I've lost sight of what environmentalism is trying to achieve :(

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
When I was younger, I think I would have considered myself a fairly strong environmentalist. And maybe its just me getting older, more cynical and nihilistic, but I'm currently having a hard time understanding what the end goal of environmentalism is.

What is the endgame? What is the ideal situation for an environmentalist? What would a perfectly, environmentally-friendly utopia look like?

It seems environmentalism is attempting to limit negative, human impacts on the planet. The logical conclusion of this is that we would be better off if there were no humans. No humans = no negative impacts. And certainly de-populating the planet over successive generations couldn't hurt.

Why do we make the distinction between "human-caused" and "natural-caused" events? Aren't humans part of nature too? Aren't they part of the evolutionary process?
 

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,343.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I think you are looking at this wrong. To me "environmentalism" is the idea that humans can cause serious harm to their surroundings and in so doing cause unintended consequences that harm humans. I see environmentalism as an attempt to limit the damage that we are doing to ourselves via our surroundings.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,653
12,106
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟622,644.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I think you are looking at this wrong. To me "environmentalism" is the idea that humans can cause serious harm to their surroundings and in so doing cause unintended consequences that harm humans. I see environmentalism as an attempt to limit the damage that we are doing to ourselves via our surroundings.

This is a good thing, as long as it's not taken to extremes to where it becomes detrimental.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Mainstream environmentalism is about promoting sustainable development and limiting human damage to the biosphere. As with all broad ideas, there will be a spectrum of people who consider themselves environmentalists, from the guy who recycles voluntarily right through to the http://vhemt.org/ . I don't think there's an endgame, certainly not one that everyone who considers themselves an environmentalist agrees on.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
When I was younger, I think I would have considered myself a fairly strong environmentalist. And maybe its just me getting older, more cynical and nihilistic, but I'm currently having a hard time understanding what the end goal of environmentalism is.

What is the endgame? What is the ideal situation for an environmentalist? What would a perfectly, environmentally-friendly utopia look like?

It seems environmentalism is attempting to limit negative, human impacts on the planet. The logical conclusion of this is that we would be better off if there were no humans. No humans = no negative impacts. And certainly de-populating the planet over successive generations couldn't hurt.

Why do we make the distinction between "human-caused" and "natural-caused" events? Aren't humans part of nature too? Aren't they part of the evolutionary process?

To me, environmentalist has just one principle: Keep the environment natural is more important than any human activity under any circumstance.
Wherever this principle will lead to would be the goal.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I think you are looking at this wrong. To me "environmentalism" is the idea that humans can cause serious harm to their surroundings and in so doing cause unintended consequences that harm humans. I see environmentalism as an attempt to limit the damage that we are doing to ourselves via our surroundings.

It is easy for you to say.

For example, would the development of a new urban area cause any "harm" to human?
Yes, and No, and Depends. Right?
This is an example of confusion included in the OP.

According to my definition of environmentalism, the answer must be a YES. Urbanization does cause a lot of damages to the land.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,824
36,124
Los Angeles Area
✟820,594.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Save-the-planet,-kill-yourself-Women-s-T-Shirts.jpg


Although funny, I don't think this is really a goal of the environmental movement.
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I think you are looking at this wrong. To me "environmentalism" is the idea that humans can cause serious harm to their surroundings and in so doing cause unintended consequences that harm humans. I see environmentalism as an attempt to limit the damage that we are doing to ourselves via our surroundings.

Huh. I have not heard this perspective before.

So the extinction of the dodo was okay then? Killing off the dodo had little to no negative impact on the human race.

In fact, it could be argued that killing off many species would do little harm to humans. Why do we try so hard to preserve the last white rhinos and the snow leopards and Siberian tigers? Wouldn't that fall under the realm of environmental movements?

Also, another hole in your "humans first" view is that it would be completely permissible to dump highly toxic mine byproducts throughout mines in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut in Canada. There are some large diamond and heavy metal mines in the Canadian North. These companies spend huge amounts of money to safely dispose of waste because of environmentalist urgings. But why? Outside of the rare town, there is no one in the Canadian north. We could dump thousands of tons of lead and harmful byproducts into the groundwater system and it would be so diluted by the time it reached any human water source that no one would ever notice. Do you think environmentalists would be okay with this?

Similarly, why is there so much effort to protect Antarctica? If you visit Antarctica, you are not allowed to take anything (rocks, etc), you aren't allowed to pee in the snow (you take a water bottle to pee in). You aren't allowed to touch anything. Everything is very strictly controlled. Why? Antarctica is a wasteland with seemingly no use to humans.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Mainstrem environmentalism is about promoting sustainable development and limiting human damage to the biosphere. As with all broad ideas, there will be a spectrum of people who consider themselves environmentalists, from the guy who recycles voluntarily right through to the http://vhemt.org/ . I don't think there's an endgame, certainly not one that everyone who considers themselves an environmentalist agrees on.

What do you personally think is the endgame? What are we working towards?

How can we best live sustainably and limit our damage to the biosphere?

Do you think its possible for us to live sustainably on this planet with 7 billion (and growing) people? To me, with our modern world full of modern conveniences, it is completely impossible. Even if we become fossil fuel free (which would have to also miraculously eradicate the use of plastics), we still use non-renewable metals (some of them very rare). Are we just waiting for a technological magic bullet to make this possible?
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
What do you personally think is the endgame? What are we working towards?

How can we best live sustainably and limit our damage to the biosphere?

Do you think its possible for us to live sustainably on this planet with 7 billion (and growing) people? To me, with our modern world full of modern conveniences, it is completely impossible. Even if we become fossil fuel free (which would have to also miraculously eradicate the use of plastics), we still use non-renewable metals (some of them very rare). Are we just waiting for a technological magic bullet to make this possible?
I don't think there is an endgame. It's about a process, not an end goal. There's not going to be some point in the future where we can say "that's it, environmentalism achieved, we can all stop conserving and recycling now". Think of it like healthy living. Fitness isn't about reaching a goal and being finished, it's about changing lifestyle for ongoing improving health.

Better recycling process and use of renewables, plus sensible land management protocols make a big dent. I don't think 7 billion people are sustainable on the planet and current Western standards of living, sadly. Ideally, as globalism and automation increases, people will have fewer offspring. I don't think there's a magic bullet out there, it's just a matter of constant maintenance of evidence based best practice and incremental, iterative technological improvement to increase efficiency.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eclipsenow

God cares about his creation as well as us.
Dec 17, 2010
8,230
1,701
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟139,901.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Serious environmentalism is all about 'decoupling'. That's growing the economy and enjoying modern, convenient, beautiful cities, while having minimal impact on the environment. We can do it! I'm an Eco-Modernist, and am firmly convinced that we can roll out technologies that will minimise our impact on the environment. It's controversial, because it involves SAFE modern GenIV waste-eating nuclear reactors that can gobble up today's nuclear waste and turn it into 500 years of abundant, baseload clean energy! This is the ecomodernist manifesto, hot off the press! Grab a coffee and enjoy. There are some BIG names in the environment movement who have embraced nuclear power recently. Check it out!
http://www.ecomodernism.org/
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟45,617.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
What do you personally think is the endgame? What are we working towards?

Equilibrium. There is no "endgame" to an ongoing process. Humans have an impact on the environment. Every species does. It's just that our footprint is long and deep, and we can and do harm ourselves in the process.

How can we best live sustainably and limit our damage to the biosphere?

Do you think its possible for us to live sustainably on this planet with 7 billion (and growing) people?

Welcome to "questions that are really important to solve", we'll take "the entirety of issues surrounding environmentalism" for $500.

:D

Honestly, though, these are important questions to ask and understanding. For example, your question about the dodo - does it matter that they went extinct? Maybe not. But the food web can form extremely complex nets, and removing individual pieces can have unfortunate consequences. Would it matter if the black rhino went extinct? I have no idea. But before it does, we might want to try to find an answer.
 
Upvote 0

leftrightleftrightleft

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2009
2,644
363
Canada
✟22,986.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I don't think there is an endgame. It's about a process, not an end goal. There's not going to be some point in the future where we can say "that's it, environmentalism achieved, we can all stop conserving and recycling now". Think of it like healthy living. Fitness isn't about reaching a goal and being finished, it's about changing lifestyle for ongoing improving health.

Better recycling process and use of renewables, plus sensible land management protocols make a big dent. I don't think 7 billion people are sustainable on the planet and current Western standards of living, sadly. Ideally, as globalism and automation increases, people will have fewer offspring. I don't think there's a magic bullet out there, it's just a matter of constant maintenance of evidence based best practice and incremental, iterative technological improvement to increase efficiency.

I really like the fitness analogy.

I have thought before that if Earth were represented as a human body, humans would be represented as the cancer.

In order to stop being cancerous, we need to have a whole shift in how we view the planet we live on. Currently, I think we still have a "rape, pillage, prosper" attitude for the most part. We don't view the planet as a living space but rather as something which gives and gives and gives inexhaustively.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
And buys us some a little time. But the demand for the planet's resources will continue to rise.
Indeed. So, the time is soon to be upon us where difficult choices will have to be made whether we like it or not. Reduction in quality of life, reduction in population numbers, or extinction. Technology has held off the Malthusian nightmare, at least for the West, a couple of centuries longer than it may have otherwise. But no matter your politics, it is a simple fact that population growth is geometric, while food production growth is only arithmetic.

We do still have a period of grace (how much is debatable) but I think it makes sense to start working things out now, so that when it's crunch time, the blow is somewhat softened.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I really like the fitness analogy.

I have thought before that if Earth were represented as a human body, humans would be represented as the cancer.

In order to stop being cancerous, we need to have a whole shift in how we view the planet we live on. Currently, I think we still have a "rape, pillage, prosper" attitude for the most part. We don't view the planet as a living space but rather as something which gives and gives and gives inexhaustively.
Yeah... the cancer analogy is the reason I don't like Gaia theory. If the planet is taken as an organism, we are unquestionably playing the part of a cancer. In an organism, the only cure for cancer we know of is to kill the cancerous cells. Hopefully we can work out a way to continue living here without following the cancer life cycle any more.

I'm glad you liked the fitness analogy. Feel free to use it.
 
Upvote 0