environmentalism" has become pretty much a mainstream "value" with a full spectrum of participants. "Most" (your word) environmentalists are probably just a typical cross-section of the population. Your gross generalization does not befit a skeptic forum.
Click to expand...
I also used the word "seem." I wasn't going for declarativeness in my post. All that was really trying to be articulated was that the skeptical community is very environmentally conscious but you still end up hearing more about the others just because of sheer numbers. To add also, the radicals are typically more vocal, which could account for publicity beyond what is explainable from plurality.
 
Igopogo said:
If you listen to the actual words of any scientist speaking to the press, they usually use qualifiers similar to what I provided to express the limitations of their findings. Often the headlines and journalistic content that delivers the comments to the public doesn't. I'm often amazed at the clear discrepancy between what is said to the media, and what the media says is said.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the media point, but unfortunately, it's not the scientists who mostly end up speaking to the press. It's the activists - which is my point. The interviews of these people are what creates the perception for evironmentalism overall.
 
I think environmentalists aren't all one way or the other... semantically, an environmentalist is someone that is concerned about human impact on the environment. That's it. You can be an environmentalist and disbelieve in GW--you still care about the environment, you just do not believe GW is a man-made phenomenon.

Some of them are reasonable, some of them are not. Some concerns are legitimate, some are not. You can't come up with a general principle without examining each and every issue.

Of course, commentators such as Rush Limbaugh prefer to present otherwise, by doing his best to make "environmentalist wackos" one word.
 
I studied environmental science for 2 years and I found it incredibly wooish. It had a very new agey feel to it, the science was seriously diluted and skepticism practically non-existent. Most of my fellow students- as well as some of the lecturers! - were heavily into energy crystals, homeopathy, UFOs etc. I think I spent more time debunking von Däniken than actually learning something while I was there. I honestly found it quite shocking on an intellectual level.

I don't want to imply that's how environmental science generally works at unis, but it's what discouraged me pretty quickly. I still believe I just happened to experience a really bad faculty at that time.
 
SwissSkeptic said:
I studied environmental science for 2 years and I found it incredibly wooish. It had a very new agey feel to it, the science was seriously diluted and skepticism practically non-existent. Most of my fellow students- as well as some of the lecturers! - were heavily into energy crystals, homeopathy, UFOs etc. I think I spent more time debunking von Däniken than actually learning something while I was there. I honestly found it quite shocking on an intellectual level.

I don't want to imply that's how environmental science generally works at unis, but it's what discouraged me pretty quickly. I still believe I just happened to experience a really bad faculty at that time.
Click to expand...

Silly little question (I'm just curious): what university was this?
 
SwissSkeptic said:
I studied environmental science for 2 years and I found it incredibly wooish. It had a very new agey feel to it, the science was seriously diluted and skepticism practically non-existent. Most of my fellow students- as well as some of the lecturers! - were heavily into energy crystals, homeopathy, UFOs etc. I think I spent more time debunking von Däniken than actually learning something while I was there. I honestly found it quite shocking on an intellectual level.

I don't want to imply that's how environmental science generally works at unis, but it's what discouraged me pretty quickly. I still believe I just happened to experience a really bad faculty at that time.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should clarify: They didn't teach the woo stuff in class, apart from invoking that the nature is somehow "transcendental". It was just an irksome side effect of studying at the faculty, since a lot of people attracted to the subject had strong beliefs about energy crystals, homeopathy etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom