I love Earth. I think it is a great place to live, especially since I don't know of any other "Class M" planets within a reasonable distance to compare it to if I wanted to escape it. In reality though, I have as cushy a life as I could ask for, and I would love to ensure the same for my children and theirs. So I do care about the environment in the sense that I don't prefer worldwide annihilation within the next few generations. I teach my kids to pick up their trash. We have changed to compact fluorescent bulbs. We fill up the recycle bin. We re-use paper. Taking care of the earth is very nice at that involvement level. Many people worldwide however, have turned environmentalism into something entirely different, however. It would mean little to me if this only affected random far-spread cults. I see this belief system in people I meet daily, however, and I think that this perspective on environmental issues can hurt the earth, and science as a whole. The problem is clearly laid out in Michael Crichton's video, and also in this article by Robert Nelson, and this short blurb from the New York Times
My main point against environmentalism as religion is this: to truly solve a problem as complex as helping the earth to stay clean and life-supporting, we need to be able to pursue solutions that are truly beneficial in every aspect. In its present state, the environmental, sustainable movement, is so ensnarled in popular opinion, politics, and merchandising, that no one can get a clear idea of what is truly helping and what is hurting. Politicians say the right environmental thing so special interest groups will continue to fund them. Grocery stores and construction companies continue to sell high priced alternative items that say they are good for the environment, and people continue to ease their conscience by sacrificing a bit of extra money for what they consider to be the greater good. Maybe they are better for the environment. Where money is involved how can we know for sure? How environmentally conscious a person is has become an easy measure of their value in society. The problem becomes very apparent when huge amounts of money are sunk into technologies that are lovely in theory, but amount to crap in real life. I absolutely think we should be thinking about alternatives to all the fuel we consume, but if solar power in its present state is not a viable alternative we should be allowed to acknowledge that. If we are better off as far as money, pollution and waste is concerned, throwing plastic bottles in a landfill rather than trying to recycle them, or deluding the public into thinking they are being recycled, the environmental religion will not allow us to say so, lest we be black balled and proclaimed planet-haters or something. For science to work well: for real advancements to be made, we must be allowed to speak the truth. We must be allowed to be creative and think of things that would truly help on all levels. I think buying fewer plastic bottles, especially water bottles, would absolutely help the environment on most levels. Recycling them after I use them? I don't know if it is truly viable. Solar power, wind power, hydro power, these are all very nice thoughts, and they are all very good ideas, and in certain circumstances, like Hoover Dam, for instance, they work very well, but for these great ideas to be brought about into truly useful technologies we must be able to be honest. Solar and wind power are really in their infancy, and a lot of work will need to go into making them truly useful on the large scale. Possibly so much work that we would be better off trying to make the electronic devices we use more efficient first.
The truth is at stake if we believe every banana peel we put in the compost bin will save the earth. The truth is what will lead to real solutions, and no dogmatic, organized, unquestioning group of people will ever be able to absorb the sometimes messy, unbecoming, contradictory things that surface when one truly wants to know the truth. No religion likes too many questions, and without hard questions we won't get real answers.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Environmentalism as Religion
Posted by Charlyn at 10:03 AM
Labels: anthropology, Culture, environmentalism, quality of life, religion, science, Spirituality
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment