NationStates Jolt Archive

Just been reading an interesting little bitch-slapping post at
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/forum/threads.php?id=421_0_23_0_C

Basically, two humanists are arguing over whether being 'green' is a new religion.
Skimming through the thread (and I do emphasise, I skim-read) it kinda dawned on me that the idea of a *takes deep breath*

pro-green, pro-science, pro-market forces humanist

is regarded as being in conflict with itself. ... But that is what I tend to think my poltical views are.

But is that right? Can a person be both 'green' and 'humanist'? Can a person be both 'green' and 'pro-market forces'? Can a person be 'green' and 'pro-science/pro-technology'?

Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers

CDA

I'll read 'em later. Right now I've gotta go and return these DVDs to the store otherwise I'll get hit with a hefty fine. Again :eek:

On an individual basis, yes. But in the larger realm of government which by definition can only regulate, no. Unless the extent of said political party's foray into greenness would be stuff like propaganda posters without any type of regulations.

use netflix

But is that right? Can a person be both 'green' and 'humanist'?


Humanism is simply the belief in the ability of human beings to decide issues rationally, without religion, faith, etc. So long as one's "green" positions are based on reason and science, I see no reason why the two should conflict. One of the original founders of Greenpeace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29) abandoned the organization because of what he thought were "extremist" positions that focused on ideology instead of actual ecology.


Can a person be both 'green' and 'pro-market forces'?


Yes, one can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_environmentalism) certainly be both. (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/03/03_2005_Duane.html) And at any rate, being generally "pro-market" does not necessarily preclude any kind of government environmental regulation. While I'm convinced that private property serves as an excellent mechanism to promote environmental protection concerning land, I can also recognize that the inability to subdivide the atmosphere in a similarly equitable, enforcable, and efficient manner means that some kind of regulation concerning air quality is probably required. Unlike some others around me, I don't confuse "pro-market" with "anarchy," so such regulation is not automatically prohibited.