Environmentalist Theory

My father has an opinion that environmentalists are counter-productive for the continuing advancement of civilization. His opinion is that environmentalists are modern day Luddites. That’s a fairly strong opinion and the girl I date was a bit offended by it.

I’ve since been thinking about this quite a bit and have come up with some thoughts, ideas, and theories on the issue. I presented these to the girl I date who is a self-proclaimed tree-hugger and she strongly disagreed with me.

In any case I have been trying to break down what an environmentalist is down to the very core or essence of environmentalism.

Three common dictionary definitions are:
1.
an expert on environmental problems.

2.
any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.

3.
a person who believes that differences between individuals or groups, esp. in moral and intellectual attributes, are predominantly determined by environmental factors, as surroundings, upbringing, or experience (opposed to hereditarian).

Definition #2 is the one I wanted to focus on as this is close enough to what people think of when they hear the word “environmentalism” or “green.” When one thinks of the “protect” you have to then ask what are we protecting the environment from? The definition above indicates pollution or it’s effects. You could break this down even further and go to define pollution. But what causes pollution? It’s mankind.

Essentially my theory works like this: At the very core and extreme edge of environmentalism is a movement to have as little impact on the earth as possible. If we work within the raw context of this the ultimate goal would be to have zero impact on the environment and the only way to do this is if mankind did not exist.

Obviously we (mankind) do exist and so this is not possible but I promise that some nutbag out there is trying to figure out a way to exterminate us to save the planet. The other issue I have with this that mankind is part of the system and the environment we are not separate from it, and within this we must find some balance.

I think that the Eskimos, native Indians, etc. are probably the closest form of true and reasonable environmentalists. Within the confines of extreme environmentalism they had learned to coexist with the planet and very little impact to the environment. They took very little from the land or animals and when they migrated within their territories the land and environment were essential no worse for wear.

My theory continues by advocating that if you wanted to be a true environmentalist you would have some land. You would farm the land without raping it because you would not be producing commercially available crops. You would grow trees and utilize them to build your house. You would have no electricity, no running water, and no goods available in a grocery store because any of the three would require some form of modern day environmental impact (steel, copper, metal, gas to farm and deliver groceries, etc.) That’s extreme environmentalism. You can see we are getting back to the native Indians prior to the invasion of the white man.

But again, this is not realistic and if you think of what my father says then we are on the same page because any modern day advancement has an impact on the environment. So what we really get down to is a compromise. What is an acceptable impact to the environment? I used an example of riding a bicycle. Modern day environmentalist ride a bicycle so that they don’t have to burn gas or support the manufacturing of automobiles. But there is a fallacy in this way of thinking. The bicycle itself impacts the environment via production. There is plant where the bicycle is made. People have to get to the plant. Raw materials are utilized and how do you think they appear? Certainly not by magic. And once the bicycle is manufactured it is shipped to a retail outlet where you purchase the bike. Again, all of this has an impact on the environment. The counter-argument? That the bicycle as used by the individual has less impact on the environment than an automobile and I completely agree with this.

That same person may ride their bike home to where they have modern day conveniences like electricity, a television, and running water. Again, they are getting away from their core values but I can guarantee they have found some form of acceptability because it fits within confines of their values and compromises. I, too, fall into this category because while I love my house, toys, etc., I don’t want to harm the environment any more than I have to in order to live my life the way I want to.

But this is part of the problem. Even the environmentalist can’t agree on what is right and what is wrong with trying to save the environment. Some environmentalists care more about the animals. Some care more about the water or the land. Some care more about fellow man and it goes on and on and on. Ultimately, we get back to the root of environmentalism and someone, somewhere, is going to be unhappy at whatever impact modern day progress is making. Don’t burn fossil fuels they pollute the air and cause global warming (SIC). Don’t put up windmills because they kill birds. Don’t put up solar panels because they impact terra firma. Don’t use wave and tidal technology because they impact the sea. Don’t do this, don’t do that, etc.

And ultimately what is the answer? There isn’t one. We have to find some semblance of balance between environmentalism and progress. In theory our system of democracy should achieve this, but it may take a long time. If you really want to reduce the impact on the environment stop breeding. Stop making babies and stop increasing the earth’s population every year. Balance it out. We have finite resources yet we treat the planet as if we can just keep on taking more and more from it without impacting something else. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I believe it was George Carlin that said it best, though. He was doing a stand-up skit and said environmentalists were full of shit. Why? If you had a nuclear holocaust and wiped out mankind and burned the earth before throwing it into a post-nuclear winter the earth would survive. It might take a billion years but it would come back long after mankind had ceased to roam the planet. The point? We aren’t saving the planet for the planet’s sake, we are saving it for mankind’s sake.

Hey, I didn’t say it. And now I have to go get ready for another trip on an airplane.