NationStates Jolt Archive

First, what do you consider the definition of "environmentalism" to be? Second, do you consider yourself an environmentalist? Discuss.

I don't know, but I consider myself to be in favour of human survival and we haven't yet invented a way to survive without the natural environment.

Serra Club member.

As a Christian, I think it's my responsibility to do my part to be a good steward of God's creation. I also think that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the Earth is here for us, we're not here for the Earth.

I don't know If I consider myself an environmentalist, but I do agree with this

if we don't take care of the environment, we will all become poor/dead.

First, what do you consider the definition of "environmentalism" to be?

caring about the environment would be what I'd use on the spot (though it a rather broad time)

have you thought about asking the dictionary?

Second, do you consider yourself an environmentalist? Discuss.

yes bushes, trees and squirrels fucking in my garden are awesome

plus some of the stuff is rather fun

I would define an environmentalist simply as someone who thinks we need to pay attention to, and avoid destroying, the environment. And yes, I consider myself one.

caring about the environment would be what I'd use on the spot (though it a rather broad time)

have you thought about asking the dictionary?
I know what the dictionary says, I have one here on my desk. But any set definition doesn't take into account all the different reasons people consider themselves environmentalists.

It's like finding the meaning of life by looking up "life" in the OED. Wait a minute. It's not like that at all; they are completely different. Drat.

As a Christian, I think it's my responsibility to do my part to be a good steward of God's creation. I also think that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the Earth is here for us, we're not here for the Earth.

Pope's example?

Pope's example?

Elaborate, please.

Also, I should point out that as a Protestant, I don't give the Pope any special dispensation or authority, and as an individual with free-will surrounded by 6 billion of the same I am not responsible for anyone's actions or statements but my own.

Even at its least altruistic, environmentalism encourages increased efficiency in productivity, and the development of newer and more flexible technologies. Why on earth should I oppose well designed environmental policies?

Yes, I consider myself an environmentalist. I believe that Nature as a whole has inherent value, not just its value to humans as sources of food and materials, or its value to us as "natural beauty."

The word "spirtual" has bad associations for me, but I voted that option anyway because I know that I am a part of Nature. I am an animal, with the added qualities of a human.

I also voted the second option, because I am alarmed at the solipsistic trap we are headed for by building an artificial environment which is dependent on our own continuing actions to function.

As a Christian, I think it's my responsibility to do my part to be a good steward of God's creation.

So the life on earth has value because God created it?

I also think that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the Earth is here for us, we're not here for the Earth.

Well, we are dependent (still) on other life forms and certainly on the physical planet. In that sense the Earth is here for us.
But as a non-believer, I have no equivalent sense of anything existing for a purpose; I suppose I have a vague sense of life being the expression of some principle, and hence pointless killing not being a good idea (to deny the principle is to deny our own worth as examples of it.)

I'm curious whether you believe in Armageddon, and if so ... what happens to the rest of God's creation when all the human souls are removed from it?

Even at its least altruistic, environmentalism encourages increased efficiency in productivity, and the development of newer and more flexible technologies. Why on earth should I oppose well designed environmental policies?

i believe the major reason is hatred of hippies and future generations.

In my opinion an environmentalist is someone who is aware of the environment's importance to us and strives to prevent its destruction or restore it so it can still be utilized now and in the future. In other words, someone with common self in the realm of environmental dealings.

I would like to consider myself and environmentalist, but I can't say I have done all that much yet in the way of actually doing something for it.

So the life on earth has value because God created it?



Well, we are dependent (still) on other life forms and certainly on the physical planet. In that sense the Earth is here for us.
But as a non-believer, I have no equivalent sense of anything existing for a purpose; I suppose I have a vague sense of life being the expression of some principle, and hence pointless killing not being a good idea (to deny the principle is to deny our own worth as examples of it.)

I'm curious whether you believe in Armageddon, and if so ... what happens to the rest of God's creation when all the human souls are removed from it?

On a vaguely related note, what about the countless other stars in the universe, many of which appear to have planets. Are they 'here for us', too?

For that matter, what about malaria mosquitoes?

My position is this:
We should try NOT to pollute, we've only got one Earth y'know. But at the same time we shouldn't waste months of our time, and billions of dollers trying to balance nature. Heh. Humans balancing nature, nature's no longer natural:D.

So the life on earth has value because God created it?

Pretty much, yeah. The creation of the universe, and the Earth in particular, is an expression of God's power. That he made the Earth so perfect for humanity(in the beginning at least, before The Fall)is an expression of his love for us.

I'm curious whether you believe in Armageddon, and if so ... what happens to the rest of God's creation when all the human souls are removed from it?

I do, but I also believe that to obssess about it(it=Armegeddon), worry about it, or to treat the Earth like a Dixie cup because of that belief is stupid and irresponsible. As for the other question, after God's Final Judgement, at the end of history, Heaven and Earth pass away, and a new Heaven and a new Earth are created. In a nutshell, anyways, theres more.

How sad that someone has to judge the value of his life by the belief that some mystical faerie had a hand in it.

I believe that caring for the environment causes no harm, while not caring for the environment could cause mankind to lose everything. We would definitely dend up poor, and probably end up dead.

How sad that someone has to judge the value of his life by the belief that some mystical faerie had a hand in it.

Yes, I guess it would be sad, were someone doing that somewhere. I feel bad for that someone I suppose. Altogether though, I don't feel much emotion towards this 'someone'.

W3 4r3 4|| du57 1n 7h3 w1nd 4nyw4y.

On a vaguely related note, what about the countless other stars in the universe, many of which appear to have planets. Are they 'here for us', too?

Hmm, now there are 3 sides to the question. Please be careful to only address what I'm saying, even though I've found a small patch of common ground with Sante Croix. I'd be curious about his/her answer to the same question ...

Me: Well, we are dependent (still) on other life forms and certainly on the physical planet. In that sense the Earth is here for us.
And in the same sense: no, distant planets are not 'here for us.' I mean we are immediately dependent on other living things (wheat plants, intestinal flora, big blue psychedelic mus -- oops).

If I was talking about the origins of life, I'd have to allow that we are dependent on supernovae from billions of years ago, and couldn't rule out that our life may have come from some other planet.

But I'm not talking about origins. I'm talking about right now. We are dependent on other life. That only gets vague when we start talking genetic engineering or alien life. What seem like immutable facts can change in just a few decades.

For that matter, what about malaria mosquitoes?

Malaria mostly kills kids. Yes, it's horrible. Yes, we should fight it ... but that is different from negligently killing with pollution, it's different to wiping out whole ecosystems for farming land.

I can see the wedge you can drive here, but it won't work. I'm not going to be driven out to an extreme "live like animals" position, nor an "all life is sacred" one.

How sad that someone has to judge the value of his life by the belief that some mystical faerie had a hand in it.

^ Crocodile tears.

I do, but I also believe that to obssess about it(it=Armegeddon), worry about it, or to treat the Earth like a Dixie cup because of that belief is stupid and irresponsible.

EDIT (replacing text): It sounds like you place Armageddon in the distant future? Or rather, allow for it being in the future, but not imminent. Could be a hundred years hence, or a thousand, or ten thousand ... because if it is to occur next year, by one's beliefs, how could one NOT obsess about it? That belief would undermine any number of everyday decisions which have consequences longer than that. "Responsibility" in such a large matter as 'the Earth' makes sense only on a scale of years ... so you are allowing for many years yet, or perhaps you find it "irresponsible" not to allow for all possibilities?

"Stupid" I can agree with. To do anything without a reason is pretty stupid, particularly a destructive thing.

As for the other question, after God's Final Judgement, at the end of history, Heaven and Earth pass away, and a new Heaven and a new Earth are created. In a nutshell, anyways, theres more.

If the universe is God's creation, would it not follow that the "passing away" is an act of God? I.e. the deliberate destruction of what he created?

I think environmentalism is the belief that the natural environment should be preserved.

Personally, I am not an environmentalist. I believe that humans should conquer their environment through science. There is no point to preserving natural environments unless their is no way for humans to change an environment to their advantage. Otherwise, change is good.

I think environmentalism is the belief that the natural environment should be preserved.

Personally, I am not an environmentalist. I believe that humans should conquer their environment through science. There is no point to preserving natural environments unless their is no way for humans to change an environment to their advantage. Otherwise, change is good.

How do we measure what is "to our advantage" though? We don't choose to pollute our immediate environment (cities in most cases), we choose to travel quickly and conveniently in cars. The pollution is a cost which we accept in exchange for a benefit.

Then there's an equity question. Every city-dweller pays the cost (breathing polluted air) even those who don't get the benefit (driving a car.)

Humans are actually rather parasitic. Almost all other life lives in harmony with its environment. We destroy it.


Yes, I got that from the Matrix.

Humans are actually rather parasitic. Almost all other life lives in harmony with its environment. We destroy it.


Yes, I got that from the Matrix.

*loads shotgun and waits for Wilgrove to appear*

Then there's an equity question. Every city-dweller pays the cost (breathing polluted air) even those who don't get the benefit (driving a car.)

For that matter, the same holds for anyone who lives near the city. Depending on the local geography, it can even have a somewhat lessened effect quite a ways away.

Humans are actually rather parasitic. Almost all other life lives in harmony with its environment. We destroy it.


Yes, I got that from the Matrix.

I blame nature for not living in harmony with us.

I'm an environmentalist who believes the hype of global warming is greatly exaggerated. I believe in keeping the Earth clean just because, when you give people a scapegoat like "An Inconvenient Truth", it makes them believe that we're locked in some race against time to reverse global warming. There's no race. Humans will survive long into the future. I just want to keep the Earth clean so we can enjoy nature, just like we should enjoy everything life has to offer.

For that matter, the same holds for anyone who lives near the city. Depending on the local geography, it can even have a somewhat lessened effect quite a ways away.

True enough. But the vast bulk of pollution and land degradation caused by a city in fact takes place well out of sight of it. I doubt that people would waste so much electricity if they lived among the trees killed by acid rain, or beside the river which is flooded for hydro power. They wouldn't throw away so many consumer goods, they wouldn't buy them in the first place, if they had to see the open-cut mines or the ruined pasture where cotton was grown.

We live in a toyshop. We're under a spell, the culture of manufactured things.

I'm not immune to that. I like to go walking in the bush, but it makes me feel rather detached, too. All these living trees, a few creatures, inanimate objects with barely a straight line in them. After a few hours, the most welcome sight to my eyes is a little fire and billy boiling. A book is far more attractive to me than one more graceful tree. Nature makes me feel superfluous.

I do like a nice garden though. The human touch, but in co-operation with a few chosen plants and maybe a visiting bird.

A good point. I was just thinking of air pollution, specifically. When you consider the other environmental impacts a city has, I suppose that's probably relatively minor.

I'm a book fan, myself, but I like knowing there are plenty of trees nearby. I think they make a much better view than stoplights and such.

i believe the major reason is hatred of hippies and future generations.

I do hate hippies...

I'm a book fan, myself, but I like knowing there are plenty of trees nearby. I think they make a much better view than stoplights and such.

They provide more habitat, biodiversity, and oxygen as well. :)

They provide more habitat, biodiversity, and oxygen as well. :)

Yes, but they don't have to be nearby to do that.;)

I'm an environmentalist who believes the hype of global warming is greatly exaggerated. I believe in keeping the Earth clean just because, when you give people a scapegoat like "An Inconvenient Truth", it makes them believe that we're locked in some race against time to reverse global warming. There's no race. Humans will survive long into the future. I just want to keep the Earth clean so we can enjoy nature, just like we should enjoy everything life has to offer.

I too am an environmentalist who's rather sceptical of global warming, and if it's indeed happening, if it's a manmade phenomenon.

Yes, but they don't have to be nearby to do that.;)

Still, it's nice to hug a tree every now and then.

Still, it's nice to hug a tree every now and then.

If you like getting attacked by ants, then yes. Yes it is.

yes bushes, trees and squirrels fucking in my garden are awesome
:O

That squirrel must be pretty lonely...

I do hate hippies...

Hey! I'm at least 25% hippy! :(

First, what do you consider the definition of "environmentalism" to be? Second, do you consider yourself an environmentalist? Discuss.Environmentalism is a political philosophy that centers around maintaining, preserving, enlarging, or at least reducing the destruction of our natural world. "Natural world" is another bucket of worms that's hard to define, though, but I'll leave that as it is to allow for different versions of environmentalism. An Environmentalist would be someone that puts said philosophy before most others, or at least the ones that are in conflict with it in some areas.

As that stands, I would consider myself an environmentalist.

As a Christian, I think it's my responsibility to do my part to be a good steward of God's creation. I also think that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the Earth is here for us, we're not here for the Earth.What an inherently selfish thing to believe...I know what the dictionary says, I have one here on my desk. But any set definition doesn't take into account all the different reasons people consider themselves environmentalists. Still could have put the dictionary definition in the OP and said "This is what the dictionary says, but what do YOU say?" Although, that could create inherent bias in what definitions people come up with.In my opinion an environmentalist is someone who is aware of the environment's importance to us and strives to prevent its destruction or restore it so it can still be utilized now and in the future. In other words, someone with common self in the realm of environmental dealings.I don't think rationality is a requirement for environmentalists. Plenty of us haven't got a fucking clue about certain things, such as the people that campaigned for legislation for the preservation of the cougars in California.My position is this:
We should try NOT to pollute, we've only got one Earth y'know. But at the same time we shouldn't waste months of our time, and billions of dollers trying to balance nature. Heh. Humans balancing nature, nature's no longer natural:D.Nature isn't all that balanced, actually. Some of the most balanced ecosystems involve the government handing out hunting licenses.
Humans are actually rather parasitic. Almost all other life lives in harmony with its environment. We destroy it.


Yes, I got that from the Matrix.It's inherently flawed. There are plenty of species that don't live in harmony with their environment.I too am an environmentalist who's rather sceptical of global warming, and if it's indeed happening, if it's a manmade phenomenon.The "indeed happening" bit is kind self-apparent if you look at glaciers and the ice caps.

well you know, there are two very different things. there is environment politics and there is environmental science.

the latter is a real science and both are very positive and good and things that are really needed.

even though environmental politics, like anything else politics, doesn't always get it right.

but there are many things, most things both aggree on.

and then also there is the spritual aspects as mentioned.

and there's a lot of entirely different ways of looking at things that can be called that.

nature isn't simple, but it is where the air we breathe comes from.

before plants emerged onto land, earth had an amonia atmosphere. one you nor i could not have survived in without a pressure suit and imporing oxigen from somewhere else.

before there could be animals, and among them, eventually us, the plants making oxigen for us to breathe emerged.

natural plant and animal communitities are complex interactions which keep the proccess and cyclic phenomina of it going. diversity of species plays a major roll of importance to it, and thus, ultimately to us.

tecnology isn't all bad, but nature recycles everything and we need to have our tecnologies be able to do the same thing, ultimately, eventually.

and that eventually may have to become very soon. that or our population overload start diminishing.

running out of cheap oil may help, but only if its not replaced by coal fired automobiles.

there are so many things we could be doing now to live more harmoniously using existing tecnologies. just not the ones that currently gratify the most greed. but the incentives have to be there. have to be created by policies.

that's really the big major thing. it's not just some aesthetic parlour game. it IS where the air we breathe comes from. along with everything else that sustains and makes possible our own lives.

=^^=
.../\...

It's inherently flawed. There are plenty of species that don't live in harmony with their environment.

Agreed. We are doing the same thing plenty of other species have done in the past: Overbred and use too many resources.