The religion of environmentalism

[Mini D]

BTW... that was a good read, Lazs.

It's odd that Crichton was comparing environmentalism to christianity in a negative manner draws so much ire from so many.

Sparks... you need to read the opening paragraph to that just a little better. I think you're out of touch with who is being refered to there.

Crichton is pushing the prevelance of science over religion and you're arguing about the definition of religion? I think that's one spot where he nailed it.

The population stuff is pure speculation, but the fundamental argument in the rest of this is very straightforward.

I've also seen much of what he said exact arguments that several posters in these forums use. The "educated" vs "human nature" debate. "racism is taught" was a particularly funny comment I'd seen recently. I guarantee that person thinks he's saying something scientific. I guarantee he doesn't care about any scientific evidence that says otherwise. Ironically, he's also someone that is adamat about keeping religion out of politics.

[lukster]

I don't think it all that odd Mini that his comparison irritates some. Many of those who have found their new religion in environmentalism consider themselves to be progressive and open minded. That they should be guilty of what they despise in others is simply too repugnant to accept. We saw these same symptoms of denial in the other thread.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Naso
Interesting reading.

This quote:

 

Has earned my vote for chricton as president of the World!

Exact ,it's not a hazard ... it's a  certitude !

[lazs2]

thud... in the debate I answered every question put to me and then asked the same of the askers...  It may have been monotonous but the same lame points were made with slightly different language.... "I believe" became.... "my thoughts are"   Athiests became agnostics.   Athiests on one hand tried to say that there were "shades" of athiesm while other athiests said that no... there is only one kind.  

This article has nothing to do with any of that.   The only tenuous little bit is the word religion.   Athiests were never even mentioned as such.

So...  I will ask you... are you an environmentalist?  If so... what shade?  The beetle kind who thinks that man is causeing global warming and that we can stop or slow it?  or... the sandie kind that thinks.... that we should live but try to not make too big of a mess for no reason?

Does the end justify the means?  is it worth making up data if it will help the cause of environmentalism?

lazs

[cpxxx]

I agree with most of the article.  I have been thinking on the same lines for some time but without his ability to express it. The point he makes about environmentalism becoming a form of religion concurs with my own thinking on the matter. I'm a skeptic on global warming and many other environmental and ecological issues. But I have found that when I comment on the issue I'm invariably rounded on and shouted down as if I had blasphemed in church.
That's an apt comparsion. I do think that the growth of enviromentalism, animal rights, vegetarianism and UFOology is proportionate to the relative decline of organised religion. People must believe in something. It seems a natural human instinct that this life must have some meaning and that we as individuals are important in the overall scheme of things.

Environmentalism, like any religion has it's extremists and those who half believe in the cause but who the equivalent of those who only go to church at Christmas, births, weddings and funerals. The big problems as I see it is that we may have the freedom to practice our religion or not, (unless we live in an Islamic state) but environmentalism is increasingly forced on us. A whole series of rules we must live our life by. We must recycle, we must pay higher taxes on anything considered environmentally unfriendly. The list gets longer every day. All for the great God: Mother Earth. 'We must save the planet and ourselves'. There is constant talk among the high priests of environmentalism about what we can and cannot eat, or where we can or cannot go, or what machines we can or cannot use. That sounds a lot like a religion to me.

I was disappointed to see David Attenborough jump on the global warming bandwagon and start to dish out the doom monger predictions.  Even the best of us fall into the trap.

Those of you who think all this is 'twaddle'. Ask yourself why you believe so fervently in the cause of environmentalism or indeed religion. Does it stand up to scrutiny or is simply because you never thought to question what you have been told by others. Every now and then we should all sit  down and think about what we really believe.  You might be surprised

[Hangtime]

i'm a 'shade tree enviornmentalist'. there's a big shade tree in my back yard.. I protect and praise it all summer, and debate the effacy of cutting the damn thing down every fall.. i hate raking leaves.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Sandman
It's boring. I fell asleep. Left a dent in my forehead and a pool of drool on the keyboard. My type of environmentalism extends this far:

I recycle aluminum.
I don't throw garbage out of my car.
I stick to the trails in the wilderness.
I bury my **** when I camp.
I pack out what I packed in.

Other than that... I drive a mid-sized SUV that burns way to much gas for its weight and when they ask for paper or plastic at the grocery store, I always say plastic. It's easier to fit in the garbage can.

You sound more like a consevationist than an environmentalist, many think they are one in the same, they are not.

shamus

[midnight Target]

Anyone who grew up in Southern California in the 60's and 70's should remember well what failing to care about the environment looks like. Or maybe you could ask someone who grew up along the Cuyahoga River... it burned for crise sakes.

It's better now. It isn't better because corporate America decided they hated smog. It's better because environmentalists put the fear in our hearts and in our lungs. Maybe they went too far in some cases. DDT for example may have had a bad rap. But every time someone says "environmentalist wackos" it brings us a step closer to the brown air and burning rivers of 35 years ago.

Now that IS scary.

[Shuckins]

Crichton hit the nail on the head in his remarks about "radical" environmentalism, which is an entirely different breed of cat altogether in comparison to the more mundane form of environmentalism that most of us practice.

It does, indeed, have many of the charcteristics of a fanatical religion.  Also, Crichton is dead on target when he states that "radical" environmentalism is almost wholly an urban phenomenon, supported by large masses of city-dwellers who have almost no first-hand experience with the deadly capriciousness of nature.  

His views are best represented by the statements;  "Farmers know what they're talking about...city-people don't.  It's all fantasy."

[SOB]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Anyone who grew up in Southern California in the 60's and 70's should remember well what failing to care about the environment looks like. Or maybe you could ask someone who grew up along the Cuyahoga River... it burned for crise sakes.

It's better now. It isn't better because corporate America decided they hated smog. It's better because environmentalists put the fear in our hearts and in our lungs. Maybe they went too far in some cases. DDT for example may have had a bad rap. But every time someone says "environmentalist wackos" it brings us a step closer to the brown air and burning rivers of 35 years ago.

Now that IS scary.

Maybe it's just me, but seeing my local river catch fire would probably provoke more of a call to action then an environmentalist "putting the fear in my heart and lungs".  Stupid hippie.  

[SOB]

Originally posted by Mini D
Odd you should say that. In Oregon, we've had more deaths, injuries and property damage occur because of fanatacal environmentalists than terrorists.

A quick question: Which would be more likely to set your SUV on fire?

Speaking of which...

Story Link

Judge denies pretrial release for environmental radicals

June 2, 2006

EUGENE — A federal magistrate judge has denied pretrial release for two environmental activists charged with sabotage and arson, citing a risk to public safety.

Nathan Fraser Block and Joyanna Lynn Zacher are two of 13 arrested in Operation Backfire, a sweeping federal investigation of multistate sabotage and arson.

Block and Zacher are accused in two arsons in 2001, one at a former truck dealership in Eugene and another at a tree farm in Clatskanie.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Coffin said evidence indicates the two support more violence because they think previous acts were ineffective.

Both face a minimum of life plus 45 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

Their defense attorney said the clients were not involved in all the counts against them. The 13 Backfire co-defendants are scheduled for trial Oct. 31 in Eugene.

I'm kind of curious to know what environmental benefit is gained by burning a tree farm.

[Mr Big]

Originally posted by SOB
Speaking of which...


I'm kind of curious to know what environmental benefit is gained by burning a tree farm.

They are making a "stand"

get it?


The most important thing in the world is that they took action and made a real difference.

[Debonair]

Originally posted by SOB
I'm kind of curious to know what environmental benefit is gained by burning a tree farm.

eliminating non native species.
you're next



or maybe a more tame explanation is clearing land to grow pot on
#!%*!#!*&#*! hippies

[Mini D]

I've told this story before... but it will fit in here nicely:

A friend went down to a company in California to help with a manufacturing problem they had. They were making a chemical that contained ferous cyanide. This is a cyanide that's already bound to an iron molecule and is not a poison any more than salt is. They could not start up the plant because their cyanide count in their waste water was too high. Despite the fact that it's not a poison, it still has the word "cyanide" in it and that sounds poisonous. They had a cyanide destruct system in line but it wasn't cleaning things up enough (the destruct system was pre-planned to avoid issues with perception at the EPA). My friend offered a simple suggestion as step one of solving the problem... test the water coming into the company. It turns out that the water coming into the company had cyanide levels 1000 times that of the water going out. There was an indian reservation upstream of where the county got their water that specialized in silver jewelry. They commonly use sodium cyanide to clean the jewelry and rinse it down the drain. Sodium cyanide is the poisonous stuff and small amounts will kill you. They "allowed" the plant to come up with an exception that was objected to by local environmentalists.

[Debonair]

too much salt will kill u